This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
I don't think this is truly people's objection, whatever else they may say.
I think there are a ton of cases where a fuzzy boundary, usually corresponding to some biological reality, gets bridged with an honorary status. Whether it is adoption of children creating honorary blood relations, or conversion to ethnoreligions like the ex-Muslim Vaishnavite convert Haridasa Thakur or the Biblical Ruth's adoption of Jewish customs and ways.
I think the "adoption" model (which I've sometimes called the "socio-legal sex" model) of trans people is the closest to being an accurate statement of the reality of trans people, and it has the advantage of not requiring any dubious metaphysics. A transwoman is a woman in the same way and to the same degree that an adopted child is their adoptive parent's child. Obviously, neither adoption nor transness are objective facts about reality - they are intersubjective facts about human social relationships and (potentially) associated legal structures
There is no lie in saying, "Augustus was Julius Ceasar's son" any more than there is a lie in saying "The United States has 50 states" or any number of other intersubjective human-created "truths." Of course, with these kinds of truths, there will always be room for rivalrous claims. If I say, "There is no King of England", then depending on what I mean by that, I could be saying a perfectly "true" fact. (For example, if I was an anarchist, and didn't regard any monarchical claim as valid.)
I mean, I don't really object to other people making whatever honourary or even dubious claims make them happy, including you -- the current state of trans-affairs is more like your anarchist going around getting people fired for considering themselves subjects of the King. Or monarchists forcing the anarchists to pledge fealty every morning before work; also bad.
More options
Context Copy link
Claiming someone is "adopted" is a falsifiable claim about an event that occurred in reality. Unless your job is to legislate the edge cases of what constitutes "adoption", the so-called "fuzzy boundary" of what constitutes adoption is beyond the horizon of normal parlance.
Claiming someone is "a woman" has been, for the overwhelming majority of the term's historical usage, a falsifiable claim about someone's sex. Unless your job is to legislate the edge cases of what constitutes "a woman", the so-called "fuzzy boundary" of what constitutes a woman has previously been beyond the horizon of normal parlance.
In both cases, the obvious evidence that these words mean something closely reflecting reality is that mislabeling someone is somewhere between a joke and an insult. The accidental category error is so uncommon that deliberate category error is a meaningful signal in communication.
The transgender memeplex wants to expand the usage of the word "woman" to include unfalsifiable claims about someone's internal mental state. If your job is to legislate the edge cases of what constitutes "a woman", your job is now by definition completely arbitrary: how is it possible to draw the distinction, other than to fully accept or deny the dubious metaphysics that allows anyone to be anything in their imagination? For all other parlance, the meaning of "woman" is now decoupled from centuries of ordinary usage - this is less of a "fuzzy boundary" creeping in, and more a total erasure of the fundamental falsifiable claim at the heart of the word. In spite of all this, the transgender memeplex expects to inherit both the insult of mislabeling (without also inheriting the objective distinctions that made this mislabeling insulting in the first place) and the legal and social statuses and carve-outs for whichever sex is most convenient to their whims.
There's a clear, obvious distinction between the usage of words that make concrete claims about reality (but for a handful of exotic edge cases no one ever thinks about), and the usage of words in the transgender memeplex that erodes centuries of colloquial understanding in favor of obfuscating, homogenizing, and booby-trapping the terminology with definitions based on unfalsifiable internal mental states. I wouldn't call the latter "lying" per se, but I don't blame the average Joe for pattern matching demands for uncritical acceptance of unfalsifiable claims that overwrite common sense to something very close to "lying", particularly when these demands are brazenly accompanied by power grabs and political maneuvering. Motives aside, I think a lot of people instinctively consider anyone deploying this kind of rhetorical trickery to be either crazy or up to no good, and deny it legitimacy by refusing to participate.
I think that the terminology problem that arises here is the difference between social truths and mind-independent truths about reality.
If I was speaking colloquially, I would allow social truths to be called "objective" in some sense. But I think there is a difference between a sentence like "The speed limit here is 75 miles per hour", and "The sun is mostly made of hydrogen and helium." The first is referring to an intersubjective agreement about a rule in society, and the second is a fact that even Martians could discover about the universe.
In most everyday conversations, we do not make a distinction between social truths (intersubjective), matters of personal taste or opinion (subjective), and mind-independeng facts about reality (objective.)
I think these sentences are mind-independent truths:
But they are completely compatible with the social truths:
I agree that social truths lend themselves to falsification. If I make a move in chess, it is either legal or it is not. But chess is not a mind-independent part of the universe that a Martian scientist could just discover "out there." It exists as a set of intersubjective agreements between humans, who agree to abide by the rules of chess.
So too, every society decides the rules by which they judge the validity of adoption and honorary sex transition. The Islamic world rejects the concept of "adoption", replacing it with a legal construct of "guardianship" with different implications for inheritance, for example. "Adoption" is not a legal move in the game of Islamic jurisprudence.
Right now, honorary sex transition is in a state of flux - finding acceptance among some in the Western world, and rejection among others. People are playing different games, and may or may not converge on a single game some day.
