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 -
My biggest problem is it's false advertising. You are not really hooking up with a woman, but only an approximation of one. Even if it could 100% pass a blind test, it's still categorically not the same thing. This is a such a messy subject that it's pretty much off-limits anywhere...if you think race & IQ is contentious, the trans issue is even worse.
You say "false advertising", but I wonder how far this goes. Suppose we get to a point that with minimal effort that all trans people undergo, they all start to pass as the gender they identify with to the point where, as far as hooking up goes, you fundamentally could not tell if they were cis or trans. Is this "false advertising" still?
This sounds like an argument that attributes what it means to be a "real woman" to something non-material in nature.
Yes, some people would like to have children.
"Hooking up" and "trying to have kids" are two separate things. I agree that if you are looking for children, lying about the ability to have kids is a bad thing.
I don't think most people compartamentalize dating and hook-ups to that degree. The latter often leads to the former.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I bet that in such case they would have no problem with saying "I was born male, then rebuild myself as a giraffe and now I morphed to female form". But we are far away from this level of bioengineering no matter what would people claim.
The entire trans stuff is caused by uncanny valley of being able to imperfectly migrate - but extremely imperfectly with small minority achieving anything close to a success. Even if they do not care about fertility.
More options
Context Copy link
Well, for some people the deception is most of the problem. The idea that someone could so casually lie about something so huge. I don't think that needs overmuch explaining.
For others it's revulsion at the particular mode of femininity that seems to be adopted by those attempting to become female. They just do things normal women basically never do. "Dress go spinny!" and all that nonsense. The very stereotypical things they choose to wear and do, and the experiences they claim to have and enjoy. It all comes off as a man acting like what the thinks a woman acts like, instead of how women actually act. I don't know if those things would go away in the case of a magic perfect gender swap machine. The brain would still lack the socialisation and experience. Dressing it in a more appealing shell might blunt some of the disgust people feel, but I don't know...
Anti-TRA people like to bring up the "very male" responses these female aspirants come out with when challenged -- threats of rape and violence, fantasies about forcing themselves and their genitalia on unwilling lesbians. I don't know how much stock I put in that, I think pretty much everyone has the capability to be absolutely terrible, but it's possibly another point in the same vein.
If a person believes themselves to be a woman because they think you can self-identify into the category, this is a case of miscommunication, not a lie.
And if someone doesn't believe that, then it's a lie no matter how earnestly the speaker believes it. Confidently incorrect is still incorrect, and genuinely believing a lie doesn't make it true.
"God is real" is a lie to me, no matter how genuinely some people believe it to be truth.
the key point here is the "to me" part. I would argue that if two people hold different definitions on something, we cannot meaningfully call it a lie when one uses their definition in a way that contradicts the other's.
If I didn't think the opposite was a lie, how could I be meaningfully said to hold that my own opinions are true, when the two are mutually exclusive? If I truly believe that god is not real, then it stands to reason that I must also think the statement that god is real is a lie, no?
No, that does not follow. You must also think that the statement that God is real is incorrect, but if the person offering the statement is sincere and without the intent to deceive, then it is not a lie.
More options
Context Copy link
Common usage of the word "lie" would entail an intent to deceive i.e speak in bad faith. But two people who hold different definitions are not speaking to deceive the other, they're speaking from their own actually held beliefs. That you perceive it as a lie suggests you make no distinction between people who wish to actually mislead you and others who simply disagree.
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
Isn't this the exact problem the trans advocate camp runs into? If gender as non-material nature is off the table doesn't that collapse the whole concept before we even need to consider the body swapping stuff?
We may someday get this theoretical full gender swap machine, albeit very very far into the future, but the justification for using it and the subsequent question of whether someone would want someone who had done so is going to look totally different to modern day trans theory.
When people propose this thought experiment I think a whole lot of really load bearing stuff is getting papered over. Just the fact that we'd actually be able to use it to run experiments both as individuals curious about how the other side lives and collectively on gendered phenomenon is a huge game changer and if you're making assumptions on how those experiments would have gone those assumptions hide all the actual interesting implications of the thought experiment.
If a cis person went through the procedure do you think they'd have dysphoria? why or why not?
Thought experiments used in this manner are trying to get at what the root argument is. You can't say something like "We can't make trans woman perfectly pass" as your argument in this case because the hypothetical assumes that we can. It's a way of getting around the surface-level arguments some people co-opt. We had a discussion back in the subreddit about whether race-swapping in media is bad, and some people very clearly used "It's not being done well" as a reason to reject the idea as a whole.
Insofar as they identify with a particular sex, I think they would. If it's not a big part of your identity, I think you might just shrug it off like a minor irritant.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Probably, although you would never know it I suppose. But the point is that we very much do not live in that world. The idea that "a trans woman is indistinguishable from a woman" is a blatant lie, unless you're using something like the circular "a woman is anyone who says they're a woman" definition.
In the transhumanist future, we may get to the point that it's actually indistinguishable. At that point it's maybe false advertising in the sense that some people may have a disgust reaction if they found out they were sleeping with a trans woman, but they'd never know so the point is moot then.
People form their attitudes based on the world that actually exists. Any reasoning involved would be based on central examples, not on edge cases.
In a transhumanist world full of casual, perfect, sex changes, where the central examples are nothing like they are today, the attitude towards dating trans people would be different from today.
More options
Context Copy link
Oh for sure, we don't live in that world right now. But we should be clear about what exactly would make someone reject a trans person as a suitable sexual partner. I think any argument that firmly rejects trans people as partners even if they could perfectly pass on every biological level is an argument rooted in some notion of a non-material essence inside a person that corresponds to gender.
Even if the pizza hut meme is no longer true, and they're now indistinguishable from a natal woman. They still may be rejected because whatever is was that made them need to be a woman, is undesirable in a partner.
Based on Canada I think we'll have suicide booths before sex-swaping machines.
More options
Context Copy link
This is related to why most people fight hypotheticals.
It's all fine to talk about hypothetical situations as hypothetical situations. But this kind of hypothetical is used as a way to sneak in assumptions about the real world. Answering "sure, I'd accept trans people who were biologically identical to cis examples of that gender" is likely to be followed up with "well, how big are the differences really" or some other suggestion which tries to use the hypothetical example as a step towards saying something about the real world.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I don't think this is true. I have a lot moderately conservative libertarianish friends and family. When the trans issue comes up we can all laugh about it and go "wow those woke people sure are crazy". But if I bring up race and IQ I get a lot of concerned looks and comments like "you better not say that in public".
I don't think it's just my social circle either. Look at mainstream Republican politicians and commentators. Many of them have come out and took a stand on the trans issue but they're all scared to even mention race and IQ.
I mean the left is more likely to ban or censure you for posting about trans stuff compared to race & IQ. both topics are radioactive. However, IQ alone is not too bad.
I think you're mistaking level of vitriol in online discussions for likelihood of banning/censorship. The trans discussion invites a high level of angry comments because it is, by and large, a tolerable discussion. The actual discussion is being had, and while leftist spaces might ban you for questioning whether trans women are actually women, right wing spaces will ban you for discussing race/IQ. There's no heat in those discussions because it is vastly outside the public's Overton Window. It is a socially acceptable position to hold that trans women are not really women. It might not be super popular, and it might not win you any DIE awards, but you can hold that position in a discussion with the average American and not come out the other end with your proverbial tailfeathers on fire. If you were to start discussing the correlation between race and IQ with the average American, you would be dismissed as a racist nutjob best ignored entirely.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link