[RD] Trans Genocide

[Arakhor]

The Don't Say Gay bill absolutely makes provision so that “classroom instruction by school personnel or third parties on sexual orientation or gender identity may not occur”, which will (no doubt intentionally) leave it up to the beholder whether any mention at all of non-cis/het material would qualify. The name I used describes how it will be used to attempt to cleanse Florida schools of all LGBT topics, just like Section 28, which was the point of the reference.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

The Don't Say Gay bill absolutely makes provision so that “classroom instruction by school personnel or third parties on sexual orientation or gender identity may not occur”

doesn't seem that the anti-grooming bill actually specifies anything about gay vs not in particular. also leaves out that this instruction is only barred below a particular age, which is pretty young. young enough that i don't see a need to include anything about sexuality in curriculum.

 

[Farm Boy]

The objective in genocide is to kill "a people" not to kill people. This is why so much of the activity in genocide revolves around disruption: separating people from their homeland, separating children from parents, suppressing or actively discouraging the use of an associated language, prohibiting the use of traditional names or name formats, regularizing familial structure, criminalizing certain kinds of dress or cultural practices, etc. The goal is to cease expression of or identification with "the people" (and generally to replace it with either the dominant identity or a dependent subordinate identity). The suffering of the people you are genociding is immaterial, as, as Lemkin notes, the object is the group, even if the specific targets are individuals. You'll realize that this implicates basically all of colonialist practice as well as all historical examples of primitive accumulation under capitalism. That is not a coincidence.

So, genocide, as the term is used here, is not a harm against persons, it is more akin to... revoking a corporate charter? The people don't stop being <targeted quality> , they just aren't visibly and outwardly on "the same team" as such. Not being glib, I just know I don't use the same language "we all" here do on CFC, time to time.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

if, in claiming others are committing genocide, one cites a definition/approach that implies the person making the assertion supports genocide in some capacity, it's probably worth considering whether this is a functional definition/use of the term.

genocide means a lot less when everyone is supposedly doing it.

 

[sophie]

So, genocide, as the term is used here, is not a harm against persons, it is more akin to... revoking a corporate charter? The people don't stop being <targeted quality> , they just aren't visibly and outwardly on "the same team" as such. Not being glib, I just know I don't use the same language "we all" here do on CFC, time to time.

More like a hostile takeover. We are removing all evidence of the previous, independent entity, and replacing it either a) wholesale with our own branding, culture, structures, etc.; or b) reconstituting the entity as a docile, pliant subsidiary.

In colonialist enterprises the project is to a) destroy the previous, self-sufficient culture and means of existence, and b) replace it with one wholly revolving around extracting resources and value and transferring them to the metropole. Remember the first concentration camps were implemented by colonial powers (the US, Spain in Cuba, Germany in Namibia) over their colonized subjects in an effort to restrict or destroy cultural and ethnic identities which they directly associated with disruptive insurrectionary activity. Nazi Germany drew direct inspiration from those projects. They said as much explicitly.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Christian and White supremist groups often claim that US immigration policy, gay marriage, and interracial marriage are genocidal policies against white Christian America perpetuated by Jews and other non white groups.

 

[sophie]

Christian and White supremist groups often claim that US immigration policy, gay marriage, and interracial marriage are genocidal policies against white Christian America perpetuated by Jews and other non white groups.

And the Nazis and southern slaveholders did the same. It's almost like you cannot understand this stuff simply by using syllogistic logic.

 

[Lexicus]

This viewpoint is divorced of all surrounding context. It only makes sense in a vacuum.

Typhus killed Anne Frank, not the Nazis.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Typhus killed Anne Frank, not the Nazis.

Had she taken better care of herself, perhaps had more fresh air and exercise, she would have been fine. Living in that attic probably reduced her immune system's effectiveness.

 

[Farm Boy]

So this is two parts. What people are, and how they outwardly posture, for lack of a better term. This genocide as discussed in our exchange is about posture, but the issues being discussed on part of government intervention and support are frequently about supporting the intrinsic person, not the posture. Medical treatments are about persons. Medical diagnoses are about persons. Media and state compelled speech in form of education are posture.

It seems like the existence of people who are trans, a diagnosable way of being with medical treatments, cannot be erased with the same tools as one would erase a religion, or nationality? Even if they don't know what they are, because it is suppressed, they still are?

 

[Rg339]

It seems to me that the hang up over the word genocide is a limitation of language, and that there isn’t really dispute over the intent of the laws in question; to marginalize the ability to transition.

This may be new territory, culturally. We might need a new word for legislation intended to marginalize the trans community specifically.

