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 -
The ur-example that kicked off all the trouble in Scotland, a violent rapist who suddenly decided after being convicted that in fact he was a she and that's why she had committed those rapes, it was all the dysphoria and psychic distress you see.
Jonathan/Jessica Yaniv making a nice little earner out of suing immigrant-owned/workers small businesses for transphobia because brown women didn't want to wax a feminine penis and testicles.
The Wi Spa guy (yes, guy) who casually admitted he got his gender notification changed easily but did absolutely nothing else to transition:
The ACLU brought a case the decision of which compelled the prison system to send trans prisoners to the prison of their "experienced sex" (to use your phrasing). Now, that may indeed be a good thing for the human rights of trans people. Except this grifter then took advantage of it, forced his (and I am saying "his" because if you've still got all your working male parts and can get cis women pregnant, I don't believe you are genuinely trans) removal to a female prison, and there we go, two new babies came into the world.
Those cases are out there. The defence of them, along with legitimate trans people, is what causes the trouble. Discard the liars and nutcases, then ordinary people will be more willing to give the benefit of the doubt. Men who, when faced with going to prison, suddenly discover their inner womanhood - they don't get to go to women's prisons (and it is remarkable how many, out of the small transgender prison population, are serving terms for sexual offences). Make it legally enforceable that "guy with working male genitals can too come into a female space just by saying he is now she" and then don't be surprised when people object.
Cases of criminals raping their fellow inmates is not an argument against trans rights any more than interracial rape is an argument against civil rights.
If you want to argue that being raped by penis is worse than something else, you should start by looking at men's prisons. If you want to argue rape in general is the problem, female inmates rape eachother more than male inmates.
Individual cases are irrelevant to the scope of the discussion, which is human rights for trans people. When we are talking about prison populations and criminals the discussion will get dragged into an unsavory quagmire with a lot of negative connotations that transphobic people try to associate with the concept of trans rights. This is a dishonest guilt by association tactic that's not relevant to the actual discussion of the topic. Proven by the fact that people refuse to engage in similar rhetoric regarding race.
I'm not surprised people object when they don't know what trans rights are, nor what transphobia is. The modern prison system is a crime against humanity. It places people in terrible conditions that facilitate further suffering and strife to no one's benefit. Those who choose to argue against trans rights rather than argue in favor of a better prison system betray their transphobic bias and abdicate any moral highground they may have pretended to occupy.
Sure, though I disagree that any rights are being violated by not letting a male go to a women's prison.
I'll have to read it, but doesn't pass the smell test given the difference in sex drives.
It's not dishonest. Trans activists were originally promising none of this situations will ever happen.
You seem to be assuming that the case for trans rights requires no justification, and any disagreement must stem from lack of knowledge. I disagree, and believe the case for "trans rights" is simply unsupportable.
Again, I completely disagree, and believe this renders the concept of "crimes against humanity" meaningless.
You have to look no further than what happened with El Salvador's crime rates to see that the benefit to the rest of society is quite obvious.
And a racist would disagree that any rights are being violated by not letting a colored go to a white only bathroom.
It's a dishonest association regardless of what some trans activists said or not. If a criminal who happens to be trans further commits crimes in prison then they can be dealt with like other criminals who do the same.
Then we have an obvious disagreement. I would argue you could much more readily say the same for civil rights in America. The cost and scale is far greater, yet it's easily glossed over by the proponents of civil rights and desegregation. Doing the same for trans people is trivial in comparison.
Reading first hand accounts followed up by official definitions of crimes against humanity, you don't have a rational leg to stand on when you say this.
What exactly about the prisoners suffering makes the streets they no longer occupy safer?
Okay? But can you actually say what right is being violated? It would make the conversation a whole lot easier.
In any case, even if I just try to use your analogy, without having the argument stated explicitly, I still don't see the case for "trans rights". Civil Rights don't see race as a valid category to segment personhood on, so it demands that segregation be abolished. By analogy this would mean the abolition of sex segregation, but "trans rights" is arguing for keeping it, but making an exception for only some men. If anything it's a supremacist argument, rather than an egalitarian one.
