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 -
It's really, really not. 'Hermaphrodite' is not a social category, outside of furry porn.
If "social category" is a classification of people that makes a significant difference to how they are treated and grouped by social instiutions or practices, then "hermaphrodite" is a social category that predates trans women/trans men (in the predominant modern senses) as social categories. In many cultures, by THOUSANDS of years. The Ancient Greeks were making myths about hermaphrodites long before the sex/gender distinction was even invented. The Laws of Manu distinguish three genders: male, female, and hermaphrodite. Ancient Rabbinic law distinguishes hermaphrodites as a separate category. Ask anyone in the ancient world to tell you what a hermaphrodite is and they would be able to tell you; ask them about our modern categories of transness and your chances of initial comprehension of the relevant categories would be more dubious.
The main difference is that hermaphrodite is also a longstanding biological category that presumably predates humanity, but obviously something can be both a social category and a biological category.
Or are you using "social category" to mean something else in a way that excludes hermaphrodites?
Also, you probably don't think that being a social category identified on the basis of appearance or genitalia is a sufficient condition for self-identification rules, because you probably don't think that race should be determined by self-identification rules. So this is a potential red herring: even if it could be proved that hermaphrodites are a social category, that wouldn't be enough to change your mind.
More options
Context Copy link
Careful there! Furries are an oppressed gender and orientation minority, give 'em a few years and you'll be writing pro-furry rights posts on here. You could ask Tracing Woodgrains for some advice on that. I don't know what the 'politically correct' term for furry is, I'm sure there must be one. Seems that therians are different, so what the posh version of furry is, someone enlighten me.
Alright, that’s enough.
The usual rules about strawmen apply. As does the one about speaking plainly, though I’m sure anyone reading the thread can detect your sarcasm from orbit.
Seriously, no joke, tell me that in a few years furries won't be part of the entire queer umbrella grouping. Trace is half-way sane and respectable, there have to be more out there like him, and since they're even holding cons, then it'll become first an identity and then politicised.
And then the likes of the left "identity" defenders will be here telling me to accept furries, just like I'm being asked to agree that "trans women are women".
I'm using sarcasm instead of volcanic wrath, to be a bit cooler about it. Though I'm not really aggravated by furries, oddly enough; I was online-acquainted with one some years back due to mutual fantasy genre literature interests and got a great glimpse into their personal life and how they ended up like that. I am way more aggravated about guesswho wanting me to go "yes, I'm a woman and this person with a dick who fathered two kids is also a woman, just like me".
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
But non-binary is (by your side's standards).
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link