this post was submitted on 18 Aug 2024
88 points (87.3% liked)
askchapo
22764 readers
10 users here now
Ask Hexbear is the place to ask and answer ~~thought-provoking~~ questions.
Rules:
-
Posts must ask a question.
-
If the question asked is serious, answer seriously.
-
Questions where you want to learn more about socialism are allowed, but questions in bad faith are not.
-
Try !feedback@hexbear.net if you're having questions about regarding moderation, site policy, the site itself, development, volunteering or the mod team.
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The thing that convinced me was the data used to support the claim that sterilisation was occuring at record rates - which was technically true, but the jump was from 50 to 250 sterilisations per 100,000 people.
Declining birth rates is occuring across the world, but we don't have to refute claims about genocides in Hong Kong or South Korea which are both much lower than Xinjiang.
It's worth noting that, if we are thinking of the same data, it was IUD insertions, not sterilizations. A woman with an IUD can go to a doctor and have it removed in minutes and be just as capable of reproduction as if she had never had it inserted (barring if there is an accident somewhere along the line). In fact, the devices only last for a finite number of years (how many depends on the model, I think it was once 2 years but is much higher now) and need to be replaced after that interval. It's designed to be a highly reversible process, not at all like male "tube tying", which can sometimes be reversed but is very likely to lead to sterilization.
It was sterilisations - the data below
The graph shows that more sterilisations from 2010-2018 occurred nationally than in Xinjiang (eyeballing it, 725 nationally compared to 575), and 250 sterilisations per 100,000 is not going to be a genocide on any timescale.
My bad, thanks for sharing more details!