I think it would make the trans activists dishonest, rather than the argument.
If a policy is allowed to go through, partly on the grounds that it will not cause specific side effects, and those specific side effects do materialize, it is an honest argument against the policy.
A quick sanity check - would you consider the UK raoe gang scandal a crime against humanity?
Everything? Just the mere act of keeping them off the streets already requires enacting suffering.
And if you're saying the suffering of imprisonment is a valid tool to use, and are just arguing for not exceeding a specific threshold, I'd like to know what that threshold is.
The right to express their gender identity. It's the abolition of biological sex as a negative delineator for trans people. Just like race was abolished as a negative delineator for black people.
Civil rights didn't end race based welfare programming. You can still have black only spaces and programs. Just not white ones. This is universally celebrated as a good thing by everyone except racists.
We've gone from "some" to all. This is very transparent and irrelevant to the argument, outside of demonstrating that you and others do exactly what I said you were trying to do. Making irrelevant negative associations.
I never argued that X would never happen. Many trans activists never argued that. How about you deal with what's actually being said rather than fighting strawmen? It's such an irrelevant strawman at that. Women in womens prisons also rape eachother.
There are costs to any policy. So far society sees fit to pay for mass immigration and desegregation with the rape of men, women and children. The alleged cost of this policy is dwarfed by those, yet you will find no transphobe arguing against desegregation on the basis of the catastrophic amounts of rape, robberies and murder that have happened because of it. You are presenting an inconsistent and irrational defense of boundaries that keep a tiny minority of people from living better lives.
Yes. Inflicting conditions upon people that lead to inescapable circumstance that facilitate rape of the defenseless by a hostile group and the systemic blocking of any recourse they might have to be defended by the law is, in my view, a clear example of such a thing.
The mechanism that reduces crime is taking these people away from the public. Rape, torture and murder are not a necessary component of that mechanism.
I'm not convinced such a thing as "gender identity" even exists, but they can express themselves however they want. What they can't do is impose their worldview on others, and get access to sex-segregated spaces.
This is incoherent. To the extent Civil Rights endorse this, they are racist themselves, and the only people celebrating it are racists. And it's definitely not universally celebrated, and not even accepted that it stems from civil rights. What do you think all the drama about DEI and CRT is?
It also fails to rescue your analogy. If this is what trans rights was about, they would demand the abolition of sex segregation for "cis" people, but demand optional spaces for trans people.
I already pointed out how this argument fails. Civil rights did not put forward the idea of "trans-white" people who'd get access to white facilities, it abolished segregation. If trans rights were analogous to civil rights, it would argue for the abolition of segregation as well.
No we haven't. Please don't misrepresent me.
You can claim that you never said that, in which case it would be irrelevant to you, but you don't get to call it a strawman, unless you believe there's a version of your argument that it caricatures.
Forget about the trans stuff for a moment. Why do you think we separate men from women in prisons and other facilities?
And if you want to argue for it, you should be upfront about the costs, so people can make the cost-benefit analysis themselves.
Well, I don't know about "no transphobe". For one, plenty of people are against mass immigration at this point, but sure the race-segregation enjoyers are a minority.
In any case, a big reason for why society sees fit to pay these costs is being the arguments are based on lies. You do your little victory laps because "only racists have a problem with this", but the argument you are putting forward yourself would be condemned as racist. And if you don't believe me, then please, I am begging you, please get your pro-trans friends to use the "black people rape way more whites, than trans rape women, and yet you have no problem with desegregation" argument loudly and often.
I don't see it what way it is either inconsistent or irrational, and the tiny minority doesn't get to impose it's will on everybody else, just because it will make them feel better.
Fair enough. I feel pretty strongly about it, but wouldn't go quite that far myself. In any case I can see where you're coming from a bit better now.
