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?
Because of course they would never try to put the public on the hook for their own medical fetishes. It is rather insulting how clearly many lesbians physically fetishize men while denying they have any attraction to them. "I'm not sexually attracted to men." "Then why do you insist you have the right to sexual reproduction via a man's sperm?"
I don’t think gay men who use surrogates are secretly sexually attracted to women.
Gay men who use surrogates, assuming they are the sperm donors, are engaging in a sexual act (sexual reproduction) with a woman. Similarly, lesbians who use sperm donors to get pregnant are engaging in a sexual act (sexual reproduction) with a man. What's the difference between wanting to engage in a sexual act with a member of the opposite sex and being sexually attracted to them?
This is equivocation between two different meanings of the word "sexual". One is "having to do with gamete mixing", the other is "having to do with orgasms". "Sexual attraction" is firmly in the "orgasms" side of the dichotomy, and sperm donation on the "gamete mixing" side.
Orgasms are only sexual because they can result in gamete mixing. If you remove that, what's to differentiate them from any other form of physical activity? Why should they be considered special?
There is a sense in which that is true. However, on the level of evolved human psychology, it is orgasms which are the fundamental drive with intrinsic rewards that facilitates pair-bonding, and so in that sense it is also exactly backwards: gamete mixing is only "sexual" because it happens to be a common side effect of one of the typical ways to seek orgasms with a partner. Why should gamete mixing be considered special, compared to blood transfusions?
I'm not arguing it should be. I'm asking why other people consider sexual orientation to be some sacred piece of their identity that needs to be special-cased in law, but then carefully define sexual orientation to only consider a subset of acts that can be considered sexual. If it is all about physical intimacy rather than sexual reproduction, why is it not romantic orientation?
Because the physical intimacy is the part that has the psychological drives attached to it. "Sexual orientation" is explicitly about the psychological drives. That's what they care about protecting.
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
Tabooing the phrase “sexual act,” there are two obviously distinct clusters. Reproduction is not the same thing as intercourse, even though one can follow from the other. I can say I would like to eat a nice meal without personally being the one to cook it.
Clarification: In this metaphor is a woman having your child the chef and you are the... eater of the baby?
Yes.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
One cannot taboo the phrase "sexual act", as it is entwined with the phrase "sexual orientation". If we limit the definition of "sexual orientation" to non-reproductive acts, why should "sexual orientation" be treated specially as a protected category?
Some terms and phrases mean a variety of very different things. We're clearly experiencing that here, so in an effort to resuscitate clear communication, let's stop using that term and instead plainly say the particular definition of it you actually mean.
Or "taboo" it as lesswrong posters would say.
"How can lesbians want to [get an egg fertilized by donated sperm] if they don't also want to [get fucked by] men?"
The point seems rather trivial now.
Yes, I know how the community uses the word "taboo" in this situation.
Does it?
"How can [people who claim to not be attracted to men strongly enough to have created an identity around it that is legally protected more strongly than nearly any other] want to get pregnant if getting pregnant requires [the participation of a man] to fertilize their eggs?"
Your question is just trivial. Lesbians can have participation of men in many aspects of life. So long as they aren't also having sex with them, then they're still lesbians and not in some contradictory way.
Also, isn't their identity based on mutual attraction to women? Is this reframing gayness as a negative rejection of the opposite sex?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
By taboo I mean use a different, more clear phrase for what you want to describe. Break out what you mean by "sexual act," because it seems obvious to me that there are lots of "sexual acts" that are not procreation, and lots of sex-adjacent concepts--like personal hygiene, puberty, or romantic poetry--which are not well described as "sexual acts." The category is confused. Find a different way to describe it, and you'll have an answer to your question.
I'm not trying to restrict "sexual acts" to only those that involve procreation though. I'm asking why procreative acts, which I believe should be central to the category, have been so thoroughly excised from it by others. What makes intercourse so important that it should completely push out everything else, and even that it should be expanded to cover things beyond PiV intercourse? To my eyes, the only plausible answer is that the people who did so are guilty of using self-motivated reasoning to gerrymander the definition to ensure they can have their cake and eat it too.
No, I really won't. My confusion stems precisely from the definition of the category sexual because we consider sexual things to be special. Sexual assault is considered a worse offence than plain assault. Sexual harassment is considered a worse offence than plain harassment. Sexual orientation is similarly a legally protected category in much of the West. Somehow I'm displaying sexual entitlement by looking at a woman who chose to dress provocatively, but a woman isn't when she claims a right to be impregnated by people she's "not sexually attracted to" though? What kind of backwards definition is that?
EDIT: Grammar.
Thanks, I think I follow you.
If procreation has been excised from the category, where’s the contradiction? The gay man who wants to procreate doesn’t have to feel or do any of the other signifiers of “sexual acts.” No courtship, no tingly feelings, no intercourse. At least not with a woman. Given how much human motivation stems from one or another of those desires, his lack of them makes for a meaningful category.
More options
Context Copy link
Hence the other user with your sexual software package has the (absolutely defensible) answer of "and that's why they should never be allowed near the levers of sociopolitical power ever again".
The reason this definition remains stuck like this is mainly because of the socioeconomic effects described here- in short, the amount of economic opportunity for men-as-population is the check and balance against the social interests of women-as-population. Which is how some other commentators come to the conclusion "well, there must be too many men, female hypergamy means the ideal male:female sex ratio is 1:[some higher number]"- noticing the trees, but not the forest, of there not being enough economic opportunity available of the type for which men have the biological advantage to restore a more objectively equitable sociopolitical balance.
This sort of thing comes in waves as this balance adjusts following economic conditions- rather interestingly, the more economic opportunity exists for men-as-population as compared to women-as-population, the more the sexual balance is tilted away from the interests of women-as-population (employees seek minimum workload and maximum wage from their employers- for women, because the only thing they bring to the table for/as compared to men-as-population is beauty and youth, we should expect a society where women are more powerful relative to men to purposefully de-emphasize those qualities, and demonize attraction to them- so instead of a 40 year old man being able to afford a 15 or 25 year old wife, he'll have to settle for a barely-fertile, past-prime, bitter 35 year old instead, and we should observe men younger than that to be priced out of the market entirely, and judging by trends in the average age of marriage, they are).
This is why women-as-population love drag queen story hour, want shitty porn VNs in schools, and pretend that (absurdly ugly) men can be women too, why they believe that all men who might dare to interact with children is a predator, why they love the Science that claims "actually, you're not a human being until 25" as an excuse to argue it should be illegal to have sex with anyone under that age. It is why the claim traditionalists make about progressives "enabling pedophilia" does not logically follow.
And it is the reason women, who may not necessarily behave like women in aggregate do, won't meaningfully be concerned about changing things that are in their sociobiological interest (or in other words, "why feminists claims to believe in fairness between the sexes, but in reality will never work towards that").
Why did you even pick this fight, anyway? "Lesbians want kids so they go to the place where the cells that make them are", sure, but "and that means they're fetishizing men" doesn't logically follow from that claim. Or maybe I'm missing some dimension to "resource exists, human being wants access to resource to do Y".
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
More options
Context Copy link