When one woman is killed every ten minutes, that’s normal.
When a few trans women are killed in a year, that’s genocide.
When it happens to female humans, it’s expected. When it happens to male humans, it’s a shocking tragedy.
if the total population of ducks in a pond is 100 and someone kills 10 of them, there are still 90 ducks and the population can recover
if there are a total of only 10 swans in the same pond, and someone kills 1 of them, then there are only 9 swans left.
The initial population is smaller, and thus, the difference is more noticeable, and more impactful to the ability of a population to recover. This is a very simple phenomena to understand.
On top of that, its probably the same guy who's killing all these waterfowl. In fact, swans may be more at risk. There are studies that show that trans women are more at risk to be murdered than cis women. This is true in more than just white cultures.
As someone who visits the pond, the fact that anyone is killing the waterfowl is deeply concerning. I am capable of caring about the deaths of swans and ducks in equal capacity. Even if the reason for the killing of the swans vs the ducks is different, I can still think that both of these things are bad.
Hope this helps!
Would love to see the studies where trans women are more at danger than “cis” women, 3 of whom are murdered daily by an intimate partner alone… basically from womb to senior citizen women are being killed simply for being female.
If you have 10 male swans who are confused for female swans, but you really have 100 swans, it’s not like you’re going to be missing a substantial percentage of swans if 1 of them is murdered. And there’s really no shortage of male swans masquerading as female swans, because they keep showing up with their euphoria boners and long knee socks and “skirt go spinny.” Or whatever the equivalent is for male swans.
ETA: simply obsessed with the idea that because only SOME women are killed, it’s cool because “the population can recover.” Sorry, ducks. Like you think males aren’t rushing to make sure their shitty ideas and low quality DNA will endure? And we should be nervous that the death of a single swan might be the downfall of the entire swan population? That’s not how any of this works.
girl you totally missed the point of what i actually even said. Sorry you cant read </3 since you need to be spoonfed: the point I very clearly made is that it is more noticeable when something happens to one person in a very small group of people than when something happens to a comparatively large number of people in a group that contains billions of people. If I have 10 cool rocks and 100 shiny stamps and someone takes one of my rocks and 10 of my stamps, im gonna notice that my rock is missing first, bozo
Anyways, here is a link to an article from UCLA. It was not hard to find via google search.
Bruh. This study wasn’t about murder, though it is mentioned. It’s about violent crime. Also, it allows the participants to “think” about what happened to them, as in they were allowed to “think” something that happened was a hate crime when there is no way to judge what actually happened… much in the same way that the HRC has determined that all trans deaths for the year are hate crimes when some of them are literally things like hit and runs, domestic violence, and self-defense.
You have this problem of comparing people to objects and it’s not really working out for me, which is why I mocked it in my response to you. Women are murdered in swaths every day and it’s actually super safe to be a white trans woman in America. If your “genocide” is 37 people per year it’s really insulting to continue to refer to it as a “genocide,” because there is absolutely no way by any metric that it’s a genocide, and it makes y’all seem gross and self-centered in a world where actual genocides are still occurring.
