As the U.K. snap elections take place, a British-American trans woman reflects on the painful and lasting impact of the anti-trans movement in the country.
Although you can’t technically genocide trans people because they’re not one of the special groups outlined in the definition, you don’t actually need to kill people to commit a genocide. I would argue that there is “intent to destroy, in whole or in part” trans people by “Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group” and “Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part”. By taking away healthcare and other accommodations, serious harm is caused to trans people. Couple this with the high suicide rates of bullied and marginalised trans people, one could argue that the lawmakers are intending to kill trans people (although I personally wouldn’t go that far)
If this broad definition of causing harm is used, then one can argue that the United States is committing genocide against its general population, considering how screwed up their healthcare system is. So I doubt the United Nations would see it as genocide unless someone is actively committing it.
And by actively, I mean directly ordering the destruction of trans people, by causing serious bodily and mental harm. That invokes more the image of concentration camps, or work camps, or displaced populations. Kinda what China is doing to the Uyghur people.
You could define trans people as a cultural group. And there could be a trans genocide. However, this isn’t genocide. It’s just bigotry and hate. Sure, it could become genocide if left unchecked, but right now it’s not.
Hhhmmm… Not very genocide of people aren’t being rounded up and executed, and not very silent if there’s news articles talking about it.
Sensationalist crap.
UN definition of genocide: https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/genocide.shtml
Although you can’t technically genocide trans people because they’re not one of the special groups outlined in the definition, you don’t actually need to kill people to commit a genocide. I would argue that there is “intent to destroy, in whole or in part” trans people by “Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group” and “Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part”. By taking away healthcare and other accommodations, serious harm is caused to trans people. Couple this with the high suicide rates of bullied and marginalised trans people, one could argue that the lawmakers are intending to kill trans people (although I personally wouldn’t go that far)
If this broad definition of causing harm is used, then one can argue that the United States is committing genocide against its general population, considering how screwed up their healthcare system is. So I doubt the United Nations would see it as genocide unless someone is actively committing it.
And by actively, I mean directly ordering the destruction of trans people, by causing serious bodily and mental harm. That invokes more the image of concentration camps, or work camps, or displaced populations. Kinda what China is doing to the Uyghur people.
You could define trans people as a cultural group. And there could be a trans genocide. However, this isn’t genocide. It’s just bigotry and hate. Sure, it could become genocide if left unchecked, but right now it’s not.
That’s not what genocide means. You can’t come up with your own definition of a word then attack people for not using said made up definition.
That said genocide doesn’t quite fit as it’s not based on race or culture. Eugenics would be a more correct term.