[slg]

There is always a lot of debate about how you define a word like genocide. The UN definition outlines several actions that qualify as genocide but specifically limits it to attacks on a community of people based on race, religion, ethnicity, or nationality. Actions like preventing medical care and removing kids from their parents would qualify as genocide according to that UN definition.

The US is guilty of both those things (and more) when it comes to our treatment of trans people. However, trans people clearly aren't a singular racial, religious, ethnic, or national group. That means they can't technically be the victims of a genocide according to that UN definition, but that is an awfully uncomfortable technically we need to not be guilty of genocide.

[ralusek]

You believe that there is an escalating movement in online discourse advocating for the killing of all trans people?

[slg]

That isn’t a requirement to meet the UN definition of genocide. Not every genocide looks like The Holocaust.

[AnimalMuppet]

You could be right. Was that really kelseyfrog's point, though? Or was it Israel's treatment of Palestinians? Or Russia's treatment of Ukraine? Or China's treatment of the Uighurs? Or the police treatment of blacks? Or the Great Replacement theory? I honestly can't tell.

And, once we know what was actually being claimed, then we can debate whether it meets the definition of genocide.

I really hate vague-posting like kelseyfrog's post. Don't hint. If you have a claim to make, make it. (Just to be clear, this last paragraph is not aimed at the parent.)

[slg]

I obviously can't know for sure without them chiming in. However, the context made me immediately think of trans people. It was in a conversation about issues specific to the US, UK, and Australia so I doubt they are talking about China's treatment of Uyghurs. They mentioned "reasoned debates" and the anti-trans contingent often defends themselves by saying they are "just asking questions" or are looking for reasoned debates about high school girls volleyball. OP also called out the speech that leads to violence even if it isn't a direct call to violence. That seems to be a reference to the way that numerous conservative figures have started using "pedo groomers" as a slur to describe people who participate in drag shows, are trans, or even just generally LGBT+ people. Someone just recently heard all that rhetoric, walked into an LGBT+ bar that does drag shows, murdered 5 people, and injured over a dozen more.

One of the reasons people are vague on HN about these issues is because a simple "The US is committing genocide against trans people" comment is more likely to be downvoted and flagged as being political. We often can only talk about these things here by hinting at them. Ironic considering how pro free speech this community claims to be.

[AnimalMuppet]

A direct comment that the US is committing genocide against trans people I would downvote, not for being political, but for being BS. At least one thing more is needed to be genocide - some level of being systematic.

Yes, trans people get beaten to death in numbers that are appallingly high. That's a tragedy and a disgrace on our society. Does it rise to the level of genocide? Blacks get shot in numbers that are appallingly high, too. Is that a genocide?

Preventing medical care? Are trans people being denied medical care for, say, cancer or heart disease? Or are they only being denied medical care for transitioning? Or are they only being denied medical care at public expense for transitioning?

If trans people are being denied medical care for regular medical issues, in large numbers, yes, I could call that genocide. If they're being denied care at public expense for transitioning, no, I probably would not call that genocide.

The problem with lowering the bar to calling things genocide in order to highlight a particular issue is that it lowers the bar for everybody else, too. And if everything's a genocide, then nothing is.

The problem with just hinting at things is it leaves the rest of us unclear on what, exactly, is being claimed. One of the things that most people on HN ought to agree on is that the details matter. If you're making vague claims, all we can do is talk in platitudes, which is unlikely to be effective.

[krapp]

Some would argue that there are indeed systemic origins and incitements in both violence against trans people and violence against black people, that there are elements within the US government (or at least political apparatus) interested in the oppression of both groups, and actively engaged in spreading fear and encouraging violence against them.

I mean, you can trace a direct line from the current moral panic about "groomers" through QAnon to Pizzagate, and it goes through one specific political party, and you can trace another line from police brutality against black people to Jim Crow and segregation to slave-catchers. The systemic links are there.

The only things people are calling genocides are things that look disturbingly like genocides. No one is arguing everything is a genocide.

[AnimalMuppet]

Strong disagree. You don't need "systematic origins", you need systematic violence for it to be genocide. Compare, say, the Holodomor or the Armenian genocide, to what's happening to blacks and trans people. They are not similar.

[slg]

> At least one thing more is needed to be genocide - some level of being systematic.

The two examples I mentioned were actions by the state. How is that not systemic?

[AnimalMuppet]

When it's done by the state, that's systemic, but it's not systematic. It's systematic when it's done to all trans people (or whoever), not just a few.

(Yes, "all" isn't actually necessary. Some large fraction, though. You can't have a genocide by killing 1% of the people. That's an atrocity, but it's not a genocide.)

[slg]

Sorry, I apparently didn't read that close enough to notice the systemic/systematic difference.

The UN definition specifically calls out that it doesn't have to be directed at the entire population. It also doesn't make any effort to define any "large fraction" that needs to be met before the definition can be applied. A culling of a percentage of specific population would likely still qualify, but the specifics of these things always varies depending on the context of the specific example being judged. However, it is clear that the UN definition primarily hinges on how people are targeted and the actions that are taken, not the scope.