[RD] Trans Genocide

[Cloud_Strife]

They want to erase people's knowledge of us, starting with kids and then work on, it's disgusting.

 

[Hygro]

Centrists, I am willing to meet you all the way in the middle on this one. Limited time offer. In lieu of calling it genocide, we can merely call it genocidal.

 

[Rg339]

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 in 1943-44. 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.

Well, I think I agree that there are disturbing signs that this phenomenon, this movement against trans people, could be interpreted rightfully as escalations moving towards outright genocide as it’s contemporarily understood. Camps, and the like.

The problem is that it is difficult for the public to understand those slow escalations of hostility. To use your example, the Holocaust, I don’t think the average German understood, at the early stages of anti-Semitic rhetoric, that it would end in camps. People, in my view, don’t notice a slow, gradual escalation. Views are put forward, normalized, and then escalate further.

In today’s climate? The economic incentives are there for bosses to employ their considerable leverage towards inclusivity. If they have an easily communicable word that identifies this kind of extremely prejudiced legislation specifically, they will apply said pressure, and soon enough, such views will become socially anathema. It is the fastest way to form consensus against such legislation.

You can argue for the righteousness of a genocide argument, but success isn’t guaranteed quickly. It creates an opening for opponents. Create a new word, and all sorts of powerful social forces find themselves immediately behind you.

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.

Again, I just don’t think that anyone posting in this thread is representative of the general population of the USA. We’re the political junkies. What consensus we arrive it is not insignificant, no. How it is translated to the non-political junkies, the means of communication to them, is extremely important.

What good’s a consensus amongst the small # of the involved, if the large # of the uninvolved don’t understand or care about it?

 

[Arakhor]

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.

Funny how that works, isn't it? You can bet your bottom dollar that heterosexuality will be just fine to Instruct children with, despite that also being arguably prohibited by the bill.

 

[Farm Boy]

Centrists, I am willing to meet you all the way in the middle on this one. Limited time offer. In lieu of calling it genocide, we can merely call it genocidal.

I don't know who you're talking to.

 

[Cloud_Strife]

Funny how that works, isn't it? You can bet your bottom dollar that heterosexuality will be just fine to Instruct children with, despite that also being arguably prohibited by the bill.

He doesn't care if lgbtq people are negatively harmed.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Funny how that works, isn't it? You can bet your bottom dollar that heterosexuality will be just fine to Instruct children with, despite that also being arguably prohibited by the bill.

i doubt either would be part of the formal curriculum with that law active. we probably don't need early elementary schoolers to hear about it in formal curriculum anyway.

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

when definitions and policy preferences start to resemble these, it could merit some self reflection.

nazis and the south shared in compulsory policy in a way that not paying for something does not, and cannot do.

if florida's populace doesn't like the policy choice, there is a process to change that. though falsely claiming genocide probably won't win voters to the cause.

 

[Arakhor]

And if we're talking about technicalities, the broad wording of the bill means that it's left up to parental discretion whether to sue or not beyond the ages of 5-8. Even the name that you (TMIT) are using is exactly what conservatives  hope will happen - people will spontaneously stop being queer if they never hear anything about it in school, a clear attempt to expunge queer culture in the vain and ludicrous attempt that you can bore people into staying straight. It didn't work for me, it didn't work for anyone else my age, and it won't work in Florida.

 

[Samson]

my understanding is that the drugs help people survive/live longer with hiv weren't freely available in criticized timeframe

The drugs became available after the government threw taxpayer money at the research. They did not do that until straight white people started dying.

 

[Farm Boy]

Until Ryan White died specifically. A good enough story moves the world.

 

[Hygro]

I don't know who you're talking to.

Not you. You're a radical leftwing conservative

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Even the name that you (TMIT) are using is exactly what conservatives  hope will happen

i was using that name to demonstrate a counter-way of calling the bill that offers similarly deliberate bias, but in the other direction.

in reality, the bill has no such provisions either way, and the motivations of people who back it vary by person. some are as you say, others seem to just want their young children to not make the same immediate associations as we might when reading the phrase "try finger but hole" in elden ring or similar.

The drugs became available after the government threw taxpayer money at the research. They did not do that until straight white people started dying.

i think it's worth pointing out that i'm not arguing these policy choices are good or have good motivations behind them. i'm pointing out that calling them "genocide" is wrong for the same reason that calling them "tuna salad" is wrong.

rg339 is likely correct that framed differently, it's more likely to get backing. when people hear "genocide" they think china, nazi germany, ussr, pol pot, etc. then they hear it from lgbt about not paying for treatment, and it won't square. if you pick something else that doesn't do that and yet represents the unfairness of the measure(s), it might actually work. it's florida, so i can't promise it will work. but likening a policy choice like that to actual genocide is going to lose more people than it gains most likely.

 

[Rg339]

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?

Ah, I’d missed this edit when making my previous post. I think I already sorta addressed it, but I have a moment to go further.

It’s clear you’re academically learned. The average person isn’t. How do you expect someone with no knowledge of the historical processes regarding the Holocaust to recognize them? If you speak to me of the historical processes, the steps of escalation that led to the Holocaust, I will understand. I will even be able to recite, from memory, the names of some historical figures involved.

