3 ms·

Is my anxiety warranted yet if I'm a trans person? Because I wish people would at least acknowledge reality, that there is a tangible threat of genocide around,

by _cenw 2y ago

Is my anxiety warranted yet if I'm a trans person? Because I wish people would at least acknowledge reality, that there is a tangible threat of genocide around, that we're being targeted for easy rhetorical wins, that trans women are currently put in men's prison despite court orders prohibiting it - not despite but because they'll be raped and "v-coded". What I mostly get is indifference or "didoing" ("it's not so bad") - and yes, that indifference spikes my anxiety. Because it feels like this is the same indifference that ultimately lead to "Didn't the Germans know what was happening?". The answer is, they didn't care to look.

viiviiv 2y ago
There's no tangible threat of genocide though. Perhaps you've been overexposed to a social media bubble that's steeped in anxiety about this, despite there being no plausible prospect of such a horror occurring?
- pjc50 2y ago
  There's a very real prospect of criminalization and forced de transition, though.
  - _cenw 2y ago
    Eradication doesn't need to happen though death, though these actions of course also raise the suicide rate. Displacement, cultural eradication, making it impossible to exist in public, stochastic terrorism though constant demonization - these are all already here. If you all feel more comfortable with those words, feel free to replace genocide with all of the above. Does not help with my anxiety being rooted more in indifference to the actions than the actions themselves.
  - viiviiv 2y ago
    How do you mean? As in, what activities do you anticipate being criminalized?
    - _cenw 2y ago
      Healthcare, as in the hormones requires to transition and not detransition. The system is also likely cruel enough that it'll leave people who've had any kind of GRS without hormone replacement at all, and you don't want to have no sex hormone in your body, your bones don't appreciate it. There's also some "performance" ban bills that are broad enough that they could classify a trans person existing in public as "drag performance" (the website you didn't read says "However, the language of the laws is so broad that it could extend to performances of Shakespeare."). Please at least to attempt to "engage curiously" next time, the answers are all here.
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
    - UncleMeat 2y ago
      There are bathroom bills in 13 US states. Trans people (especially those who pass well) need to make a rather difficult choice when out in public for more than a few hours. Do they use the bathroom that matches their gender identity and run risk of criminal punishment? Do they use the bathroom that matches their birth sex but the look completely out of place and make it likely that they will be harassed or have the cops called on them? Neither option is good. If you can't use public bathrooms safely then "being out of your home for more than a short period of time" is a denied right. We've seen bills introduced to consider trans people "misrepresenting" their gender as different from their birth sex as criminal fraud. This isn't too far from the current administration's executive order banning trans people from the military for being "liars", according to the bigots in the administration. There are also bills trying to make the public visibility of trans people something that is threatening to children based on the bigoted perception of trans people as child rapists. So you'll get things like "public performance" classified as sexualized drag performance so that trans people experience the same limitations on being in or around places with children as sex offenders. Then, of course, there is all the basic healthcare stuff. The white house put out an executive order (currently delayed by courts) withholding federal funding for hospitals that provide gender affirming care for people age 18 and 19. These are legal adults. If this stands, we'll almost surely start seeing legislation banning gender affirming care for adults in various red states. Criminalizing hormone treatment is forced detransition.
