We have seen what sterilization compaigns in other countries look like, such as forced hysterectomies in the US and chemical castration in Israel. IUDs are birth control, they don't sterilize the patient. An appropriately-trained doctor can safely remove one in just a few minutes and I don't think you even need equipment to do so!

Literally even if we were imagining China was forcing women to get IUDs, which it isn't, that's not sterilizing them! Those women would not be sterilized!

But this is part of the endless layers of warping and misrepresentation that make things go from "uptick in IUD insertions"

to Zenz exaggerating the rate by a literal order of magnitude

to hack journalists doing circular citations of Associated Press, etc. making sinister insinuations

to people who don't follow this very closely saying "sterilizing"

[–] JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

So temporarily sterilisation? The important question would be whether it is forced.

[–] GarbageShoot@hexbear.net 4 points 1 year ago

Oh, I agree that in a vacuum that would be the more important thing, but I forgot to return to my first point: Given that this would be an extraordinarily poor way of doing forced sterilization and we know that from the many campaigns that we have decent documentation of, in the absence of solid evidence, concluding that this was "a forced sterilization campaign" does not seem reasonable. Like, in terms of everything from resilience to material waste, even just doing tube tyings (which effectively result in genuine sterilization in 1/4 of cases) would be much more effective. It's like saying they are trying to kill Uyghurs by promoting juggling in the hopes that they will bonk themselves in the head and stumble into traffic, it just isn't what such campaigns have ever looked like in practice.