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 -
If the presence or absence of even all other features put together cannot contradict self-identification, then those other attributes are not actually part of your definition. You literally and specifically define gender by self-identification and self-identification only.
There's no "cluster of attributes" that people may or may not "correlate" to, where the "presence or absence of any one" may or may not be salient. There's only one attribute, self-identification, that actually matters to you.
But that sounds bad and obviously circular, so we have to hear about all these other features even though the lack of them, even all of them, doesn't actually change anything. It's empty sophistry.
Because you guys are here to tell the rest of us that our definitions are somehow lacking or outdated, but when we ask for yours we're subjected to nonsense like @HaroldWilson trying to tell us words don't need to have meanings, or you listing all the other attributes that supposedly define a gender even though lacking all of them apparently doesn't actually matter.
Yeah there's the definition of X, and then there are other attributes that aren't definitional to X but may or may not be true in a given case. What's the problem? A coherent view of X still has a definition that includes some examples, excludes others, and isn't self-referentially circular.
I don't think there is a problem. It's just that, for the same reason, I don't think it's fair to claim that you only "have to hear about all these other features even though the lack of them, even all of them, doesn't actually change anything" because of "empty sophistry".
I say: "my technical definition of woman is [someone who calls herself a woman]", you say "but clearly Alice is a woman in everyday usage has to mean something more than that", and I say back "yeah, sure, but the other attributes don't constitute the definition". Therefore the "come on, trans women who says they are woman clearly mean something more than to tautologically say that they-identify-as-women" counterargument fails. The symmetrical counterargument could easily be levied against someone defending the "a woman is someone with XX chromosomes" definition ("clearly when you say Mrs Wiggins is a woman, you're not talking about molecular biology, therefore we see that gender-as-social-construct is a better definition") and the gender-critical could refute it exactly as I have.
With this mind, I don't see why the circularity is a problem. Why would it be? I don't think it "sounds bad", and I'm not trying to obscure it. I started out by giving just that as the definition - we only got into the weeds of the correlated attributes because of people bringing up the "but people mean more than that when they say woman" thing, it's not some deceitful rhetorical strategy I'm using to mask the circularity of the technical definition.
This isn't a technical definition somehow on par with the biological definition, both equally in need of context. It's completely meaningless noise. It conveys no information at all. If this is really all you have, then the critics are right and you have no actual definition.
When this is pointed out you gesture vaguely at a bunch of other attributes, but when put on the spot about whether these attributes then constitute your actual definition the answer is apparently no.
You've spent a week and umpteen words on the question and all you have to show for it are a "technical definition" that means absolutely nothing and a bunch of social attributes that you won't even put your foot down and claim as definitional.
You want a man who puts on a dress to be called a woman but don't actually want to define a woman as someone wearing a dress, so we get incoherence instead.
No, it really couldn't. That's an actual non-circular definition that refers to attributes external to itself. You can successfully hang a bunch of non-definitional context on to it, if you want, because it has something there to hold it up. People who use it aren't left claiming that the context somehow is the definition, but oops not really, the way you are.
There's a reason the tide has turned on this issue.
I don't understand why this matters if the attributes are trivia about molecular biology. Why can't the definition be self-referential? You keep saying it can't, but you haven't actually said why this is a problem! It's not a problem that the social norm as to who gets called "Bill" is "people who tell you 'Call me Bill'". Why should it be a problem for the social norm as to who gets called "Mrs" to be "people who tell you 'Call me Mrs'"?
And I don't "want a man who puts on a dress to be called a woman", I want anyone who asks to be called a woman to be called a woman whether they wear a dress or pants or a spacesuit. The contextual attributes, being ultimately subjective, simply explain why as a matter of fact someone might want to be called a woman, particularly. Compare: "Bill" has social connotations relative to "William", explaining why a William might prefer to be known as Bill, but that doesn't mean that only people who match the vibe that "a guy called Bill" evokes in a vacuum are allowed to ask that people call them Bill.
Other useful point of reference: "transwoman" itself, separate from whether you think a trans woman counts as "a woman". Surely you don't think "transwoman" is a meaningless term lacking a proper definition. You see perfectly well what we've been talking about all throughout this thread, there's no ambiguity, no case where you'd be helpless as to say whether WandererintheWilderness would consider a given person "a trans woman" or not. And yet - how else would you define it than "someone who identifies as a trans woman"?
