[RD] Trans Erasure

Cloud_Strife

Deity
Joined
Nov 24, 2018
Messages
4,264
Location
Midgar
We've all witnessed the increasing anti trans hostility, both on and off this forum; with people openly comparing transitioning to a form of self harm and abuse.

I think we're being primed for the next "push" into outward genodice of not just trans people, but the greater lgbtq+ community, and it's the same tactics used as in the past; "genuine concerns about the safety of women and children" being one of the biggest dogwhistles used.

So how long? How long until trans people are openly banned from existence, thrown into jail or even camps designed to hold us?

Moderator Action: Part 1 - emzie
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Arwon

Joined
Oct 5, 2006
Messages
19,932
Location
Canberra
Some of those new laws in the US are already straight up eliminationist.
 

mdl5000

King
Joined
Sep 21, 2012
Messages
645
Location
Pennsylvania, USA
then why isn't this there?

*edit*
I hardly think one person's worries about not only unfair comments, not only legal discrimination, not only violence, but outright genocide against a group of people is hardly worth its own topic, without some clarity.
don't you think?
 
Last edited:

schlaufuchs

Break My Heart
Joined
Jun 9, 2008
Messages
16,625
Location
Seattle, WA
might I be provided with an example? that would be a good place to start a discussion

This was just heard at a hearing for a slew of anti-trans bills in ND (incl. full legalization of conversion therapy read: child torture):

1674582355432.png


Arkansas is currently debating a bill that would make it illegal to “sing, dance, or perform while performing a gender identity other than that assigned at birth” for “purient interest,” which, interpreted liberally, could be, say, a trans woman wearing a crop top or blush or a skirt or literally anything in public. They think we do this as a fetish, so by definition any public presence on our part becomes a performance for “purient interest”.

WV is debating a bill to make any kind of “transgender exposure” in the presence of minors illegal.

MS is debating a bill to make it a felony with a minimum 5-year prison sentence to CONSENT to HRT under the age of 21.

Oklahoma is debating a bill to make it illegal to prescribe or receive hormones under-26.

“Think of the children” was the wedge. The ultimate goal is to bring back the obscenity laws and the medical gatekeepers and make it illegal again simply to be visibly trans in public
 

Edmund Ironside

White Rabbit Object
Joined
Jun 27, 2017
Messages
1,158
Location
Michigan, USA.
might I be provided with an example? that would be a good place to start a discussion

This link probably should have been included in the opening post for better context. Trans genocide part 1.

 

schlaufuchs

Break My Heart
Joined
Jun 9, 2008
Messages
16,625
Location
Seattle, WA
And you know it’s specifically about trans people because for all the talk about irreversible damage and undeveloped minds incapable of consent, they all carve out explicit exceptions for things like “correcting” intersex bodies and performing breast reduction surgeries on boys with gynecomastia.
 

Yeekim

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Sep 13, 2006
Messages
11,535
Location
Estonia
Arkansas is currently debating a bill that would make it illegal to “sing, dance, or perform while performing a gender identity other than that assigned at birth” for “purient interest,” which, interpreted liberally, could be, say, a trans woman wearing a crop top or blush or a skirt or literally anything in public. They think we do this as a fetish, so by definition any public presence on our part becomes a performance for “purient interest”.

WV is debating a bill to make any kind of “transgender exposure” in the presence of minors illegal.

MS is debating a bill to make it a felony with a minimum 5-year prison sentence to CONSENT to HRT under the age of 21.

Oklahoma is debating a bill to make it illegal to prescribe or receive hormones under-26.
The heck.
Do these bills have a chance of passing?
 

Broken_Erika

Nothing
Joined
Dec 12, 2004
Messages
10,131
Location
Glasgnopolis, Grottland
The heck.
Do these bills have a chance of passing?
With overwhelming landslide majorities in their state senates. Gotta remember, these are Republican states and all Republicans will vote for them.
Many republicans would prefer that the US is a Theocratic state ruled by Biblical law. But not on the basis of the current bible, they want a new "Conservative" bible. 'cause the current bible has a liberal bias
 

Valka D'Ur

Hosting Iron Pen in A&E
Retired Moderator
Joined
Mar 3, 2005
Messages
28,304
Location
Red Deer, Alberta, Canada
Arkansas is currently debating a bill that would make it illegal to “sing, dance, or perform while performing a gender identity other than that assigned at birth” for “purient interest,” which, interpreted liberally, could be, say, a trans woman wearing a crop top or blush or a skirt or literally anything in public. They think we do this as a fetish, so by definition any public presence on our part becomes a performance for “purient interest”.
Just out of curiosity, is The Simpsons popular in that state? Or how about the Peanuts cartoons? Those will have to be outlawed, as some voice actors for male characters are women and girls.

