Biden team faced "tirade" at meeting with Chinese over America's poor human rights record in "Diplomatic humiliation"

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
11,029
5,796
118
Country
United Kingdom
What makes it obvious? The Uyghurs were exempt from the policy and now aren't. What are the base rates?
This is straightforwardly repeating the official line.

Firstly, the AP link contains testimony from someone who had 3 children (which is explicitly allowed under the law for her area), and was subject to forced sterilisation. There's testimony here from a survivor who only had one child, which is perfectly legal, and was nonetheless instructed to undergo two unnecessary surgeries.

The Guardian said:
Messages she got from local authorities said women aged 19 to 59 were expected to have intrauterine devices (IUDs) fitted or undergo sterilisation.
The Guardian said:
On the day of her appointment there were no Han Chinese among crowds of women waiting for their compulsory birth control at the government compound, she said.
Then we have the fact that the birthrate in Xinjiang is now significantly below the national average. In connection with multiple testimonies attesting these procedures are being directed en-masse at people who aren't in contravention of the law, but are merely of childbearing age. None of this is explicable by assuming the law is being equally applied. That's the party line, repeated ad-nauseum in the face of all accusation.


Does it actually, by itself? What if China's notorious censorship and control over the internet is related in the straightforward way that they repeatedly say it is in private, and it does actually matter whether individuals have watched an ISIS video or ETIM propaganda or whatever? Does that not seem plausible?
That's not plausible at all. We have people of childbearing age, who have broken no law, forced to undergo surgery. We have millions of people interned without charge, without a shred of evidence that they've actually watched propaganda or whatever. You would have to make an absurd set of assumptions to come to that conclusion; that millions of people were guilty (though nothing has been presented to show this, and they haven't even been charged or accused). It would be credulity beyond all reason.

Notably, by the standard you're operating from here, the United States is genociding its black population. One does not need to be charged with anything to be killed; one's skin color gets someone killed.
This is true. Though "genocide" tends to also involve an orchestrated and systematic effort on the part of the higher authority to destroy a population. It's not "my standard"; Dozens of independent experts in international law have attested that this breaches the 1948 genocide convention.


To what end, even assuming you're correct?
To what end... am I wanting people to stop downplaying and dismissing it? If I'm understanding that right, that's an utterly bizarre question.
 
Last edited:

crimson5pheonix

It took 6 months to read my title.
Legacy
Jun 6, 2008
36,113
3,283
118
I have a list of women who weren't forcibly sterilized, none of them got hysterectomies at all. Some of them had a breakdown in communication with the doctor that might be suspicious if anyone had received an unnecessary hysterectomy, and some have seemingly legitimate grievances about the care they received. That doctor did not sterilize anyone on the list of people filing against him. You're just wrong.
You know, until they weren't telling them what they were doing until right before they were cutting them open.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Revnak and Kae

Kae

That which exists in the absence of space.
Legacy
Nov 27, 2009
5,792
712
118
Country
The Dreamlands
Gender
Lose 1d20 sanity points.
I have a list of women who weren't forcibly sterilized, none of them got hysterectomies at all. Some of them had a breakdown in communication with the doctor that might be suspicious if anyone had received an unnecessary hysterectomy, and some have seemingly legitimate grievances about the care they received. That doctor did not sterilize anyone on the list of people filing against him. You're just wrong.
Must be easy living in a fantasy where whenever your country does something wrong you just pretend they didn't and ignore all evidence, just so you don't have to confront the reality that you live in a horrible white supremacist authoritarian hellscape.

Alternatively there's the possibility that you're simply a racist and you're just making excuses for a thing you would like to happen more often or on a grander scale, in either case you're still just plain delusional.
 
  • Like
Reactions: crimson5pheonix

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Aug 4, 2011
6,468
923
118
Country
USA
Must be easy living in a fantasy where whenever your country does something wrong you just pretend they didn't and ignore all evidence, just so you don't have to confront the reality that you live in a horrible white supremacist authoritarian hellscape.

Alternatively there's the possibility that you're simply a racist and you're just making excuses for a thing you would like to happen more often or on a grander scale, in either case you're still just plain delusional.
Are you as bad as crimson? Are you also content to ignore the evidence, and just presuppose that reality conforms to your narrow perspective? I presented the most comprehensive direct evidence available, it did not have a single person forcibly sterilized in it, yet you both continue with your delusions.

