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 -
Your analogies are going from bad to worse. This comparison would only make sense if you believed men (or women if we're discussing FTMs) are subhuman.
Your previous one made some sense. If you wanted some variety you could go with: "And a racist would believe he's not violating any rights, because he's in favor of providing 'seperate but equal' facilities". Except this also doesn't work, because you're not arguing in favor of desegregation. You want to keep segregation, but make a special exception for some men to be able to go into women's spaces.
Maybe. Or maybe the cause will land on the heap of other discarded progressive causes like eugenics, lobotomies, pedo acceptance, and psychosurgery, that progressives are now acting like they never happened or weren't their ideas.
It's relevant to the argument that your view is universal. "Dominant" is not that. Dominance doesn't even require a majority.
I have to say, it sure does take the sting out of your civil rights comparisons to hear you explicitly promote ideas that could only make sense to a racist.
All this would mean is that we live in a racist society. That shouldn't be a surprising conclusion for you.
This statement makes absolutely no sense, though perhaps I shouldn't be surprised when it comes from the same movement that gave us "a woman is anyone who identifies as a woman".
Well, if they're a seperate category, and want a separate space, I could be convinced of going along with that.
And you don't find it at all surprising that basically every single society came up with sex segregated spaces?
Anyway, let's go with this. So why aren't you advocating for desegregation instead of keeping segregation? Even if we apply the Critical Theory "privilege plus power" framework, that only implies mixed spaces and trans spaces, not keeping men's and women's spaces.
So back when the Yaniv case was coming to light, you were arguing that the waxing salons were in the wrong, and these women should be legally mandated to wax those feminine balls, right?
The modern western order survived just fine without trans rights until yesterday, so it can survive, and even flourish without them indefinitely.
Uh... no. Being for trans rights is completely irrational. Whether or not it's immoral will depend on how your ground your morality.
Every single comparison to civil rights that you drew so far has failed, and you refused to engage with the argument.
I mean if you're trying to get me to admit that I think it's more important to protect women than it is to protect men, and especially women suffering at the hands of men, ya got me.
Please represent my views correctly: I don't care about it to the point where I'd expand infinite resources to protect them from harm at their own hands.
Not understanding something doesn't make it bad. Racists otherize non-whites. Transphobes otherize trans people. You assert that trans people "can't" access sex segregated areas. Just like a racist asserted black people can't access race segregated areas. History tells us how that story ends. I briefly touched on why history is moving in this direction, using the historical analogy of civil rights as an example. That being said, Trans people and black people are not the same, but pointing that out when it's not relevant to the point being made is fruitless.
The trans movement seeks to insert a 'third' or more categories and break the sex binary where needed. To that extent the trans movement is categorically less radical than the civil rights movement. To follow the black/white analogy, it only seeks to assert a minority be counted as a different race. Sometimes the abolition of certain race defined aspects of western society is deemed to be what is best for society. Sometimes 'positive' segregation is deemed to be the best.
By the same token, as societal rules and norms based on race can exist in a good or a bad way, gender and gender expression can be set up in a good way or a bad way. Trans rights seek to make them more good than bad for trans people. You might say they are wrong, or making things bad for other groups, but, again, that same argument was levied by racists in the 50's and 60's. Given the track record of such arguments, coming from people with no power or any mainstream moral weight of support behind them, I'm still left wondering why you even imagine anyone should take your assertions with any weight.
Hopefully this helps elucidate the point of the analogies.
Now, to broach a wider topic of contention and why being against trans rights is being against trans rights is the same as being against morality, rationality and reason:
Society has a bias. It's biased against certain ideas in favor of others. This bias is not coincidental. There's a fabric of logic* (excuse the poetry)* that this bias is woven on to. I don't care for arguments against threads being woven into the fabric when that's exactly what this fabric is made for. It's all it will ever do.
Or maybe you prefer a different description of this phenomenon? The progressive arch of history? Robert Conquest's Second Law? Cthulu always swims left?
I'm not arguing from a position of personal moral claims. I'm just looking at the fabric and what's been sewn into it. I then see people wrapped in the fabric telling me they're against the very thing they're wearing.
I'm arguing from the perspective of the totality of institutional power, the direction of media and propaganda, the whole modern western canon as it exists living and breathing today. From that perspective you are wrong. You are against morality, rationality and reason. Just like the previous villains of history.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link