- _cenw 2y ago
  Here we go again. You need to read up on the definition of genocide (especially beyond thinking of it as the last 2-3 stages; being defined out of existence is quite literally EO 14168) and then maybe have a look at https://translegislation.com/ https://translegislation.com/. It's one of those things that'll always sound exaggerated, even if it's not.
  - viiviiv 2y ago
    Interesting website but could you explain why this legislation, most of which was rejected, indicates intent to commit genocide? I honestly do not see how, to take one example, athletes only being allowed to compete against others of the same sex is a step on the path to genocide. This suggestion of genocide does sound very exaggerated, and I believe your anxiety on this is misplaced.
    - _cenw 2y ago
      The sports bans are distractions or canaries at best. They're a wedge for making action against trans people palatable, as even democrats will occasionally, as a gut feeling, agree with them. There's a nuanced discussion to be had, but ultimately it should be fairly obvious that republicans do not actually care about women's sports. These bills are proposed for different reasons. The sheer volume of the legislation should make it clear alone. It's March, and we got more bills introduced this year than last year already. If you can't get the image of genocide as traincars and skull piles out of your head, I can't help you, but there's a concerted effort to make our lives miserable to unlivable and to definitionally erase us from public consciousness (aside from painting us as legitimate dehumanized targets). If you can't see that I can't help you, I can just stack it on my anxiety pile as someone else who never wondered how Germany was for Jews (and many other groups, including queer people) in the decade before the holocaust.
caseyy 2y ago
I would say anxiety is not warranted, but when the circumstances become dangerous to you, action might be. Perhaps use the exit, voice, and loyalty (EVL) model. It describes three effective responses that don't involve anxiety. Exit means you remove yourself from the situation — perhaps you move to a state where your rights are better protected or leave your current doctor for an activist doctor. Voice means getting into rooms and on the phone with decision-makers, as well as preparing for this. Loyalty means you stop worrying and remain loyal to an organization but hopeful that things will change. In this model, remaining in the situation and stressing about it is a misguided choice. Just as you worry about the Third Reich, the EVL model explains the coping strategies of people who were under the regime. Some exited, some dissented, and some chose loyalty. These were very functional strategies. I'm not going to debate the exaggerated genocide claim. Still, I'd say be careful how you use this specific historical term, as much genocide is happening in the world today, and much has happened in the last several generations. Some readers will have family trauma; it's easy to offend people this way and turn them off to your cause. In general, the more emotional language you use, the less trustworthy you will appear. Either way, I acknowledge your anxiety is real and that some harm may come your way in the future. I want to be clear: this is not a dismissal of your fears. But I suggest action instead. Whether that action protects you or others in similar circumstances, it will be more effective than worrying.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- _cenw 2y ago
  Considering how this thread went, and how there's just no way to reach most people anymore in this post truth affect driven world, yeah maybe I should live in rural Iceland or something. > I'm not going to debate the exaggerated genocide claim. Too late, you called it exaggerated. I'm wondering, would you consider residential schools genocide?