If all it takes to make you happy is toeing the line and perpetuating the lies so you can like each others' posts here, I guess you're having a good time at least, but I hope you understand that there isn't an ounce of righteousness in it.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
11,029
5,796
118
Country
United Kingdom
Are you as bad as crimson? Are you also content to ignore the evidence, and just presuppose that reality conforms to your narrow perspective? I presented the most comprehensive direct evidence available, it did not have a single person forcibly sterilized in it, yet you both continue with your delusions.
It's not presupposition. It's the direct testimony of multiple people who worked there, as well as numerous detainees.

Project South said:
I’ve had several inmates tell me that they’ve been to see the doctor and they’ve had hysterectomies and they don’t know why they went or why they’re going.
Project South said:
Everybody he sees has a hysterectomy—just about everybody. He’s even taken out the wrong ovary on a young lady. She was supposed to get her left ovary removed because it had a cyst on the left ovary; he took out the right one. She was upset. She had to go back to take out the left and she wound up with a total hysterectomy.
What you're relying on is just the official line (that only two surgeries occurred), which is directly contradicted by multiple testimonies. Things get covered up. Don't credulously repeat the official line as if that's the end of it.
 

Kae

That which exists in the absence of space.
Legacy
Nov 27, 2009
5,792
712
118
Country
The Dreamlands
Gender
Lose 1d20 sanity points.
Are you as bad as crimson? Are you also content to ignore the evidence, and just presuppose that reality conforms to your narrow perspective? I presented the most comprehensive direct evidence available, it did not have a single person forcibly sterilized in it, yet you both continue with your delusions.

If all it takes to make you happy is toeing the line and perpetuating the lies so you can like each others' posts here, I guess you're having a good time at least, but I hope you understand that there isn't an ounce of righteousness in it.
Nah, man the person that's bad here is you, you are denying reality.

As for who I am, a Mexican person that lives in the actual city where the detainees are sent to once they are released, who has friends that have been locked up in ICE facilities and that are currently locked up in ICE facilities, someone that has actually spoken to the people that have been there, which I'm pretty sure makes me the person most qualified to give an informed opinion on this entire fucking thread unless there's someone here that has actually been to an ICE facility, because I'm basically the only person here that has had contact with the reality of it.

I can also tell you that media is pulling a lot of punches and as is typical of USA genocide they are raping the women and children, because of course they are, they always do that because the USA is just the absolute fucking worst, but you don't see the media talking about, it's almost is if everything the US government says about the Latin American immigrants is just projecting-
 

Seanchaidh

Elite Member
Legacy
Mar 21, 2009
5,241
3,065
118
Country
United States of America
Then we have the fact that the birthrate in Xinjiang is now significantly below the national average. In connection with multiple testimonies attesting these procedures are being directed en-masse at people who aren't in contravention of the law, but are merely of childbearing age. None of this is explicable by assuming the law is being equally applied. That's the party line, repeated ad-nauseum in the face of all accusation.
If all that is true, then OK, you're probably right about that part.

That's not plausible at all. We have people of childbearing age, who have broken no law, forced to undergo surgery.
A separate issue from the camps.

We have millions of people interned without charge, without a shred of evidence that they've actually watched propaganda or whatever. You would have to make an absurd set of assumptions to come to that conclusion; that millions of people were guilty (though nothing has been presented to show this, and they haven't even been charged or accused).
They haven't been charged with a crime because presumably the reasons for detention are not considered criminal matters.

To what end... am I wanting people to stop downplaying and dismissing it? If I'm understanding that right, that's an utterly bizarre question.
What do you suppose will come of people in the United States and UK and so on affirming the official State Department line on the evil of the Chinese regime? Something good? What?
 

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Aug 4, 2011
6,468
923
118
Country
USA
What you're relying on is just the official line (that only two surgeries occurred), which is directly contradicted by multiple testimonies. Things get covered up. Don't credulously repeat the official line as if that's the end of it.
Ummm, Silvanus. My source is the court filing done as the end result of that whistleblower. A collection of victims alleging malpractice filing a complaint against the doctor, with the help of lawyers of course, and they didn't find a single woman who had a hysterectomy to sign onto the complaint. Unless you think the victims themselves are covering up the forced sterilization, I'm definitely not repeating some sketchy official line. The only line in this thread I've pulled from the hospital's perspective is their claim that they performed two hysterectomies on ICE patients during that time period, which is two more than the number of hysterectomies in the complaint.

