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 -
No, all terms' meanings are situated within 'normal situations'. Everyday statements are intended to be useful, not universally true. "A human has two arms" is useful, but one-armed people exist. If a doctor claims a drug is "safe and effective", that doesn't mean "safe and effective if you take 50x the recommended dose", or "safe and effective if you take it for ten years straight", but "safe and effective if taken at the recommended dose for the recommended course". As an analogy - an antibiotic's gut-bacteria-decimating effects are mostly reversible if you take it for a few weeks. But it'd be bad to take that antibiotic for 20 years straight.
I know that. Do the victims of the trangenderists know that? Can you point me to an example or two of clear messaging, saying that you can only take “puberty blockers” for a limited period of time before it will lead to irreversible outcomes, with some clarity on how long is this limited period?
Can you give an example of someone who took puberty blockers for 'too long' and was left with side effects due to taking them for too long? I don't think 'puberty blockers are safe for two years, but BAD if you take them for eight years' is relevant to the general issues with puberty blockers?
Yes? Just look at the studies where they're linked to osteoporosis, if nothing else?
By "too long" I meant "taking them longer than the normal course", as opposed to "taking them longer than zero days". "They never say puberty blockers aren't safe if you take them for eight years" is not a useful complaint, even if puberty blockers are unsafe generally
I'm pretty sure you can get away with 1 day of blockers without getting osteoporosis later on.
Also, the whole thing was a thought experiment to prove they are not reversible, if they aren't safe generally, then they are,, in fact, irreversible.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
You are evading my repeated question, and unlike me, who asks for public messaging, instead ask me to give you an example of some private person’s tragedy, of a kind that mainstream media would not want to cover, as it goes against the narrative. This is in itself very telling.
I'm not going to find much public messaging to that effect, because this ... isn't an issue? Puberty blockers are intended to be used for a few years until either cross-sex hormones can be initiated for the 'desired sex' or 'normal puberty' can be resumed. Doctors don't prescribe them indefinitely. So why would a public warning to that effect exist or be necessary?
The closest I could find is https://reimaginingeducation.org/what-happens-if-you-take-puberty-blockers-forever/
Also, I'm not a supporter of trans in general, and don't think puberty blockers or cross-sex hormones should ever be used to 'transition'. So it can't be "telling". I'm disagreeing on a specific point, and letting the political orientation of my comment come before the specific point is dumb.
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