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 -
You can freeze sperm and eggs before the transition and then have a surrogate bear the child. Let's say some billionaire has a trans kid and creates a massive free sperm/egg preservation service and covers the cost of surrogacy/artificial wombs in 2040 for all trans people. Is the issue resolved, do conservative parents suddenly become okay with their kids transitioning knowing their genes will live on? Who is a conservative parent more likely to keep in their social life, an unmarried childless cis straight son or daughter, or a trans kid in a T4T marriage with a biological child?
Obviously not, because the issue isn't actually fertility (which is massively declining among cis people too). It's an aesthetic/social/moral revulsion at transness.
That's not how evolutionary psychology works. We didn't evolve to just care whether we have grandchildren. We evolved to care about the things that historically led to grandchildren in environments that didn't have assisted reproduction technology.
More options
Context Copy link
What’s wrong with revulsion at transness? From a natural law perspective or a utilitarian perspective and probably from a virtue ethics perspective, it’s certainly morally revolting. From an aesthetic perspective it’s certainly usually not an improvement. There certainly don’t seem to be any improvements except in keeping with a certain model of gender fluidity.
You can't argue about what causes someone to experience revulsion so it's not really a good basis for public reasoning in a democratic society. Especially if you're going to make the case that the state should do something to curtail someone's individual autonomy you generally need to ground it in the prevention of harm.
You can, in fact, argue about why revulsion is right or wrong, and I just gave you 4 arguments about why revulsion towards trans people is right(three about moral revulsion, one about aesthetic revulsion). They weren’t fleshed out arguments, but that’s because my post is short, not because they’re bad arguments.
More options
Context Copy link
I'm sorry but you can't argue that democracy only cares about logos when this entire issue is naught but pathos on every side.
People absolutely care what is inarguably disgusting or not. Politicians play to it all the time. And they should.
This idea that you should only appeal to the prevention of harm is only typical of precisely those people that can only use that particular moral foundation and are always dumbfounded that some care more about sanctity, loyalty or freedom.
You know, I consider myself to be a person with a very strong stomach. I very rarely feel disgust on a visceral level, even when dealing with excrement or wounds.
But I was listening to a podcast and at one point they were discussing uterus transplants in india for western trans tourists, trans women obviously.
The idea of grafting a uterus, taken from a “willing” 3rd world natal female, onto a natal man who is an autogynephile so they could feel like a “real woman” filled me with a level of disgust I have never encountered in my entire life. No lie, I had to turn the program off, pull over on the highway and just breathe for a minute.
How much of it is due to taking someone else’s perfectly functional uterus? I do wonder how it would be if we could “grow” a womb with the transwoman‘s DNA (replacing the Y with X somewhere somehow), would that be less ick.
Or just a full body transplant? Grow a body with the appropriate chromosomal configuration — again, replacing the appropriate sex chromosome from the original person — but somehow leave out the brain, then transplant the trans brain into the new body.
(I don’t think it would work out very well embryologically or in terms of surgery to reconnect all the nerves, but thought-experiment wise…)
Wouldn't it be preferable to have an intervention that allowed one to be happy and content in their birth body? Isn't this the ideal thought-experiment?
Any thought-experiments that take us to engineered wombs for men or body transplants disgust me as well. What sort of engineering would expect the furries, shota or lolis to want?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Suppose an online fad were persuading children to have their left arms amputated, and the power of the state dedicated itself to facilitating the amputations and to retaliating against parents who tried to interfere. What argument against that public policy would you consider to be fair, if any?
The argument there would be that amputation is such an irrecoverable harm that a child can't possibly consent to it, not that I find amputees aesthetically or philosophically revolting.
Then the argument moves to, well isn't puberty blockers irrecoverable harm to the child because of sterilization just like cutting off an arm? I'd say no, the issue isn't the loss of tissue it's the loss of capabilities. Prosthetic arms are nowhere near the capability of a real arm but a child born from stored eggs and sperm is genetically your child. You don't lose the capacity for fertility even if you lose some genital tissue. I also grew up in a church with many loving adoptive families and and I'm not inclined to view having to adopt a kid rather than having a genetic one as a loss of capability as significant as losing an arm. Reducing children to a means of gene perpetuation flattens one of the deepest and most transformative human relationships possible.