by _cenw 2y ago

viiviiv 2y ago

There's no tangible threat of genocide though. Perhaps you've been overexposed to a social media bubble that's steeped in anxiety about this, despite there being no plausible prospect of such a horror occurring?

pjc50 2y ago
There's a very real prospect of criminalization and forced de transition, though.
- _cenw 2y ago
  Eradication doesn't need to happen though death, though these actions of course also raise the suicide rate. Displacement, cultural eradication, making it impossible to exist in public, stochastic terrorism though constant demonization - these are all already here. If you all feel more comfortable with those words, feel free to replace genocide with all of the above. Does not help with my anxiety being rooted more in indifference to the actions than the actions themselves.
- viiviiv 2y ago
  How do you mean? As in, what activities do you anticipate being criminalized?
  - _cenw 2y ago
    Healthcare, as in the hormones requires to transition and not detransition. The system is also likely cruel enough that it'll leave people who've had any kind of GRS without hormone replacement at all, and you don't want to have no sex hormone in your body, your bones don't appreciate it. There's also some "performance" ban bills that are broad enough that they could classify a trans person existing in public as "drag performance" (the website you didn't read says "However, the language of the laws is so broad that it could extend to performances of Shakespeare."). Please at least to attempt to "engage curiously" next time, the answers are all here.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
  - UncleMeat 2y ago
    There are bathroom bills in 13 US states. Trans people (especially those who pass well) need to make a rather difficult choice when out in public for more than a few hours. Do they use the bathroom that matches their gender identity and run risk of criminal punishment? Do they use the bathroom that matches their birth sex but the look completely out of place and make it likely that they will be harassed or have the cops called on them? Neither option is good. If you can't use public bathrooms safely then "being out of your home for more than a short period of time" is a denied right. We've seen bills introduced to consider trans people "misrepresenting" their gender as different from their birth sex as criminal fraud. This isn't too far from the current administration's executive order banning trans people from the military for being "liars", according to the bigots in the administration. There are also bills trying to make the public visibility of trans people something that is threatening to children based on the bigoted perception of trans people as child rapists. So you'll get things like "public performance" classified as sexualized drag performance so that trans people experience the same limitations on being in or around places with children as sex offenders. Then, of course, there is all the basic healthcare stuff. The white house put out an executive order (currently delayed by courts) withholding federal funding for hospitals that provide gender affirming care for people age 18 and 19. These are legal adults. If this stands, we'll almost surely start seeing legislation banning gender affirming care for adults in various red states. Criminalizing hormone treatment is forced detransition.
_cenw 2y ago
Here we go again. You need to read up on the definition of genocide (especially beyond thinking of it as the last 2-3 stages; being defined out of existence is quite literally EO 14168) and then maybe have a look at https://translegislation.com/ https://translegislation.com/. It's one of those things that'll always sound exaggerated, even if it's not.
- viiviiv 2y ago
  Interesting website but could you explain why this legislation, most of which was rejected, indicates intent to commit genocide? I honestly do not see how, to take one example, athletes only being allowed to compete against others of the same sex is a step on the path to genocide. This suggestion of genocide does sound very exaggerated, and I believe your anxiety on this is misplaced.
  - _cenw 2y ago
    The sports bans are distractions or canaries at best. They're a wedge for making action against trans people palatable, as even democrats will occasionally, as a gut feeling, agree with them. There's a nuanced discussion to be had, but ultimately it should be fairly obvious that republicans do not actually care about women's sports. These bills are proposed for different reasons. The sheer volume of the legislation should make it clear alone. It's March, and we got more bills introduced this year than last year already. If you can't get the image of genocide as traincars and skull piles out of your head, I can't help you, but there's a concerted effort to make our lives miserable to unlivable and to definitionally erase us from public consciousness (aside from painting us as legitimate dehumanized targets). If you can't see that I can't help you, I can just stack it on my anxiety pile as someone else who never wondered how Germany was for Jews (and many other groups, including queer people) in the decade before the holocaust.

caseyy 2y ago

I would say anxiety is not warranted, but when the circumstances become dangerous to you, action might be. Perhaps use the exit, voice, and loyalty (EVL) model. It describes three effective responses that don't involve anxiety. Exit means you remove yourself from the situation — perhaps you move to a state where your rights are better protected or leave your current doctor for an activist doctor. Voice means getting into rooms and on the phone with decision-makers, as well as preparing for this. Loyalty means you stop worrying and remain loyal to an organization but hopeful that things will change. In this model, remaining in the situation and stressing about it is a misguided choice. Just as you worry about the Third Reich, the EVL model explains the coping strategies of people who were under the regime. Some exited, some dissented, and some chose loyalty. These were very functional strategies. I'm not going to debate the exaggerated genocide claim. Still, I'd say be careful how you use this specific historical term, as much genocide is happening in the world today, and much has happened in the last several generations. Some readers will have family trauma; it's easy to offend people this way and turn them off to your cause. In general, the more emotional language you use, the less trustworthy you will appear. Either way, I acknowledge your anxiety is real and that some harm may come your way in the future. I want to be clear: this is not a dismissal of your fears. But I suggest action instead. Whether that action protects you or others in similar circumstances, it will be more effective than worrying.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
_cenw 2y ago
Considering how this thread went, and how there's just no way to reach most people anymore in this post truth affect driven world, yeah maybe I should live in rural Iceland or something. > I'm not going to debate the exaggerated genocide claim. Too late, you called it exaggerated. I'm wondering, would you consider residential schools genocide?