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 -
Some dude gets convicted for raping women. He's sent to prison. In prison, he discovers that he's actually a trans woman, and so needs to be transfered to the women's prison. The authorities go along with it. Women prisoners get raped by the "trans woman" rapist who is bigger and stronger than them, and has a fully-functional dick.
In that case, existing protections against rape in general should be enough. It shouldn't be difficult for the guards to observe creepy behavior leading up to any incident, for example. If the guards fail to prevent rape by a trans woman, then they would've failed to prevent any other sort of abuse between inmates. I continue to not see a problem with trans rights here.
Also, I don't think this is a problem, statistically speaking. I currently think every other possible sex offense that could go on in a prison is way ahead of this one in frequency. I would be interested in seeing some numbers on this. I am aware of some news articles on the topic, but see Man bites dog:
The existing protections, i.e. keeping male rapists away from women, is being actively subverted.
That's not how it works. I doubt you can prevent rapes simply by "observing creepy behavior". And even if you could, there's still the fundamental problem of legibility. Let's say a guard does in fact notice some behavior that they consider to be creepy. What do they do then? If they take any sort of disciplinary action it's not hard for one to argue that it's overkill and say just because there's creepy behavior doesn't mean a rape has been committed yet. It's the same problem as the cops being called to a domestic dispute, then being unable to do anything because they didn't personally witness anything illegal happening, and they can't just take someone else's word for it. This idea of recognizing creepy behavior sounds like one of those ideas that only makes sense in hindsight after an incident has occurred, yet isn't workable in practice.
Also, come on. Are you really suggesting that it's easier for guards to "just prevent rape" than it is to place trans women rapists in men's prisons?
This does not follow. There are all sorts of offenses a guard must prevent, and rape isn't equivalent to all of them in difficulty or observability. So them failing to prevent rape doesn't give us any information about what other things they have failed to prevent.
Besides, the easiest way to prevent men raping women isn't to have guards on duty. It's just keeping male rapists away from women.
Trans rights have resulted in demonstrable negative externalities to other people. These externalities would straightforwardly not have happened if there weren't trans rights. It's as simple as that.
Okay so, using statistics to triage the collective effort we spend on problems (and thus dismissing statistically insignificant problems) only makes sense if it would take too much effort to eliminate them. In this case however, the effort is relatively easy. All we have to do is not put male rapists in the same building as women. In fact, that's what we were doing before, until trans rights activists rolled around and demanded we do otherwise.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link