Did you even read the article?Have you taken that from the UN convention here?
United Nations Office on Genocide Prevention and the Responsibility to Protect
Genocide Prevention and the Responsibility to Protectwww.un.org
If you want to get pedantic about technical definitions, I could point out that the full wording is as follows:
...
Which actually limits it to "national, ethical, racial or religious" groups.
But that really doesn't matter, because the context of the "genocide apologist" comment was an article for general readership, not a technical or legal document, which means it's quite appropriate to take "genocide" to be intended to communicate the meaning that you'll consistently find in most dictionaries, which is the murder of an entire group of people.
The word was used in that article for shock value. It's up to the writer's judgement whether that's effective. Maybe it is for some readers. For other readers it won't be.
Did you even read the article?
View attachment 296096
View attachment 296097
I think that where someone explicitly and at length refers to the legal document they're talking about, they're probably trying to communicate the meaning used in that legal document, which is why they're citing and discussing it.
The BBC has given a platform to a vicious transphobe, and half-arsedly amended the article afterwards (while leaving intact a provable lie). The following video is a decent summary, less than 20 mins:
Fucking TERF island strikes again.
Didn't we already discuss this one?
If that's true, then I apologise. I haven't been religiously following this thread. But it looks like the BBC has yet to correct their error.
The lengths done turds will go to to pretend their bigotry is anything other than bigotry…
You are free to say whatever you want but if you are angry and hiding on a internet forum and using language like that. It is you who has a problemInsightful first comment.
Allow me to be the first to say ‘fuck off’
I know right... I hate it when call me a racist pedophile cannibal. It just adds to the divide.The word "transphobe" is a problem in itself. it is used to shut down conversations. Not everyone agrees on issues and calling people transphobes for simply speaking their mind causes divisions. It just adds to the growing divides
If someone's saying something transphobic then they deserve to be challenged and called out on it. Regardless of if they are speaking their mind or not.The word "transphobe" is a problem in itself. it is used to shut down conversations. Not everyone agrees on issues and calling people transphobes for simply speaking their mind causes divisions. It just adds to the growing divides
There's nothing wrong with the word 'transphobe' per se, as long as it's used to describe people who are transphobes, of which they're are many. The issue is when it's used in bad faith to try to silence people who aren't transphobes.The word "transphobe" is a problem in itself. it is used to shut down conversations. Not everyone agrees on issues and calling people transphobes for simply speaking their mind causes divisions. It just adds to the growing divides
I've learned in the last year or so just how much this trope is relied on to hide bullshit opinions. Saying that you prefer ketchup over mustard is divisive. Saying that the world is round is divisive. Everything is divisive. People just don't like finding out they're suddenly on one side of a divide with some pretty unsavoury people, can we not have that particular divide please?causes divisions
i was talking about the word itself. Not everyone can contain and control their emotions. Using belboid as an example. They want shutdown conversations. Which is like using the word "transphobe" and instead of talking and being rationalIf someone's saying something transphobic then they deserve to be challenged and called out on it. Regardless of if they are speaking their mind or not.
Piss offi was talking about the word itself. Not everyone can contain and control their emotions. Using belboid as an example. They want shutdown conversations. Which is like using the word "transphobe" and instead of talking and being rational
Fuck off cunt.i was talking about the word itself. Not everyone can contain and control their emotions. Using belboid as an example. They want shutdown conversations. Which is like using the word "transphobe" and instead of talking and being rational
That's true to extent. But, even as someone who believes in trans rights and women's (hard won) rights to single sex (not gender) spaces, I recognise that some straight-up bigots co-opt women's rights (which they don't support in any other context) as cover for transhobia.i was talking about the word itself. Not everyone can contain and control their emotions. Using belboid as an example. They want shutdown conversations. Which is like using the word "transphobe" and instead of talking and being rational
Not everyone can write sentences according to this post.i was talking about the word itself. Not everyone can contain and control their emotions. Using belboid as an example. They want shutdown conversations. Which is like using the word "transphobe" and instead of talking and being rational
Fuck off.Why you guys so upset. You are the ones choosing to be bigots. Your entire beliefs are for all to read
Your actual the ones who are racist against white people!!!11!!one!Why you guys so upset. You are the ones choosing to be bigots. Your entire beliefs are for all to read
The reason people are upset is that you're a "new poster" turning up, wading in on a long running, upsetting thread/subject with your 2 pence worth with no regard to the history of the subject and its effects on this site.Why you guys so upset. You are the ones choosing to be bigots. Your entire beliefs are for all to read
Why you guys so upset. You are the ones choosing to be bigots. Your entire beliefs are for all to read