More likely?

Amnesty International explains its view on women’s rights.

“We live in a society that is more likely to discriminate and commit violence against transgender people, so we are proud to stand with them here in the UK and around the world,” they say.

“More likely” than what?

They don’t say. What does that mean then?

It’s similar to that “the most vulnerable in society” of Jolyon Maugham’s on Monday. Maugham’s is more precise in a way, but it’s still just an assertion, and it’s not true. It’s not difficult to think of people who are more vulnerable than trans people (trans people as such, trans people who are vulnerable because of being trans). Uighurs come to mind. Women and girls in Pakistan. Children separated from their parents and imprisoned on the southern border of the United States. Women and girls in India. Atheists and humanists in Nigeria. Homeless people in the US. Women and girls in Saudi Arabia. Rohyinga. Racial minorities pretty much everywhere. Religious minorities pretty much everywhere. Poor people pretty much everywhere.

Why is it that people who think they’re cutting-edge progressive are so convinced that trans people are more vulnerable than the poor, the minority, the persecuted, the subject to enslavement? Why does Amnesty International, of all organizations, claim (however vaguely) that they are the most subject to violence? Why have all these people forgotten everything they know?

Amnesty then goes on to type the flat lie that “there is absolutely no evidence” that men would use self identification to get access to spaces where women are vulnerable: there is in fact a lot of evidence that men have done exactly that, which counts as evidence that they “would” do it. Having done it and doing it now=evidence that they will go on doing it.

I don’t know. It’s as if they’ve all been slipped a “forget what you used to know” pill. It’s not possible to make any sense of it otherwise.

15 Responses to “More likely?”

Leave a Comment

Subscribe without commenting