site banner
PaperclipPerfector  7mo ago (text post)   25759 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of April 1, 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.

11
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

But writing a law with the sole purpose of restricting a right from a specific group is 'manifestly' anti-that-group.

TIL that it is a right for a boy to compete against girls. Just like the right to life.

Let's take the case of Andraya Yearwood, one of the trans athletes whose rights you are so vigorously defending. After getting into college due to the publicity around being a trans female runner in high school, Andraya promptly gave up sports. So no Olympic future there! To be fair to Yearwood, they seem to be genuinely trans*, but it's also pretty clear that taking the easier option of beating the girls and thus getting the victories to plump up the college application was part of it. Did Yearwood take a place away from a cis female runner who would have gone on to compete in the Olympics? I have no idea, but I don't think this can be ruled out, either.

*Now identifying as an Igbo-American Trans Womanist involved in LGBT+ activism.

If you want to play weird semantic games about the word 'right', replace it with 'liberty' and the sentence still works fine.

And, oh no, one trans woman won a competition one time. Since no cis woman has ever won any competition, obviously this represents the existence of a categorical advantage.

Statistical analysis or bust, as per usual.

  • -19

Friend, the transwoman who won the competition was doing it on fair grounds and wasn't being a howling lunatic over demands to accommodate her even if she made no effort at all to pass as a woman. That kind of trans person is going to fit into normal society.

The spa flashers and prison rapists won't, but they are the people you are so hell-bent on defending. I think at this stage, you're the one who has to put up or shut up: do you really believe the spa flashers and rapists are Real Women and should be in women's jails and women's spaces, or not? And if you do, how are you going to protect women from the guys who want to show off their feminine penis around eight year old girls? Because that's on you, just as much as you like putting responsibility on "people like Rowling who want to genocide trans people" if any trans person gets attacked or harmed or insulted.

You can keep trying to assign me positions I haven't ever taken for as long as you want, if it brings you comfort. But it's not actually an argument.

The laws being passed are about athletes, not flashers and rapists. Rape and sexual assault have been and remain illegal whether you're a 'real' woman or not, the question is immaterial to those cases. Cases like that are bludgeons that one side occasionally trots out, but the bailey here is and continues to be normal trans people trying to live normal everyday lives.

You say that the athlete 'is going to fit into normal society' and therefore isn't the issue at hand, but the laws being passed today are targeting them and how they live their normal life, and they are the living the type of lifestyle that speakers at Republican national conventions are talking about 'eradicating'.

I agree that this would be more convenient for you if the debate were only about the rapists and flashers, and your opponents were for some reason defending them. But that's really not what's happening, no matter how many times you say it.

Right, I'm rollling my sleeves up here.

You're crying about "The boy who competed in the boy's races last year is being brutally oppressed just because he's now going by "Jamie" instead of "James" so he can win the girl's races". That's the same logic as "this guy with a dick is really a woman and should be in the women's prison not the men's prison".

The fact that you can't bring yourself to say "yeah, the rapists and flashers are not, in fact, Real Women" is the problem as to why the likes of me and J.K. Rowling and the TERFs can't accept "oh just let the guy with a record of domestic violence into the women's shelter, now she's got a wig and is wearing pink leggings".

The majority of normal trans people trying to live normal everyday lives are not gaming the system so they can get cushier accommodation in prison or win undeserved sports victories for personal gain, even ego satisfaction. If the trans athletes accept that Jamie has to wait two years until her hormone levels and strength advantage are in the same range as cis women, then fine. But Jamie wants to switch from the boy's races six months ago to the girl's races now, while Jamie is still in possession of an unfair advantage.

It's a legitimate problem of trying to be fair to everyone, but so is it a legitimate problem when the crazy edge cases get away with blue murder instead of being slapped down as "yes, this is not what trans means". And until the defenders of trans rights grapple with those exceptions, then the most of the rest of us will continue to object to "male-bodied individual trying to compete against female-bodied individuals, get into spaces for female-bodied individuals, and force themselves onto female-bodied individuals".

Cynical answer: if women getting raped by men in prison is what it takes to bring attention to the general issue of inmates being raped by stronger inmates in prisons...

If I remember right, the law claims there is no such thing as consensual sex in prison. It's just selectively enforced by the wardens to minimize the effort needed to maintain control. Having a zero tolerance policy for prison rape creates more work, so is naturally opposed by the wardens.

It seems that it depends. Some women did bring cases, some of those cases were successful, others were not.

After all, it is terribly unfair to separate trans paedophile lovebirds who found one another in jail and married, just because they're probably stoking each other's interest in child porn!

While acknowledging the ongoing risk the claimant provides and the "challenges for those entrusted with their care within prison", he said "no explanation" had been given for why the couple had been placed in separate prisons.

"It is not clear how restricting contact with the claimant is likely to reduce her ongoing sexual interest in children," he said.

"There is no evidence to suggest that it will."

The judge also awarded the claimant an unspecified amount in damages, finding she had suffered "substantial anxiety, frustration and distress" over the last few years.

I'd say it's rather not cynical to consider that "if" to be at all possible.

If you're so confident that cis women are handily winning competitions against trans women, it shouldn't be so hard for you to cite some specific examples of some to win me over. I notice that you haven't cited any, just like the last time this topic came up.

I remain unconvinced that the burden of proof rests with gender-critical people to demonstrate that male athletes do have an essentially insurmountable competitive advantage over female, as opposed to with TRAs to demonstrate that they don't. TRAs, after all, are the ones demanding that male athletes be allowed to compete in female sporting events. Normally it's the people who want to radically change institutions who are required to demonstrate that their proposed changes are good ideas.

you're so confident that cis women are handily winning competitions against trans women, it shouldn't be so hard for you to cite some specific examples of some to win me over.

???

Every competition in which a trans woman competes and doesn't win is an example of this. That's every case in existence that's not the handful of anecdotes your side keeps recycling.

  • -11

You still didn't cite any.

There's a trans woman who plays at our local boffer combat realm, my wife beats her in like 90% of duels, is that good enough for you?

You're asking for 'dog bites man' statistics here, I don't know the names of random trans athletes ho haven't won anything because that's not newsworthy, which is the whole point.

I had to look up what boffer was. Ah yes, completely comparable to competitive swimming!

But don't worry, there's a gender studies professor who is in total agreement with you:

If women cut their hair the same way as men, wore “men’s” clothes, and didn’t shave their legs and underarms, wear makeup, or pluck their eyebrows, they wouldn’t look nearly as different from men as they do.

Can somebody direct this lady to historical images where women did not shave, wear makeup, or pluck their eyebrows? Granted the women in them didn't cut their hair and didn't wear men's clothes, but still - they kind of don't look like men.

Gee, Grandma, since you don't pluck your eyebrows, I can't hardly tell the difference between you and Grampa!

Is this a Land Girl or a Land Man? They're wearing trousers, how am I supposed to be able to tell?

One of these coal mine workers is a man, but how can I pick him out of the line up? Nobody is wearing makeup or shaving their underarms!

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats