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 -
Equivocation. Sexual abuse for my entire life has refered to using children for the sexual gratification, not just "abuse that involves primary sexual characteristics". Why not call it "child abuse" or "child disfigurement" except to free ride on the negative associations of the term? Same with "grooming".
That would only build political capital for the other side. Regardless, if the only correct response to the government/society doing something horrible were a terrorist attack, no decent man would yet survive. Be nice until you can coordinate meanness.
And people here believe AI apocalypse is three years away. Why aren't they bombing Nvidia factories and sabotaging electrical converters?
I don't think this is true. The effect on the child is much more important than the perpetrator's motives, which are themselves mostly inferred and of minimal consequence to the outcome. For example, let's consider some scenarios.
An adult with no sexual desires at all physically beats a child to punish them.
An adult with no sexual desires at all sodomizes a child with a broom to punish them.
An adult with a BDSM fetish physically beats a child because they secretly enjoy it (but makes no explicit targeting of sexual organs).
An adult with a BDSM fetish sodomizes a child with a broom because they enjoy it.
I would argue, and I think most people would agree, that 2 and 4 are sexual abuse, while 1 and 3 are not. Meanwhile, the motive theory would categorize 3 and 4 as sexual abuse but somehow have to argue that 2 is not. And yet, as far as the child, or the law, or anyone who isn't a mind reader are concerned, 2 and 4 are indistinguishable, as are 1 and 3. I don't think it's any sort of free riding of negative associations of the term to group things together if the harms to the child are the same.
In the medical transition case, whether they are mutilating the sexual organs of a child for internal sexual gratification, or to punish the child, or to help the child because they genuinely believe it to be a good thing, or to virtue signal, or to "get back at the right", or for literally any internal reason, the sexual trauma to the child will be the same. Calling it sexual abuse is primarily a claim that the magnitude and type of the harm is comparable to other forms of sexual abuse. You ignored a significant part of /u/KulakRevolt 's claim, which I agree with
It's not free riding, because medical transition is similar to in kind but actually worse in magnitude than most other forms of sexual abuse. Most sexual abusers don't permanently disfigure their victims in the course of their abuse. Some do, but those are the worse offenses for that reason. And sure, the medicalization and supposed consent and anesthetic surgery and whatnot make the process less violent and thus less severe in some aspects than violent rape would be, but that's exactly what the groomer label refers to: gradually indoctrinating children into agreeing to a sexual action that they don't fully understand the ramifications of, can't morally consent to, and will probably be bad for them. It doesn't matter what the internal motivations of the groomers are, what matters are the effects on the children. And again, the medical transition is similar in kind but worse in outcome than grooming for pedophillic sex would be, so it's not unfair to call it that and carry over the connotations.
... no, not at all. Let's say (and I'm sure this has happened before) a child has severe testicular cancer, so has to have both testicles removed. Or has to have the whole penis removed from penile cancer. Nobody would ever call this sexual abuse.
Okay, maybe malice is necessary. Consider a medical error in removing testicular cancer that causes both testicles to be (unnecessarily) severed. That'd be bad, parents might sue for malpractice, and nobody would call it sexual abuse.
I mostly agree with the labeling of your specific examples, but I'm still not satisfied with motive as the determining factor. Consider a doctor who was deluded into thinking that sodomizing with a broom would cure cancer, so they regularly did this to child cancer patients with no ulterior sexual motives. I think most people would call it sexual abuse. It's hard for me to figure out which components of this are causing that: the action itself being generally sexual in nature, the nature of the harm to the child, or the doubt that the doctor's motives are really so pure. It might just be that such a belief would be so egregiously negligent that no one could possibly believe it except by biased reasoning motivated by subconscious pedophilic motives, but I still think even given a guarantee of the pure motives it would still count as abuse. In the realm of physical abuse, we might consider
A: a man falls and his fist strikes his wife by mistake
B: a man believes striking his wife will save her from demons possessing her so he beats her on purpose for her own good
C: a man is angry so he strikes his wife.
A is almost certainly not abuse, C is definitely abuse. B is probably abuse, the closest of the scenarios to actual medical transitions: an action, taken deliberately, with the same effect as regular abuse taken for purportedly good but dubiously intelligent reasons. Now, maybe if we made an example with more science and reasoning behind it we could make an even closer approximation that paints the man in a better light. Maybe leading scientific journals publish papers suggesting that reinforcement learning therapy is good: so if you beat your wife only as punishment for mistakes (and reward obedience) she'll become a better happier human being, and the man reads these and trusts the science behind them. But I still think the deliberate performing of the action with mistaken beliefs would count as abuse in a way that the mistaken action in scenario A does not.
