[RD] Trans Genocide

[emzie]

Thank you.

In more uplifting news, the state of Florida has just revised its coverage policies for Medicaid (state subsidized health insurance) to declare blockers, hormones, SRS, and "any procedure which alters primary or secondary sex characteristics" to be not covered under the program. In other words, all HRT and gender-affirming treatments will be banned for all trans people, minor and adult, if you are on state-assisted healthcare in Florida (keeping in mind that something like 30% of all trans people fall below the poverty line). It has been clearly demonstrated in study after study after study that HRT dramatically reduces depression and suicidality among trans people, so I am not hyperbolizing when I say that for a state to intentionally deny those treatments to a vulnerable population, fully aware of the consequences of doing so, is genocide. Full stop.

Link to revision
View attachment 636581

All I can say is that if this were the law in Ontario, I would have killed myself by now, either directly or through addiction.

Moderator Action: Thread split from LGBT News

@Cloud_Strife sparked a good conversation that deserves its own thread. What exactly does it mean to restrict or deny potentially life-saving care to a minority group?

 

[Cloud_Strife]

It's a deliberate genocide of trans people

 

[TheMeInTeam]

not giving money to any particular cause is not what genocide means, sorry.

hyperbole does not help build an argument/case for something.

 

[schlaufuchs]

Per article II of the Genocide convention:

DEFINITION OF GENOCIDE IN THE CONVENTION: The current definition of Genocide is set out in Article II of the Genocide Convention: Genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: (a) Killing members of the group; (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group

the State of Florida restricting access to medication to a population, i) with the explicit intention of restricting their ability to exist as members of the group, and ii) knowing that doing so will dramatically increase the rate of deaths within the population, at a very literal level run afoul of (b) and (c), and (e). So yes. Literally. Genocide.

 

[Senethro]

Hmmmm. So exporting grain from a famine struck area could qualify.

I wonder if Reagan intervening very very late in the AIDS epidemic would.

 

[Cloud_Strife]

not giving money to any particular cause is not what genocide means, sorry.

hyperbole does not help build an argument/case for something.

Im sure there are other places where you can post about your inability to acknowledge that the lgbtq community is continually under attack, especially trans people

 

[schlaufuchs]

It should also be noted that these coverage changes specifically single out trans people for restriction.

A cis man can still get androgen antagonists for hair loss or to reduce the risk of prostate cancer
A cis man can still get testosterone for depression or reduced libido
A cis woman can still get estradiol and progesterone for birth control

It is only when someone wants androgen antagonists and estradiol or testosterone for the condition directly associated with being trans that access to these drugs is restricted. Because the purpose is to cause trans people to cease to exist.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

the State of Florida restricting access to medication to a population

not what's happening, sorry. not subsidizing insurance towards something and restricting access are different things.

So yes. Literally. Genocide

lol. again, hyperbole isn't good, and quoted is objectively false. it doesn't even meet the standards of the definition you provided. "we are not paying for x" =/= "we are denying x".

i also doubt we see a "dramatic" increase in death rate, and if that doubt is correct that is also hyperbole.

Hmmmm. So exporting grain from a famine struck area could qualify.

that would probably only track in the context of a government doing so forcibly/after seizing the food.

 

[Cloud_Strife]

A cis dude kramering into this convo to tell us "well akshully the attempts by government to detransition and eliminate us aren't genocide" is honestly vile and he isn't worth entertaining, he already has a history of not liking trans people

 

[Gorbles]

"we are not paying for x" =/= "we are denying x".

We're talking about the government, not an individual's choices here. Your choice in rewording a lack of funding aside, "the state not subsidising" is exactly the same as "denies access to" for those who can't afford the markup pharmaceutical companies are applying to products.

Kinda weird your instinct here is to "well actually" over wear is merely a semantic nitpick (as the outcome is equivalent) in defense of US pharma industry and the political capital associated with it.

 

[El_Machinae]

I guess if we're pivoting into definitions.

a national, ethnical, racial or religious group

If we were going to ram a square peg into a round hole, which of these is closest to 'trans'?

The risk to health is interesting, because it's also a suppression of culture. Obviously you can genocide a culture without actually killing the people. Heck, very technically you can genocide a culture without actually hurting the people, with the understanding that some cultures are better than others. But then we're figuring out how to not laden the term, when it's specifically an evocative term

 

[schlaufuchs]

lmao classic libertarian: I hate the state in all respects, unless it is enacting violence with the aim of destroying a minority population I have contempt for, then they are 100% justified and not malicious at all.

I guess if we're pivoting into definitions.



If we were going to ram a square peg into a round hole, which of these is closest to 'trans'?