And like, you could take information from the legal filing and dissect that original complaint further. The specific woman we've been mostly talking about comes up in the complaint, where she supposedly was told she needed surgery because of bleeding, but claims she never had bleeding. And then you look at the legal filings, and she was factually seeing that doctor because of heavy cramps and bleeding. So like, when two sources conflict, which do you trust? The legal filing signed onto by the victims themselves, or mostly anonymous second-hand information presented by a political advocacy group? And like, even that advocacy group didn't come close to claiming there were forced sterilizations.
 

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Aug 4, 2011
6,468
923
118
Country
USA
As for who I am, a Mexican person...
Who lives under national voter ID laws. I know that's a different thread, but since you didn't respond over there, I thought you ought to know.
I can also tell you that media is pulling a lot of punches and as is typical of USA genocide they are raping the women and children, because of course they are, they always do that because the USA is just the absolute fucking worst, but you don't see the media talking about, it's almost is if everything the US government says about the Latin American immigrants is just projecting-
So we're talking a lot about one particular woman who almost (but didn't) have a hysterectomy. That woman, unrelated to the hysterectomy, was sexually assaulted in ICE custody... by another detainee. I'm not taking ICE or the government or the media's word for it. She testifies to that herself in the legal filing. I think you're the one projecting.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
11,029
5,796
118
Country
United Kingdom
A separate issue from the camps.
Scarcely. It's a pattern of brutal population control aimed at an ethnic minority. The camps are a part of that; the forced unnecessary surgeries are a part of that. The pattern amounts to genocide.

They haven't been charged with a crime because presumably the reasons for detention are not considered criminal matters.
Not shady at all.

What do you suppose will come of people in the United States and UK and so on affirming the official State Department line on the evil of the Chinese regime? Something good? What?
What in hell is the argument here? We should deny and cover-up malpractice and violence elsewhere if the US State Dept. could theoretically use it as a justification for something? Fuck no. Something being true, and deeply awful, is reason enough to bring attention to it. We don't need to be doing their PR for them as they carry out ethnic cleansing.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
11,029
5,796
118
Country
United Kingdom
Ummm, Silvanus. My source is the court filing done as the end result of that whistleblower. A collection of victims alleging malpractice filing a complaint against the doctor, with the help of lawyers of course, and they didn't find a single woman who had a hysterectomy to sign onto the complaint. Unless you think the victims themselves are covering up the forced sterilization, I'm definitely not repeating some sketchy official line.
And why do you think that is? Why do you think detainees, at the mercy of camp authorities widely accused of violent abuse, might be willing to attest to brutality anonymously, but unwilling to put their name to an official complaint?

I mean, hell, the legal petition that you provided contains a section entitled "Respondents Have Actively Endangered Petitioners’ Health, Denied Petitioners Adequate Medical Care, and Retaliated Against Petitioners".

And like, you could take information from the legal filing and dissect that original complaint further. The specific woman we've been mostly talking about comes up in the complaint, where she supposedly was told she needed surgery because of bleeding, but claims she never had bleeding. And then you look at the legal filings, and she was factually seeing that doctor because of heavy cramps and bleeding. So like, when two sources conflict, which do you trust? The legal filing signed onto by the victims themselves, or mostly anonymous second-hand information presented by a political advocacy group? And like, even that advocacy group didn't come close to claiming there were forced sterilizations.
You're conflating testimonies. The person who attested that she had "never experienced heavy bleeding" was not named, for fear of reprisal; her testimony was provided via Dawn Wooten, a nurse. Her testimony is not included in the legal filing.
 

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Aug 4, 2011
6,468
923
118
Country
USA
And why do you think that is? Why do you think detainees, at the mercy of camp authorities widely accused of violent abuse, might be willing to attest to brutality anonymously, but unwilling to put their name to an official complaint?

I mean, hell, the legal petition that you provided contains a section entitled "Respondents Have Actively Endangered Petitioners’ Health, Denied Petitioners Adequate Medical Care, and Retaliated Against Petitioners".
They are willing to put their names on an official complaint. That's the official complaint. Moreover, they don't have to sign their names to be on the official complaint, a few of them are listed as Jane Doe. The reason nobody is on there having been forced to get a hysterectomy is because it didn't happen. A bunch of bad things did happen. There's plenty in that legal filing to be upset about. It just isn't genocide.