Terms don't have to, and often don't, have perfectly sensible meanings outside their value as use. A doctor sodomizing with a broom would be considered 'sexual abuse' either because 'broom in ass' is a fundamentally sexual act (is it? say a primitive tribesman falls on a wooden pole in the ground and it goes up his ass and it hurts. Do he or his tribebuds consider that sexual? I'd lean towards 'they'd notice it and joke about it, but not take it seriously', but I'm not sure.) or because 'broom in ass' is close enough to a sexual act we'd consider it sexual abuse.
What this points to is that the 'very bad'ness of sexual abuse is borne out of specific characteristics of the claimed harm that, in a way mostly related to their sexual nature, interact with the future of the person harmed in a negative way. So being raped as a child would be sexual abuse because it'd cause, so it's claimed, trust issues, fear about having sex in the future, maybe seeking to imitate that sexual abuse in the future with other abusers, et cetera. Whereas having your balls or penis cut off by a doctor accidentally probably wouldn't do that. The reason we find sexual abuse to be that bad is in part wanting to protect kids from that. But it's also mixed in with a lot of disproportionate, bizzare overreaction tbh. Children getting raped is bad, but it isn't really worse than murder or accidental death - but people, culturally, act like it is.
And that's why calling it 'sexual abuse' is materially wrong and not useful - having gender transition surgery doesn't cause any of the bad things sexual abuse causes, or have any of the malicious motives most sexual abuse has. Sure, it has different bad effects and bad motives. But they aren't the same. But because it's quite adjacent to 'children' and 'sex', and for whatever reason 'protect the children from pedophiles' resonates so much with people, we get this.
I'm not convinced. It causes severe sexual disfunction, usually prevents the achieving of orgasm, will significantly interfere with the ability to have meaningful sexual relationships in the future, can cause long term body image issues and dysmorphia. While these are not a perfect overlap with the harms of more central examples of sexual abuse, and the mechanism it causes these through is more physical and less psychological (though still some), I still think that broadly they are in the same class as those of sexual abuse. It's (probably) not going to prevent them from living their daily life, or driving a car, or performing your job, or having ordinary friendships, but it is going to permanently cripple their ability to have sex and sexual relationships. The harm is primarily of a sexual nature, even if the action itself is medicalized and professional in bearing.
SRS doesn't "usually prevent achieving orgasm". It definitely sometimes causes that, but in >75% of cases i'm pretty sure it doesn't (and it's probably higher). example reddit posts, iirc studies from surgery clinics found >75% could orgasm. I don't think it causes "severe sexual disfunction" in most cases either.
Yeah, but in an entirely different way from sexual abuse. From a purely outcome-based perspective, the way it prevents that is much closer to 'cancer surgery gone wrong' than 'sexual abuse'.
Why does that make it bad in the same way? None of the things that are supposed to make sexual abuse 'VERY BAD' - e.g. "there are a bunch of opportunists who will take advantage of children if they're given the opportunity" - apply to it.
Why call it sexual abuse, i guess? SRS doesn't have that much in common with the features that makes sexual abuse specifically bad. Accidentally injuring a penis during sex is also 'harm of a sexual nature', but it's not sexual abuse. Same for getting STDs.
There are here too. Maybe it would be more appropriate to refer to the entire grooming scenario as sexual abuse rather than just the surgery itself in isolation. That is, you have some sort of "therapist" who thinks that being trans is wonderful and good and better than being cis, which is a bias and agenda motivating their reasoning. Even if not strictly sexual in desire, they have ulterior motives of pushing the trans agenda. They then convince kids with mental illnesses or other social problems that the cause of their problem is being in the wrong body, push them down the trans chain, which ends in surgery. I would argue that this entire process is sexual abuse more than the surgery alone at the end of the line. And this is opportunists taking advantage of children given the opportunity, even if their motive is money and/or personal fulfillment and pride.
None of this is accidental. Nobody is accidentally chopping off genitals. I agree that we can't take a purely consequentialist perspective completely devoid of intent, but the intent is to cause harm "for the greater good" rather than the harm being accidental. Purposely injuring a penis during sex is sexual abuse. I would argue that deliberately giving someone an STD, not just negligent sex while infected but deliberately acting with the intention to maximize the chance of giving it to them, is also a form of sexual abuse. Even if it doesn't meet some strict set of criteria that you might use to define the term, it's something comparably bad such that mislabeling it sexual abuse isn't carrying any false connotations.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I've been saying for 10 years that that was what Yudkowsky should have been doing if he actually believed the AI stuff, that or smuggling coke and heroin so as to fund his future Turing death squads.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link