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 -
nobody is calling CPS over parents preventing their kids from watching porn. there is no culture war over parents preventing their children from watching online porn. This is because 'kids and sexuality' is a taboo pressure point for almost everyone in the US. Which is why conservatives try to associate trans with child + sex (grooming!). The culture war issues are all about trans in schools, drag queen story hour, etc.
If your concern is that schools or institutions embrace trans, then ... they embrace trans because everyone does, so we circle back to the original 'is trans real and good' debate, 'society as a whole' isn't going to suppress something most people think is good. If your concern is your kid becoming trans, then said institutions have basically no causal role in an individual kid deciding they are trans (other than 'not explicitly opposing it it', which brings us back to the first point). Nowhere does it make sense to specifically attack schools. The entire 'trans in schools' issue is based on a bunch of false premises that spread because they rile up disconnected but concerned parents.
I think they embrace trans because they want to, and they have Bostock vs Clayton County gave them a fig leaf to push through in every space they could.
Everyone certainly does not embrace trans.
This is only true if it is not a social contagion. I think it is a social contagion, much like suicide or anorexia, so I think schools are actively making more children trans just via exposure.
My proposed alternative was 'Schools? no. Their parents? No. Either their friends or the internet', which is as if not more compatible with social contagion than teachers.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The entire thrust of my post wasn't a concern over the porn, but how we expect society to react to it and its attendant psychologies. You do not need to put some bizarre scenario in my mouth about 'CPS being called because the parents don't show porn to their kids'. You can ready my post again, notice that the 'CPS' comment was in reference to the generic 'coerce you into behaving differently' (which does, can, or may soon include affirming your child's stated gender and using their preferred pronouns at home, depending on where you are) - and since you are a regular poster here, you could probably reasonably assume that's what I was referring to, instead of inserting an absurd caricature of my statement.
The existence of leather fetish porn does not necessitate a Grade School level understanding of fetishism and sexuality for young children, nor does it require some passive acceptance and validation of every strange, oddball choice or behavior a child may exhibit. It's not that I want children who are soon-to-be fetishists to be locked out of any understanding of themselves. But if social contagion is real and the teachers are installing 'Leather Week' on the calendar where they dress up and make the whole thing a fun game and are way too interested in preemptively identifying their student candidates and absentmindedly 'nudging them along the path', I don't think it's a worthwhile tradeoff. Consider that reality, and then compare it to another one where every PTA or school faculty member might say "Hey, your 6 year old probably doesn't know what they're doing, but it might best if he doesn't wear the Kink Boots/Dog Mask/Ass Chaps he steals from your closet to school every week". If you are concerned that the internet is leading your kid astray (and quite likely is), it is of no help to you when all your institutions shrug their shoulders and ask what the big deal is.
And of course, I consider this whole thing to be an element of a multi-part problem. Candidly, I think a world where everybody is 'OK with trans' is a world where huge swathes of the population (if not a majority) have been so buried under propaganda and deprived of sound critical arguments (that do exist); to such a degree that they have to delude themselves and preempt serious argument to maintain their views, or are too brow-beaten and self-preserving to argue against it. I say that based on what I see today as extremely flimsy evidence with a disproportionate level of dismissiveness of counter-arguments and emotional blackmail ("If you don't affirm, your kid will commit suicide"). Now, should these people be catered to any way? Maybe so! That is certainly a valid possibility! But 'the majority decides what's right and just' is so boring and obvious. I am interested in separating good ideas from bad ideas, to the best of my ability. And if society wants to gorge itself on a bellyful of bad ideas, I can't stop it, but I can record it.
My point is that the state is not preventing you from taking the kinds of action that might actually prevent a child from wanting to transition, they are doing things like 'sometimes awarding the pro-trans parent the child in custody disputes'. So the entire character of the oturage over this just doesn't make sense. And I am not sure if 'not giving a child gender-affirming care who wants one in an otherwise normal household' is/will be a legal reason for CPS/similar to take a child away in any US state? If it is, I'd appreciate a link, I couldn't find anything with a quick google. If not, then with the only similar thing I'm aware of, I don't think 'taking your child away because they are trans' is a particularly useful way to represent 'considering trans acceptance in custody disputes'. Even if I disagree with that, it's much less obviously EVIL than weighing evidence in a custody dispute, where there are two parents' 'natural rights' in conflict as opposed to a clear violation of one parent's 'natural rights'
This is like worrying about getting covid from surfaces and ritually washing your hands. I'm sure one person got covid from a surface, but it was much less common than airborne transmission by like 1000x. Leather week (does that exist in a school? I'd be surprised, leather is a very bdsm-adjacent/kinky queer subculture) isn't, causally, anything if every child is watching porn by age 12 and has seen /r/egg_irl a few times by age 14.
