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 -
This is essentially every liberal's root objection to (part of) the trans movement. The basis of liberalism (real liberalism, not the recent US perversion of the word) is "you do what you want as long as it doesn't hurt me; I do what I want as long as it doesn't hurt you". All of the first five things fall under "you do what you want"; the last one is denying "I do what I want".
If you think liberalism is insane, well, okay, glad we understand each other. If you think it's in the minority, eh, you're probably right, which is sad, but it's hardly "only a few contrarians".
...I do also have a point to make which is kind of awkward, because I find the entire form of the argument to be invalid and ordinarily assiduously avoid making it, but which might be somewhat more compelling to you.
Specifically, autism.
See, the basic reasoning behind enforcing pronouns on others is that transsexuals would be psychologically damaged by being misgendered, and might have any of various negative outcomes most prominently including but not limited to suicide. Here's the problem: autistics are often psychologically damaged by being forced to say things they think are "wrong", including invalid additions to closed-class words like pronouns, and obviously simple falsehoods. I'm not saying I never lie, but we're talking literally three times in the last fifteen years, and on all three occasions I literally had cause to believe someone could be murdered if I didn't tell the lie. And I remember the effort knocking me around badly on at least one of those occasions - another knocked me around badly in general, as you might expect from a life-and-death situation, but I'm a bit hazy on how much the lie contributed. I am fairly certain that my mental health would go down the toilet if I were forced to do this on a regular basis; the last time I had to suppress my nature (although in a slightly-different way) in the long-term, I literally wound up attacking my mother with a duvet while stark naked (and the split personality took about a decade to fully wither).
So. Now we're at an impasse; the exact rationale for enforcing pronouns also demands that we don't enforce pronouns. I don't see any consistent rule that allows ignoring the autistic problem but not the trans problem; autism is at least as much of an immutable characteristic (NB: I'm ex-trans myself), autistic mental health outcomes also suck horribly, and prevalence rates are similar. SJ prioritises one over the other, but as far as I can tell that's just because at least since GamerGate SJ finds central examples of autists unsympathetic and doesn't care what happens to us.
As I said, I find this argument's entire form objectionable; I reject these sorts of arguments entirely, because they result in paradoxes like this one and more generally cause massive headaches for everyone. I don't ask for special accommodations for being autistic; yes, loud noise bothers the hell out of me, but I solve that with earmuffs rather than requiring others to remove the noise, because it's a me problem and not an everyone problem. But you seem to find these sorts of arguments a bit more compelling than I do, so I might as well point out the issue.
EDIT: Okay, one of the times I lied (and the time I clearly remember being a crying mess afterward), what I was afraid of would AIUI technically have been manslaughter, not murder. I don't think this has much relevance to the point at issue, though.
Not in my experience. Certainly parents tend to admit that they would, if pushed, prefer to have their child switch pronouns without medically transitioning, than medically transition without switching pronouns.
It's not really my basic reasoning for this, FWIW.
But also, at an epistemological level, I simply don't grant that using a trans person's preferred pronouns constitutes "lying". Like I said elsewhere in this thread, it doesn't involve communicating any untrue belief about physical reality. When I say "this trans women is, socially, within the object-class for which we use the pronoun she" I am not telling you she has a uterus any more than I'd be telling you a sailing ship had a uterus if I told you "traditionally, seafaring vessels are referred to with the pronoun she". If calling a wooden floating object anything but an 'it' bothers you for the same reason, well, I'm sorry for you, but so it goes.
I would be interested to see if this was still the case if we had fully-reversible medical transitions.
I would be also interested to see if this was still the case if we had Clarketech-style indistinguishable-except-with-specialized-medical-tech medical transitions.
Here's hoping that I'll be able to see the answer to at least one of these questions within my lifetime...
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link