site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   35047 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of March 6, 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.

16
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

People on the both sides, while intelligent, hold stupid beliefs about this subject. This false belief is that gender is not distinct from sex. The fact is that gender is indeed totally distinct from sex. Sex is either "male" or "female" (and I'm excluding intersex for simplicity of argument) and is immutable from birth. Gender on the other hand refers to a socially created psychological programming that every tribe and society imbues its members on upon.

People have sexes, languages have genders. Anything more complicating than that is unprovable hibby jibby. This idea of gender as "socially created psychological programming" is the result of a modern propaganda campaign.

I think even if we taboo the word "gender" we still have the following distinct things from sex:

  • Sex roles: The roles a particular culture assigns to the sexes, including cultural fictions like hijra or kathoey, or artificially created categories like eunuch, trans, etc.

  • Sexual proprioception / Internal sense of sex or sex role: The bodily and psycho-social feeling of having a sexed body or belonging to a particular sex role in society.

I don't think any of these require "unprovable hibby jibby." Sex roles are obviously separate from sex itself, since there's nothing inherently "female" about dresses, or "male" about suit jackets.

And the existence of people with a sexual proprioception of different genitals or secondary sexual characteristics would hardly be mystical. If Scott's recent posts are anything to go on, there are people around the world in different cultures who are convinced the witches are stealing their penises, so it's not insane to believe that "sometimes brains do funny things, and people feel like they have different body parts than they physically have." They might be a minority of modern day trans people, but I don't think it's a crazy implausible claim to make that such people might exist. That would also of course be separate from how we deal with them on a societal level.

Similarly, the idea of having an internal sense of sex or sex role isn't crazy to me, even if it isn't a fundamental part of human psychology. I'm sure that the King of England feels like the King of England, even though there's no way he evolved a mental faculty to specifically feel like the King of England. Is it so crazy that there might be a female-bodied human that has an internal sense that they should occupy the male sex role? Insofar as the male sex role is separate from being male, why should we deny entry into that category?

I disagree - I think that there is actually something there when they point at their concept of gender. There absolutely are cultural expectations and social constructions with regard to gender, and there are definitely areas where those concepts change. There are real, observable and definite differences between what it means to be a good man in feudal Japan and what it means to be a good man in 1950s America.

I think that the left is wrong when they think you can actually divorce these concepts and ideas from sex in any real way, but their error isn't in identifying that part of what we view as gender is socially constructed (i.e. wearing skirts is feminine today, but a kilt is the height of masculinity on a highland warrior).

There absolutely are cultural expectations and social constructions with regard to gender, and there are definitely areas where those concepts change

Sure, but so what? What does this matter in any way with regards to calling a girl a girl or a boy a boy?

With regards to calling a girl a girl? Nothing, I explicitly said that the left is wrong they think that these concepts can be divorced from sex. They're right when they point out that a lot of our expectations regarding gender are created and reinforced culturally, and if you try to attack them on those grounds you are going to lose because they are right - that's not where the error is occurring. The problem arises when they expand the category of gender to include things that are really in the domain of sex, but that doesn't mean there isn't any use in being able to say that something is masculine due to an inherent property of human masculinity that transcends culture(sex) as opposed to something more local(gender).

I just don't think anyone really ever has used gender to mean, "what girls generally act like around here" or any definition similar to that. There are the people who used it as a synonym for sex, people who used it in reference to language, and now people who use it in an arguments as soldiers context.

People have been using it like that for decades in academia, and there is actually a use for the term. I am not suggesting that the term should be used uncritically at all - and I think that you can ultimately make a stronger "transphobic" argument by adopting and using those concepts.

People have been using it like that for decades in academia

Yes and? I am fairly certain it was invented in that context for the purpose of arguments as soldiers. And I dont really see the argument for a stronger argument. The argument is certain people have a delusion. Tomboy is perfectly good word as is Nancy. Other more powerful and specific ones include autogynephilia fetishist, delusional dysphoric, etc.

Yes and? I am fairly certain it was invented in that context for the purpose of arguments as soldiers.

And it worked. If your opponent has a strategy that is working and can convince reasonable bystanders, even if that strategy is just playing shellgames with definitions, then countering or side-stepping it is a good idea. By clearly laying out the distinction beforehand, you prevent them from using it as an escape-hatch later on in the discussion. Just calling a trans person a delusional fetishist might win you votes with the hard right, but it isn't a strategy that's terribly effective if you're trying to convince regular people who aren't extremely online/invested in the culture war.

I dont think anyone is convinced, they are bullied into being quiet.

Everything is socially constructed, but society is biologically constructed.

The way we understand medicine is socially constructed but nobody uses 'actually cancer is a social construct' as a gotcha, or in order to get some kind of cancer-benefits in absence of medical evidence of cancer.

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