And like, even the initial whistleblower complaint has nothing about forced hysterectomies. There was concern and suspicion about hysterectomies, but it was based on things like "I talked to 5 different women who had hysterectomies". Out of how many? Over what time period? It's a very common procedure, I don't know if that's a high rate even if we take it at face value. Another cause of concern was people not really understanding the procedure or the reason for it, and that's certainly bad and deserving of action if true, but that doesn't tell me that any single hysterectomy wasn't medically justified or if the rate was higher than in the outside population. The document you linked doesn't make an accusation of forced sterilization, it just provides enough information for someone to infer that, it's not a contradiction that no forced hysterectomies were found.

You're conflating testimonies. The person who attested that she had "never experienced heavy bleeding" was not named, for fear of reprisal; her testimony was provided via Dawn Wooten, a nurse. Her testimony is not included in the legal filing.
It's the same woman. From Project South:
The officer who was transporting her to the hospital told her that she was receiving a hysterectomy to have her womb removed. When the hospital refused to operate on her because her COVID-19 test came back positive for antibodies, she was transferred back to ICDC where the ICDC nurse said that the procedure she was going to have done entailed dilating her vagina and scraping tissue off. The nurse first told the detained immigrant she was going to get this procedure done because she had heavy bleeding, but then told her it was because she had a thick womb. The woman quickly responded that she never had heavy bleeding in her life and was never told by the doctor that she had a thick womb
From the legal filing:
During her detention at ICDC, Respondent Amin had subjected her to non-consensual, invasive gynecological procedures and repeatedly pressured her into undergoing a hysterectomy, which she avoided on the day of the scheduled surgery only because she had tested positive for COVID-19.25 On September 15, 2020, Unnamed ICDC Officer #1 specifically asked Ms. Floriano Navarro whether she had spoken up. Ms. Floriano Navarro responded, “Yes, it was me. . . . I told a lawyer that you guys were doing illegal surgeries here.” Respondents deported Ms. Floriano Navarro the following day.
Unless you're suggesting there is a second woman who was scheduled for a hysterectomy but didn't have it because of covid and Project South decided not to include Navarro's information, it's the same woman in both.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
11,029
5,796
118
Country
United Kingdom
They are willing to put their names on an official complaint. That's the official complaint. Moreover, they don't have to sign their names to be on the official complaint, a few of them are listed as Jane Doe.
Have you actually read the sections on retaliation? Beating complainants in front of others as a method of intimidation; spotting someone writing a grievance, and tearing it up. These are people detained in a facility run by the respondents. There is obvious danger in being involved.

The reason nobody is on there having been forced to get a hysterectomy is because it didn't happen.
...If you assume testimonies are false, and conclude that only what's reported in official reports actually takes place. Which stretches credulity to naivete.

And like, even the initial whistleblower complaint has nothing about forced hysterectomies. There was concern and suspicion about hysterectomies, but it was based on things like "I talked to 5 different women who had hysterectomies". Out of how many? Over what time period? It's a very common procedure, I don't know if that's a high rate even if we take it at face value. Another cause of concern was people not really understanding the procedure or the reason for it, and that's certainly bad and deserving of action if true, but that doesn't tell me that any single hysterectomy wasn't medically justified or if the rate was higher than in the outside population. The document you linked doesn't make an accusation of forced sterilization, it just provides enough information for someone to infer that, it's not a contradiction that no forced hysterectomies were found.
Read. The. Testimonies.


It's the same woman. From Project South:

From the legal filing:

Unless you're suggesting there is a second woman who was scheduled for a hysterectomy but didn't have it because of covid and Project South decided not to include Navarro's information, it's the same woman in both.
So, this is presumption based on similar circumstances, then, even though other details don't match.

The entire basis of the claim is that these procedures are commonplace. You've got nothing.
 

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Aug 4, 2011
6,468
923
118
Country
USA
...If you assume testimonies are false, and conclude that only what's reported in official reports actually takes place. Which stretches credulity to naivete.
Read. The. Testimonies.
I have read the testimonies. Maybe you should too. And quote me, don't link the document, actually quote the words where that document says unnecessary hysterectomies were performed. (Hint: it doesn't)
So, this is presumption based on similar circumstances, then, even though other details don't match.