No more productions of Peter Pan, since Peter is usually portrayed by females (greater vocal range and lighter body weight so the flying harness is easier to use).

Or any of a zillion other examples of entertainments in which a woman or man takes on another gender's role, for whatever reason - like traditional Shakespeare, for instance; it wasn't considered respectable back then for women to perform on stage, so female roles were played by men.

(not to make light of this whole situation by using entertainment as an example of how this hasn't been thought through, but since people don't come with labels, they'd have to make everything illegal, just to "make sure"... :shake:)

With overwhelming landslide majorities in their state senates. Gotta remember, these are Republican states and all Republicans will vote for them.
Many republicans would prefer that the US is a Theocratic state ruled by Biblical law. But not on the basis of the current bible, they want a new "Conservative" bible. 'cause the current bible has a liberal bias
Welcome to Gilead.
 

schlaufuchs

Break My Heart
Joined
Jun 9, 2008
Messages
16,625
Location
Seattle, WA
Yes.

Do note as well many of these bills are worded in such a way that they could also be applied to cis women wearing pants or tank tops or sneakers or the like. It’s no accident that MO also recently passed a rule requiring women to wear skirts and cover their arms in the house chamber. Misogyny and transmisogyny are intimately tied to one another. However little the terfs like to acknowledge this fact.

As always with these christofascist policies, you can appeal to the hypocrisy of it also implicating some putatively cherished cultural institution all you like, but it’s not going to do much. Because they view destroying that cherished institution as a good thing too.
 
Last edited:

Valka D'Ur

Hosting Iron Pen in A&E
Retired Moderator
Joined
Mar 3, 2005
Messages
28,304
Location
Red Deer, Alberta, Canada
It’s no accident that MO also recently passed a rule requiring women to wear skirts and cover their arms in the house chamber.
:dubious:

That's insane. I get that government chambers need some kind of dress code, but forbidding women to wear dress pants or pantsuits... (I don't have a problem with prohibiting sleeveless garb in government/business settings)

Of course the men are required to wear 3-piece suits, with appropriate ties, cufflinks, and pocket watches, even in the hottest days of the sitting?

No? Oh, what a non-surprise. :rolleyes:
 

schlaufuchs

Break My Heart
Joined
Jun 9, 2008
Messages
16,625
Location
Seattle, WA
The heck.
Do these bills have a chance of passing?

The Arkansas bill (the one that makes drag only permissible in strip clubs and makes any trans person performing in any capacity completely illegal, including even simply marching in a parade) just cleared the state senate 29-6

:dubious:

That's insane. I get that government chambers need some kind of dress code, but forbidding women to wear dress pants or pantsuits... (I don't have a problem with prohibiting sleeveless garb in government/business settings)

Of course the men are required to wear 3-piece suits, with appropriate ties, cufflinks, and pocket watches, even in the hottest days of the sitting?

No? Oh, what a non-surprise. :rolleyes:

Sorry, I was mistaken. it was later amended, pants are okay, but all women’s arms must still be covered.
 
Last edited:

Valka D'Ur

Hosting Iron Pen in A&E
Retired Moderator
Joined
Mar 3, 2005
Messages
28,304
Location
Red Deer, Alberta, Canada
That has to be unconstitutional.
 

Gorbles

Load Balanced
Joined
Nov 24, 2014
Messages
9,045
Location
UK
That has to be unconstitutional.
The UK just defied all convention to forcibly deny a law passed by Scotland that did nothing but update gender recognition paperwork to make it less of a hassle. It is very likely to realistically accelerate the end of the Union. All because the party in power in England wanted to be anti-trans.

Those in power always find it remarkably easy to do these things. Constitutions, devolved agreements, whatever. It doesn't stop them.
 

mdl5000

King
Joined
Sep 21, 2012
Messages
645
Location
Pennsylvania, USA
That has to be unconstitutional.
The same could be said on any restrictions of adult-themed businesses

on a whim I decided to look into this Arkansas bill myself, in particular. So that there is no confusion, this is what the text reads:
with legislature updates here:

the key point seems to be performances obviously intended to stimulate some sort of sexual response, e.g. catcalls about removing garments and such, which I don't think covers men sometimes dressing up as women to do plays as in Will Shakespeare's day
 

El_Machinae

Colour vision since 2018
Retired Moderator
Joined
Nov 24, 2005
Messages
48,108
Location
Pale Blue Dot youtube=wupToqz1e2g
then why isn't this there?
Keep in mind, someone who's at risk might not have the energy to compile information for others. As rational it would be to do so, it's harder when it's close to you. Same reason why my advocacy efforts for mental health research suck so much.

But it absolutely is a thing allies could do to recognize the lack of information and then compile it in order to be helpful.
 
Top Bottom