Right, because in most everyday conversation, we don't need to. The mind-independent facts about "adoption" and "women" have historically been well-correlated with the usage of the words in subjective or intersubjective contexts, independent of the society in question.
Islam has a different intersubjective analogue ("guardianship") for something that correlates with the same mind-independent facts about "adoption". No one considers this "lying", it's just different societal rules for the same fact pattern.
The transgender memeplex attempts to redefine the meaning of the intersubjective "woman" in a way that completely divorces the terms from the existing correlation with the objective "woman". Is this lying? No, it's just changing the rules about using one of the most common words in everyday parlance to render it objectively meaningless, such that it's indistinguishable from lying to anyone using the old intersubjective rules; while also expecting everyone to honor the inherited intersubjective rules about mislabeling, special interests, etc. that only exist because of the now-deprecated objective meaning; except now those inherited intersubjective rules should apply to subjective, unobservable mind states we can all change on a whim.
Again, while I don't think the average person will put it in those terms, they can probably notice the "lie by the old rules" part and the political maneuvering one step behind it, conclude that this is a scam, and refuse to engage.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
By this reasoning you should accept transracial people.
Sure, that kind of thing happens all the time. Light brown-skinned Hispanic people are increasingly identifying as just "white" in the United States and their voting behavior is becoming more correlated with assimilated white Americans, for example. There's a long history of things like blanqueamiento in the Latin American world.
I think there are a few basic levels of intersubjective truth claims:
Trans people might arguably be at the level of Tier 2 - if one is willing to talk about "progressives" as a tribe. So far as I know, transracial people in the Rachel Dolezal style are still at Tier 1. These tiers aren't about making a thing "more true" - since I think social "truths" like "dollars have value", "The United States exists", or "So-and-so is the true king" are all operating more at the level of fiction. If you want to be nitpicky, I think they could all be called false in a strict sense, in the same way that saying something like, "Harry Potter is a wizard" is false - there is no such person as Harry Potter, and no such thing as wizards. But everyone who knows how to speak and use words also knows that "Harry Potter is a wizard" is a more felicitous sentence than "Harry Potter is a fire-breathing dragon."
We're talking about anyone being able to arbitrarily choose their race at any given moment, though.
From a "race is a social construct" perspective, isn't this just code switching? Presumably scoped here to people who ambiguously pass as either.
Do I get Affirmative Action benefits, if I code switch?
It worked for Elizabeth Warren.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I don't think I've ever endorsed the view that trans people can choose their gender at any given moment, any more than I've endorsed the view that you can just adopt an orphaned child at any given moment. I think in most cases and with most social groups, honorary statuses will require some kind of "social proof" for a group to accept them. In the case of adoption, it might look like filling out a bunch of forms with the government. In the case of trans people, it might look like paying $50 at your DMV to get your sex indicators changed on your driver's license.
The "social proof" doesn't have to involve the government, though that is usually the "easiest" path since it means that the people with the ability to enforce contracts through their monopoly on force recognize your claim as legitimate. However, if a national disaster created a 10 year state of anarchy, I think people in a community that already believed in the basic legitimacy of child adoption could have informal adoption with enough social proof that most of the people in a community recognized the validity of the claim.
But it very clearly is the view that is being pushed throughout societies. There already are laws passed in various European countries that literally allow this, the only limit that I'm aware of being frequency. It's all fine and well that you might not support it, but you can't act like you're steelmanning a view, when that's clearly not the view being put forward.
Could you point me in the direction of these laws? Do they allow you to self-ID without letting anyone know until you're called on it, or do they require you to file paperwork with the government still? Because filing paperwork is still a form of social proof in my book.
The most commonly discussed ones are the German Selbstbestimmunggesetz and the Spanish Ley Trans. Of course they require you to file paperwork, how else do you imagine the process to work?
These laws make it mandatory for everyone to treat you as a woman, including putting penalties for misgendering. They have already been used by people to get into women's prisons, and to silence critics.
It's an administrative process that cannot be rejected, I don't consider it social proof of any sort. Originally I didn't mean to imply you support this, but you clearly seem to.
And with that you should answer the original scenario. Should I be able to change my race to black, by filing some paperwork?
I mean, in some places all it takes to get married is to sign a piece of paper with a witness. I would still consider that a form of social proof - even if "throwing a party with all of our friends and family where we state our commitment to one another" is probably a more central example of social proof.
I don't support the punitive aspects of such laws. I'm a big believer in pluralism and free speech culture, and I would rather the government didn't force people to say or do things that go against deeply help beliefs of theirs.
I'm okay with fairly lax laws for letting the government know you want to adopt an honorary sex role though. That's up to every society and subculture to decide for themselves, including the decision to reject it entirely.
EDIT:
I think I already said that I accept transracialism up thread, and even think that it is far more common than usually thought (cf. Hispanics becoming "white" in the US.)
I tend to think that more costly social proof is more likely to be widely accepted, but I have nothing against a culture or subculture making the gatekeeping for honorary statuses as low as they collectively decide.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link