site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   33388 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of April 17, 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.

8
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Could one not be "transphobic" and still refuse to acknowledge that "trans women are women"?

I personally think it would be more helpful to break things down along two axes. The first axis is how one thinks society should deal with trans people, and the second would be one's "trans metaphysics" or how they answer the question of what trans people are, and whether there are any important differences between trans people and cis people.

Obviously, in some people those two would be connected questions. If one thinks that trangenderism is a fetish that children are being brainwashed into to mutilate and sterilize themselves, then one might have a different attitude towards trans acceptance than if one thinks that medical transition is the least bad option for a group of sick people who would commit suicide at an unacceptably high rate otherwise.

I think I'd reserve "transphobic" for people who are illiberal on the social axis, but I think many trans advocates take a wider view, and consider a trans metaphysics that doesn't allow for "transwomen are women" to be a true statement to be transphobic as well.

I personally think it would be more helpful to break things down along two axes. The first axis is how one thinks society should deal with trans people, and the second would be one's "trans metaphysics" or how they answer the question of what trans people are, and whether there are any important differences between trans people and cis people.

Here's a transcript of Veronica Ivy on Trevor Noah:

VERONICA IVY: There’s lots of ways you can respond to that. So, the first is the very language of you were born and I’m not biological somehow? Like, I don’t think I’m a cyborg. So, like, this idea that, like, “Oh, you’re not a biological woman”—well, I am a woman. That’s a fact. I am female. So all my identity records, my racing license, my medical records, all say female. Right? And I’m pretty sure I’m made of biological stuff. So I’m a biological female as well.

So this question of do trans women have an advantage over cis women? We don’t know. In fact, there’s basically no published research on this question. However, there’s good reason to think that there isn’t. But, I think it’s irrelevant, because we allow all kinds of competitive advantages within women’s sport.

The two can no longer be separated, because TRAs are now using the metaphysics to push for more things on the political front. The silliness around women's sports and prisons imo only makes sense once the metaphysical belief of TWAW is set. So to ignore it helps no one but the people pushing that.

Theoretically we had them separated in the beginning, when TWAW was less likely to be believed literally (and people didn't demand that) and people just wanted to be kind to gender dysphoric people. But that position clearly didn't hold. It collapsed into TWAW and metaphysical transness (probably because otherwise we're essentially maintaining that this sexual minority is mentally ill and needs to be medically gatekept- which is dangerous territory politically) and then that metaphysical transness is assumed and used as we can see from Contrapoints' videos to demand more concessions or smear any obstacle as transphobic.

So I'm not sure why anyone would try to build on this unstable foundation again. Fool me one time..

I do think it's only a tiny minority of trans people claiming to be "biological men/women" of their identified gender. "Biological" as a modifier for sex and gender is one that fell by the wayside years ago - but I think words like "gametic" or "chromosomal" are much more specific while emphasizing the point being discussed.

Veronica Ivy might be viewed as an "honorary" woman, the same way adoptive parents are "honorary" parents despite their lack of biological connection to the children they're raising. But with current technology, "honorary" women lack many of the feature of cis women, such as the ability to produce large, immobile gametes or XX chromosomes. Maybe that technological barrier will be overcome some day, who knows?

I do think it's only a tiny minority of trans people claiming to be "biological men/women" of their identified gender.

Does it matter?

Like, we continually have to run around playing this exhausting game: when activists overreach and push for (and perhaps get) things that are liable to piss off a reasonable normie then we need constantly be reminded that Ordinary Transpeople don't think or act like this and deserve respect. But then activists also hold moral authority to speak for the community of normie trans (especially the Suicidal Trans Child), who you will be accused of attacking whenever you make any critique of their more absurd positions.

JKR never attacked Ordinary Transpeople. She made a specific point about policy. By your argument that should have worked out fine, yet JKR is a "'transphobe" and here we are.

And, of course, when they dogpile you people like Natalie Wynn who claim to be the reasonable types will be nowhere to be seen or they will be carrying water for the crazies and their tactics with the standard "it's not ideal but in this political context..."

We're dealing with what we're dealing with. Activists don't get to have their cake and eat it too.

Veronica Ivy might be viewed as an "honorary" woman, the same way adoptive parents are "honorary" parents despite their lack of biological connection to the children they're raising.

If Veronica Ivy was just an honorary woman why didn't Trevor Noah correct her?

