site banner

Culture War Roundup for the week of March 4, 2024

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.

6
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

They seem like more discussion about additional caution

I'll probably post my own writeup on the WPATH Files, but for now:

"we worked on all alters giving consent to HRT before it was started. They had alters that were both male and female gender, and it was imperative to get all alters who would be affected by HRT to be aware of the changes" (p. 78)

might sound like "additional caution" from the perspective of someone who finds the whole multiplicity thing valid - they got consent from all the alters, after all - but it's going to sound like endorsing utter madness to anyone who doesn't. To any normie you'd pose this as a hypothetical, "additional caution" is going to mean "make sure to address any other deep psychological issues, like their DID, before giving them hormones".

To any normie you'd pose this as a hypothetical, "additional caution" is going to mean "make sure to address any other deep psychological issues, like their DID, before giving them hormones".

I don't have good insight on the normie perspective, but is that means in the sense of "addressing" as in 'managing condition and checking that nterest remains once managed', or as in 'completely cure', or if somewhere between, where?

Because the former seems a good way to avoid genuine problems like schizophrenic or fugue cross-dressing, but the latter is pretty impossible for a wide variety of common conditions (and 'conditions').

That's gonna depend on what you mean by "managed". All of the trans stuff is already on thin ice with regards to believability, so if you slap another meme-disorder on top of it, most people won't be able to handle it.

"Managing" might be a good framework for, say, depression. "I used to have crippling depression, couldn't get out of bed, but for several years now I have it under control, even if I occasionally lapse. I have a stable life, a good job I've been able to keep, etc. etc. I now want to transition, and no, I don't have any hopes that the transition is going to cure my depression" is something you can sell to people. "I now only occasionally switch to my alter 'Jessica'" is not. "We consulted all the alters, and they all want to transition" is something people expect to see in a cringe Daily Wire comedy skit, not from a practicing clinician.

The fact that this would make transition for multiples, and people with other "conditions", impossible, is the point.