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 -
Castration would have been legal if the gentlemen doing was a medical doctor and did it in an operating room with proper paperwork, right? He should have been charged with practicing medicine without a license.
Hilarious, boy do I have bad news for them.
That's like saying that a murderer is just impersonating a corrections officer because the death penalty exists.
A doctor wouldn't be able to get the proper paperwork for this situation because it's not a medically approved procedure in this context, any more than doctors are allowed to give people chemotherapy for a hangnail. A doctor would have been convicted of the same exact crime.
What evidence do you have that this is the case? What paperwork do you even think is required for a doctor to perform an operation like that?
More options
Context Copy link
People totally can get castrated for gender affirming care purposes in UK. Would-be-eunuchs just must have not assembled a pressure group to get fully included in that scheme.
First of all, they cannot, they can get a different surgery with some similarities. Medical board would not approve what this escort did as gender-affirming care.
Second of all, this was not intended as gender affirming care, see again 'not allowed to treat a hangnail with chemotherapy'.
Specifically, what are the differences that you think exist? Are you sure you're not just splitting hairs?
Again, specifically, what do you think they would not approve? An amatour performing surgery? Obviously. The surgery itself? Something else?
This argument makes no sense. "Not being allowed to treat a hangnail with chemotherapy" has no bearing on whether or not this was gender affirming care or not.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Wasn't there a long post about two people deep in nullo boards being bigwigs in setting gender affirming care policies here some time ago?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I didn't waste over a year of my life getting my GMC registration to just let any monkey with a scalpel do it for free. Then again, I hate performing surgeries, so maybe they can have this one, as a treat.
More options
Context Copy link
I don't think it's uncommon for TERFs to dislike gay men, they're men after all, but they tend to dislike transwomen and straight men more.
TERF as a generic term for a woman not on board with trans agenda must be a brilliant psy-op. "Oh, some lady doesn't think that Chris Chan is as much of a woman as her? She must be the reincarnation of Valerie Solanas from Society for Cutting Up Men!".
It's not a generic term, socially conservative people who are both anti-feminist and anti-trans just get called bigots or w/e.
TERF is specifically for people like JK who consider themselves feminists and enlist in 'protect the women' arguments into their anti-trans rhetoric.
As a neutral observer who just thinks it's fun to watch women destroy each other, the existence of TERFs strikes me as intuitively obvious.
If "what is a woman" is a fight worth fighting, women who have fought to advance the causes and benefits of women will see their work undone. They see what power they (believe) they've wrested from the men slipping through their factory-broken, labor-calloused fingers disintegrating, and they don't like it.
If even New-Labour-Government-neutered, "wizards invented magic to disintegrate their own shit" JK has figured it out, the midwits who haven't are really in for a rude awakening.
More options
Context Copy link
JK Rowling is a middle aged rich woman who votes for labor and agitates for women's rights in Iran (far, far away and completely UK regime approved) on twitter. She's extreme only in that she's extremely milquetoast.
Trans-Exclusive Regular Feminist
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
In this case if you follow the links in my post I am referring to self-identified actual TERFs.
Psy-oped. There's nothing radical about being TE.
I don’t think you’re using “psy-op” in the same sense as the other commenters.
More options
Context Copy link
That seems to fundamentally misunderstand how words work together? That's like someone linking to an organization for self-identified gay Republicans and someone else replying "There's nothing gay about being a Republican". Yeah, sure, but that doesn't mean there aren't gay Republicans.
People are perfectly capable of being both gay and Republicans and identifying with both those labels, just as they are perfectly capable of being both radical feminists and anti-trans and identifying with both those labels.
What is so radical about those broads then?
Radical Feminism is (and especially was) primarily defined in contrast to Liberal Feminism and Marxist Feminism. While Liberal Feminism is primarily concerned with women gaining equality before the law and Marxist Feminism is primarily concerned with dismantling capitalism (as it sees oppression of women as downstream from exploitation of labor and the ownership of private property), Radical Feminism holds that the oppression of women is part of a broader system of patriarchy where women are dominated by men and that equality cannot be achieved by equality before the law or the dismantling of capitalism as the patriarchal social structures would still remain.
Most modern western Feminists who actually actively call themselves Feminists are in fact Radical Feminists, though they usually identify primarily with one of its offshoots. Think of like how a wide variety of different Christian denominations are still Nicene Christians, despite their other disagreements on matters of theology and identification. Someone specifically identifying themselves as "Nicene Christian" or refusing to get more specific than "Christian" probably tells you they have some theological disagreements with other people who would also be accurately described as "Nicene Christians", but they agree on some key elements.
Arguably a lot of Marxist Feminists are more "Radical" in their beliefs/methods than actual "Radical" Feminists, much like "Gay" Republicans are probably not that much happier (if at all happier) than straight ones.
More options
Context Copy link
They are actual literal radical feminists. They hate trans women because they hate men(which trans women are), not because of anything against gender transition.
That's not quite right. They hate men but they also hate the idea of a transition itself, since the radical feminist thinking is predicated on there being fundamental, inalterable biological differences between sexes, at least on the level of bodies (not necessarily brains, or if there are, they are conceived as being different from what is traditionally understood). Transition, then is sort of like cheating these differences; either an attempt to present oneself as a woman for nefarious purposes, or an attempt by a woman to try to rid themselves of the (social) burdens of a female body by trying to become a man, which is viewed with pity-often-turning-to-hatred.
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
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link