What would we do if someone with an honorary degree decided he was going to teach a full class of undergrads cause "it says right here I'm a doctor." Do you think Noah would find it as hard to laugh that one off?

The shadow cast by the metaphysical stuff is long, even if someone like Noah may not say "okay, it's true in the strongest sense".

I'd say that anybody who says the word transphobic seriously, is medicalizing a political ideology as well as hurting people with debilitating mental health conditions such as arachnophobia, claustrophobia and other types of real phobias, by implicitly insinuating that they may also be based on some personal choice or ideology, such as in the case of transphobia or homophobia.

Of course I am very much aware that this opinion of mine will make me a transphobe in eyes of certain radical groups who are pushing this term in the first place.

And would you likewise say that chemists who describe a molecule as "hydrophobic" are medicalizing a simple physical phenomenon as well as hurting people with debilitating phobias?

If it isn't clear, I am saying that a word with the suffix -phobic does not necessarily imply a phobia in the medical sense. No one is claiming homophobia or transphobia is a phobia, i.e. an irrational fear of those respective groups. That is a strawman.

It’s not a straw man, it’s something I’ve seen being claimed constantly - that right wingers are actually afraid of muslims, or gays, or trans people or immigrants or black people or whatever. Happens quite often in fact

Yea. "Why are you afraid of them?" is a frequently-posed rhetorical question.

Except that for instance in the case of homophobia according to this article it was coined by the Pschologist George Weinberg and then used by activists of the magazine Screw in late 60ies. Here is what Weinberg thought about the term

He suggested that those who harbor prejudice against homosexuals, and not homosexuals themselves, are suffering from a psychological malady, an irrational state of mind.

So no, this is not like hydrophobia.

And would you likewise say that chemists who describe a molecule as "hydrophobic" are medicalizing a simple physical phenomenon as well as hurting people with debilitating phobias?

People with rabies, in that particular case.

But no, chemists are just using the jargon of their field, which does not derive from medical phobias but from the original greek roots; "hydrophobic" is basically an anthropomorphism. The same does not apply to "transphobic" which is being used as a general term, and is definitely coined by analogy to "homophobic" which was used to denigrate those who were politically opposed to homosexual rights.

I personally think it would be more helpful to break things down along two axes.

No! Axes are a demonic religious lie!

They don't have to be axes if you don't want them to be. You could just view them as two different components of a person's view of trans people.

Are these axes really independent? Who's that person that is metaphysically OK with transgenderism, but isn't OK socially?

I think there are religious people who basically believe this. That a person can be "born trans" in a metaphysical sense, but that it's a sin to act on it. In the same way they might think someone could be "born an alcoholic" but it's still incumbent on them to avoid the sin of drunkenness.

I'm imagining the trans-related equivalent of the Catholic who is morally opposed to abortion, but doesn't think it should be illegal. Or the gay man who lives with his male partner, but doesn't believe being gay should be valorized and celebrated as much as it is in society, in favor of more "traditional" family structures.

I'm sure there are people disgusted by transgenderism who don't believe that medical transition should be illegal for adults who want it, and who are okay with pronoun hospitality on a case-by-case basis. Or people who say that "transwomen are women", but who still think social contagion might be a factor that should be quelled as far as possible.

Or the gay man who lives with his male partner, but doesn't believe being gay should be valorized and celebrated as much as it is in society, in favor of more "traditional" family structures.

Yes, that's called "internalized homophobia", AKA "you're being gay wrong/working against (what the powers that be consider) your own interest".

I am! ( @arjin_ferman ) I'm agnostic on how real the idea of being born in a wrong body is, but I think no persecution of trans people is too strict, no measures against them are too cruel, because they are one of the most fanatical factions of my enemies, and because of my personal disgust reaction to them.

That quadrant might indeed be empty, but I kind of fit in the opposite one. I'm mostly ok with transgenderism socially, once we iron out the wrinkles like sports, prisons, and kids, but I'm vehemently opposed to trans metaphysics.

Yes, this seems like a useful distinction. Also highlights how unspecific terms like "homophobia" and "transphobia" are. People tend to use them to cover both social and metaphysical phobias, which confuses these issues. I guess most activists would argue, 1., most people who hold "metaphysical" transphobia tend to have "socally" transphobic ideas as well (probably true), and then also, 2., even if someone only holds metaphysically transphobic ideas, the expression of those ideas will lead to more hate crimes and more "social" transphobia.

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