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 -
Yup, and many many people who do not meet some or many of those criteria would be called women by you.
And by me.
I think maybe you are just using the words 'qualia' and 'experience' interchangeably, which they very much are not.
But if you just mean 'experience', sure, the vast and imprecise and fuzzy-bordered and non-exclusionary category of 'woman' includes some things about thoughts and experiences. No two women will have the exact same woman-related thoughts and experiences, and woman who don't have central ones aren't excluded from being women, and etc etc. But whatever, sure, lets stipulate something like that vaguely exists.
You seem to be saying that we can't know what experiences other people have (and therefore can't meaningfully claim to have similar experiences to another person) because we're not psychic.
But we are psychic.
I'm taking thoughts in my head, and using an external signal to put those thoughts into your head. Right now.
Our modern forms of telepathy do not have infinite bandwidth or fidelity, sure. But we use them to share information about what we are thinking and feeling and experiencing all the goddamn time, that's like a huge part of what art and culture and just talking to people is. And in other categories we do not question or reject claims like 'yeah I've felt that way before' or 'I agree with you' or 'oh yeah I recognize that feeling' or etc.
These are normal kinds of conclusions to draw about similarities in experience between people based on them just describing their experiences, and rejecting that method only here is an isolated demand for rigor.
Do you think you know what it is like to be a bat?
... I just gave a whole explanation about how we share our experiences with each other by talking about them and explaining them to each other, and your question is whether I understand the experiences of something that can't talk?
I sort of feel like you are firing off pre-cached arguments on this topic without closely reading or engaging with my actual arguments.
If you think described experience is sufficient to differentiate between the experience of incorrectly and correctly believing you have the same experience as someone then that's where we disagree and I'm not sure how we can go further. I'm aware we can vaguely hint at experience through language but it's an incredibly lossy thing.
I'm thinking this in terms of how I could actually prove to myself what gender I am and I am absolutely not satisfied that I couldn't argue myself either way. A child would have no chance, most of them believe in santa because they were told to by someone they trust.
Just to make sure my position is clear before we give up, for posterity if nothing else:
It's very unlikely that any two people ever have identical experiences of any complex thing, down to infinite resolution. This is partially why I was being so aggro about the use of the term 'qualia'.
Complex categories like 'man' and 'woman' include a huge variety of similar-but-different experiences (like most complex category boundaries, such as 'bird', contain many similar-but different-things) across the billions of different people in those categories.
I think cultural information (everything from spoken descriptions to artistic depictions to reasoning backwards from observations) is sufficient to be pretty confident about your own experiences being more central to one of those two vast fuzzy blobs than the other one (especially if you have good introspection and spend a lot of time thinking about it).
In normal conversation, we do not typically apply a very high standard of scrutiny to people guessing that they are having similar experiences to other people. Demanding a much much higher level of scrutiny in this case is an isolated demand for rigor.
I agree that we're probably at an impasse, except that I would again ask you to think about reconsidering the level of scrutiny you're placing on this one. How do you 'prove' that you're a 'fan' of a particular artist, or that you're an 'extrovert' or 'mildy autistic' or 'smart' or 'emotionally mature' or any of a million other very normal things to say about someone that are mostly premised on mental features?
99% of the time we just take someone's word for it when they say their mental features match a relevant category or have a particular feature. In a few cases where we're really strict, we have a written questionnaire they fill out or have a psychiatrist take some observations or something. Gender clinics already do stuff like that in these cases, I don't know the full details but I'm pretty confident you could make a written test similar to an IQ test or DSM diagnostic criteria that most trans people would pass.
fear not, eventually this topic will come up again and a new angle can be taken until one of us slowly comes to our senses. I hope it's me, it would be much more convenient in my social circles to confidently be on the TRA side.
I think part of the disconnect is that there is no way for me to convince you I'm not trying to gatekeep out of some arbitrary adherence to categories. I'm not talking about a third person trying to determine if the perspective trans person is 'really trans'. I'm talking about the person themselves honestly evaluating their experience and trying to come to the determination that they're a girl trapped in a man's body or vice versa. That's why I'm talking about their ability to internally differentiate between the true or false belief that they have qualia in line with the opposite sex. I don't think this is the kind of thing someone can actually answer. It's not falsifiable. It's difficult to express how much more comfortable I'd be with this if there was like some kind of brain scan we could do and falsify the belief in some people. The phenomenon of noticing symptoms of whatever medical condition you've most recently read about makes me deeply suspect that many people who would have otherwise lived normal happy and fulfilling lives if they had never heard of transgenderism are able to convince themselves that they were always the opposite sex. Especially children who are prone to adopting fads like goth/emo/whatever and investing far more than an appropriate amount of the identity into it such that it feels like a self betrayal to later admit they were caught up in a trend. It's the kind of thing I could have fallen into as a disaffected kid who, like all kids, didn't exactly conform in every way to the masculine ideal.
And the "correct" answer to these questions is posted online where potential trans people are coached on how to get past these gates.
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
More options
Context Copy link