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 -
'Eunuch-maker' case: Male escort jailed for removing man's genitals
To summarize, four gay men are convicted over the illegal surgical removal of one of the men's genitalia, a leg and a nipple. Three were fetishists (including the ringleader, who was the 'victim' of the procedures), one was an escort. The escort subsequently blackmailed the ringleader, and it was this blackmail attempt that resulted in the case coming to the attention of the police and all four men being arrested and charged.
The man who removed the genitals (Byrnes, the escort) was jailed for five years. The man who removed the leg (Crimi-Appleby) was jailed for three years, with his comparatively young (but still adult) age and alleged 'grooming' by the ringleader mitigating factors. The man who removed the nipple (Arnold), and who stole anaesthetic from the hospital where he worked as a nurse, was spared jail with a two-year suspended sentence because his coworkers all agreed he was a really nice guy. The ringleader, Gustavson, the 'victim' of the procedure, will be sentenced in March.
There are a number of interesting CW-related issues in this case.
I. The "nullification" fetish
With the exception of the escort, all the men involved in the case belonged to a niche fetish revolving around becoming eunuchs. Interestingly (and unlike many other niche sexual fetishes, eg. those involving sexual cannibalism), nullification actually spans both gay and trans subcultures and might actually be a predominantly trans subculture. In fact, a moderate number of fetishists I found online appeared to be natal women (ie. FtM), although most who actually carried out illegal body modification are of course men (removing the breasts and the entire vagina/clitoris presumably being beyond the capabilities of backroom amateur surgeons, plus greater male risk-taking etc).
Among trans people, 'nullification' is often the desired goal of non-binary 'truscum' (those who believe that you need to be dysphoric to be trans, but more generally 'hardcore' transgender activists who despise those they consider cis identifying as trans for 'clout'). (Reddit thread) By this logic, while a 'cure' for males who want to be women is vaginoplasty, and for females who want to be men is phalloplasty, for a 'non-binary' dysphoric individual, these are unsuitable, since the whole point is to be 'between' genders. Nullification to Ken Doll status is sometimes seen as a goal. It also isn't actually illegal, and at least some years ago (again, according to reddit) there were American doctors willing to perform it.
In this case, the men involved do not seem to have been trans. Instead, they were participants in the 'eunuch' fetish subculture among gay men, where participants are known as 'eunuchs', 'nullies' or 'smoothies' respectively. Beyond eunuch communities themselves, one of the major sources of information about the subculture comes from TERFs, who are uniquely hostile towards eunuchs among gay men, because they (typically lesbian women) see them as - alongside transwomen - the vanguard of inserting fetishes into the 'LGB' movement they once held dear. Here, for example, is a long takedown of Gustavson by Canadian TERF website Reduxx.
Of course, Gustavson didn't only remove his genitalia but his leg, too, something that would likely classify him as suffering from 'Body integrity disorder', a partially-recognized psychological condition. Again, some patients, even in the UK, have had healthy limbs surgically removed, although this was highly controversial and the practice was largely discontinued. In Australia, a surgeon sought ethical advice about a similar case in 2017; this medical ethics article covers a similar case of a man with a lifelong goal of having a leg amputated, but who was unable to find a doctor willing to perform the surgery.
A core goal of eunuch fetishists is to have their fetish classified as a gender identity, which would allow them much easier access to surgery. It is this that drew the ire of the TERFs, who generally dislike sadomasochistic gay male fetishes but aren't particularly focused upon them. This creates an interesting dynamic - for the TERFs, the association between eunuch fetishists and trans activists allows them to criticize the latter by association, while for Gustavson (who took a leading role in both Norwegian and British pride organizations), association with the 'mainstream' trans movement created the opportunity for a medical embrace of the subculture.
[One last interesting (although less relevant) question remains about the eunuch fetish, namely that nullification would seemingly remove sexual desire, which would seem to be important to a fetishist. This journal article hints at an interesting theory, that gay men live in such a non-monogamous and non-commital romantic landscape that nullification often serves as a fantasy involving the eunuch sacrificing their sexuality to win a dyadic, deep bond with another man (who requests it of them), for life.]
II. Consent and the nature of surgery
The statement by the prosecutor in this case ("consent is not a defence to the illegal surgical procedures the men willingly took part in to remove their ringleader's penis, leg and nipple, in non-sterile and on occasion life-threatening circumstances") is interesting because it does not clearly state whether the issue was the mutilation or the legality thereof. Certainly much of the case appeared reliant on footage (or descriptions of it) of the procedure, the fact that it was sold on a fetish site, and the fact that the participants were physically healthy individuals with no need to perform the procedures. The body horror aspect of the case was a major feature of the prosecution's case, and even the press release seeks to create empathy for the police and prosecutors who had to watch and work with the footage and other evidence.
