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 -
According to the Guardian, there were 97 sexual assaults in the female estate between 2016-19, of which 7 were committed by transgender inmates. At the time there were 3,795 people housed in the female estate, of whom 34 were transgender. In other words, a transgender inmate is more than ten times more likely to sexually assault a fellow inmate than a cisgender female inmate. In light of this (and the fact that transgender inmates are disproportionately likely to be imprisoned for violent offenses, including sexual offenses) and given there are only six women's prisons in the UK, I don't find the idea that the newfound presence of male people in the female estate could be a significant contributing factor to the recent spike in prison violence in the female estate the least bit implausible.
Why? Homicide rate is usually considered a robust metric in determining how violent a country or region is. "Assault" is a heterogenous category which includes everything from a savage beating which renders the victim paraplegic to a rough shove on the shoulder.
Because if that was the principle on which they were operating, presumably they would be opposed to the presence of male people in female prisons, given that male people have systemic power over female people by virtue of being systematically stronger.
"You need to do more to help the less fortunate than you are currently doing," says a person who (unless I am very much mistaken) is doing even less to help the less fortunate than I am. Isn't it always the way?
On several occasions over the last decade I've volunteered to perform music for church services at two of the men's prisons in my county. That may not sound like much, but I'm quite confident it's a damn sight more than the average person has done to improve the wellbeing of male inmates. So in point of fact I rather resent you deciding on my behalf whose welfare I do and don't care for.
none of which you care to provide, of course. And while I don't dispute that this must happen sometimes, in most Western jurisdictions it's much more difficult to become a correctional officer if you've been convicted of a crime (the US, the UK) — no such restriction applies to male inmates who claim to be trans. If you don't understand why a female inmate would be more concerned about the presence of a male person whom they know for a fact has a history of violent behaviour serious enough to warrant imprisonment vs. a male prison guard who has never been convicted of a crime — then I don't know what to tell you, really.
Worse yet "assault" includes hard talk in many jurisdictions. Credibly threatening someone is assault.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link