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 -
... Except for the law making it illegal in many states?
That seems like a fuss.
I seems like you're saying 'well Buck Angel can and should just casually break the law every day, it's no big deal'... Maybe if you're fighting for a law that you want lots of people to break every day, you should be fighting for a different law instead?
Listen, if people were passing bills that said 'You must have 1 year of HRT and FFS before using the women's room' in an effort specifically only to make sure trans women using the women's room mostly pass, that would still be contentious but it would at least be credible that that's what the laws are worried about and trying to fix.
That is not at all what the actual laws say, the actual laws say Buck Angel uses the women's room, and no one backing the laws in reality has any problem with that. The laws are anti-trans in concept, not just focused on a single set of outliers.
If the pro-trans lot didn't wave around Buck Angel every chance they got, I'd listen more attentively.
But since their 'sample case' isn't very convincing, I'm not bothered. I do think the illegal stuff was overdone, but on the other hand, if anyone now can predate - and yes, there are those who will take advantage - and there is no recourse because "well, it's the law and the ACLU took a court case and got a ruling", that does no favours to genuine trans people and only turns public opinion against them. That may be unfair, but it's how the world works.
I'll knock it back to you - which bathroom should the gay guy in drag use, as distinct from the trans woman dressed up like a clown, after drag queen story hour?
More options
Context Copy link
What everyone wants is a law that says you cannot use a gendered bathroom if you don't pass as that gender. It's just a hard thing to define so they usually end up making it over or underinclusive on some other criteria.
I straightforwardly disagree. Maybe 'everyone' here wants that, but that's not at all how the politicians behind these laws talk about them.
But either way, I say again: you shouldn't be passing laws that criminalize hue swaths of actions you want to be legal.
If your goal really is just about the small subset of trans women who don't pass, find some narrower way to enforce that. If it's too inconvenient to be worth the effort, then it's not worth the effort.
Don't criminalize things you have no problem with just for the sake of convenience.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
No law is intended to make it illegal for TIFs to use the men's room, they're all designed to stop TIMs from using the women's room.
They have to be written in a neutral language, due to the 14th Amendment and the 1964 CRA. You know this, and I know this, and so does everyone else. I'm not sure why you're acting dumb about this issue.
???
You are agreeing with me that all of the laws apply to trans men and force them to use the women's room, but saying that's ok and good because they have to be written that way (for some reason), so it's ok that they criminalize things you don't want to be criminal?
If so, that is not how I want laws to work, you should not be criminalizing things you actively want people to do on the assumption they'll just break the law and it'll be fine. That seems entirely insane to me.
And I don't know where your confidence that Republican lawmakers have no problem with trans men is coming from. That's not what their rhetoric says, at all.
I'm not agreeing with you at all. You are both correct and missing the point.
I'm saying it's ancillary to the real point. An externality, if you will, nothing more.
For the same reason anyone has to put up with this delusional nonsense: 14A and CRA. Not just any reason.
It's ok to create laws that have externalities, yes, and to still support those laws despite the externalities, especially if you find them irrelevant.
These people are completely irrelevant when it comes to the controversies over sex segregation, in sport, in spaces, in restrooms. The problem is solely and exclusively with the men, not the women.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link