site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   32403 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of January 23, 2023

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.

13
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

This post is on point.

The Nuanced Steelman of Rowling's position is, to my view, this:

'Women' are a subcategory of humans, having similar characteristics, which includes having a uterus, which usually means the ability to get pregnant and to menstruate, and likewise having a physiology that tends to be physically weaker and less massive than the average human, and if you will, a psychology that is less prone to violent outbursts. Note that this definition is mostly inclusive, such that having/not having a uterus won't necessarily exclude you (e.g. if a biological woman has a hysterectomy).

BECAUSE of these shared characteristics, people who fall in the subcategory of 'women' are faced with various social and physical 'threats' that 'nonwomen' do not face. That includes dealing with pregnancy and the health issues this implies, a higher vulnerability to being physically attacked, a greater likelihood of being raped (and then facing pregnancy), and more difficulty with intense physical labor. Also the whole sports thing, where they can't measure up to the performance of elite athletes. Or, sometimes, adolescent males.

BECAUSE of these specific challenges/threats, it is worth drawing drawing a circle around the group of people who cluster around the characteristics of 'women' and treating them as a 'special class' who need certain sorts of accomodations and protections due to their particular vulnerabilities. This can include separate locker rooms, specific shelters for solely their use, separate sports leagues, and maybe some special rules/laws which afford them some advantages based on their sex. Abortion rights are obviously tied up in this too.

If the category of 'women' is broadened to include more and more people who DO NOT share the aforementioned characteristics and thus DO NOT face the same challenges/threats, this begins to defeat the purpose/use of having special accommodations and protections for women. If women need to be protected from physical violence due to their smaller/weaker physiology, allowing someone with a larger physiology (thanks to testosterone) into a women's shelter very directly defeats the point. If women prisoners need to be protected from rape due to the possibility of pregnancy, allowing an inmate with a functional penis into a women's prison very directly defeats the point. That situation is NOT hypothetical. If women need a separate sports league due to their overall lower athletic ability, allowing someone who has been through male adolescence (see above example with soccer for why this matters) to compete very directly defeats the point.

If the category of 'women' is defined entirely based on what gender the individual identifies as, then the entire edifice of treating 'women' as a special subcategory of humans goes out the window, AND THIS WILL HAVE A DETRIMENTAL EFFECT ON PEOPLE WITH THE AFOREMENTIONED CHARACTERISTICS as they now don't get the same accommodations or protections that were previously set up for them, and can't do anything about it.

As a third-wave feminist, J.K. Rowling correctly sees how this detrimental effect could harm 'women' (as she defines them) and thus is remaining consistent in her belief that 'women' need to be defined by physical characteristics and need to be given certain accomodations and protections by dint of those physical characteristics, and to allow the category of 'women' to be eroded is a betrayal of all the work they've done to acquire those special protections and accommodations.

If this makes her a TERF, so be it. It doesn't change the fact that people with these characteristics need someone to stand up for them.

I honestly think J.K. Rowling believes things VERY SIMILAR to the above, but obviously that can't be explained easily in a tweet, and her opponents wouldn't listen in good faith anyway, so much easier to just be snarky and stand your ground.

I also don't see good evidence she's "anti-trans" in any way other than rejecting a trans women's claim to 'womanhood' based on the above logic and thus being unafraid to hurt a trans person's feelings by not validating their identity if said identity encroaches on/erodes the category of 'woman' as defined by her.

If women prisoners need to be protected from rape due to the possibility of pregnancy, allowing an inmate with a functional penis into a women's prison very directly defeats the point. That situation is NOT hypothetical.

The linked article says:

It was initially reported by DOC officials that Minor [trans woman] had impregnated two inmates after engaging in “consensual sexual relationships” (...)

“One was absolutely consensual,” said Demeri [Minor's lawyer]. “But in the other case, Demi [Minor] was a victim of coercion.” Demeri said that the second woman, who was jealous of Bellamy, snuck into Minor’s cell and threatened her into having sex, saying “I’ll beat your bitch up.”

So the situation is in fact hypothetical.

Also, female prisoners don't "need to be protected from rape due to the possibility of pregnancy". They need to be protected from rape because rape is bad. And this applies to all prisoners, not just women.

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