The risk to health is interesting, because it's also a suppression of culture. Obviously you can genocide a culture without actually killing the people. Heck, very technically you can genocide a culture without actually hurting the people, with the understanding that some cultures are better than others. But then we're figuring out how to not laden the term, when it's specifically an evocative term

Yes, these are both extremely commonly noted limitations to the UN Genocide convention. In the first part because it was ratified in 1951, before the broad acknowledgement and acceptance of LGBTQ+ populations, so notably omits them, although many efforts have been made over the past decades to revise the treaty to include such groups. And in the second part because it very conveniently defines genocide so as to exclude cultural genocide, (which was a central part of Lemkin's original definition of the term, who viewed colonialism as an inherently genocidal practice), as such a definition would, obviously, implicate literally every member of the security council.

But if we're taking the spirit of the term: "the intentional destruction of an identifiable people, in whole or in part," then obviously this is genocide. Quibbling around the edges about whether trans people or queer people more broadly fall into "national, ethnical, racial or religious group" to me smacks of "it can't be racist because Muslim is not a race." Like what are we doing here at that point?

 

[Lexicus]

that would probably only track in the context of a government doing so forcibly/after seizing the food.

narrator: the landlords seizing the food would just be property rights and would be fine no matter how many millions died

 

[TheMeInTeam]

lmao classic libertarian: I hate the state in all respects, unless it is enacting violence with the aim of destroying a minority population

???

I have contempt for

???

which poster are you implying these things about, and which posts allow this conclusion?

note that "not paying for something" is not the same as violence, and that having scrutiny for government paying for things in general isn't necessarily inconsistent with general distrust of state. if anything, you might want to be backing libertarian stance here, since you might notice that it is the state making a choice you do not agree with. knowing that, maybe "who gets to decide" for healthcare should not generally be the state?

Yes, these are both extremely commonly noted limitations to the UN Genocide convention. In the first part because it was ratified in 1951, before the broad acknowledgement and acceptance of LGBTQ+ populations, so notably omits them, although many efforts have been made over the past decades to revise the treaty to include such groups.

systematically destroying most types of groups should be considered bad. i'm not enthused by making some groups special. though again, not paying for something isn't the same thing as genocide, sorry.

But if we're taking the spirit of the term: "the intentional destruction of an identifiable people, in whole or in part," then obviously this is genocide.

well...no. that is not obvious, evidenced by the fact that you linked a definition that does not apply to the practice in question.

Like what are we doing here at that point?

pushing back against hyperbole and calling state funding decisions you don't agree with "genocide".

 

[Cloud_Strife]

Removing state funding with the intention of eliminating trans people

This whole convo is a prime example why me and other trans people feel uncomfortable even discussing this topic openly

 

[schlaufuchs]

not what's happening, sorry. not subsidizing insurance towards something and restricting access are different things.



lol. again, hyperbole isn't good, and quoted is objectively false. it doesn't even meet the standards of the definition you provided. "we are not paying for x" =/= "we are denying x".

• (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

Access to gender affirming care is associated with a 28% reduction in depression and suicidality in trans adults, and 40% in trans youth. The state of Florida is marking the drugs "not covered" which, in the US, is tantamount to "not available" given out of pocket cost for a 4-week supply of estradiol and spironolactone runs upwards of $200 (not including cost of getting it prescribed by a doctor or blood tests), a full electrolysis treatment is usually somewhere on the order of $3500-$5000, and SRS is $30k (again, just for the surgery, not including visits, tests, and electrolysis). This care is extraordinarily difficult to access at these costs when trans women earn 60 cents on the dollar to a cis man, have a 14% unemployment rate, and a third of trans people are living below the poverty line of $12,000/year. The state of Florida knows all of this. It has been read into the records for all the hearings on this decision. To deny coverage of these drugs is to make them de facto inaccessible to the people who qualify for Medicaid. To not be able to access these drugs is associated with a large increase in depression and suicidality in people with gender dysphoria, who are, almost universally, trans. And that is even before considering that Medicaid generally sets the standard for medical coverage which most-all private insurers adopt. Ergo the state is inflicting conditions calculated to bring about the destruction of trans people.

And this is just looking at Medicaid specifically, without taking into consideration that private insurers in Florida will, in all likelihood, follow the DOH's lead and remove coverage from their own plans as well.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

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 care is extraordinarily difficult to access at these costs when trans women earn 60 cents on the dollar to a cis man

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.

in people with gender dysphoria, who are, almost universally, trans.

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

Ergo the state is inflicting conditions calculated to bring about the destruction of trans people.

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?

 

[Birdjaguar]

Moderator Action: Genocide is often used in discussions because it triggers the idea behind the Holocaust of WW2 or the Tutsi/Hutu wars in Rwanda and serves to heighten the emotional scale of the conversation. Because the word is loosely defined and often mis-applied, let's not use it casually or before the fact. Certainly politicians can and will inflict harm on trans people, but let's keep the inflammatory language to a minimum please. Thanks.

 

[Cloud_Strife]

Sorry but what would you call the purposeful efforts of those who wish us to stop existing?

Transocide?

Thet want us dead man, you know that

 

[schlaufuchs]

cis people really just do not give a horsehocky, do they?