Sure, but people are not sentenced to rape as an official part of their punishment. Rapes happen because of what prisoners do to each other, and if they can't respect their own rights, there's only so far I'm willing to go to protect them from themselves.
And a racist is not sure if black people are actually people. Trans people can and will get access to sex-segregated spaces just like black people got access to white only spaces. The dominant anthropological view in the west facilitates both and negates anything else. Your assertions to the contrary are not relevant since they are negated by society at large. It's not racist to have a black only space. It is racist to have a white only space. Those are the demonstrated values. You can claim dissidence, but you can't make assertions that go against these values and expect them to hold any weight.
DEI and CRT drama is irrelevant. There was a lot more pushback against civil rights than there's been against CRT or DEI. People had to be put to the barrel of a gun to accept that.
Trans rights are about trans rights. They don't need to be anything else. You have men and women, and also trans people. If the boundaries break down further, you will have something else. Just like America now has a lot more mix raced people than before. The aftermath of a successful struggle for human rights is never an argument against it.
A historical artifact of a European monoethnic patriarchal society. The prison system is broken. You can argue for the separation of men and women, just like you can argue for the separation of black and white or tall and short or strong and weak. But so long as the reason for those arguments is not based on safety and reduction of suffering, and instead tethered to misandry and transphobia, you have no rational leg to stand on.
I have done nothing else. On the flipside, I take it you are in favor of desegregation and argue that the fallout has been worth it for the benefit of anti-racism and human rights? Oh, right, that's not how things work. No one who argues for anything like that does so on the basis of its cost/benefit. It's about what's morally right and wrong.
Trans rights aren't just a matter of importance for trans people. They are of importance to any person who recognizes the modern western world order. Being against trans rights is the same as being against morality, rationality and reason. As you can not draw a line in the sand now against trans rights without that line intersecting with other human rights. Like civil rights.
You could use this exact argument in favor of trans women in womens prison. This cavalier morally neutral tone doesn't work after you just took a grand stand on the suffering of female prisoners at the hands of trans women. If you don't care about the suffering of prisoners you don't belong in this conversation at all.
Wrong. On its face, in fact- if you're going to tell me "but racism and racial discrimination for its own sake" aren't the same (which is what you appear to be doing) then perhaps we need to do the same for "rights". Which you also do, of course, but moving on.
How convenient.
Which is why the trans rights faction is hell-bent on doing exactly that (misgender = prison + your kids get taken away to a Residential School).
Fear of men isn't actually the driving force here (though it would be convenient); "trans rights" are fundamentally an intra-orthodoxy fight. One group of women want to gain an advantage over the rest by asserting that they are in control of defining exceptions to "man bad woman good", and then doing those things (like putting men in women's prisons and washrooms) and the rest are more serious about "man bad woman good" as their moral core (those we call TERFs).
And we could talk about the actual issue with transpeople- which is simply that they refuse to accommodate for anyone else in any way resembling self-reflection and are also insisting on making everyone else repeat a lie at gunpoint (if they stopped doing those things there'd be a lot less of an issue, but pretending society is turbo-hostile is a cornerstone of progressive thought and power: I will note you never answered the charge of "Discard the liars and nutcases, then ordinary people will be more willing to give the benefit of the doubt" likely because you appear to believe that those outside the orthodoxy are more dangerous; something I'd dispute heavily given the track record of orthodox social policies)- but again, it's not really about that, it's fundamentally about who the sovereign is and the exceptions they'd like to define.
You seem to be under the belief that you're just arguing with someone who agrees with the orthodoxy on every point but this- but you're not, you're dealing with people who believe both the orthodoxy and the dominant group therein are evil because they insist on putting guns to people's heads in the first place. Hence your emphasis on "misandry" being the root cause going unanswered, where the correct emphasis rests on the fact women shouldn't have the power to dictate these things in an equal society (something you're not on the side of, outside of your private definition of equality that just so happens to just be indistinguishable from "man bad and owe good women merely for existing").
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