site banner

Culture War Roundup for the week of April 29, 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.

4
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Well, no one was going to look at the actual rule, anyway.

I certainly wasn't going to, because I assumed this is what it would look like, and it appears I was correct. Mandatory gender identity affirmation for elementary kids. Denial of gender identity affirmation technically possible at older ages, provided that one class of Blue partisans wants to deny it, and a second class of Blue partisans seconds their motion.

Given that it's a federal rule and is going to be immediately complied with in all Blue areas, how often do you expect those Blue areas to conclude that "sex-related criteria that limit participation of some transgender students" will actually be implemented, much less approved of by federal authorities?

Why do you think this is a reasonable rule? Why do you think using it to coordinate Red Tribe defiance is a bad idea?

Why do you think using it to coordinate Red Tribe defiance is a bad idea?

Presumably, because "Red Tribe defiance" is itself a bad idea? Either because one is Blue Tribe, or because one sees "Red Tribe defiance" as leading only to Blue power cracking down even harder?

That’s fair. I shouldn’t have gotten worked up with that last chunk, because I understand how the even the narrow rule serves as an attack. Blue locations will adopt it as soon as someone makes a stink about existing policy, a heckler’s veto binding any school or league.

There’s a counterfactual world where this is a reasonable rule. Up until high school, sports are glorified team-building exercises. Who cares when the little monster who hit puberty six months before his team can outrun any of them? Who cares if a kid wants to join the other team and hang out with her friends? If you set up two middle-school leagues, with absolutely zero enforcement of sex segregation, I guarantee they’d sort into boys’ and girls’ teams. The categories were made for man.

I know we don’t live in that world. Some combination of ideologues, tiger parents, and bad actors will push any boundary you set. Why give an inch when they’ll take a mile?

That’s exactly what frustrates me. In case it wasn’t obvious, I don’t give a damn about children’s’ sports. Pretending that they’re a Constitutional crisis, a basic human dignity, or the last gasp of traditional values? That’s absurd. And yes, I apply that judgment to whatever progressive fringe is crowing about this victory. Great job, guys, you’ve ensured that 1% of your school district can get bullied even harder.

Imagine this situation in a vacuum. If your only goal was to give trans people more opportunities for sports, what kind of compromise would you propose? I think it’d look a lot like this one. Expand the options where stakes are low. Acknowledge that they can’t be expanded everywhere without sacrificing other values.

Obviously, this isn’t a vacuum, and the people who wrote this rule care about lots of other issues. They have every reason to rally around this particular opportunity for point-scoring. I’m not going to pretend otherwise. But they’re doing a better job of converging on the vacuum solution.

There’s a counterfactual world where this is a reasonable rule. Up until high school, sports are glorified team-building exercises. Who cares when the little monster who hit puberty six months before his team can outrun any of them?

I dunno, man. There's still the question of the government imposing philosophical (if not quasi-religious) beliefs on people. If you want to have a rule that says "sports should be co-ed" you can have that, but saying "it's ok for you to have sports sex-segregated, but barring someone of the opposite sex is an act of discrimination, if they have a 'gender-identity' corresponding to that category", is an imposition of belief.