The entire basis of the claim is that these procedures are commonplace. You've got nothing.
So Project South published their complaint containing the same major details as Navarro's experience, the ICDC staff asked her if she had talked to them about herself, she said "yes", she put that interaction into her legal complaint, and you think it's coincidence? Ok.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
11,029
5,796
118
Country
United Kingdom
I have read the testimonies. Maybe you should too. And quote me, don't link the document, actually quote the words where that document says unnecessary hysterectomies were performed. (Hint: it doesn't)
These details have already been provided, but fine.

Project South said:
"He’s even taken out the wrong ovary on a young lady. She was supposed to get her left ovary removed because it had a cyst on the left ovary; he took out the right one. She was upset. She had to go back to take out the left and she wound up with a total hysterectomy."
(Note also that this doesn't appear to be a one-off mistake, but part of a pattern; an attorney has also reported that this "wrong ovary removed, then the other removed" approach occurred multiple times).

Project South said:
“I’ve had several inmates tell me that they’ve been to see the doctor and they’ve had hysterectomies and they don’t know why they went or why they’re going".
Then we have subsequent investigation by Congresswoman Jayapal & a number of attorneys;


Jayapal said:
One woman, Pauline, who was nearly deported this morning, consulted the doctor simply about her menstrual cycle. She was put under for what she was told would be a simple procedure, only to wake up and find that the doctor had removed part of her reproductive organs without her knowledge or consent. Another woman, already deported, apparently went in to see the doctor for a simple condition related to diabetes and ended up having gynecological surgery. Two additional women apparently were shackled to the bed, reported to have had surgical procedures, including one apparent hysterectomy, without any consent.
So Project South published their complaint containing the same major details as Navarro's experience, the ICDC staff asked her if she had talked to them about herself, she said "yes", she put that interaction into her legal complaint, and you think it's coincidence? Ok.
Except they're not the "same major details". There's a major difference between the two-- the bleeding. The basis of your contention is that there's a major difference between the two.
 

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Aug 4, 2011
6,468
923
118
Country
USA
These details have already been provided, but fine.
So, no, you have no evidence. Like, going in for surgery and having to remove more than you thought isn't genocide, it isn't even malpractice. For that to be a serious problem, you first have to know the procedure wasn't medically justified. The woman with the removed fallopian tube is the only new information out of your multiple sources, as the rest is just a game of telephone from the same source material we've already looked at. It's not terribly convincing to show a Representative adding more extreme language onto her retelling of the stuff we already saw directly.
Except they're not the "same major details". There's a major difference between the two-- the bleeding. The basis of your contention is that there's a major difference between the two.
If you're really gonna die on this hill, I'm willing to let you. Your argument here is just plain dumb.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
11,029
5,796
118
Country
United Kingdom
So, no, you have no evidence. Like, going in for surgery and having to remove more than you thought isn't genocide, it isn't even malpractice. For that to be a serious problem, you first have to know the procedure wasn't medically justified. The woman with the removed fallopian tube is the only new information out of your multiple sources, as the rest is just a game of telephone from the same source material we've already looked at. It's not terribly convincing to show a Representative adding more extreme language onto her retelling of the stuff we already saw directly.
The source material which you've refused to honestly address. You've just repeated over and over that the source doesn't contain anyone receiving an unnecessary hysterectomy, when it's there in black and white that a full hysterectomy was performed when the patient only had a cyst on one ovary.

And yes, it's serious malpractice to perform major surgery without informed consent. That you don't appear to know or recognise that is stunning.

If you're really gonna die on this hill, I'm willing to let you. Your argument here is just plain dumb.
You're literally assuming it based on a few common factors. Without a name, without all details even matching. You've got nothing.
 

Revnak

We must imagine Sisyphus horny
Legacy
May 25, 2020
2,944
3,099
118
Country
USA
Who lives under national voter ID laws. I know that's a different thread, but since you didn't respond over there, I thought you ought to know.

So we're talking a lot about one particular woman who almost (but didn't) have a hysterectomy. That woman, unrelated to the hysterectomy, was sexually assaulted in ICE custody... by another detainee. I'm not taking ICE or the government or the media's word for it. She testifies to that herself in the legal filing. I think you're the one projecting.
How the fuck do you write something this fucking heinous? A woman gets raped and to win internet points you fucking frame it as being because she and her assaulter are Mexican so you can Uno reverse card a criticism of prison guards onto an entire race? Jesus fucking Christ.