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 making several extremely large leaps in logic here. As far as my understanding goes, this claim was first made in a Dutch paper from the 1990s, which examined slivers of the brain taken from deceased trans women. The study found that the volume of the central subdivision of the bed nucleus of the stria terminalis in transsexual women’s brains was more like that in females than males. It was only later that critics pointed out that these results were hopelessly confounded by the fact that the trans women in question had been on HRT for years if not decades, meaning it's impossible to tell if these observed similarities were present from birth or came about as a result of HRT. The findings from the Dutch paper have never been replicated. Even Dr. Joshua Safer, quoted in the ACLU article I cited in the OP to justify trans women competing in female sporting events, has described the findings as the "weakest data" and admitted that they've never been reproduced.
If you have better evidence that trans women's brains look more like female brains than male, I would love to see it.
But even granting this, you can't just leapfrog directly from "trans women's brains look more like female brains than male brains" to "ergo, trans women are systematically weaker, slower and less resilient than the male average". Those are two completely different claims.
One of the major criticisms of the excesses of the modern trans activist movement is that self-ID has radically changed the profile of what the typical trans woman (and trans woman athlete) looks like. Thirty years ago, when coming out as trans was rare and stigmatised, I wouldn't find it too hard to believe that the average trans woman was a frail and delicate little thing. Nowadays, when the category includes hulking thugs like Karen White and Fallon Fox? Not so much. This is pretty much exactly the criticism that so many female athletes are making of trans-inclusive policies in sports: while we might be sympathetic towards including a trans woman who has been dysphoric since prepubescence, who never underwent a conventional male puberty and has been (and will be) on HRT for her entire life - that sympathy vanishes when a towering Liam with a five o'clock-shadow who's been through puberty realises that he can't score a gold in the male leagues and opportunistically starts calling himself Lia.
Many, but not all. See this article about disc golf, in which the Professional Disc Golf Association officially required that trans women athletes "bring their blood testosterone levels down below 10 nmol/L", but in practice the competition was essentially run on the honour system, allowing males who had gone through puberty and who had not suppressed their testosterone in any way to compete alongside females. See also the Ladies' Gaelic Football Association, whose policy on transgender women does not mention HRT or testosterone levels at all as conditions for competing.
Perhaps not to the extent that you believe:
I'd like to respond to your argument in full, but there are so many half-baked or outright faulty assumptions and leaps of logic just in these three points, that I suspect it's built on foundations of sand.
More options
Context Copy link