The average person will not.

I do sympathize with your position. I find you, personally, an effective and compelling advocate for trans rights, and a skilled communicator of the trans experience. I do however happen to think that an argument towards genocide is incorrect here, from an advocacy perspective. A new word is necessary, out of pragmatism.

 

[Hygro]

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

Echoed, with feedback.

To understand what's happening in the world, in the end to reach the truth we will be making leaps of faith, acting on hunches. But to have the best jump-off point, we will need all of the tools we can. In this case, tools on average best taught in universities and contextualized through life. History, language, models, science, symbolic logic. Context is crucial and nothing is neutral. You can get stuck in one lane, trying to understand this stuff from your mental dictionary and then trying to only use your logic. Others can get stuck reacting to arrays of tropes. There are many partial takes that lead to bad leaps. And there are many partial takes that lead to good jumps. But in the end, the more educated, the better.

How do you expect someone with no knowledge of the historical processes regarding the Holocaust to recognize them?

You include the early steps under the same word as the later steps, say it's a process under the category of the main word, and demonstrate the comparisons.

 

[Gorbles]

Why do we keep pivoting between "people who aren't on this forum won't understand the label" and "actually the use of this label is as wrong as labeling the behaviour tuna salad"?

They're two separate arguments. One is an argument to a silent majority, and the other is a claim that the label is incorrect (imo made assertively but not convincingly, but that's an aside).

 

[Lexicus]

Centrists, I am willing to meet you all the way in the middle on this one. Limited time offer. In lieu of calling it genocide, we can merely call it genocidal.

I've drawn this distinction before in other contexts, and I think it actually is a useful one. Nonetheless the intentions are stated clearly enough that I don't think I would even agree this is "genocidal" and not (the initial stages of) "a genocide." I don't think there is any question that all the nonsense of calling trans people pedophiles is a setup for starting to actively kill them sometime in the near future. That is the sort of deranged lie you tell yourself to convince yourself that you were actually a victim of the people you stuffed in the cattle cars.

if florida's populace doesn't like the policy choice, there is a process to change that.

No there isn't.

 

[Rg339]

You include the early steps under the same word as the later steps, say it's a process under the category of the main word, and demonstrate the comparisons.

I do wish it were that simple.

The average person has little trust in media, presently. Few people believe in much of anything. Even if you say it, there won’t be consensus, because there’s a lack of trust you’re speaking truth(even if to the historically learned it’s clear you are). Bias clouds. Those opposed will not recognize the obvious truth of comparisons.

This, of course, is sidestepping the effect of historical familiarity, which most people don’t have. You say to me: such legislation is comparable, and it smacks. It hits. Average person has no knowledge of it. You can say hey Rg339, isn’t this sorta comparable to Stuckart’s Nuremberg Laws and I’ll say yes. Average person won’t have a clue.

You have a new word and it really does change. People know the morality of this; they can’t describe it, though, and that lack of communicative power leads to the majority frankly not caring. Create a new term, describe it well, it changes.

 

[Lexicus]

I do wish it were that simple.

The average person has little trust in media, presently. Few people believe in much of anything. Even if you say it, there won’t be consensus, because there’s a lack of trust you’re speaking truth(even if to the historically learned it’s clear you are). Bias clouds. Those opposed will not recognize the obvious truth of comparisons.

This, of course, is sidestepping the effect of historical familiarity, which most people don’t have. You say to me: such legislation is comparable, and it smacks. It hits. Average person has no knowledge of it. You can say hey Rg339, isn’t this sorta comparable to Stuckart’s Nuremberg Laws and I’ll say yes. Average person won’t have a clue.

You have a new word and it really does change. People know the morality of this; they can’t describe it, though, and that lack of communicative power leads to the majority frankly not caring. Create a new term, describe it well, it changes.

So you are suggesting that the average American has a roughly third-grade-level understanding of historical events that are incredibly important for understanding the world today, and that this in itself should not be treated as a problem to fix, but rather accommodated as given, so that the average American can then be spoonfed a third-grade-level understanding of events today? Is that about right? Oh and I almost forgot the unspoken corollary that if you tell one of these Americans that their understanding is third-grade-level they will react like a third grader by blaming you instead of admitting to their ignorance?

 

[Rg339]

So you are suggesting that the average American has a roughly third-grade-level understanding of historical events that are incredibly important for understanding the world today, and that this in itself should not be treated as a problem to fix, but rather accommodated as given, so that the average American can then be spoonfed a third-grade-level understanding of events today? Is that about right? Oh and I almost forgot the unspoken corollary that if you tell one of these Americans that their understanding is third-grade-level they will react like a third grader by blaming you instead of admitting to their ignorance?

Sorta?

*shrugs*

It’s a problem to be fixed, for sure. But it will take generations of reform to the education system. This problem of infringement upon trans rights is happening now. It must be fixed now. If new terminology will better help the masses understand, I’m all for it.

 

[Lexicus]

I am absolutely convinced new terminology will accomplish nothing and makes no sense anyway