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 wonder about that. I think for 'delicate' or girly-looking boys, sure, you'll come out the other end of blocked puberty and then going on to female hormones as passing very well. But for boys who are chunkier or more 'masculine' in facial bone structure?
Other way round for girls, too; tall, heavier girls will make more convincing men, while the petite types are going to look like short, not very muscular, men.
But I don't know if anybody has done studies on "appearance prior to beginning, and after completing, course of puberty blockers in minors". I suppose I'd be inclined to think that part of dysphoria around appearance could well be involved with "I don't look like I should; I'm too girly for a boy/I'm too big for a girl" and that feeds into the trans part. Whether that's right or wrong, I don't know.
The list of surgeries is sobering, but unless you really, really, really want to pass as an ideal of 'the opposite sex' maybe you don't need all of them. Isn't that the caricature of the anime girl transgender female? Cis women can have big hands or strong jaws or deeper voices or sturdy builds or even thinning hairlines as they get older (especially post-menopause).
I do think that's part of the contention between cis women and trans women; that some (not all!) trans women have this idealised view of the perfect girlhood and how the 'real girl' should look, act and dress, and cis women are saying "that's not how it happens for a lot of us in real life". That the idealised perfect femininity of transgender aspiration is a collection of stereotypes that feminism has been working hard to dismantle for decades, and now we're bloody well back at "pink is for girls, blue is for boys; sugar and spice and all things nice".
If puberty blockers really are 'easily reversible, no side-effects' then maybe. Maybe. No harm to put someone on them for two to four years then they're old enough at the end to be sure that they really are trans - or not. But that's another thing I wonder about. What does that gap in development do? We mostly know puberty blockers from use in stopping premature puberty. I can't help feeling that there's a difference between "stop puberty happening at six, let it happen at eleven or twelve as it normally would have done" and "stop puberty happening at eleven or twelve, go through natal puberty or trans puberty at sixteen".
More options
Context Copy link