[RD] Trans Genocide

[Cloud_Strife]

cis people really do just not give a ****, don't they?

Desperately trying to hide how they want us gone through increasingly ridiculous euphemisms

 

[Lexicus]

let's not use it casually or before the fact.

First of all the insinuation that @schlaufuchs has used the term casually here is wrong and insulting. The second condition here basically amounts to saying you cannot call out a genocide until after it's already over, which is certainly quite a position for this site to officially take...

 

[Cloud_Strife]

First of all the insinuation that @schlaufuchs has used the term casually here is wrong and insulting. The second condition here basically amounts to saying you cannot call out a genocide until after it's already over, which is certainly quite a position for this site to officially take...

We have to wait until an arbitrary amount of trans people die or "stop existing" before it's even considered morally, let alone legally, wrong

 

[sophie]

The Holocaust was a tragedy for queer people too

The difference is that we were thrown back in the camps after "liberation."

 

[JohannaK]

i saw it the first time. not funding something through state insurance is not "deliberately inflicting" anything. if you want to refute the statement, it's not helpful to re-post definitions that don't refute the statement.


this might be true, but gender pay gap is wildly misrepresented generally. past evidence about these assertions requires scrutiny for this one too.

resources are finite. allocating them differently than you agree with (including not compelling tax payers to pay for things) is not the same thing as genocide, no matter how many times you repeat it.


that seems like an outlandish claim at its face. last i saw stats on it, dysphoria vs trans wasn't "almost universally" or close.


nothing you put in the preceding text of the paragraph supports this conclusion; the use of "ergo" isn't appropriate in this sentence. the state does not "inflict conditions" by allocating funding differently than you agree with. there are conditions you want the state to help with, and the state does not agree to pay for them. that's not what genocide looks like. pretending otherwise is hyperbole.

though again, maybe making health care something the state decides and holds controlling interest over is bad after all? maybe that mocked "libertarian stance" might have been helpful?

Come on man, you can't be this bad, stop pretending your reading comprehension stops where your bigotry starts.

 

[Birdjaguar]

First of all the insinuation that @schlaufuchs has used the term casually here is wrong and insulting. The second condition here basically amounts to saying you cannot call out a genocide until after it's already over, which is certainly quite a position for this site to officially take...

Moderator Action: Multiple people have been using the term. CFC discussions cannot solve the problems trans people face. Our goal is to allow civil discussions and using genocide tends to be inflammatory. This thread is supposed to be about posting News. If you want to discuss acts of genocide against trans people, please start a thread on that topic. You will have much more latitude there.

 

[Cloud_Strife]

"Civil discussions" about whether purposefully eliminating trans people by way of pushing them back into the closet and detransitioning is on par with culturally eliminating an entire group of people

 

[sophie]

So you're happy to hear the news on queer people, as long as queer people don't connect the dots between the items in the news too explicitly for your sensibilities. Got it.

Nothing bad happening here sir. Sorry some blood got on your shoes sir. I'll move along sir.

 

[Birdjaguar]

So you're happy to hear the news on queer people, as long as queer people don't connect the dots between the items in the news too explicitly for your sensibilities. Got it.

Nothing bad happening here sir. Sorry some blood got on your shoes sir. I'll move along sir.

Moderator Action: Not at all. All the queer news is fine. The use of genocide is as you know one that can raise the emotional content of the conversation. It is more appropriate to have that discussed in a separate thread so it doesn't distract from the less controversial news. Why are you opposed to having the discussion in its own thread? If Florida is passing laws you see as genocidal, post them in such thread and go after it. Having the discussion is just fine; Compartmentalizing it allows participants to focus on the topic since it is pretty specific.

My personal sensibilities are not involved in this.

 

[El_Machinae]

Not paying because you don't like the cost effectiveness will not be the same as not paying because you disapprove.

They're just different conversations

When determining cost-effectiveness of medical services in the U.S., policymakers consider something cost-effective if the price is below $100,000 per year of quality of life. In the first five years, the researchers found, providing health care for transgender people cost between $34,000 and $43,000 per year of quality of life; after 10 years, the cost dropped to between $7,000 and $10,000 per year of quality of life.

Study: Paying for Transgender Health Care Cost-Effective | Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health

Paying for sex reassignment surgery and hormones is actually cost-effective, even though U.S. health insurance plans deny benefits to transgender men and women for medical care necessary to transition to the opposite sex, a new analysis finds.

publichealth.jhu.edu

Link isn't well-researched, grabbed one as an example.

DALYs don't work like how some people think they work (hence the $$$ look weird), plus mis-diagnosis, under-treatment or over-treatment can occur just like in any medical field

Part of the cost of failing to treat is because we mistreat queer people in other ways

I focused on 'genocide' upthread. I can definitely see why failing to provide cost-effective services falls within the wheel house of that term.

