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 -
The idea that a small (and at the time very fringe) group of academics (not sure I’d call it scholarly) gets to define a word because the gen public don’t speak up at the time is bullshit.
Who cares who "gets to define words"? Words have different meanings in different contexts. It isn't about who "gets" to define a word. You know another word that a small group of academics got to define, because the general public didn't speak up at the time? Work. The point is that, just as when physicist use the word "work" they mean something very specific, when anthropologists, etc, use the word "gender" they mean something very specific. So, once again, if one is to discuss the culture war, rather engage in it, one has to acknowledge that that is what those people mean when they use the term, "gender." Were the discussion about gay rights, would you talk about what the word "gay" really means, because I can tell you that some people went on and on about that 40 years ago.
You could have a point if we were discussing gender in a gender studies journal. But the OP didn’t say anything of that sort. Instead, OP stated it is a fact that gender is distinct from sex. This is a general conversation. Whatever anthropologist or gender studies people think about the word gender is irrelevant to this discussion.
When called on it, you then defended OP’s position by saying academics defined it. When pointing out that is also BS you then made an argument “we are only talking about this academically and you are engaging in the culture war.” No I’m calling you on your obvious bad faith engagement.
As I said previously, "Perhaps I am mistaken, but as I understand OP, they are merely saying that that is the definition used by those on the 'other side.'" The "other side" being, of course, people who, among other things, talk about gender in gender studies journals.
Bottom line: You are refusing to engage in their claims, and instead are complaining about how unfair it is that a "group of academics . . . gets to define a word because the gen public don’t speak up at the time[.]" Again, who cares? Would their arguments have more merit had they manufactured a new word for the same concept? Presumably not.
Go back and read OP. He stated it is a fact gender is different from sex. That isn’t saying “the other side says X.”
And yes I am refusing to engage with OP because the whole premise is dumb. If I say X is Y is a fact it is something that can be argued because we can say much like Humpty Dumpty that when I use X I mean it to mean Y; nothing more or nothing less.
That isn’t a healthy debate. That’s sophistry and should be rejected regardless of whether one agrees with the conclusion or not. One can have a discussion about whether gender should mean X or Y. That wasn’t what OP was interested in and calling that argument by definition isn’t waging the culture war but good debate hygiene.
Finally, as to my complaints you bring in academics out of nowhere. It was wholly irrelevant. The fact it was never mentioned and you tried to make that the issue makes me question whether you engage in good faith.
I’ll let you have the last word as this has gone on long enough.
As I said, twice: "Perhaps I am mistaken, but as I understand OP, they are merely saying that that is the definition used by those on the 'other side.'"
That’s why I was not bringing in academics out of nowhere, and why it is not true that "it was never mentioned" : The entire thread is about academic claims about gender.
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