I'm not saying this out of scepticism but curiosity - what specifically are you talking about when you say that?
> 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.
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/cpac-spe...
* this directed at Knowles, not dahdum
Disagreeing with the existence of a class of people is the intellectual foundation for genocide. Wanting to reduce the number of trans people in the world is genocide, whether it's by bullet or conversion therapy.
Trans people are not a problem that need to be solved.
Suppose there's a person who doesn't believe in feminism, and wants to go back to the "good old days" of the 1800s and before when women were second-class citizens, and didn't have many rights: they couldn't own land, they couldn't choose their profession (if they were educated, they were stuck with nursing or teaching until they got married, at which point they weren't allowed to work usually), etc. Such a regressive person might say he wants to "eradicate feminism", but that doesn't want to mean he wants to eradicate women! He just wants to remove their rights and make them subservient again.
This person saying he wants to "eradicate transgenderism" I believe means the same thing basically. He doesn't want to murder all trans people, he just wants to eliminate society recognizing transgenderism as a valid condition, eliminate any rights or protections extended to people with that status, etc. Basically, he wants to go back to how it was in the 1950s or before, when society simply didn't recognize it.
You don't need conversion therapy to eliminate transgenderism; you just have to stop recognizing it at all, and treat people based on their biological sex. I'm not actually agreeing with this, but I do believe this is his position.
That does sound very compelling, when the alternative is what we are witnessing today, with males gaining access to what were previously female-only spaces, disregarding the boundaries of women and girls where they are most vulnerable.
It's becoming increasingly clear that transgenderism is a form of male dominance over women, and should be opposed like other forms of sexism. Women are being made second-class citizens again, but this time it's being touted as progressive.
If that was limited to personal decisions made by individuals, fine, whatever. But what we're actually seeing in legislatures across the country is threats of prison for being/helping transgender people. Prison for doctors, prison for teachers, prison for parents, prison for bathroom-users, prison for 'performing' a non-sex-aligned gender in public. This is how the holocaust started: prisons. Right-wing pundits are appealing to plausible deniability when they're using words like ERADICATE. The German public fell for this once. Don't be a damned fool. It's not the 50s he's longing for, it's the 30s.
Transgenderism isn't like this; it's not something you can determine from ancestry, nor is it an ethnicity of any type. The right-wingers see it as a personal choice, just like homosexuality. Of course, trans and homosexual people don't feel it's a personal choice, but it IS a personal choice for them to act on their feelings. What the right-wingers want is to force all these people back "into the closet". They want them to conform to their cis-hetero worldview, just like they did back in the "good old days" when homosexuals found either other homosexuals of the opposite sex, or unwitting heteros, to legally marry so they could appear to polite society as regular hetero people, and then did their homosexual stuff in secret, if at all.
This is why they want all these punitive measures: not so they can eradicate trans people or imprison them all, but to make society intolerant of an open expression of non-conforming sexuality. Basically, make an example out of a few people, and everyone else will fall in line: this is their thinking.
Again, to be clear, I'm not endorsing their position; I'm merely trying to explain what I believe their true thinking is. The conservatives are famous for idolizing some rose-colored halcyon (and somewhat mythical) idea of 1950s Americana, and my idea above falls exactly into this pattern, unlike your much more extreme idea of death camps.
https://twitter.com/BrynnTannehill/status/163311396718587085...