First of all, yes, I think some people find it controversial to use the term “genocide” to refer to what’s happening to trans people. Part of the debate about the term “genocide” is whether it can apply to non-ethnic groups, for example. I would argue the spirit of the term does apply to any group, but some people disagree. I’m not sure why it’s so important for the term to be limited to ethnicity, I tend to think these arguments are not in the spirit of validating or recognizing very real oppression and violence intended to completely eliminate a certain group.

The motivation to use the term “genocide” is that the anti-trans movement has explicitly stated as their goal the total erasure of trans people:

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/cpac-speaker-transgender-people-eradicated-1234690924/

During his speech on Saturday, Knowles told the crowd, “For the good of society … transgenderism must be eradicated from public life entirely — the whole preposterous ideology, at every level.”

Knowles subsequently claimed that “eradicating” “transgenderism” is not a call for eradicating transgender people and demanded retractions from numerous publications, including Rolling Stone.

Erin Reed, a transgender rights activist and writer, tells Rolling Stone that it’s an absurd distinction. There is no difference between a ban on “transgenderism” and an attack on transgender people, she says: “They are one and the same, and there’s no separation between them.”

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/matt-walsh-supreme-court-erase-trans-ideology-earth-1235192666/

“We are not gonna rest until every child is protected, until trans ideology is entirely erased from the earth. That’s what we’re fighting for, and we will not stop until we achieve it,” he said.

Specifically, the Lemkin Institute for Genocide Prevention has described the anti-trans movement as genocidal:

https://www.lemkininstitute.com/red-flag-alerts/red-flag-alert-for-the-anti-trans-agenda-of-the-trump-administration-in-the-united-states

The Lemkin Institute for Genocide Prevention and Human Security condemns the anti-trans agenda of the second Trump Administration and warns Americans that the recent spate of executive orders, which are in line with a genocidal process against the transgender community that has been emerging in the United States for over a decade, are meant to pave the way for greater state repression against all individuals and other groups in the future.

…

The Lemkin Institute believes that current anti-trans hysteria within the government is meant to serve three purposes within a wider genocidal process. First, the Executive Orders constitute the paper marginalization and ‘paper persecution’ of an identity group that has recently gained rights and greater acceptance in order to lock in evangelical support for the Trump administration. Second, the executive orders create a fictitious ‘cosmic enemy’ that will justify radicalization of government in general, leading to ever-more power for the executive branch; and third, the executive orders, over time, aim to normalize the destruction of identity groups by desensitizing the public to state-sponsored persecution of people based solely on their identities.

Taken together, the Trump Administration’s executive orders related to trans people would effectively destroy, if fully implemented, trans people as a group, in whole, to summarize the text of the Genocide Convention. The orders begin the process of removing a trans presence from collective life and preventing trans people from existing as themselves, forcing them back into invisibility and isolation. This attack on trans identity is reminiscent in the US context of the Native American Boarding Schools, where the goal was to “kill the Indian … and save the man.” Not only would the effort to deprive trans Americans of gender affirming care constitute a form of torture (and medical malpractice) with terrible mental health repercussions, but also such measures are a common phase in genocidal processes and generally lead to ever greater persecution.

Trans people in Florida prisons are being forcefully detransitioned and forced into pseudo-science conversion “therapy”, I don’t think it’s hyperbolic at this point in time to say the intentions of the anti-trans movement are genocidal, and I think the movement is largely succeeding in their goals.

So far necessary medical care has been denied to trans youth in many states, and the U.S. Supreme Court recently ruled that discrimination against people on the basis of “gender dysphoria” is legal. We already have data that the ban of gender affirming care (and in some cases, forcing physicians to detransition trans youth) has significantly increased the rate of suicide attempts among those trans youth.

We are also seeing tools used in previous genocides, such as “social death” where the concept of being trans is eliminated from the law and thus on a social and legal level trans people cannot “exist”. Laws in some states have already achieved this (which results in trans people never being able to fix their birth certificates or update their legal documents, for example), and now the federal government is operating under executive orders that establish the same (making it impossible for trans people to have accurate passports or federal documents, for example - but the policies impact much more, including forcing male TSA agents to pat down trans women and vice versa).

So the methods and goals are all genocidal, the only problem is that trans people as a group are not a national or ethnic group, so this would fail a narrow definition of genocide that way.

I get that, but I tend to think the burden of proof in a criminal case is much higher than the burden of proof to believe a victim outside of a courtroom.

In this case I don’t think there is any reason to doubt the victims, and the pressure and evidence points to victims tending to not come forward, the fact that there are multiple accusations from multiple victims indicates to me a much higher probability that Gaiman is guilty of some sexual crimes than not. Luckily my opinion or assessment of Gaiman’s behavior doesn’t have consequences like jail time, so my beliefs do not demand the same scrutiny as a judge’s or a jury’s.

