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 -
As others have indicated it's something of a floating signifier which, in the same vein as 'Black Lives Matter' is very useful for shutting down opposition without having to lay out a fully articulated position of your own.
If you raise any sort of critique or resistance you're clearly okay with trans children being harmed! Shame on you! Or we could say "protect all kids" which will probably be received about as well as "all lives matter." I kinda favor the term "protect kids" myself, but in that context the rhetoric loses most force because it's a completely unremarkable sentiment.
I do have my questions about how 'trans kids' are defined, since the whole debate these days seems to center around whether one's gender identity can be reliably ascertained at an early age. The use of the term 'kids' definitely implies that prepubescents are included in this group.
And of course what are they being protected from? Abuse? And if it's abuse, does that include from parents who are skeptical that their kids are actually gender dysphoric? Or maybe it's more a generalized 'protect their right to express their preferred identity (i.e. their right to transition).'
At which point, the statement 'protect trans kids' roughly translates to "ensure that children of all ages are permitted to have gender reassignment surgery on demand and without apology." And "over the objections of their parents, if necessary" is implied in there too.
Which I think is pretty damned controversial in mainstream discourse, so it remains more palatable to collapse it to "Protect Trans Kids" and let the onlookers guess at what you actually mean.
I ultimately think the goal is to have this particular rhetoric stretch to it's logical conclusion where children can be removed from their parents' care and undergo gender reassignment surgery without parental consent or even knowledge if some 'expert' is able to ascertain that the child is gender dysphoric, as this is the only true way to 'protect' trans children to the fullest extent possible. You have to be able to identify them all as early as possible and enable them to medically transition at the earliest opportunity and thus remove any social or legal barriers that might prevent these kids from transitioning.
The actual implications of how that might all work in practice I will leave unexamined for the moment.
More options
Context Copy link