Trump winning supports the genocide of every LGBTQ+ person in all of North America, be it directly or indirectly. No one wants what is happening in Gaza. But, I have to say the potential genocide (in the sense of complete erasure of culture as well as open murders with little to no consequences sense) here is even higher.

I have the unfortunate circumstance of being a trans woman in GA. I already have had to completely shut off most contact with people, both work and personal.

I’ve already had rocks thrown at me in an attempt to kill me (this was years ago, even). I already feel like I have to carry a gun. If things go the way they seem, I will even have to order in groceries because it will further empower the people that hate my existence.

The foreign policy is shit, no question. However, I don’t like the possibility of being raped and murdered by some asshole that thinks he understands Co² emissions after watching some video.

I have a lot to say here, especially as a very blue collar machinist. I will refrain, though.

In conclusion: by “avoiding” the genocide in Gaza (which would have in my opinion had a much higher chance of being resolved with Democratic policies), you have also doomed people like me to maybe live in fear for the rest of our lives.

  • SwingingTheLamp@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    11 days ago

    I wasn’t the first to ask the question, but I haven’t heard an answer: If the genocide of Palestine is an acceptable price to pay to get a Democrat elected, then why wouldn’t trans genocide also be an acceptable price because of the threat to cis women? The utilitarian ethical calculation still works just fine.

    • ObliviousEnlightenment@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      11 days ago

      You could ask that question, but the answer doesnt matter politically. Women, cis and trans, are on the same side in that if the genocide of the latter is plausible, the former is already pretty hard done by. A worsening of one position necessarily accompanies the other. Gaza does not work like this. Republicans are obviously the worse choice there too. You can argue about red lines and such, but thats not how realpolitik works. We get two options, nothing more or less, zero alternatives. The consensus necessary to change this is not possible in the current political climate. Denying support to the lesser evil on the basis of said evil when their opponent will do that same evil but more is not logical.

      Tangentially relatee, there are those who sacrifice trans women for the sake of cis women. We call them terfs, and they’ve largely backed rightwing parties

      • SwingingTheLamp@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        11 days ago

        I feel like the very existence of TERFs shows daylight between cis and trans women. In any case, even if it may not matter politically at the moment, I’m still interested in the answer to the question.

    • sweetpotato@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      11 days ago

      I think you are asking the wrong person, I’m the one saying the Palestinian genocide crosses the line. Although I don’t 100% understand the logic behind this. What’s the threat to cis women?

      Although I’m suspecting the answer someone would give you is that it’s because the trans genocide will happen to “us the US citizens” not some Arabs at the other side of the world we don’t really care that much about.

      • SwingingTheLamp@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        11 days ago

        Oh yes, sorry, I try to use Lemmy as a place for discussion, not an arena for rhetorical warfare. I had enough of that at the red site. So, I’m not challenging you, but building on your point.

        Thanks for the Devil’s Advocate explanation. That’s what I suspect the answer is, too.