Not that it’s wrong to think about the evidence, but culturally I think we tend to discount survivors and victims more than we validate them, and that can make questions about evidence really difficult, even harmful. Still, we obviously can’t ignore the problem of evidence, but luckily that’s primarily a concern for the courts (not that being cancelled doesn’t have consequences, and “cancel culture” can be reactive, essentializing, and unfair - that’s probably something we should collectively think about more).

here are the things I’ve read:

overview: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neil_Gaiman#Sexual_assault_and_misconduct_allegations

some reporting: https://www.vulture.com/article/neil-gaiman-allegations-controversy-amanda-palmer-sandman-madoc.html

note: content warning, NSFL

yeah, I agree with you - the harm is severe, it’s just with such a small population we can’t show the concrete harm the way we can with a trans population where deaths are already happening (but that doesn’t diminish the actual harm to Gaiman’s victims, which I would say is extreme).

Alan Moore agrees:

https://www.indiewire.com/features/general/watchmen-creator-alan-moore-hates-superhero-movies-1234591751/

“I haven’t seen a superhero movie since the first Tim Burton ‘Batman’ film. They have blighted cinema, and also blighted culture to a degree,” Moore said. “Several years ago I said I thought it was a really worrying sign, that hundreds of thousands of adults were queuing up to see characters that were created 50 years ago to entertain 12-year-old boys. That seemed to speak to some kind of longing to escape from the complexities of the modern world, and go back to a nostalgic, remembered childhood. That seemed dangerous, it was infantilizing the population.”

yeah, that would put me in full cope mode too, lol

overview: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neil_Gaiman#Sexual_assault_and_misconduct_allegations

some reporting: https://www.vulture.com/article/neil-gaiman-allegations-controversy-amanda-palmer-sandman-madoc.html

note: content warning, NSFL

the anti-trans movement’s achievements like taking away gender-affirming care have directly been shown to result in increased suicides, as far as I know Gaiman’s actions have not directly killed anyone, while Rowling’s advocacy does directly support a movement that results in deaths - I think the per-person severity of harm when a trans person self harms, attempts suicide, or succeeds in suicide (not to mention when anti-trans bigots rape, torture, and murder trans people) are all worse AFAIK

I think the moral arguments aside, there is just the practical matter that having read what he did, I cannot stomach to consume content made by him. The association is naturally aversive, I don’t need a rational argument about how it’s immoral to support a rapist - I just don’t like it.

I think a lot of us trans girls are in the same situation. I learned to read on HP books, and Hermoine was a deeply important character to me growing up 😅 It’s hard for me, but I have gradually moved away from the series as it increasingly becomes associated with Britain’s Top Transphobe.

ick, I wouldn’t be surprised if that fails commercially … I mean, I watched the first season before all this stuff came out and I’m certainly not returning for a second season - I doubt I’m alone.

such incredible insight, Rowling as an anti-trans activist is engaged in a genocidal movement which has of course a much larger scale of both number of people harmed and the severity of that harm

oo, I didn’t know about this, thank you - GERM is much better than TERF, lol

This is a good moral compromise in that it allows you to enjoy the art without the moral complications of commercially supporting a rapist, but I think some people might argue that it doesn’t go far enough and that we should essentially culturally boycott the art as well, that an artist’s reputation rests partially on how their art is perceived, and by continuing to enjoy that art and share it with others, you continue to support the artist in some sense.

Not sure I know how I feel about that argument, but I think it’s an intuition some folks have or an argument they make.

tbh my feelings seem to be guiding things before anything like rational morality does - I feel cognitive dissonance about his art because of the association with him as a rapist, and that’s enough for me to ditch his art without having to justify it as a moral necessity that others must do as well.

I think my cognitive dissonance was too strong, I got rid of my Gaiman. :-(

But I feel you - his works were important in my life before, I’ve just been downsizing and even though it wasn’t the best, I decided to get rid of mine (not because it’s “right” but just because I don’t like being reminded of him).

this is actually the main sadness I have re Gaiman, I never finished the Sandman series and I just never will now.

I know there’s plenty to be said about separating the work of art from the moral judgement of the artist, but tbh it’s just like a taboo, psychologically the association turns me off whether there is a rational justification for it or not.

yes, she sees herself as a kind of martyr and victim of a witch-hunt, which does change how she responds to the cultural backlash she receives for her behavior.

yeah, agreed - Gaiman’s fans are far less willing to tolerate his SA, HP fans are more general public and transphobia is more socially acceptable than SA.

Basically this post is essentially saying, “it’s a shame transphobia is so acceptable to people”

overview: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neil_Gaiman#Sexual_assault_and_misconduct_allegations

some reporting: https://www.vulture.com/article/neil-gaiman-allegations-controversy-amanda-palmer-sandman-madoc.html

note: content warning, NSFL