It also seems significant that many adults choose never to have children, where there are no adults I know of who spend their entire lives without using one of their arm. If there is human capability that a large share of the population voluntarily never exercises then I'm inclined to think it's okay for a tiny sliver of the population to modify their bodies such that they lose that capacity.
I'm not unsympathetic to the concern. There's clearly some level of social contagion going on and gender care providers need to move from a model where if a kid has any cross gender identification that must mean they're trans because there's nowhere in mainstream culture where they could have picked that up to one where they're far more skeptical of it. But I also think Gender Dysphoria is not wholly sociogenic and so I would prefer families be allowed how to approach trans children on their own rather than having it dictated to them by the state.
Minnesota's law says it will not enforce Texas's law which makes gender affirming care legally child abuse, strips parents of custody and potentially imprisons them. The idea that Minnesota would emancipate trans runaways is a conclusion posters in this thread have reached by assuming that a state claiming jurisdiction to do a custody proceeding also means it claims jurisdiction to terminate parental rights which is not in the bills text.
Amputees are not revolting, the voluntary amputation of a healthy limb is.
Stored sperm or eggs that you may decide to use later - assuming they aren't lost or tainted or destroyed, and at great expense - is a dramatic loss of capability compared to the old in out in out, which is so simple even animals can do it. You don't just lose a bit of tissue, you lose the capability to produce sperm or ovulate. Hell I struggle to think of a clearer portrayal of destroyed capability than castration - one of its synonyms, neutered, is simultaneously defined as 'make ineffective'.
Edit: either SwiftKey's auto correct is getting shittier or I am losing my mind, but I keep finding grammatically incorrect or just plain wrong words in my posts. Changed straight to simultaneously, which I meant to write.
More options
Context Copy link
There is good reason to believe that puberty blockers permanently hinder brain development, which hormones during puberty play an important role in. Unfortunately there are zero randomized control trials examining this, and even less evidence regarding using them to prevent puberty entirely rather than to delay precocious puberty a few years, but they have that effect in animal trials:
A reduction in long-term spatial memory persists after discontinuation of peripubertal GnRH agonist treatment in sheep
That study also cites this study in humans which found a 3-year course of puberty blockers to treat precocious puberty was associated with a 7% reduction in IQ, but since it doesn't have a control group I wouldn't put much weight on it.
Similar concerns were mentioned by the NHS's independent review:
More options
Context Copy link
By moving the argument to puberty blockers, are you agreeing that all gender confirming care for minors that is more aggressive or less reversible than puberty blockers should be banned?
Otherwise, I assume you'd move the argument to those instead, right?
What if the children just wanted their ears removed? This wouldn't render them deaf, just leave them visibly mutilated by prevailing standards. Is that irrecoverable harm? Who is to decide what constitutes harm, and what constitutes the realization of one's inner truth however aberrant by wider standards?
The harm must be weighed against the harm of not engaging in a particular intervention. The argument from those in favor of permitting teens to receive gender affirming care is that puberty is going to cause their bodies to change in a way that causes them severe psychological distress for the rest of their lives and greatly increases anxiety, depression, and suicide, and that this likely isn't just some adolescent phase that they can ride out or that they'll come to regret in the future if interventions are performed. And the reason we know this is because people such as this exist in significant enough numbers and throughout a long enough timespan that they can be studied and we can determine which kinds of interventions are likely to succeed and which aren't. I don't know enough to know if these claims are true or not but I suspect that whether or not one believes them to be true is solely a function of one's politics. However, at a certain point this becomes more a scientific question than a moral one. Children wanting their ears removed or some other medically benign but socially damaging procedure only becomes a relevant question if the child in question is suffering from a well-recognized condition from which having the procedure done is an effective treatment.
More options
Context Copy link
Existential conflict over values, and determined knife-wielding teenagers.
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
Can't, with teenage transitions.
You aren't just denying them fertility, in many cases -if they were on puberty blockers, they can't orgasm.
That's a myth. The only basis for it is the word of one or two individuals, who, as far as I can tell, have never offered any evidence to support it. And there are multiple studies (not to mention countless anecdotes) contradicting it.