Ultimately, I'm just being kind. I want people to get what they want, I want them to get to be who they want to be. Or try, anyway. Pursuit of happiness and all that. You want to talk about sophistry, it's the gender-criticals' harping on about the definition problem which strikes me as in bad faith. The trans usage of "woman" or the pronoun "she" are using those words in perfectly understandable ways that don't misrepresent the physical facts of their biology, any more than calling a boat "she" implies it has breasts: it uses "woman" as the supercategory including both "cis woman" and "trans woman". It's only a shift in language, not a lie or factually incorrect or whatever nonsense. And with that established, I see no other valid reason whatsoever why trans people shouldn't be called what they want to be called. Talk of tides all you want, I don't think cruelty will ultimately prevail. I've got more faith in human nature than that.
Because it literally doesn't mean anything. When people ask for your definition of woman you're functionally just making animal noises and then acting surprised that people say you don't have one.
You genuinely don't have one. You've said as much. You've compared the word to proper nouns that convey no attributes. When someone says you can't define the word woman you should just tell them they're right and that you think that's okay. Maybe you don't want to come off as some kind of crazy gender abolitionist, but that's the bed you've made for yourself by refusing to assign any traits to them.
And when everyone rolls their eyes at your personal rendition of "words don't have to have meanings" and considers the meme lived up to, that's your problem too.
Even a substantial majority of Dem voters don't want them in the women's locker room, and since the election the leadership has started to catch on that this isn't a winning issue. The progressive lock on the internet that let them get this far in the first place was an aberration that has now ended.
More options
Context Copy link
It's not a problem for Bills only as long as it's not an imposition on the others to call them Bill. Right now, it is not. As references to people go, given names such as "Bill" are pretty close to the most efficient way to refer to people.
I see the argument about the trans definition of "woman" being circular as the bailey that's not really the central objection. The central objection is that "woman" is one of the words that mean things, unlike "Bill", and the meaning that includes "people sharing key traits with the 'human females' cluster" is the most useful one to most people, rather than "anyone who says their pronouns are she/her". It is no more cruel to refuse that "mere shift in language" than to impose it.
Do I get to define what your central objections are as well, and ignore anything that you say?
It's definitely not about "people sharing key traits with the 'human females' cluster" being more useful than "anyone who says their pronouns are she/her". For that matter, I don't even care if "woman" is a word that has a meaning, like I said in another comment you can say that "woman" is an arbitrary label, but you do actually have to say it. I can make my case for my preferred laws, and social rules, regardless of which definition we use, but for a conversation to take place, we do actually have to settle on a definition. However, settling on a definition will have logical consequences, and I can argue that no matter which definition you pick, those consequences will be unacceptable to some part of the progressive coalition, but if we don't settle on a definition, or insist on a circular one, we can't even have that conversation.
You're doing it again! I still don't understand the problem with the circular definition. Why can't we have a circular definition? What makes it unacceptable or unworkable? Why can't we debate the merits of a world where we use that definition vs. whatever your preferred norms are?
To have a meaningful discussion you need to be able to specify the parameters of the debate, and draw meaningful conclusions, and a circular definition doesn't allow for that. "A woman is anyone who identifies as a woman" only specifies that we're talking about sentient beings capable of self-identification, but these conversation are usually already constrained to human subjects, so it's literally of no use, and indistinguishable from not having a definition at all.
I also disagree that it's my side that is unwilling to have the conversation about social rules, while using the other side's definition of "woman". "Ok, how about we rename it to 'female sports'?" is literally the first off-the-cuff response anyone comes up with when these topics come up.
I honestly, literally, don't understand this point. What discussion do you want to have? I rather thought the debate was "what will the consequences be for society of anyone were to accept the trans definition of woman, and would they be acceptable?". This seems to me to be a debate that we can have perfectly well even if the definition is circular. It would mean something for everyone on the planet to agree to call anyone who wants to be called Mrs 'Mrs', etc. etc. We can hazard guesses about what would proceed from it, and value judgments about whether those results are desirable. Where's the issue?
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