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 mean, lesbian rape with a strapon is not super common and I'm guessing is even less likely to lead to conviction than other types of sexual assault.
But it doesn't make the assailant not a woman, and I don't really see how the artificial nature of the phallus is relevant to the metaphysics of the situation.
In the UK and Ireland, rape is defined as forcible penetration with a penis. It is a quintessentially male crime in that it is a crime that only male people are physically capable of committing.
That's what I'm trying to understand: I don't understand why "this allegedly non-binary person did something that men are stereotypically known to do (but which women are equally capable of doing, and are known to do less frequently than men) - therefore, they aren't really non-binary" but "this trans woman did something that only male people are physically and legally capable of doing, which female people couldn't do even if they wanted to - but that doesn't make her any less of a woman".
Well, the particular legal definitions used in the UK and Scotland have nothing to do with how progressives are thinking about these categories in the first place?
And I think most would probably say that legal definition is backwards and should be changed, if you asked them.
More broadly: I think the miscommunication here is that you're approaching it as 'what one test is disqualifying', whereas they are approaching it as 'what holistic cluster of traits and behaviors is qualifying'.
Because man/woman are very highly defined and explored categories, there are lots and lots of important things you can do to fit into one, such that a few individual noncentral divergences are ok.
Whereas 'nonbinary' is not an established category with tons of established and agreed upon signifiers, thus holistic-strength-of-fit is always comparatively weak and ephemeral, thus it's a lot easier to get disqualified for divergences.
More options
Context Copy link
I think you're thinking about it backwards. In the mansplaining case, it's that "this specific human being standing in front of me did something I find annoying, and I lose one useful tool for attack if I acknowledge that person as non-binary instead of a man; therefore, he's a man." In the transwoman rape case, it's that "this theoretical transwoman (even if a specific person is referenced, the person remains theoretical because she's presumably not in direct contact with that transwoman) did something awful and distinctly male, but that doesn't affect me in any way; therefore, we should take her at her word that she's a woman in every single way that she wishes to be acknowledged." It's a sort of "luxury belief" situation. Believing that the person in front of her is non-binary has immediate and harsh consequences to her, and thus she can't afford to believe it, but believing that a transwoman who raped someone is a real woman in every way has no consequences for her in any way, and thus she can afford to believe it.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link