No, what I'm saying is if most people, including those in power, believe something, and are acting on it, the only argument of interest is 'convincing them otherwise'. Side-arguments like ' is in our schools and brainwashing our children' don't really help you, because the people in the schools and most of the parents in the schools authentically believe being trans is vaguely good and think said brainwashing is probably fine as a result. You can't not brainwash a child who will just mimetically absorb whatever they see.
California here I come, right back where I started from:
The bill hasn't passed yet and they are still adding and deleting parts, but in general Scott "Leather Man" Weiner is co-sponsoring this little gem:
"Existing law governs the determination of child custody and visitation in contested proceedings and requires the court, for purposes of deciding custody, to determine the best interests of the child based on certain factors, including, among other things, the health, safety, and welfare of the child.
This bill, for purposes of this provision, would include a parent’s affirmation of the child’s gender identity as part of the health, safety, and welfare of the child."
"SECTION 1. Section 3011 of the Family Code is amended to read:
(1) (A) The health, safety, and welfare of the child.
(B) As used in this paragraph, the health, safety, and welfare of the child includes a parent’s affirmation of the child’s gender identity."
I'm not particularly skilled at contextualizing legal stuff, so I'm probably misunderstanding, but as far as I can tell this is exclusively in the domain of resolving child custody disputes? Which I covered in the sentence after you quoted - I'm aware of that, and even though I disagree 'leaning towards one private party over another in cases where both have reasonable claims over a child' is an entirely different, and much less alarming, issue than 'the state seizing a child from a private party'.
Separately - this seems to both strike a gender identity point and add a gender identity point? Is this the amendment itself being changed, so that it still does add a gender identity part but differently, or does it not actually change the law, but just make trans stuff included under 'health, safety, and welfare' instead of a separate point?
It's the first step on "CPS taking kids away for being abusive, where "abusive" means 'does not affirm/support trans identity'".
So an "otherwise normal household" where the parents are divorcing and both are looking for custody, the court can consider Parent A to be an abusive parent if they don't accept that Johnny is now Susie. If this bill goes through, and it may or may not. But I think as straws in the wind it's indicative. After all, if it is "abuse" not to affirm your kid's gender identity, the next step is to protect trans kids by taking them out of abusive households.
My view is if a kid is 16 and insists they're trans, there's room to look for professional help about that. The kid is 18 and legally an adult, a parent may hate the idea but the kid can do what they want (so long as they're ready to move out and live independently). A kid is 12 and some dipshit counsellor with ear spools and green hair dye is giving them chest binders, new pronouns, and hiding it all from the parents? Not the job of the school, and if the school genuinely thinks the child is at risk of abuse (and I mean "beaten, assaulted, locked up, starved, yelled at abusively etc." and not "honey, are you sure? maybe you should talk to your therapist about this?") then they should be doing their job as mandatory reporters.
Because it's the worst of both worlds if the school goes "Well we actively lied to the parents about Jordynne (new name) being a boy and using 'he/him' pronouns in school and us letting him use the boys' locker room, because we feared his parents would be abusive to him, but we had no problem letting him go home every day to an abusive home with abusive parents where he was in danger of abuse (because let's be real, his parents were not going to beat or starve him)".
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
Everyone does not embrace trans. Even pro-trans people spend a lot of time denying that the trans things that are happening, are happening, which would indicate lack of support.
How do you know that? I've heard stories of troubled kids that were more neglected by the school system, and the moment they came out as trans, they got full support of all the adults in the school. Do you think that sort of behavior plays no role?
There's also the small issue of hiding it from parents, which a lot of schools are doing.
Everyone was flippant, most people are vaguely pro-trans, especially most 'elite' people. As a result, the 'cultural background' is vaguely pro-trans. I don't understand how not supporting fake penis surgery for 15yos makes one anti-trans in the context of 'a cultural background of being pro-trans' that leads to schools supporting it.
This doesn't even allege the school played a role in the student coming out as trans, which was (presumably) related to the influence of the internet or their friends? The same goes for hiding it from the parents - note that the child is already intentionally hiding it from their parents, and the school is just continuing that.
I dunno, I would think that myself, but all the pro-trans people seem to be attacking anyone who's criticizing penis-surgery for 15yos, and calling them transphobic. I'm taking their word for it.
You said what the school has zero impact on the kids decision. I'm saying, maybe Tumblr put the thought in their head, but the response they're getting from their immediate environment, including the school staff, can indeed contribute to them taking the step.
Same for the school hiding it from the parents.
This is a succinct a summation of my concern regarding teaching or validating trans theory in schools.
A discord server cannot provide a real-world pipeline from your kid having the thought of being trans to getting prescribed puberty blockers and arranging surgeries, at least not without getting some wild side-eye. Transplanting that lunacy to school and medical care can, and will only further reinforce itself once embedded.
I do not understand how some posters here fail to appreciate this.
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