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 -
Trans people weren't invented 10 years ago you know. Neither were areas where kids making medical choices having to be navigated. If a 14 yo kid thinks they are trans and their doctors and parents agree then it's a good thing to let them do it as far as I am concerned now and then. It has pretty much zero impact on me, and if it ends up being a mistake, well life is full of mistakes,s ome you can undo and some you cannot.
If the parents disagree then we can do what we do in those circumstances put it before a court to decide if the kid has the ability to make the choice. Same as when we have to deal with Jehovah's Witness kids and blood transfusions or kids wanting to emancipate themselves. Or wherever else.
This is a solved problem, that is no where near as big an issue (in my opinion of course) as being made out.
Is it a good thing or a bad thing for a 14yo Jehovah's Witness to die rather than get a blood transfusion because of their beliefs? The general ruling in the US is that it is bad and the state can override both parents and child and force treatment for the good of the child. Why not have the same rules?
At a society level it's barely a blip.
Given how trans activists even now often claim that the only intervention on the table at that age is puberty blockers, I'll go out on a limb and say 10 years ago it would sound just as outlandish as pedophile rights.
I agree we might not live to see pedophile rights being argued explicitly for again, I think there are good chances we'll see the trans debate being dropped like a hot potato. If that happens, do you think you'll continue saying it was never a big deal and should be allowed, or will you start arguing that progressives never really supported it?
So is adults having consensual sex with minors, but it's still illegal.
Except in states that allow child marriage with parents permission of course. Then its legal.As it could be for a trans kid seeking surgery underage. Like i said the concept is not new even if the presentation is.
So again, if this is your stance, what makes you think you'll be against pedophile rights if they come up again? It doesn't really look like you think it's bad, in fact you're saying it's nothing new now. And are you against banning it on the grounds that on a societal level it's a blip or not? Would you mind answering my arguments directly, instead of gesturing going off on tangents?
Because I am against them now, and as a man in my 50's my political and moral compass hasn't much changed in about the last 25 years. And I was against it last time it was even mentioned in polite circles. And I used to work in a CSE task group when I was part of government, so I have actually dealt with actual pedophiles and groomers and their victims.
Why do YOU think it would change? Does yours? Do you flip flop on the morality of pedophilia? If so why? Most people have their standard views affected by social pressure, but I've never met anyone whose views changed on agreeing with pedophilia or something similar. It's renowned as being the thing that unites like 99% of people. There is a reason they are usually segregated from other prisoners and the like.
However, my point overall is not whether kids getting married at 14 is good or trans kids getting transitioned at 14 is good because that is largely irrelevant at a social level anyway. But that we already have established parameters as to whether kids can do X thing which is controversial and we don't usually allow kids to do. Generally if the parents (and sometimes doctors if it is medical) agree it is mostly fine. If the parents disagree then a court can weigh in (judicial authority can substitute for parental permission in underage marriage or emancipation for example). Whether it is good or bad is entirely orthogonal to the point as to whether something generally not allowed should be allowed with oversight for minors. We have an entire structure for it already set up often involving medical procedures. Just throw the whole "underage trans treatment" issue into that bucket and pragmatically speaking we are done.
Now for me, I think if a 14yo is committed enough to being trans they want surgery, and their parents agree, and their doctors agree, then it is probably a good thing to let them go through with it, because there is no chance I know more about their situation than they do, and the only person taking the risk is them. My parents let me play a lot of risky sports when I was a kid and as a result I have a bum knee and arthritis in one hand. That's the trade off, sometimes you get negative outcomes. And that is ok.
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