 

[Synobun]

It seems to me that the hang up over the word genocide is a limitation of language, and that there isn’t really dispute over the intent of the laws in question; to marginalize the ability to transition.

This may be new territory, culturally. We might need a new word for legislation intended to marginalize the trans community specifically.

Well... why? The actual study of genocide, academically, makes the transphobic agenda a fairly textbook case of it. Why does this make unrelated people so uncomfortable? Why is this word "too big"? Why does there need to be a word just for trans people?

 

[Rg339]

Well... why? The actual study of genocide, academically, makes the transphobic agenda a fairly textbook case of it. Why does this make unrelated people so uncomfortable? Why is this word "too big"? Why does there need to be a word just for trans people?

For utility.

It is clear that there is intent in this legislation to marginalize trans people, specifically.

It should not be difficult for the public to arrive at consensus that this is out of order.

However, you throw the word genocide in, now you have debate, discord. Said debate reduces effective support against the measure. It allows those who support such legislation to say to the undecided audience, “hey, it ain’t genocide, look at these hysterics”

If you have a word that represents marginalization of the ability to transition specifically, there would be no muddying of the waters. This legislation is clearly that; should such a word exist, there would be no 10 page debate.

Edit: I would wager that if such a word were to exist, this legislation would not have passed. It’s the obfuscation that makes it politically pliable; remove that, attach an -ism where one rightfully needs to be, consensus forms against the legislation, and it does not pass. Non starter.

 

[sophie]

So this is two parts. What people are, and how they outwardly posture, for lack of a better term. This genocide as discussed in our exchange is about posture, but the issues being discussed on part of government intervention and support are frequently about supporting the intrinsic person, not the posture. Medical treatments are about persons. Medical diagnoses are about persons. Media and state compelled speech in form of education are posture.

It seems like the existence of people who are trans, a diagnosable way of being with medical treatments, cannot be erased with the same tools as one would erase a religion, or nationality? Even if they don't know what they are, because it is suppressed, they still are?

One might say, for instance, precisely the same sort of thing about being Jewish. You can change "posture" by banning the wearing of yamelkas, banning the speaking of Yiddish or Hebrew, prohibiting the giving of time off on Friday evening or Saturday and closing down or destroying synagogues, but none of that necessarily means you are "destroying" the Jewish beliefs or identity inside. Of course the intent is to make the outward practice or posture of being Jewish so onerous that the people will stop feeling it on the inside, or else not transmit its belief, identity, and practices to the next generation, but whether or not that is really the hope within the mind of the genocidaire is rather immaterial. The genocidaire wants "Jewish" to cease to exist as a category, and will use the means at their disposal to make that so.

The stated objective is the same here. The state of Florida is seeking to suppress the "posture" of being trans by restricting access to drugs, by prohibiting teens from presenting or being acknowledged as trans at school, and by restricting the diffusion of knowledge about being trans or the trans identity. If we take the Republicans at their word, the stated logic is that if you prevent people from "posturing" as trans, their transness will pass away and they will resume being cis. But whether this is truly what they believe or not is immaterial: whether the belief is that doing so will make us ontologically cis or will simply compel us to no longer openly express our being trans, the objective in both cases is to make "trans" cease to exist as a category, and to use what means are at their disposal to effect that outcome.

 

[Synobun]

For utility.

It is clear that there is intent in this legislation to marginalize trans people, specifically.

It should not be difficult for the public to arrive at consensus that this is out of order.

However, you throw the word genocide in, now you have debate, discord. Said debate reduces effective support against the measure. It allows those who support such legislation to say to the undecided audience, “hey, it ain’t genocide, look at these hysterics”

If you have a word that represents marginalization of the ability to transition specifically, there would be no muddying of the waters. This legislation is clearly that; should such a word exist, there would be no 10 page debate.

Edit: I would wager that if such a word were to exist, this legislation would not have passed. It’s the obfuscation that makes it politically pliable; remove that, attach an -ism where one rightfully needs to be, consensus forms against the legislation, and it does not pass. Non starter.

Well, this legislation is not the only of its kind. It is one piece of a larger movement. The people arguing against the term are the same people who support the legislation or at least couldn't care less about it.

The word genocide isn't being "thrown in." The "undecided audience" has had ample time to pick a side. Being undecided is a side. The uncaring moderate is as destructive as the intentional conservative when it comes to legislation and socially accepted erasure.

Making up a word that specifically describes "marginalization of the ability to transition" is nonsense. There is more happening. It does not stop there. Playing madlibs for every milestone of the genocide handbook is to no one's benefit except the people wreaking the havoc.

 

[Rg339]

Well, this legislation is not the only of its kind. It is one piece of a larger movement. The people arguing against the term are the same people who support the legislation or at least couldn't care less about it.

