One of the reasons people are vague on HN about these issues is because a simple "The US is committing genocide against trans people" comment is more likely to be downvoted and flagged as being political. We often can only talk about these things here by hinting at them. Ironic considering how pro free speech this community claims to be.
Yes, trans people get beaten to death in numbers that are appallingly high. That's a tragedy and a disgrace on our society. Does it rise to the level of genocide? Blacks get shot in numbers that are appallingly high, too. Is that a genocide?
Preventing medical care? Are trans people being denied medical care for, say, cancer or heart disease? Or are they only being denied medical care for transitioning? Or are they only being denied medical care at public expense for transitioning?
If trans people are being denied medical care for regular medical issues, in large numbers, yes, I could call that genocide. If they're being denied care at public expense for transitioning, no, I probably would not call that genocide.
The problem with lowering the bar to calling things genocide in order to highlight a particular issue is that it lowers the bar for everybody else, too. And if everything's a genocide, then nothing is.
The problem with just hinting at things is it leaves the rest of us unclear on what, exactly, is being claimed. One of the things that most people on HN ought to agree on is that the details matter. If you're making vague claims, all we can do is talk in platitudes, which is unlikely to be effective.
I mean, you can trace a direct line from the current moral panic about "groomers" through QAnon to Pizzagate, and it goes through one specific political party, and you can trace another line from police brutality against black people to Jim Crow and segregation to slave-catchers. The systemic links are there.
The only things people are calling genocides are things that look disturbingly like genocides. No one is arguing everything is a genocide.
The two examples I mentioned were actions by the state. How is that not systemic?
(Yes, "all" isn't actually necessary. Some large fraction, though. You can't have a genocide by killing 1% of the people. That's an atrocity, but it's not a genocide.)
The UN definition specifically calls out that it doesn't have to be directed at the entire population. It also doesn't make any effort to define any "large fraction" that needs to be met before the definition can be applied. A culling of a percentage of specific population would likely still qualify, but the specifics of these things always varies depending on the context of the specific example being judged. However, it is clear that the UN definition primarily hinges on how people are targeted and the actions that are taken, not the scope.
And, once we know what was actually being claimed, then we can debate whether it meets the definition of genocide.
I really hate vague-posting like kelseyfrog's post. Don't hint. If you have a claim to make, make it. (Just to be clear, this last paragraph is not aimed at the parent.)