site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   3812 thread views

Small-Scale Question Sunday for June 11, 2023

Do you have a dumb question that you're kind of embarrassed to ask in the main thread? Is there something you're just not sure about?

This is your opportunity to ask questions. No question too simple or too silly.

Culture war topics are accepted, and proposals for a better intro post are appreciated.

3
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Does it grant that premise?

I’ve seen hair implants and other anti-middle-age interventions described with the phrase. That’s sex-linked for sure. Though I figured it’s an afterthought. What’s the word for coming up with a theory, then working backwards to maximize the audience?

Anyway, it certainly has ended up a loaded term, and it has also gotten much higher saturation. I could think of a couple possibilities:

  1. A coordinated strategy to move the needle.

  2. Memetic fitness, where authors who see the phrase tend to adopt it over whatever else they were using. Could be due to thinking it’s better or just more fashionable.

  3. Random walk settling on a phrase which offends the fewest (of the expected audience).

Wild guess, I’d go for 2 or 3. Maybe DSM-whatever or WPATH released something in 2018? Either way, I expect it spread by fashion and tribal signaling rather than any particular strategy. I’d describe that as cultural change informing linguistic instead of the opposite.

I’ve seen hair implants and other anti-middle-age interventions described with the phrase.

I mean, that's totally absurd and just a way to make transition surgery sound more palatable by creating a category that includes it and wearing platform heels. Nobody on the face of the earth would describe shaving your beard or getting breast reduction surgery as 'gender-denying'.

I was actually going to use “growing my beard” as an example of affirmation in ymeskhout’s thread.

So…yes, it’s working backwards to relate the phrase to as many things as possible. Users would like to borrow that legitimacy. I think, however, that doesn’t necessarily make it invalid. More like a natural corollary from asking advocates to come up with a whole theory of “gender.”

Does it grant that premise?

Yeah, the logic seems backwards. "Gender-affirming care" does not make anti-hair loss or other such interventions supportive of malleable gender, those who want to push that view of gender decided to start calling things that cis people do to feel better about themselves "gender-affirming".

Wild guess, I’d go for 2 or 3. Maybe DSM-whatever or WPATH released something in 2018? Either way, I expect it spread by fashion and tribal signaling rather than any particular strategy. I’d describe that as cultural change informing linguistic instead of the opposite.

How would you test that theory?

Anyway, "something got published in 2018" doesn't fit the chart he posted. The last data point is 2019, and the inflection point is at around 2010. I don't really subscribe to the idea you can change culture with language (or at least not with mere word replacement), but I do think the idea these cultural changes are driven bottom-up is intellectually bankrupt, for example you can literally see the Eunuch Archive people discussing among themselves how they'd like to change another term:

The draft for the next edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (the DSM-5) suggests ‘Gender Incongruence,’ which I much prefer,” he wrote, “The body and mind are out of sync, with no mental illness implied!

This was also in 2010 when, as another poster pointed out recently, gamers still called each other "fag" as a matter of course. The ngrams chart for "gender inconcgruence" looks pretty similar to the "gender affirming" one, so it seems pretty clear these language changes are imposed top-down.

Good points.

“Intellectually bankrupt,” though? I’m not even trying to argue a bottom-up theory. There are obviously a small subset of people with much more investment in gender politics, and I expect new language hits then first. The question is how it propagates from them to the general public.

I’m inclined to view it as trickle-down. The language of authority figures gets adopted because followers defer to their experts. Could be due to trust or ingroup signaling. Appealing to authority is effective! People want to win their internet arguments with “well, the WPATH standards say…”

This is in contrast to the more aggressive model implied by the OP. I think it’s very tempting to assert that outgroup leaders are building a party line by force. I also think that’s unusual, given the number of more pedestrian reasons for followers to buy in.

I think both the true believers and the cynical operators of WPATH are at play. There were people who were very conscious of the need to thread the needle of, for example, taking a human rights-framing vs the need to describe it as "medically necessary" for insurance purposes, or the need to cover off liability risks against opening up the gates (removing age limits etc) It's a mix of calculated and true believers.

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