[RD] Trans Genocide

[Hygro]

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.

I'm all for finding a word that resonates. But I am not going to ask a movement to squelch their communication of what is accurate until some focus-group approved word comes first. If people even can be convinced, they can be convinced to accept an accurate word. If not, then who cares. If we need the magic of persuasion and new words to change minds, those new words will still work when they arrive on that slice that doesn't care about the topic without the right words.

 

[Farm Boy]

Are trans people existing actually a social movement though? Yes, that's the genocide argument, the seeking to kill a social people, but are trans people actually created by a social construct? Like a culture, or a religion, or an education. I'm going to find the arguments I have offline much more difficult if the movement creates the people, rather than liberates the people who have already always been there*. That's just my observation from the problem population. Or whatever we are by birth over in that yonder CRT thread.

*But it'd be good to know if that's the currently accepted lens.

 

[Rg339]

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

I do respect that. Thank you for your candor. You know I disagree. If you wanna point our flaws in my argument, I’m happy to address them. I don’t see you disagreeing with my assessment the average American has a 3rd grade level understanding of history, here.

I'm all for finding a word that resonates. But I am not going to ask a movement to squelch their communication of what is accurate until some focus-group approved word comes first. If people even can be convinced, they can be convinced to accept an accurate word. If not, then who cares. If we need the magic of persuasion and new words to change minds, those new words will still work when they arrive on that slice that doesn't care about the topic without the right words.

I’m not asking that movement not to call it genocide, either, if such clarity is needed. Like I’ve said, there’s enough there to make a case(if you’re learned). All I’m saying is to the average person: if there are no camps, there is no genocide, as schlaufuchs accurately pointed out the contemporary understanding of genocide.

New word? People can be convinced. Those that can’t will be compelled by their employers, who will understand.

 

[Gorbles]

All I’m saying is to the average person: if there are no camps, there is no genocide, as schlaufuchs accurately pointed out the contemporary understanding of genocide.

But why are we discussing the "average person" in first place? Why was the context moved that way?

We were discussing in a thread in CFC OT. We are the participants. That's the context.

 

[IglooDame]

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.

This is all helping me too, really.

For me, it rides on intent. I think DeSantis et al (or at least the electorate they're playing to) figure that being transgender (and very likely being homosexual, for that matter) is a choice, and so their intent with all the various anti-LGBTQ laws and actions is to dissuade or prevent anyone who has already 'decided to be' (i.e. figured out that they are) gay and/or trans from being so at least outwardly or publicly, dissuade or prevent those who might 'decide to be' in the future from doing so, and eventually prevent younger folk from realizing that it's actually an option in the first place. Maybe I'm giving them too much credit for giving it even that much thought (because with a little more thought they'd realize - even assuming it really is a choice - the internet means they'll never suppress it enough because blue states will be exporting it just like red states export guns to blue states banning them), and they're just blindly lashing out, 'stickin it to them queers' or something.

So if they're thinking it is a choice, it does become akin to religious persecution, to kill the ones who won't repent or renounce it (in this case via suicides I suppose) and forcibly convert the rest (via detransitioning or going back in the closet and appearing to the world as cishet again).

 

[Rg339]

But why are we discussing the "average person" in first place? Why was the context moved that way?

We were discussing in a thread in CFC OT. We are the participants. That's the context.

Not accurate. Again, man. Here’s a brief demonstration. At time of checking, registered members online: 44. Unregistered? 609. Such statistics are observable from brief view of overall forum statistics in the main page.

These 609 are not writing, but may be participating. Listening is half of it. Reading is half of it, more accurately.

What’s more? Anecdotally, I know of few, if any, who discuss trans rights in physical conversations. One person, out of numerous acquaintances. You may disagree with my read on the number of people interested, but numerically, it is safe to assume we are writing to more than those posting.

Even within the context of those posting, the question of whether or not it is politically and pragmatically wise to call the current legislation against trans people genocide is under discussion, right? Isn’t that what the thread is about? What qualifications of genocide there are, whether this qualifies, what stages?

Maybe I’m being presumptuous, but it all seems pretty nebulous to me.

 

[Gorbles]

Not accurate. Again, man. Here’s a brief demonstration. At time of checking, registered members online: 44. Unregistered? 609. Such statistics are observable from brief view of overall forum statistics in the main page.

Yes, accurate. You're once again going back to invoking a silent majority (though "majority" is stretching it, heh). How many of them are reading OT? How many of them are reading this thread?

