Thanks again, Eliza for your unique contribution to this fraught topic.
I had been thinking about the issue of trans genocide recently, because one of my favorite podcasts, the Fifth Column -- which has mostly sidestepped the trans issue -- responded aggressively to the controversy over the recent GLAAD/NY Times contributors letters. The…
Thanks again, Eliza for your unique contribution to this fraught topic.
I had been thinking about the issue of trans genocide recently, because one of my favorite podcasts, the Fifth Column -- which has mostly sidestepped the trans issue -- responded aggressively to the controversy over the recent GLAAD/NY Times contributors letters. They made note of the rhetorical claim that the NYT was denying trans people’s right to exist, which of course sounds deranged. Kmele Foster commented that they were going straight to putting trans people in ovens.
I have been wondering how much this rhetoric is literal fear-mongering that trans genocide is intended, and how much is figurative. It seems to me that any questioning of trans identity appears to TRAs to be a kind of genocide, because it raises doubts about the reality of trans identities. It reminds me of Peter Pan -- if you don’t clap your hands, Tinkerbell won’t exist (for the record I clapped my hands, but hey, I was three years old).
In other words, the trans genocide rhetoric is a reflection of the fragility of trans identity claims. It requires the assent of the broader society. If that assent is lacking, trans people feel they won’t exist. Of course, this also morphs into fears of a literal genocide.
"Claims of ‘trans genocide’ rest on two pillars. The first is the idea that ‘trans’ pharmaceuticals and surgeries are life-saving, therefore regulations that restrict access in any way—such as by removing public funding or opening providers up to malpractice suits—are by definition life-threatening. (Never mind that the evidence doesn't support the idea that transition is life-saving.)
Then there’s the potential withdrawal of socially (and sometimes legally) enforced recognition of gender-identity-as-sex. That’s the second pillar.
Trans is only 'real' to the extent others (are compelled to) play along. This is the basis for claims that people who don't believe that gender identity should override sex in some or all settings are "denying" or "erasing the existence of trans people." Think Tinkerbell: if the audience claps, thus demonstrating their belief in the existence of fairies, Tinkerbell lives. (You can see hints of this in media coverage, like the time the New York Times described the Trump administration’s push to define sex as biological sex under Title IX as “‘Transgender’ could be defined out of existence under Trump administration.”)
Activists may also be leaning on the concept of cultural genocide, without saying so. Cultural genocide refers to “the systematic destruction of traditions, values, language, and other elements that make one group of people distinct from another.” (For what it’s worth, I don’t think this is how the term is being used in most cases, though if pressed activists might retreat to such a claim, motte-and-bailey style.)"
"The fragility of trans identity claims" or perhaps claiming a trans identity as a way of telling people you're fragile. I think this is also true of people who seek out multiple mental health diagnoses -- they see it as a way of garnering sympathy from others. This would explain the requirement for the assent of broader society as well.
Wasn't it not that long ago that mobs of feral NYC "journalists" were saying Elon was like Hitler for buying Twitter and that night when he kicked off those people for doxing his plane was compared to Kristallnacht?
One of the great ironies of our age is how people who supposedly make their living by selling words have become completely detached from rhetorical reality, and will shriek any victim whine if it gets their needs met at the moment.
If these perpetually aggrieved infantile crybullies had to go one day without emotional blackmail or moral bullying, they would be left completely speechless.
It's an age of hyperbole: a few days ago I read a comment by someone approving something "1000%" -- as though saying 100% wasn't enough to express enthusiasm. It might be innumeracy, but it's also form of illiteracy, not to realise that this figure is meaningless. As hyperbolic exaggeration serves to devalue words and language, it has to be constantly ramped up to new levels of frenzy and inauthenticity.
And now I've started to read the (previously unreached) next article "The frenzy continues..." and just reached "Desantis would 1000% be doing it..." (listing all trans people before rounding them up for death camps -- or withdrawing medication?).
"If these perpetually aggrieved infantile crybullies had to go one day without emotional blackmail or moral bullying, they would be left completely speechless."
Good point. And if that's what you're relying upon on a regular basis, what does that say about you? Do they ever stop to wonder?
the people we're talking about (i think) are the self-proclaimed cool kids of the NYC media bubble, who play socialism while their parents pay their bills, and who care about nothing outside their little hothouse echo chamber, where they screech like lost souls in hell trying to outdo each other in performances of public piety while engaging in compassion pissing contests.
nothing matters to them except expressing obedience to whatever the daily dogma is and in trying to climb to the top of their small sterile world.
the sick sad part is this small sliver of insiders wields so much influence for some unknown reason.
For the record: Those kids may think of what they do as socialism. Their opinions and actions are diametrically opposed to socialism - that goes for any strain of liberal identitarianism aka identity politics.
Socialism - like liberalism and at least classic conservativism - is rooted in universalism and the notion that there is such a thing as material reality.
Identity politics openly and proudly rejects both these notions and radically undermines any possibility of solidarity.
Thanks again, Eliza for your unique contribution to this fraught topic.
