I was going to reply, but unfortunately I was told I didn't give a ****.
At the same time as not giving a **** I also want trans people gone through increasingly ridiculous euphemisms.
Which would imply me giving a ****.
Oh well, that's me told off. And I also guess I'm sorry?
Er... no. Saying Estonians are just Russians would be wrong in many ways, but I would not call that denial of humanity.
However we curse Russians these days, they are still (obviously) human.
As for "ill"... I would not myself use that word. But you ARE arguing that you are in dire need of potentially life-saving medical treatment(s), are you not?
I dunno, given Ziggy's post here, I feel that the Ukraine war thread has a lot of examples of incendiary generalisations that are deemed acceptable in-context.
Why is it that people only ever seem to object when they themselves are on the receiving end?
@Ziggy Stardust.
EDIT
This reads like a leading question, so I'll lay out the general point in the hope it raises some kind of common ground. People are always going to identify more with something they are affected by than something they are not. It's basically a truism. However, Ziggy's post here is a great foil to your claim, Yeekim, because he's taken a generalisation on the Internet as a personal insult (or at least, pretext to sarcastically not engage in good faith with the thread contents).
His post is ironic not least because he is smart enough to understand the nuance and is therefore
choosing not to, but because it demonstrates the immediate defensive reaction from a very mild generalisation (that itself stemmed from another poster in the first place). Meanwhile we have multiple pieces of news laying out what trans folk are facing in the US (nevermind elsewhere), and that pain is apparently made irrelevant in face of said generalisation. Whatever Ziggy is feeling is made (by his post) to be more important.
But what does this have to do with the denial of humanity? Because we're discussing life-threatening events affecting a minority, and an argument to genocide on top of that, and Ziggy's response is to say "but my feelings". So you saying "I would not call that a denial of humanity" is all good and well insofar of your own personal opinion, but you're not putting yourself in others' shoes. You're not even thinking about a context where you would consider your humanity denied. Cloud is trying to find an apt comparison, but the reality is you haven't gone through it, so it's hard for you to picture the scenario.
It's also a bit of a semantic / philosophical tangent that's ultimately irrelevant (sorry to nip that in the bud upfront, but I will explain). Saying someone isn't who they say they are is a denial of them as a person. It denies them their existence. Their humanity. It doesn't literally mean "you are not a human". That's not the point, right?
Does any of that help explain the context?