Surely TWAW is the real 'genocide'

[MyAmpleSheep]

Online I read the argument that by suggesting 'trans women' are actually men and vice versa, one denies the existence of trans people, and therefore commits a genocide.

Seems to me the truth is the other way around: to treat 'trans women' in all circumstances as women (as we are instructed to) is to fail to recognize their trans-ness. To fail to recognize trans-ness is no different than denying the existence of any such thing; which is of course, genocide.

Surely the way to avoid a trans genocide is to highlight and celebrate the specialness and difference involved in being trans loudly and clearly. A very effective way to do this is to laud 'trans women' as a very special and different kind of woman: the kind that uses men's services and facilities, where these things are separated by sex.

Is there a flaw in this line of reasoning somewhere?

The first step is to recognise that there is no genocide, nor anything that bears any resemblance to genocide. We are talking about whether or not people validate someone’s identity in the way they want it to be validated.

Wouldn't it be better just to call out and reject their claim of "genocide: in this context altogether? If I was a survivor from a population that had suffered a real attempted genocide, I would be nauseated by this false, self-pitying appropriation of the term and not very appreciative of any reverse attempts at casuistry either.

We shouldn't fall into the trap of indulging this cynical and catastrophising redefinition of words. "Feeling unsafe", "erasure', "genocide", 'eliminationism'... when all that's happened is that people are refusing to go along with their immersive self-beliefs to the point where it infringes other people's rights.

That’s disgusting that you’ve used that word. And really really offensive to a lot of people. It also makes any argument you want to make re TWAW totally invalidated because you’ve gone so OTT in wanting to prove your point, that you’ve gone really, really low and compared to places where 1000s of people, including children are being murdered in their homes. Do better

Apologies I don’t mean that “you” have used that word. I mean which ever idiot did that

There is no genocide - erasure in language or in law is not the same as actual death. To use the word genocide is offensive and also feeds into the "trans panic" which we see often on here, in the press, Reddit etc where transgender people seem to feel like their lives are genuinely in danger. It's not. Children especially should not be hearing that a group they identify with is being subject to genocide when that simply isn't the case.

Reduxx is highlighting trans women’s specialness very effectively already. Let’s start there.
https://reduxx.info/category/news/

Reduxx also brought to the world how many young people become trans because so many therapists are using W-PATH and the DSM in its various iterations
https://reduxx.info/top-academic-behind-fetish-site-hosting-child-sexual-abuse-fantasy-push-to-revise-wpath-guidelines/

Mia Hughes has also clearly shown the opinion grown men hold about young, unhappy children
https://environmentalprogress.org/big-news/wpath-files

Of course, children who are told that they now have two mothers, one with a penis and who dresses like Alice in Wonderland, are never harmed or scarred

Those children can’t believe their luck at having someone so special destroying their lives.

But, by all means, let them be special in your life.

I think we need to stay away from the word genocide. There is nothing here in which anyone is being systematically killed for who they are.

Re the word genocide.

Dame Hilary Cass, in her landmark report found that of about 15000 children that went through the Tavistock, in about ten years, four committed suicide. All four had other comorbidities.

In the Skrmetti case last month in the US Supreme Court, Chase Strangio, lead attorney for the ACLU admitted that there had been no excess deaths in the trans population.

The Brazilian(?) study of deaths in the transgender cohort found that the 20 deaths studied may well have been transgender but they were also all prostitutes. Scarcely a population known for its OHS standards.

None of these statistics fit the definition of genocide.

Thank you for your kind offer, MyAmpleSheep, certainly your offer of morsels of validation from people who have a seething obsessive hate for us in return for the minor inconvenience of making our lives harder is certainly appealing. Unfortunately, as a lower figure in the powerful trans lobby, I am unable to confirm that the quorum of transsexuals will accept your offer, but will return forthwith

"seething"

This 👏

Why don't you address the points made in the OP?
If you don't agree, why don't you provide a rational counter argument?
If you think the OP is wrong, explain why you think that.
Why go straight to the hyperbole that makes everyone switch off?

Has the use of 'genocide' reduced now that there is a high-profile accusation of actual genocide in the news?

I've been noting shifts in trans discourse, e.g. the mirroring back of words and phrases used in the past to critique trans ideology, like 'cognitive dissonance' 'you've been lied to' 'the law as it is and not the way you'd like it to be' .

There's also the distancing from TWAW, which for years was the central tenet of TRAs - transwomen are women, 100%, and any suggestion to the contrary was transphobic - 'literal genocide' was probably thrown in too.

Now there are trans people who say that 'of course' they know they are not actually changing their sex, they acknowledge that they still belong to their natal sex, but 'present' as the opposite sex.

Post the SC ruling, this puts them in an awkward spot as single sex spaces are designated on the basis of the biological sex that these trans people acknowledge they belong to, not the one they 'present' as.

There has also been a reduction in the alleged cases of butch lesbians being hounded out of women's toilets post the SC ruling - the surprisingly large number of straight women with butch lesbian friends we never heard about before was beginning to stretch credulity, so that trope seems to have fizzled out.

I wonder if the phrase 'literal genocide' has also fallen out of favour?

Why should they be "lauded" at all? Are any other sufferers of mental illness continually told how special and unique they are?

There is no genocide and the use of the word is appalling as it completely lacks understanding of what genocide is.

Well I spotted this on twitter about 5 minutes ago, so I’m going to say the ‘genocide’ angle is still in play.

"in play" - I see what you did there! 😁

But seriously, it's total self-victimisation and self-centering every time.

despite the fact that I read it frequently on the UK trans Reddit It was a mistake for me to use the g word, because almost everyone has focused on that instead of the logical argument.

The point I was hoping to ask the brains trust about is that TWAW appears to be the side of the argument that invalidates trans people and erases trans-ness. If a trans woman is simply a woman, then the trans-ness has disappeared and is erased.

Transness seems a special attribute that is recognized by not being recognized.

Oh no no. You've got it all wrong. See they're women when that suits them to get into women's spaces etc. and trans when they need to be "special snowflakes" and most vulnerable etc.
For "reasons" yanno.
Reasons that are beyond the understanding of us Terfs/transphobes of course

It was a goal. I mean, it failed but they did try.

Exactly. Histrionics.

This tweet has aged beautifully.

You’re are being too logical when trying to decipher what is posited. The TWAW logic goes like this…..

The word ‘woman’ functions an abstract label, and to have any substance, a real-world woman has to have additional attributes - fat, black, old, c*s, trans etc. Without specifying the type of woman being referred to, the word ‘woman’ has no actual substance.

It’s bullshit, of course, but that’s the case that is made.

Exactly this. It’s better not to indulge the breathless hyperbole.

“Even law says so” 🤔