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 -
You're right, when I was googling I first got the 2% number for trans identification among teens and thought 50x, but that includes non-binary. The overall percent of trans women is more like .2%. So yes, it should have been 500x throughout, meaning my argument is an order of magnitude stronger than I was saying.
(other numbers say maybe it's more like .4, so 250x smaller instead of 500x. Proportionally not a big change to the argument either way since we're talking about number of standard deviations, I don't think the difference between 500x vs 250x population size adds another standard deviation to the outliers)
So I am kind of moving fast and combining two ideas there. As I said, I'd expect the variance to be smaller because the population is more homogeneous. But more importantly, the smaller population means the range covered by the outliers in either direction is much smaller, which is the central argument I'm making about how good athletes from a population are vs. the average member of that population.
This is a great analogy.
Should Finland and China have to compete in different leagues, because Finish athletes are just so superior to Chinese athletes that it's unfair for them to compete against each other?
Well, given that China beats Finland the majority of the time, it seems really weird to say Finland has a huge advantage over China.
Again, per capita athletes is not a meaningful measure to this conversation. We're not pitting the entire cis population against the entire trans population to see who makes the most athletes.
What matters is the actual trans athletes vs the actual cis athletes. They are the ones that we care about having a fair competition between.
It doesn't matter if China needs a billion people to produce athletes good enough to compete against the athletes Finland can produce with only 5 million people. As long as the actual athletes in the competition are evenly matched, it makes sense for them to compete against each other.
Same here. Even if it takes a population of a million cis women to throw a set of athletes who are equivalent to what a population 2,000 trans women can produce, who cares? Since that is the actual ratio in the populations, if we end up with a set of athletes from the two populations who are on equal footing and can compete fairly against each other, then there's no reason not to let them compete.
You do dismiss (hypothetical) 499x overperformance by trans athletes as irrelevant? I thought my interpretation was absurd and expected a rebuttal, not agreement. I'm honestly not sure where to go from here.
I spent a long time explaining why the operational definition I want to use is what actual matters to athletes and fans on the ground and is therefore the best metric to use. I spent a lot of time examining your analogy to the olympics and pointing out why it supports my position.
You could, you know, explain your metric in more detail, and argue for why it's better, if you believe it is.
Remember, the issue at stake here is not 'which population is innately better at sports' but rather 'should trans women be allowed to play in women's sports leagues'.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link