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 -
Which opinions are we talking about, exactly?:
Condemnation of homosexuality has arisen spontaneously in multiple societies; it doesn't have to be imported from elsewhere.
There have always been Irish people who were morally opposed to homosexuality, there's nothing in itself new about that.
What's new is the fact that most of this current generation of conservative activists are not allied with the Catholic Church in any way, and they've incorporated a great deal of the specific concerns, terminology and tactics from American activists (panic about "groomers", going into libraries looking for books to root out). Ireland had a referendum on gay marriage 8 years ago, and I don't remember a single person who was opposed to gay marriage expressing concerns about "groomers". This specific strain of anti-LGBTQ activism is very new and seems to have been imported from the US.
Both sides of the debate spread via the internet - we all part of the information commons now and the epistemic challenges.
Unfortunately that means we have to work harder to understand the issues. Anti-LGBTQ activism is undoubtedly a thing (people who object against any and all of those) but the phrase betrays a lack of understanding of the actual issue-it is the wrong 'frame'.
In reality the T is in conflict with LGB because the definitional space that LGB exists in (biological sex) is being challenged by gender identity (self-asserted subjective sense of gender). This leads to the idea that a MtF who likes woman, is a lesbian and because the reality of biological sex is thrown out, this actually undermines the real identity of the original lesbian (a biological woman attracted to biological woman). It has got to the point where lesbians who do not want to have sex with biological males are called bigots and in some cases coerced into sex with these biological men.
Not to mention that the sociogenic idea of trans encourages gender non-conforming gay people (eg feminine boys and masculine girls) to think they might be the wrong sex. We know that many people who suffer from gender dysphoria and do not transition ultimately resolve their dysphoria, and that many of these people turn out to be gay.
So assuming that anyone speaking up against trans is Anti-LGBTQ is false.
Try this podcast - it's politically neutral and broadcasts a wide variety of guests and views.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://gender-a-wider-lens.captivate.fm/&ved=2ahUKEwjZr_3ThOf-AhVs8TgGHV5XDFEQFnoECBgQAQ&usg=AOvVaw1kmGb8mmfcBTPZA3ccinmH
I totally get what you're saying, and I don't think being opposed to certain components of trans activism (as I am) means that you're for instance opposed to gay marriage.
But that distinction doesn't apply in this case. These right-wing protesters were going into libraries trying to root young adult novels with gay characters. They appear to be firmly opposed to LGBT as a whole, not just the T.
Gotcha, yeah it's frustrating because they make it so easy for the arguments to get smeared as right-wing religious or whatever to the centre-left. It's also unfortunate because it seems homosexual acceptance has actually improved over the last decades.
But I do have some sympathy for the fears, in addition to gay books they were presumably also getting rid of the 'I am Jazz' stuff, which I do consider grooming. Because of the head start this ideology has, it's quite possible that your children are exposed at an early age to it without you even being aware. And libraries aren't neutral on this topic. A friend of mine tried to get some adult books telling the trans story from the critical side (ie books by Helen Joyce, Abigail Shrier etc) and all were turned down - of course you can't expect the library to accept a book request just because you send it, but it's notable how captured the public library is by gender ideology - there was a quick link to various books on how you can choose your gender etc, over all age groups on the website, yet you won't find any of the books critical of it. Indeed there is a prominent trans flag in the library, which, try as I might to not to 'morally panic' about, feels like living under an authoritarian regime.
That's enough to create a sense of urgency and rage for some people to take matters into their own hands. I don't agree with it personally, particularly when perfectly suitable books about being gay are included, or even trans stories which deserve to be told as any other for the right ages (though I think trans stories are prone to reinforcing misunderstandings about the nature of gender, identity and the self, overstate the empirical weight of their first person experience, and are contributing to the social contagion in the current environment, presenting it as a positive or transcendent lifestyle choice and glossing over the medical realities).
So I'm torn, I don't agree with censorship but I also welcome some active resistance to the authoritarian environment we're in and I'm clear on what's starting the whole chain-people are actually trying to influence young children with these ideas that don't make any sense, and may contribute non-negligibly to the risk of them getting medical treatment through contagious ideas (though obviously not without other factors in play).
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