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 -
ChickenOverlord seemed to be saying a much less anodyne thing - that even if, in fact, a lot more MTF prisoners get raped than bio-female ones, protecting the cis women is always, axiomatically, a higher priority. This is quite different from the heuristic you describe, which breaks down in a context where (a specific subcategory of) men are, for whatever reason, at an elevated risk of rape too. If we afford free women special protection out in the world because they're especially likely to be raped, we should afford MTF convicts special protection in prison because they are especially likely to be raped.
Well, that's the question isn't it – are they?
And as I've argued repeatedly over the last few days, how do you propose to distinguish between the legitimately dysphoric who've been cross-dressing for as long as they've been able to dress themselves (whom, naïvely, I would expect to have a particularly tough time in prison), and the opportunists who only "discovered" they were trans post-conviction? Because, to be frank, I don't think "Isla" Bryson would face an elevated risk of sexual assault in prison compared to the modal prisoner. (I do think he would be unusually likely to commit a sexual assault on another prisoner, whether male or female, but that's neither here nor there.)
I don't propose to do any such thing; I'm just choosing the lesser evil. There are some male rapists who will take the reputation hit of crossdressing to get to the pussy, but I would be surprised if it were so prevalent that the number of male-on-female rapes caused by such a policy would exceed the number of male-on-effeminate-male rapes it would prevent.
(If you're still unconvinced, it would already be a start to limit the policy to medically-transitioning MTFs; I would be really surprised if there were statistically significant numbers of male rapists willing to castrate themselves just to get to the female block. Or, of course, there's Celestial's notion of a trans-only block. There would still be a risk of opportunist male rapists declaring themselves trans to go there rather than men's prison, and then raping the legitimate MTFs - but I think the MTFs themselves, if asked, would rather take that chance than the much higher probability of such rapes if they all had to go to men's prisons; don't you?)
Not necessarily. As I argued the other day, supposing you have a trans-identified male who's been convicted of a non-violent offense and is housed in a minimum-security prison with other non-violent offenders. One morning, the warden announces that all trans-identifying inmates are to be transferred to a special facility just for them. This facility, per the terms of your and @Celestial-body-NOS's thought experiment, will not distinguish between the legitimately dysphoric and the opportunists, nor will it distinguish violent from non-violent offenders. Among others, it will include the aforementioned Sophie (née Daniel) Eastwood, already convicted for murdering a fellow inmate; and assorted inmates convicted for raping men. I imagine a legitimately dysphoric non-violent offender might react to the announcement that he is to be transferred to this facility with more than a little alarm.
By lumping all trans-identifying inmates together (regardless of how long they have identified as trans or what they were convicted for), I find it entirely credible that this proposed policy might result in an increase in the rate at which trans-identifying inmates are assaulted, raped or murdered. Especially the legitimately dysphoric inmates we are particularly committed to protecting.
Well, certainly I don't think violent and non-violent offenders should be less segregated than they are in normal prison. That seems to be an odd epicycle to the thought experiment; is the notion that the budget requirements for both a non-violent-offenders trans wing and a violent-offenders trans wing would be a bridge too far? That seems… strange when we're already entertaining the expense of the trans prison at all.
I didn't set the terms of the thought experiment. @Celestial-body-NOS did: take it up with
himthem because their sex is a private matter between them and the Almighty, and no one is entitled to know it without their explicit say-so!I reiterate that I think my preferred proposal is vastly superior for any metric you care to mention:
You might recognise this system as the system which most Western countries already use. Every proposed alternative (transferring trans-identified males to the female estate, or constructing a special facility just for trans-identified males regardless of whether they have been diagnosed with gender dysphoria or not) just seem obviously worse to me than the above: the former because it needlessly endangers female prisoners, the latter because it needlessly endangers non-violent offenders by speciously lumping them in with violent offenders on the basis of an unfalsifiable identity characteristic they purportedly share.
I will admit that, in many cases, placing a prisoner "on protection" entails keeping them in their cell for almost the entire day. On the one hand, this does generally accomplish the stated goal of preventing them from being assaulted or murdered by their fellow inmates; on the other hand, it's functionally equivalent to solitary confinement. What we'd ideally want is some kind of special facility or wing within a prison in which all protection prisoners could be sequestered, but still be able to move about and interact with each other with a comparable degree of freedom as they would expect in general population, but with a reasonable expectation that they would not be violently victimised. Of course, such a facility or wing would immediately become the place that every prisoner would want to serve the entirety of their sentence in, and we'd end up right back where we started. For this solution to be effective, there would have to be some gatekeeping and discretion on the part of the prison governor to distinguish the legitimately endangered from the malingerers. Simply admitting everyone who claims to identify as a woman (or gay, or suffer from a physical disability etc.) is not a workable solution. It is not just ripe for abuse: it is practically designed to be abused. It makes a mockery of the prison system.
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