One of two individuals, one of whom was apparently from the board of WPATH and responsible for ~2k sex reassignment procedures.
Specifically, the individual said that in 'her' experience children who were put on puberty blockers before Tanner stage 2 can never orgasm.
https://thepostmillennial.com/gender-affirming-surgeon-admits-children-who-undergo-transition-before-puberty-never-attain-sexual-satisfaction
You're free to provide links to such.
More options
Context Copy link
It is worth noting that the two individuals in question are Marci Bowers, and Joanne Olson-Kennedy. Both are medical doctors specializing in transgender care, and members of WPATH (Bowers used to be it's president, and is now an elected board member).
Please name one study that contradicts the claim that you can't have an orgasm if your puberty is blocked before you have one. If you have any anecdotes contradicting that specific claim, I'll be happy to hear them as well - on my side there's Jazz Jennings who publicly said she never had an orgasm.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Obviously our programming can’t update for continued fertility so it would be weird. Same way every guy I’ve ever met doesn’t want to wear a condom during sex. It’s just feels fake even if the sensory perception is identical.
There is still a fakeness about being trans that is giving up a bit of your humanity. Your gender is a part of your identity and I don’t believe in fluidity as being natural. It has no evolutionary advantage. It appears to be purely a social construct as opposed to gender at birth being natural.
Personally for those who want your kids to be gender normal I think you need to boost their confidence and hope they are one of the cool kids. Trans seems like goth or emo to me in generation past where the non popular kids take up something to have their own internal social structure they can win at without competing with the traditional social hierarchy.
Ummm, I've had sex wearing and not wearing a condom and it's noticeably different. Sex with a condom on is still great and guys who pressure women by claiming it's awful are shitty but no, it's definitely not identical.
Yeah so we're in agreement, it's not actually about fertility it's about the belief that transness is fake.
Sex with a condom is kind of shit though. Not really worth it unless you're a horny teenager.
I agree that sex without a condom is better, but let's not go into absurd hyperbole territory here. Sex with a condom is still really good and well worth it.
I genuinely disagree. Sex with a condom isn't really worth outside of the first sexual encounters with someone (and even then it's highly frustrating) or when you're a teenager.
I feel like the expression of eating candy with the wrapper on is fairly accurate. There is some enjoyment to be had but unless I'm really starving I'm not going to bother.
When you say "it's not worth it", I take it to mean that you would rather not have sex at all than have sex with a condom on. There's no accounting for taste and all, but I can't really understand why you would say that. Having sex with a condom is definitely lesser, but I'd much rather have a lesser pleasure than none at all (which is the alternative here).
There's a lot of ways to get off with (or without) a partner that aren't PIV.
More options
Context Copy link
There are other things to do than having sex and other people you can pursue having sex with.
Well yes to the first at least. I'm married, so the latter is not the case. But even granting that sex isn't the only pleasure in life, it is a big one and I can't really see writing it off like that if you happen to have a partner who (for whatever reason) wants to use condoms.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Maybe his partner just lies there yawning and checking her phone, and so with a condom on sex is like doing push ups to masturbate.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I wonder if circumcision has to do something with the difference in opinions here.
I'm circumcised. I found sex with condoms to be particularly uninspiring. Not an issue for my wife and I now.
When I was single, there were occasions I'd give it a miss rather than use condoms. For me it was like ersatz intimacy.
More options
Context Copy link
For what it's worth I'm uncircumcised.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
It's one of those things where it depends on which way you look at it. From the perspective of a person who is not having sex, sex with a condom is fantastic and totally worth it. But from the perspective of someone who regularly has sex without a condom on, boy is it a disappointment.
On a related note, it's not just guys who prefer condomless sex, every woman I have dated has been eager to do away with them as quickly as possible too. I don't think it's purely about the physical sensation in either case, the feeling of connection and being one with another person is just so much stronger without a condom in the way.
Yep that has definitely been the case in my experience. My wife has said she enjoys sex more without a condom, the only reason we ever used them was for contraceptive reasons (it was her preferred method and I was kind of squeamish about complications from a vasectomy). My wife wound up having to get a hysterectomy (for unrelated health reasons), which has definitely had great fringe benefits for both of us even if that wasn't the goal.
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
More options
Context Copy link