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 -
I don't know how much of this was intentional on your part, but the major problem I see with your approach is how many unacknowledged assumptions you're glossing over. It all starts with what you're assuming [trait] to be. For example with race, we can boil it down to "difference in skin pigmentation" combined with "difference in societal hierarchy" and so this gives you relatively easy galaxy-brain template to play with if you were transporting this idea to another setting (e.g. "what if societal hierarchy was determined by another arbitrary aesthetic trait? Really makes you think"). To repeat what @WhiningCoil asks:
So yeah, what is trans? You're not explicit about it but you take it as a given that trans people are just people who happen to be somehow saddled with the wrong "birth gender" (I find this terminology extremely grating but I'll set that aside for now). You're implicitly accepting a mountain of implied assumptions here (people have a "birth gender", people can feel 'misaligned' with their "birth gender", people who feel this misalignment feel distress if they don't "fix" it, etc etc) and inevitably this will color how you approach the rest of your implementation.
On the other hand, if you believe that trans people don't exist, or rather if you believe that trans people are really just people who have fallen prey to a rigid expectation of gender stereotypes, well then that really changes things does it not?
I can think of a slew of examples of how I'd implement my understanding of transness into a fictional world. For example, let's say a world has a respected monk caste that relies on a moderately-difficult entrance exam that tests people's psychic defense abilities. As a way to designate membership within this caste, the monks get an ochre-colored glove (something something about the color used as a medium for psychic abilities). Here's Barbara, someone who has long been desperate to join the monk caste but continues to fail the entrance exam. After so many repeated failures, Barbara eventually just adopts the habit of wearing an ochre glove around town, with the goal of hoping that the people she encounters (erroneously) assume that she is part of the psychic monk caste.
There's a range of interesting dynamics that could occur which would perfectly be analogous to what we understand the contemporary trans experience to be. For example some people will see through Barbara's attempts and just humor her purely out of politeness, or maybe someone gets attacked by a mindflaying octupus and breathes a sigh of relief when they see Barbara's ochre glove only to then realize that her psychic defense abilities are actually worthless, etc etc.
You can't really start to implement these dynamics into a fictional world without a precise understanding of what it is you're implementing. And this is especially difficult with transness given the obfuscation combined with the myriad of competing theories (it's a gendered soul, it's boy brain/girl body, it's a hormone imbalance, it's just the patriarchy, etc etc)
More options
Context Copy link