What is and is not publicly acceptable is determined by many complicated factors. There is a pattern to it, recently, though: attach an -ism where one rightfully belongs, where the vast majority would agree one belongs, and such views soon fall into disgrace. Peer pressure from bosses work against airing such views, and the numbers of believers swiftly diminish.

The word genocide isn't being "thrown in." The "undecided audience" has had ample time to pick a side. Being undecided is a side.

Here, I think you underestimate the amount of people who are not much involved with anything outside of their direct experience. Most people, the vast majority, have no experience being trans. They don’t even know any trans people. They are totally undecided as to anything regarding anything trans.

Making up a word that specifically describes "marginalization of the ability to transition" is nonsense. There is more happening. It does not stop there. Playing madlibs for every milestone of the genocide handbook is to no one's benefit except the people wreaking the havoc.

I disagree. The fastest path to stop such legislation is for the public to arrive at defining such a word. Win the point of impact regarding language, and there is no room for supporters of such bills to maneuver, such is the weight of social factors supporting inclusivity.

 

[sophie]

I think you're also dismissing the utility in using the term genocide to actually engage with what is happening. The issue at play for me is that Americans have really made genocide synonymous in their minds with the Holocaust, and more specifically the Holocaust as strictly and exclusively the death camps. But the death camps did not pop into existence, fully formed, straight from the mind of Adolf Hitler and Reinhard Himmler in 1942-43. Genocide is a historical process, one that begins long before, and incorporates throughout, means far exceeding just the camps and death squads. And if you aren't prepared to engage with that analysis, then we are truly stuck in the "genocide can only be applied retrospectively" mode of social analysis. And god help us all if that's the case.

Here, I think you underestimate the amount of people who are not much involved with anything outside of their direct experience. Most people, the vast majority, have no experience being trans. They don’t even know any trans people. They are totally undecided as to anything regarding anything trans.

Case in point. What on earth do you think happened during the Holocaust? Do you think every German (or even every Nazi) personally despised Jewish people and actively wished for and celebrated their detention?

 

[Synobun]

I disagree. The fastest path to stop such legislation is for the public to arrive at defining such a word. Win the point of impact regarding language, and there is no room for supporters of such bills to maneuver, such is the weight of social factors supporting inclusivity.

Except there is room for supporters to maneuver. It's happening here, now, with the word genocide. An accurate word is being derided and dismissed. Why would they care about an "accurate -ism"? They're already transphobic and it's done nothing.

 

[Farm Boy]

One might say, for instance, precisely the same sort of thing about being Jewish. You can change "posture" by banning the wearing of yamelkas, banning the speaking of Yiddish or Hebrew, prohibiting the giving of time off on Friday evening or Saturday and closing down or destroying synagogues, but none of that necessarily means you are "destroying" the Jewish beliefs or identity inside. Of course the intent is to make the outward practice or posture of being Jewish so onerous that the people will stop feeling it on the inside, or else not transmit its belief, identity, and practices to the next generation, but whether or not that is really the hope within the mind of the genocidaire is rather immaterial. The genocidaire wants "Jewish" to cease to exist as a category, and will use the means at their disposal to make that so.

The stated objective is the same here. The state of Florida is seeking to suppress the "posture" of being trans by restricting access to drugs, by prohibiting teens from presenting or being acknowledged as trans at school, and by restricting the diffusion of knowledge about being trans or the trans identity. If we take the Republicans at their word, the stated logic is that if you prevent people from "posturing" as trans, their transness will pass away and they will resume being cis. But whether this is truly what they believe or not is immaterial: whether the belief is that doing so will make us ontologically cis or will simply compel us to no longer openly express our being trans, the objective in both cases is to make "trans" cease to exist as a category, and to use what means are at their disposal to effect that outcome.

Is being Jewish a religious and cultural identity, or is it inborn? I know the state of Israel and the Third Reich errored on the side of inborn, but it seems to me that if somebody doesn't know they had a Jewish grandmother, and they don't practice, the will lack the essential characteristics of being Jewish in a way that a oppressed trans person will not lack the qualities of being trans? Is that super off base? Attributing a culture or religion to "blood" in this way... sort of seems inappropriate to take it to the same degree a gender or sexual identity? More questions, I know I know. But I'm appreciating the exchange.

 

[Cloud_Strife]

The constant deferral to semantics is a tactic used by anti trans individuals, in this very thread, and those sympathetic to their ideas, to delay recognition of what the trans community readily accepts, the determination of anti trans individuals to see us wiped out, through violence or other means relating to discriminating against trans people to the point they stay closeted