We're always writing to than just the person we're replying to. That was never an argument. But you were talking about the average American, and the average person, generally. And I might be jumping the gun a bit, but I think "is a habitual member of a strategy video game fan forum" skews any definition of "average" we can apply, here.

Even within the context of those posting, the question of whether or not it is politically and pragmatically wise to call the current legislation against trans people genocide is under discussion, right? Isn’t that what the thread is about? What qualifications of genocide there are, whether this qualifies, what stages?

Sure. Which is why I'm asking the relevance of invoking the average person, or the average American, or whatever, when every other post seems to yo-yo between that at least nominally plausible concern and "actually using the word genocide is factually wrong". Paraphrasing of course.

 

[Lexicus]

I do respect that. Thank you for your candor. You know I disagree. If you wanna point our flaws in my argument, I’m happy to address them. I don’t see you disagreeing with my assessment the average American has a 3rd grade level understanding of history, here.

I don't disagree, but presumably you mean voting adults by 'average American' and while there is some case for giving a third grader a simplified version of historical reality I see much less of an argument for treating voting adults that way. The ones we want to reach can handle the truth - for everyone else, there's conservatism.

 

[Farm Boy]

This is all helping me too, really.

For me, it rides on intent. I think DeSantis et al (or at least the electorate they're playing to) figure that being transgender (and very likely being homosexual, for that matter) is a choice, and so their intent with all the various anti-LGBTQ laws and actions is to dissuade or prevent anyone who has already 'decided to be' (i.e. figured out that they are) gay and/or trans from being so at least outwardly or publicly, dissuade or prevent those who might 'decide to be' in the future from doing so, and eventually prevent younger folk from realizing that it's actually an option in the first place. Maybe I'm giving them too much credit for giving it even that much thought (because with a little more thought they'd realize - even assuming it really is a choice - the internet means they'll never suppress it enough because blue states will be exporting it just like red states export guns to blue states banning them), and they're just blindly lashing out, 'stickin it to them queers' or something.

So if they're thinking it is a choice, it does become akin to religious persecution, to kill the ones who won't repent or renounce it (in this case via suicides I suppose) and forcibly convert the rest (via detransitioning or going back in the closet and appearing to the world as cishet again).

If they truly think it's a choice, then they're going to think of it as a form of convincing people into choosing something that has a diagnosis and a treatment. It'd be a form of mental abuse. Or, in the more compassionate of the wrong-headed, an outcome to minimize.

We need to win before they figure out how to test in utero, right? Or we'll wind up with the rates we have for Downs, evidence of happy actualized lives be damned?

 

[Rg339]

I don't disagree, but presumably you mean voting adults by 'average American' and while there is some case for giving a third grader a simplified version of historical reality I see much less of an argument for treating voting adults that way. The ones we want to reach can handle the truth - for everyone else, there's conservatism.

Your view is more optimistic than mine, I must say.

They told me that life was different than high school. Nonsense. Some people never move beyond simplicity.

I don’t expect the majority to be able to rise to a level of understanding that they look at the Holocaust and understand its processes. Some of that is due to intellectual limitations of individuals, yes. Some of it is also because people who work, who except to perform manual labor from a young age, simply don’t have time for it.

But that’s neither here nor there, really. I hope you’re right, but I expect you’re wrong.An argument towards simplistic language makes more sense with my experiences.

 

[Lexicus]

Your view is more optimistic than mine, I must say.

They told me that life was different than high school. Nonsense. Some people never move beyond simplicity.

I don’t expect the majority to be able to rise to a level of understanding that they look at the Holocaust and understand its processes. Some of that is due to intellectual limitations of individuals, yes. Some of it is also because people who work, who except to perform manual labor from a young age, simply don’t have time for it.

But that’s neither here nor there, really. I hope you’re right, but I expect you’re wrong.An argument towards simplistic language makes more sense with my experiences.

The only other term offered as a serious alternative and praised by another poster is "attempted social erasure." Genocide is simpler than that

 

[Rg339]

The only other term offered as a serious alternative and praised by another poster is "attempted social erasure." Genocide is simpler than that

Agreed.

TBH, I’d give serious thought to attempting to create a new term. I’d be willing to email leading thought leaders about my idea, come what may.

As it happens, though, I am dealing with a departure in my close personal family. My thought is largely dedicated to matters closer to home, at present=[

 

[schlaufuchs]

MTG went on Tucker Carlson tonight and announced she’s introducing a bill tomorrow to make it a felony for any doctor to provide gender affirming care to any minor in the nation. It would further ban any “teaching of gender affirming care” (I.e. in med school), and ban from entry any foreign doctor who has provided gender affirming care.