I had been thinking about the issue of trans genocide recently, because one of my favorite podcasts, the Fifth Column -- which has mostly sidestepped the trans issue -- responded aggressively to the controversy over the recent GLAAD/NY Times contributors letters. They made note of the rhetorical claim that the NYT was denying trans people’s right to exist, which of course sounds deranged. Kmele Foster commented that they were going straight to putting trans people in ovens.
I have been wondering how much this rhetoric is literal fear-mongering that trans genocide is intended, and how much is figurative. It seems to me that any questioning of trans identity appears to TRAs to be a kind of genocide, because it raises doubts about the reality of trans identities. It reminds me of Peter Pan -- if you don’t clap your hands, Tinkerbell won’t exist (for the record I clapped my hands, but hey, I was three years old).
In other words, the trans genocide rhetoric is a reflection of the fragility of trans identity claims. It requires the assent of the broader society. If that assent is lacking, trans people feel they won’t exist. Of course, this also morphs into fears of a literal genocide.
What do you think of this idea?
I wrote about this a couple weeks ago (Tinkerbell included!):
https://elizamondegreen.substack.com/p/phobia-indoctrination-not-trans-genocide
"Claims of ‘trans genocide’ rest on two pillars. The first is the idea that ‘trans’ pharmaceuticals and surgeries are life-saving, therefore regulations that restrict access in any way—such as by removing public funding or opening providers up to malpractice suits—are by definition life-threatening. (Never mind that the evidence doesn't support the idea that transition is life-saving.)
Then there’s the potential withdrawal of socially (and sometimes legally) enforced recognition of gender-identity-as-sex. That’s the second pillar.
Trans is only 'real' to the extent others (are compelled to) play along. This is the basis for claims that people who don't believe that gender identity should override sex in some or all settings are "denying" or "erasing the existence of trans people." Think Tinkerbell: if the audience claps, thus demonstrating their belief in the existence of fairies, Tinkerbell lives. (You can see hints of this in media coverage, like the time the New York Times described the Trump administration’s push to define sex as biological sex under Title IX as “‘Transgender’ could be defined out of existence under Trump administration.”)
Activists may also be leaning on the concept of cultural genocide, without saying so. Cultural genocide refers to “the systematic destruction of traditions, values, language, and other elements that make one group of people distinct from another.” (For what it’s worth, I don’t think this is how the term is being used in most cases, though if pressed activists might retreat to such a claim, motte-and-bailey style.)"
The ideology's volatile triple fuel combination:
1. fear -- ramped up to existential heights
2. pathological kindness
3. the noxious fumes of victimhood
We mustn't forget
4: sexualization of children
5. fetishization of womanhood
Undoubtedly I was influenced by your previous writing, which I managed to forget -- though it kept rattling around in my aging brain.
I would also add that the sheer derangement of this claim prompts closer inspection of the trans movement.
Well said. The old motte-and-bailey style of argumentation is a favorite go-to.
"The fragility of trans identity claims" or perhaps claiming a trans identity as a way of telling people you're fragile. I think this is also true of people who seek out multiple mental health diagnoses -- they see it as a way of garnering sympathy from others. This would explain the requirement for the assent of broader society as well.
Wasn't it not that long ago that mobs of feral NYC "journalists" were saying Elon was like Hitler for buying Twitter and that night when he kicked off those people for doxing his plane was compared to Kristallnacht?
One of the great ironies of our age is how people who supposedly make their living by selling words have become completely detached from rhetorical reality, and will shriek any victim whine if it gets their needs met at the moment.
If these perpetually aggrieved infantile crybullies had to go one day without emotional blackmail or moral bullying, they would be left completely speechless.
It's an age of hyperbole: a few days ago I read a comment by someone approving something "1000%" -- as though saying 100% wasn't enough to express enthusiasm. It might be innumeracy, but it's also form of illiteracy, not to realise that this figure is meaningless. As hyperbolic exaggeration serves to devalue words and language, it has to be constantly ramped up to new levels of frenzy and inauthenticity.
And now I've started to read the (previously unreached) next article "The frenzy continues..." and just reached "Desantis would 1000% be doing it..." (listing all trans people before rounding them up for death camps -- or withdrawing medication?).
"If these perpetually aggrieved infantile crybullies had to go one day without emotional blackmail or moral bullying, they would be left completely speechless."
Good point. And if that's what you're relying upon on a regular basis, what does that say about you? Do they ever stop to wonder?
the people we're talking about (i think) are the self-proclaimed cool kids of the NYC media bubble, who play socialism while their parents pay their bills, and who care about nothing outside their little hothouse echo chamber, where they screech like lost souls in hell trying to outdo each other in performances of public piety while engaging in compassion pissing contests.
nothing matters to them except expressing obedience to whatever the daily dogma is and in trying to climb to the top of their small sterile world.
the sick sad part is this small sliver of insiders wields so much influence for some unknown reason.
For the record: Those kids may think of what they do as socialism. Their opinions and actions are diametrically opposed to socialism - that goes for any strain of liberal identitarianism aka identity politics.
Socialism - like liberalism and at least classic conservativism - is rooted in universalism and the notion that there is such a thing as material reality.
Identity politics openly and proudly rejects both these notions and radically undermines any possibility of solidarity.