At the same time, as discussed above, 'body integrity disorder' surgeries have been performed without legal challenge in the UK, gender reassignment is legal, and (as I say) there is some evidence that nullification procedures have been performed legally (in very, very small numbers) by doctors in Anglo countries like the US, UK and Australia. And the statement does leave open the door that the main issue the Crown has is that Gustavson was 'operated' on illegally, not the nature of the operation. One wonders whether the sentences would have been as strict if the participants had been transwomen waiting for a gender reassignment surgery slot, but it is the UK so it's hard to say.
There are arguably legitimate reasons why consent isn't the central factor in whether a surgical procedure is legal. The primary one is, of course, that blanket legalization would lead to the poor or desperate being taken advantage of by untrained surgeons who might mutilate them in horrific and costly ways, perhaps for life. Society has (https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/the-myth-of-consensual-sex)[decided] that the cost of allowing consensual unlicensed surgery is great enough that it ought to be outlawed. The medical profession (or cartel, or guild, depending on perception) is then given a valuable monopoly on licensing surgeons in exchange for minimum standards of training and therefore supposedly quality.
But if a surgeon refuses to perform a nullification surgery on a gay man (for legal or personal reasons) but is happy to perform similarly invasive surgery desired for similar reasons on a transwoman, are we really just saying (as the TERFs argue) that some fetish-driven lobbying campaigns are more successful than others?
III. On the welfare hustle
Man, this case really has it all. Buried in the article is this line:
Illegal surgery, especially in a welfare state, is costly. Gustavson went to hospital immediately after each of his major illegal procedures (which he set up and organized), where he required additional treatment (he claimed, it's suggested, that he mutilated himself on these occasions). This was paid for by the state and therefore the taxpayer. The issue of cost (which ultimately falls upon taxpayers or insured people) is also rarely discussed in relation to legal gender reassignment, even though vaginoplasty and phalloplasty require lifelong treatment and upkeep, regular visits with doctors, and (as with transition generally) lifelong use of prescription drugs.
The amputation of the leg, though, adds an additional dimension. When he returned home a disabled man, Gustavson was entitled to disability welfare, which he duly claimed. Few (particularly in a relatively rich country in which jobs are pretty easy to come by) are likely to amputate a limb to claim welfare, but other options (like severe mental illness) are more viable:
Society doesn't seem capable of managing this level of defection (or, alternatively, is just willing to swallow the cost). And while amputating a limb or making up a fake mental illness might be clear-cut, what about other self-inflicted conditions, like smoking or drug related illnesses? Is the purpose of welfare to support the deserving poor (like those born with disabilities through no fault of their own, widows raising children, and perhaps the elderly who never made enough to save for retirement), or is it to provide a minimum standard of living for everyone, no matter how objectionable? When Gustavson is released from his (likely) prison sentence, he will be able to continue claiming disability welfare as a wheelchair-bound person. Is that right?
I'm all for radical morphological freedom, and happen to be libertarian enough to not even be against people without sufficient training or common sense dabbling in the fine arts of cutting things off a human body. If everyone involved consents, why should
Jesusthe UK Government object?Though I would certainly advocate for making that numpty ineligible for welfare of any form, he quite literally lacks a leg to stand on. Welfare should be a safety net, not an opportunity to try bungie-jumping without a cord while expecting it to catch you.
In other words, I demand people get the right to be stupid, even if I find it painful, as long as they avoid imposing externalities on everyone else, or remove that option from them by refusing to give them free money.
Thankfully, the proportion of people willing to go to such lengths solely for the purposes of being a free loader are so tiny they make Lizardman's Constant look like Godzilla, so it's not a particularly pressing matter. But we're not a Full Automated Luxury Space Communism (yet, and the sexuality should be optional), and these idiots should not get to benefit from skimming off the top of other humans earnestly burning their finite lifespans doing productive work. They can sit around and get paid for it when we all have no choice in the matter.
I actually don't know to what extent gender reassignment surgery is covered by the NHS, but at least that sclerotic institution pays lip service to the idea of cost-benefit, if only because it's underfunded. I suspect a proper analysis would rule out gender reassignment via surgery, even for truly hardline or sincere demands, but I haven't done the maths, even using such divorced and clinical figures as QALYs and DALYs.
To me, an ideal outcome would be:
These fools get to perform whatever they like on each other.