Longer term, we're going to run into trouble, because uterine-level interventions to choose the proclivity will become increasingly possible unless the science is suppressed. If we're looking at specifically costs, the savings from gender-affirming care are partially because they're offsetting other costs. So, the uterine conversations will be different. Like, not making someone who will need surgery to avoid depression is just very different discussion



Edit: woah, the thread moved a lot since I first tried to post this

 

[Synobun]

Not paying because you don't like the cost effectiveness will not be the same as not paying because you disapprove.

They're just different conversations

When it comes to the very fundamental premise of someone's existence, I am not sure this applies. Or rather, I'm not sure it's anything more than a moral balm for economists/capitalists who find numbers more interesting than human lives.

 

[RobAnybody]

I do think "genocide" is the wrong word to use & is unnecessarily inflammatory. A lot of the things disabled people need - wheelchairs, prosthetics, walkers, even just basic supplies & treatments & specialist visits that most people have no idea about unless they or someone they care about is affected... those things are very often not covered by the government or even private insurance. But I'd never say that by not providing them anyone wants to perpetrate genocide on disabled people.

Not trying to equate disabled & trans, that is certainly not my point - just saying that something not being covered by insurance or the government in no way rises to the level of genocide.

 

[Lexicus]

But I'd never say that by not providing them anyone wants to perpetrate genocide on disabled people.

Why tho?

 

[Arwon]

Must say my first thought on reading about Florida's attempt to kill and eliminate trans people was that it was pretty much attempted genocide. It is pretty explicitly eliminationist by design. If you find pointing this out a bit shocking, that's probably on you. Not sure tut tutting about well actually trans people aren't an ethnos is the go here.

Poor to non-existent healthcare has been one mechanism of genocide for a long time, including in the United States as well as most other settler colonies.

 

[Synobun]

I do think "genocide" is the wrong word to use & is unnecessarily inflammatory. A lot of the things disabled people need - wheelchairs, prosthetics, walkers, even just basic supplies & treatments & specialist visits that most people have no idea about unless they or someone they care about is affected... those things are very often not covered by the government or even private insurance. But I'd never say that by not providing them anyone wants to perpetrate genocide on disabled people.

Not trying to equate disabled & trans, that is certainly not my point - just saying that something not being covered by insurance or the government in no way rises to the level of genocide.

The term genocide is not being used to describe a singular data point in isolation. There are multiple things happening, all toward a specific agenda. This process is genocide. Dehumanization and ostracization are necessary steps to socially accepted erasure. This isn't new ground being broken here through unfamiliar territory. This sort of thing has been studied for a while.

Also, going out of your way to trap and isolate disabled people is a precursor to genocide. If you limit a demographic to such an extent that they are led down a difficult path to an inevitable, premature end, you are engaging in genocide. Genocide is not only flashy war stories. Slowing it down or finding a way to make it a poison pill willingly swallowed by the common people does not change the intent and result.

 

[RobAnybody]

Dehumanization and ostracization are necessary steps to socially accepted erasure.

Well, then maybe use those terms that are more appropriate instead.

 

[Lexicus]

Well, then maybe use those terms that are more appropriate instead.

"Use euphemisms because the brutal reality makes people uncomfortable" is not a convincing argument

 

[RobAnybody]

I mean, as opposed to "genocide"? Do you honestly believe that's a more appropriate term?

 

[El_Machinae]

When it comes to the very fundamental premise of someone's existence, I am not sure this applies. Or rather, I'm not sure it's anything more than a moral balm for economists/capitalists who find numbers more interesting than human lives.

I think we often run into this problem, whenever fiscal conservatives are hiding social conservatives. Like, obviously we constantly decide that other people's lives aren't worth it. And other times, we easily decide that certain expenditures are worth it. There are some interventions where the actual cost of the intervention ends up being cost-saving (if the DALY calculations here are true, for example). But even then, the cost-savings don't seem to create significant momentum for approving of the treatment, except with those who were honest about their concerns.

The advantage of having numbers on your side is (a) chipping away at objections actually will be useful over time and (b) obviously makes the interventions more affordable as time goes on. There are a lot of things in medicine where marginal improvements are much more costly than the previous 'best-practice'.

 

[Synobun]

Well, then maybe use those terms that are more appropriate instead.

I don't see how using only symptomatic language is a gain, honestly. Genocide is not a thing that happens in hindsight. There is a process to it with steps to follow. It is not an accident—those who commit it go into it with the drive to commit it. It's not a situation where one thing leads to another and oopsies there was a genocide. The biggest voices in support of dehumanization and ostracization are publicly in favour of trans people's total elimination. They fight every day to back trans people into a corner, to make them fear for their lives. What, exactly, is the point of pretending the end goal isn't what it is? Anti-trans sentiment isn't relegated to the crackpots of society, harmless and but a mere annoyance. This is legislation being enacted en masse, certain to affect thousands of people and directly put them in harm's way.