Once again, it’s really not a question of what this is. The question is what will cis people do about it?

 

[Cloud_Strife]

MTG went on Tucker Carlson tonight and announced she’s introducing a bill tomorrow to make it a felony for any doctor to provide gender affirming care to any minor in the nation. It would further ban any “teaching of gender affirming care” (I.e. in med school), and ban from entry any foreign doctor who has provided gender affirming care.

Once again, it’s really not a question of what this is. The question is what will cis people do about it?

View attachment 637054

Nothing, sadly

 

[uppi]

This is all helping me too, really.

For me, it rides on intent. I think DeSantis et al (or at least the electorate they're playing to) figure that being transgender (and very likely being homosexual, for that matter) is a choice, and so their intent with all the various anti-LGBTQ laws and actions is to dissuade or prevent anyone who has already 'decided to be' (i.e. figured out that they are) gay and/or trans from being so at least outwardly or publicly, dissuade or prevent those who might 'decide to be' in the future from doing so, and eventually prevent younger folk from realizing that it's actually an option in the first place. Maybe I'm giving them too much credit for giving it even that much thought (because with a little more thought they'd realize - even assuming it really is a choice - the internet means they'll never suppress it enough because blue states will be exporting it just like red states export guns to blue states banning them), and they're just blindly lashing out, 'stickin it to them queers' or something.

So if they're thinking it is a choice, it does become akin to religious persecution, to kill the ones who won't repent or renounce it (in this case via suicides I suppose) and forcibly convert the rest (via detransitioning or going back in the closet and appearing to the world as cishet again).

My problem with the term genocide is that it implicates that they are right, that being LGBQT is a choice akin to a religion or nationality.

 

[IglooDame]

If they truly think it's a choice, then they're going to think of it as a form of convincing people into choosing something that has a diagnosis and a treatment. It'd be a form of mental abuse. Or, in the more compassionate of the wrong-headed, an outcome to minimize.

We need to win before they figure out how to test in utero, right? Or we'll wind up with the rates we have for Downs, evidence of happy actualized lives be damned?

Assuming "they" is the DeSantisists, to me it seems like they think it's a choice between "being trans" and medically/socially/legally transitioning, and "not being trans" and simply sucking it up and living as the gender one was assigned at birth.

And... I apologize, but I'm not clear about what you mean regarding the comparison to Downs, and that's a deep enough subtopic that I really don't want to head in an unintended direction with just my initial reaction on it.

 

[Cloud_Strife]

Trans people seriously aren't that far away from being arrested for merely existing

 

[TheMeInTeam]

For me, it rides on intent. I think DeSantis et al (or at least the electorate they're playing to) figure that being transgender (and very likely being homosexual, for that matter) is a choice

imo giving way too much credit to politicians for thinking deeply. more likely something like this:

"thinks voters will not want to pay for this/doesn't like this" --> "makes policy that looks like it will win votes from constituents"

i highly doubt desantis actually cares whether it's a "choice", and wouldn't do it if he believed it to lose more votes than gains. he could be wrong, and the motives of florida voters aren't nearly as monolithic as implied.

 

[Farm Boy]

Assuming "they" is the DeSantisists, to me it seems like they think it's a choice between "being trans" and medically/socially/legally transitioning, and "not being trans" and simply sucking it up and living as the gender one was assigned at birth.

And... I apologize, but I'm not clear about what you mean regarding the comparison to Downs, and that's a deep enough subtopic that I really don't want to head in an unintended direction with just my initial reaction on it.

Right? If it's a choice, the argument made, then, particularly children, can be "convinced to be trans." So it wouldn't be sucking it up in that outlook, it would never have been being trans in the first place. Which was the last point as well. A situation where people would argue one never was in the first place either. If that makes sense?

 

[Angst]

The only other term offered as a serious alternative and praised by another poster is "attempted social erasure." Genocide is simpler than that

Fwiw I would just call it social erasure. (If we were to use it.) Not attempted. Like with genocide, it's actually more attempt and intent that matters than the outcome. I've eg seen the example in another contexr that an officer of the US at one point gave Native Americans infected carpets to warm themselves in, hoping they would die. regardless of how many people died there, it doesn't really matter as to whether it worked, the argument is that it's still genocide. If we were to call this policy social erasure, there's absolutely no reason to make the distinction it's attempted. If I deliberately poison the water reserves of a population, it doesn't really matter if I "did it badly", eg used a poison that was too weak by accident.