The government doesn't throw them in jail, but simply withholds any welfare or further treatment, since the level of pre-meditation and personal desire makes it qualitatively different to say, treating someone who tried to commit suicide because of mental illness.
They figure out how to survive, be it off alms or because lacking a leg doesn't actually kick you out of the workforce, though such a lack of knowledge should make you unemployable in the Knowledge Economy. They probably wouldn't starve to death, not that I would consider that unacceptable.
Mastectomies are difficult enough, I have to clean up after in my day job. Removing the clitoris? Any witch-doctor can do it, and given that female genital mutilation is a thing, do. It's not that hard, and on an unrelated note I had a buddy back in med school who would make cash on the side snipping tips (male) in his living room.
Isn't something like nullification a pretty solid indicator of mental illness? FWIW I agree that we should give more sympathy/pity to people who attempt suicide, but I have a hard time identifying the difference.
Maybe the usually higher level of pre-meditation and planning plays a role, but I'd still sympathize more with someone who planned a suicide attempt over months than someone who planned and received a nullification over the course of a day or two.
I can certainly discriminate between different types of mental illness, and have no qualms about doing so.
A BPD art-hoe and a depressed incel are both self-destructive, for no "fault" of their own (as popularly conceived as ethereal metadata not grounded in material properties), but one is far more destructive towards others.
A depressed person often doesn't want to be depressed. Or they feel terrible about being a burden, most of them aren't overdosing on paracetamol to get on welfare when their liver fails (presuming that doesn't kill them). In the UK, they are lucky to have the NHS around to save their ass for free (and me, eventually, though I charge for my services), but they do not undergo dangerous, crippling procedures to indulge a fetish and expect other taxpayers to clean up after them. The closest are the people into self-harm, and razer cuts and burns are nowhere near as expensive to treat, presuming they don't grow out of it.
Many would prefer not to be saved. We insist on saving them. I have mixed feelings on the matter, including extending to euthanasia: suffice to say that if rules and regulations didn't tie my hands, I would let a lot more people who didn't want to live on philosophical grounds kill themselves (presuming it wasn't just pure depression, or at least a form of depression that can be cured/managed to provide an acceptable QOL). Alas, the law and my medical licensing bodies disagree, and I care more about my paycheck than my principles here.
On the other hand, our friend Nullius Maximus here? While I have no way to prove it, I think he was mentally competent to gauge the consequences of his actions, and would likely have not gone through with it if he was left with the burden of fending for himself. And if he had, he wouldn't be newsworthy, just another crazy who killed himself for dubious reasons. Here, his craziness can be presumed to be sly.
That is far worse, as far as I'm concerned. I endorse his ability to do as he pleases. I do not endorse shielding him from the consequences of his actions.
I suppose men are more predisposed to criminality, but neither is likely to be harmful to others.
The amount of damage a typical incel can cause is far more bounded than what a reasonably attractive woman with borderline personality disorder can inflict. The overwhelming majority of incels don't go around shooting up schools, they sulk and argue on 4chan. People with BPD are corrosive to the psyche, uncovered flames that draw moths for miles.
You're (were?) a regular on the RSP subreddit, I'm sure you can imagine all the examples you like.
I’m not sure it’s a particularly good argument for the harmlessness of the incels that they congregate on 4chan, one of the most culturally influential websites on the planet, molding the headspaces of countless young men all over the world (some young women as well).
One of the precise risk factors of the incel subculture is that exposure to it seems to convince numerous temporarily virginal 17-year olds (or even younger types) that it’s over, women will only have sex with them if they’re a chiseled sociopathic gigachad, nothing they do can matter since they’re [short/fat/not rich/weak-chinned/Asian/etc], best not even try.
The gynosupremacists/femcels hang out on Twitter. I only see one of those two sites in the news constantly, so I believe the one I continue to hear claimed as a legitimate source by the vast majority of world media is taken a lot more seriously.
And then it is this core demographic that forms the backbone of the education-managerial complex as well as a significant chunk of state bureaucracies. The angry women are, in aggregate, much, much more dangerous than the angry men.
More options
Context Copy link
On a per capita basis? The average incel, be it on 4chan or elsewhere, is largely harmless.
And 4chan has all kinds of mentally ill people, from the humble incel, to schizos, to
Taylor Swift.More options
Context Copy link
AFAICT, the only reason people look down on their argument is that it denigrates higher status people than them in doing so (ie, women). Remove that and you get a bog standard feminist argument that men shouldn't seek validation from women through sex.
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
More options
Context Copy link