site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   29716 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of December 12, 2022

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.

15
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

On one hand, I recognize this as following the long standing rationalist-ish tradition of finding some obscure idea and going "Wow! If more people knew that it could change everything!". It's cute, I suppose there's a reason the quokka meme strikes a chord. On the other hand, I'm getting too old for this, can we just skip to the part where the idea blows up in our faces in extremely predictable ways, becomes an elaborate but empty ritual, or is overused to the point it loses all meaning?

Instead of saying, "Your biological sex is still male though", to a transwoman, you could instead say, "Your sex signalment is 'male, orchiectomy, testosterone blockers and estrogen for 5 years.'"

Does this actually help anyone? The latter literally contains the former, so why would someone upset at hearing "Your biological sex is still male though", feel better about hearing "Your biological sex is still male though" + a list of medical procedures they went through?

In 2017 there was a "No, Trans Women Are NOT 'Biologically Male'" article with supporting video:

“Yes, trans women are women, but they’re still biologically male.”

Ever thought or said something like this? You might even have good intentions by stating what you think is a simple fact – after all, gender is a social construct, while sex is biological, right?

Actually, this “simple fact” of trans women being “biologically male” is inaccurate – and this misrepresentation of the truth is being used to justify some pretty hateful things.

So if you really want the facts, and to follow through on your good intentions by being a good ally, check out Riley J. Dennis’ explanation of why trans women are not biologically male.

Unfortunately, the video (even on Youtube) has been marked private and you can't see it unless you've been invited, so I guess we will never know the stunning knock-down arguments by the non-binary trans lesbian Riley J. Dennis as to why "Biological sex is a social construct". Maybe it was just too powerful for our puny brains and had to be kept secret for only the initiated who could safely watch it. We might perhaps get a clue from this quote:

For example, if someone was assigned male at birth, but took puberty blockers and hormones and had a vaginoplasty, they would have “female” hormones, secondary sex characters, and genitals. So, three of their five ways of determining sex would be “female”... That means three-fifths of the sex criteria point to female, and only one-fifth points to male – and if you believe that sex is an unchanging biological fact, that couldn’t be possible. But it is.

In a 2017 video called "No, Trans Women Are NOT ‘Biologically Male’", Dennis broke down the concept of biological sex and referred to it as a social construct, albeit in a different way from gender. She asserted that what we call "biological sex" is not a clear dichotomy and simply represents a combination of numerous biological markers — secondary sex characteristics, gonads, chromosomes, genitals and hormones — several of which can be changed medically as a result of transitioning. This similarly caused controversy; among her critics on this issue was biologist Jerry Coyne. Dennis' basic argument, however, has been supported by more recent research in the Scientific American, alongside a conceptualization of biological sex as a continuum rather than a binary.

So the suggested "signalment" of "your sex is male" is misrepresentation used to justify hate. Got it? The "orchiectomy, testosterone blockers and estrogen for 5 years" means that Tiffany James now has female hormones, and does not possess male gonads, so she is female and saying she is male sex is wrong since modern medicine has successfully altered her biology for two of the five sex criteria (and if she's on oestrogen and testosterone blockers, presumably altered the secondary sex characteristics as well so that's three out of five).

(For those of us unrepentant sinners who don't consider a vaginoplasty to be the same thing as cis female genitals, well I guess we'll just have to burn in the hall of shame for bad thinkers).

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats