The transgender community is facing a silent genocide in the U.K.
The transgender community is facing a silent genocide in the U.K.
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.
Not being represented != being systematically killed off
It's not just lack of representation though. The UK is removing trans people's access to the healthcare that allows them to live a tolerable life.
And that is a very serious issue that I feel deeply for and want to help them overcome it.
But it's not a fucking genocide.
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)
It's not genocide for the same reason that straight-up euthanising, say, schizophrenics isn't: Neither are a people, but a subset of every people.
I'd lump it in with eugenics but genocide is catchy so I'll permit it despite better semantic judgement.
EDIT: What, y'all disagreeing with me about the use of "genocide" being politically opportune?
How is lack of healthcare = Not being represented?
You are making a strawman argument, there is much more to it than not being represented.By that logic, all US Citizens are victims of ongoing genocide.
Genocides are a real thing that are really happening to people across the world, you can't just make it mean something less than it is in good conscience.
Cough HIV in the 80s cough
We're about to face a not so silent one in the US too :(
Terf island going to terf
What kind of trash tier journalism is this. Genocide is a real, serious issue. You can't just call something a genocide metaphorically, that's incredibly disrespectful.
Lack of healthcare and lack of rights and protections that are common for other minorities, together with a huge deal of oppression, often violence and sometimes murder, is absolutely a kind of genocide, and in no way disrespectful to other forms of genocide.
I’m gay. And this isn’t genocide. You could use hate, bigotry, segregation possibly, but genocide requires death, not “sometimes death,” and it’s the whole group, not just the ones who cannot defend themselves. Rich LGBT in the UK are doing just fine.
Genocide is the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group.
No it isn't
No it isn't
According to mods, this is HIGHLY TRUSTWORTHY SITE (They use a joke site to verify this😂😂😂😂)
The advocate is a very real organization. However, they lean towards the dramatic. That’s how you get attention to topics that some people don’t want to think about.
'genocide' lol
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.
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.
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)
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.
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.
Why do we call it "Gender" reassignment surgery, when it's actually Sex-reassignment surgery? Gender isn't sex, remember?
Because it’s reassigning someone’s gender - e.g. making a female body look more like a man’s. We don’t have the technology to change someone’s biological sex, but we can help them by giving them a body that more closely resembles their gender identity.
People can do whatever they need for their identity, but they need to remember it's just an identity. It exists for a reason that does not come from within a person. That's the whole premise of an identity, pursuing a specific treatment from society based on how it identifies you. The happiest people in human history give few fucks about their identity.
So I can see why some people find it sad. But I can see why other people just as caught up and trained by society would be mad, not really understanding it's got nothing to do with them.
Because you can't surgically change someone's sex; or do you think that eg. trans women have wombs? Here's how the Canadian Institutes of Health Research explains the difference:
Sex refers to a set of biological attributes in humans and animals. It is primarily associated with physical and physiological features including chromosomes, gene expression, hormone levels and function, and reproductive/sexual anatomy. Sex is usually categorized as female or male but there is variation in the biological attributes that comprise sex and how those attributes are expressed.
Gender refers to the socially constructed roles, behaviours, expressions and identities of girls, women, boys, men, and gender diverse people. It influences how people perceive themselves and each other, how they act and interact, and the distribution of power and resources in society. Gender identity is not confined to a binary (girl/woman, boy/man) nor is it static; it exists along a continuum and can change over time. There is considerable diversity in how individuals and groups understand, experience and express gender through the roles they take on, the expectations placed on them, relations with others and the complex ways that gender is institutionalized in society.
Yeah, sure, a pedant could argue that "gender correction surgery" is the wrong term since gender is a social construct and that's not what's literally done in the operation, because the operation is more about correcting (ie into accordance with whatever that person's gender is) external "markers" of sex and/or genitals, but that doesn't mean sex reassignment is therefore the correct term.
Sex refers to 2 out of the 3 things you've mentioned there. Hormone Levels and Function, and Reproductive/Sexual anatomy.
We can't change chromosomes (and gene expression is essentially the same category here) - so it's literally our closest attempt at altering sexually dimorphic characteristics. I've been told time and time again gender is fluid, can change on a day to day basis, is based on socially constructed roles, and the jury is still out on if it has nothing to do with sex, or has everything to do with sex. I've heard answers from both sides on that one.
So it makes no sense to me why we allow it to be called Gender reassignment.
Because we don't. The old name was "Sex Reassignment Surgery" (SRS), but the new names are "Gender Affirming Surgery" and "Gender Confirmation Surgery".
Few trans people have bottom surgery. It’s horribly invasive and painful.
TIL I don't know why I thought it was standard.
The whole situation is BS in the first place, back in the days the concept of gender was introduced to allow some flexibility in the social aspects while keeping sex (as in phenotype) a binary which science already knew it wasn't. Bimodal distribution, yes, binary, no. Things get complicated fast once you go past egg cells and sperm, that's the only actual binary that exists.
English in particular uses transsexual because back in the days activists wanted to avoid associations with sexuality, to not get tangled up in people's homophobic sentiments. Other language use precisely that term, transsexual. Hirschfeld coined "transvestite", back then a catch-all term for behaviour not conforming to your sex assigned at birth (and you could get a transvestite pass in Imperial Germany to stop the police harassing you for "inciting public disorder"), Benjamin coined "transsexual", in English, as a diagnosis separate to "just liking to dress up differently", it got replaced later on don't ask me for a source right now.
penis reassignment surgery (PRS)