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 -
Wouldn't "trans people are less likely to commit a non-sexual offense" be sufficient to explain the observations, without needing to invoke any differences in their rate of committing sexual offenses at all? This makes some intuitive sense, too, as I'd assume we are mostly talking about MtF rather than FtM so they are depressing their testosterone levels and thus violent tendencies. Moreover, transitioning is costly and mostly depresses your social status (except for some weird and not particularly highly-incarcerated subcultures), so it stands to reason that out of the "sex, status, money" triad of motivations for crime, trans people would disproportionately have sex figure in their value function to the exclusion of the other two (though this of course could also explain them being more motivated towards sex crime than an average person, to the degree we are willing to assume that "will to engage in gender self-expression" and "will to sexual activity" are positively correlated).
"less likely" compared to what though? Saying something like "trans people are less likely to commit a non-sexual offense" doesn't really tell us anything about their overall criminality, which is useful information to have. Dolly's overall conclusion is that they're more likely to commit a sexual offense compared to men, but she doesn't try explaining why that might be the case (I assume that would delve into armchair psychology, implicating AGP and whatnot).
I was going off of your quote,
which does not imply, mathematically, that trans people are more likely to commit a sexual offense compared to men. (It does imply that they are more likely to have committed a sexual offense conditional on being in prison.)
For example, imagine you have a base population of, say, 1000 cis men and 1000 trans people. Of the men, a total 15 commit sexual offenses, and another 85 commit non-sexual offenses (and get imprisoned). Of the trans people, 1 commits a sexual offense, and another 1 commits a non-sexual offense. Then the following are simultaneously true:
50% of trans prisoners are there for a sexual offense.
~15% of the general prison population are there for a sexual offense.
Hence, in particular, trans people are more likely to be there for a sexual offense. (P(sexual offense|trans and there) > P(sexual offense|cis and there))
trans people are less likely than cis men to commit a sexual offense. (0.1% to cis men's 1.5%)
I'm of course not saying that this is what the numbers are, but if you only know the first two points (which I assumed "trans prisoners are more likely to be there for a sexual offense" is supposed to gloss), this scenario is not ruled out. Therefore, the conclusion does not follow from the premise.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link