site banner
PaperclipPerfector  2mo ago (text post)   29674 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of September 16, 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
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

If transferring a male convict to a women's prison was made conditional on their having undergone a penectomy/vaginoplasty, I imagine the policy would be much less controversial than it currently is, as it completely negates the possibility of the male in question raping a female inmate (possibly leading to pregnancy). In many jurisdictions, this isn't a condition of transfer at all: one must simply announce "I am a woman" and the transfer will be carried out, without even the most token effort at social transition.

However, even with his penis having been removed, if this convict is transferred to a women's prison, he will almost certainly be vastly stronger than all of his fellow inmates (even after having undergone hormone therapy). The female inmates might reasonably object to being placed in close proximity to a violent male who can overpower any of them with ease, even if the chances of him raping them are nil.

If transferring a male convict to a women's prison was made conditional on their having undergone a penectomy/vaginoplasty, I imagine the policy would be much less controversial than it currently is, as it completely negates the possibility of the male in question raping a female inmate (possibly leading to pregnancy)

This isn't true. It makes the possibility of pregnancy nil, though the hormone therapy probably already does this. They'd still have a strength advantage and could overpower and rape female inmates though. Just not with a penis, would have to use finger, fist, idk broomstick, etc. Honestly potentially more dangerous for the female.

Rape is generally defined as nonconsensual penetration with a penis. Forcibly penetrating someone with a finger or foreign object would fall under sexual assault.

Even the more strict definitions I'm familiar with usually just define it as forced penetration w/o a penis specifically mentioned. I still don't see why anyone would be relieved that male sexual deviants are forcibly fisting female inmates rather than traditional PIV though.

In the UK:

The legal definition of rape is when a person intentionally penetrates another's vagina, anus or mouth with a penis, without the other person's consent. Assault by penetration is when a person penetrates another person's vagina or anus with any part of the body other than a penis, or by using an object, without the person's consent.

Other jurisdictions use different definitions which include forcible penetration with a body part or object other than a penis.

I still don't see why anyone would be relieved that male sexual deviants are forcibly fisting female inmates rather than traditional PIV though.

While being forcibly penetrated with a fist is obviously intensely unpleasant, the chances of contracting an STD as a result are virtually nil and the chances of becoming pregnant are zero. This is why male-on-female sexual assault is qualitatively, categorically different to other kinds of sexual assault. Female inmates can and do sexually assault other female inmates, but the reduced risk of contracting an STD and the impossibility of being impregnated make it a very different risk calculus.

A male inmate who has undergone a penectomy absolutely can sexually assault (or rape, depending on definition) female inmates using objects or body parts other than the penis which he has had removed, and his physical strength will probably make it much easier for him to do so than a female inmate trying the same thing. But the impossibility of PiV changes the risk calculus significantly.

ah it's a US vs UK thing then

here its federally defined as:

Penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.

if STDs were one of the main risks taken into consideration you'd think there would be more focus on male prison rape as male to male rape (anal) has a higher chance of spreading disease than PiV. Seems to me that here in the states the objections are more about putting people less able to defend themselves at risk of abuse.

I think the pregnancy thing is the main one, with STDs a distant second.

If transferring a male convict to a women's prison was made conditional on their having undergone a penectomy/vaginoplasty, I imagine the policy would be much less controversial than it currently is, as it completely negates the possibility of the male in question raping a female inmate (possibly leading to pregnancy).

I would support that. We already have various levels of security for male prisoners (minimum / maximum levels). We can adjust the women's prison to be the meek-and-weak prison. Women who demonstrate a history of attacking other inmates can be transferred to the minimum security prison.

Partially severing every muscle in the body should be an integral part of gender-affirming care.

Speak plainly, please.

Seems plain enough to me; he's saying that part of gender-affirming care for male-to-female transexuals in prison (which is the context here) should be to partially sever every muscle in the body, to make them weaker so they fit into the "meek-and-weak" prison.

I didn't find those caveats obvious. Perhaps they were intended, perhaps not. Either way, it makes for a convenient motte and bailey.

C.f. people who claim "kill all white men!" actually, in context, plainly means "politely ask a small subset of white men to voluntarily give up power."

Partial severing of every muscle in the body is just another way of saying "we should kill them" due to the combination of the hazards of the necessary surgeries and the fragility of a number of extremely important muscles (eg, the heart, diaphragm, and intestines).

Is that an oblique way to refer to the microtears that occur during hypertrophy (as an element of well-adjusted cis males’ and trans men’s “gender-affirming” lifestyle), or do you mean “severing” as part of a satirically proposed surgery to decrease over-all strength as part of an MtF transition — not as a genuine part of the personal expression project that is the medical sex/gender transition process, but as a security control, medical harm per se applied prophylactically to male prisoners seeking cross-sex asylum?

I assume they meant the latter, facetiously.

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