This Is How Genocide Begins

On Genocide Warnings, Trans Lives, and Christian Complicity

Photo by Mapping Memories Cambodia on Unsplash

I used to believe that genocide was something that announced itself clearly. That it arrived with unmistakable signals, obvious villains, and an undeniable moral line that everyone could recognize in real time. I assumed it was something societies stumbled into accidentally, or that only happened when a culture had already abandoned its conscience.

What I understand now is that genocide almost never begins with violence. It begins with permission.

Permission to talk about a group differently.
Permission to imagine them as dangerous.
Permission to frame their existence as a problem that needs solving.

By the time violence appears, the work has already been done.

Over the last year, genocide scholars have begun warning that the United States may already be in the early stages of a genocidal process against transgender Americans. This warning did not come from political pundits or social media activists. It came from genocide prevention experts who study how these patterns form and escalate.

According to multiple scholars, including former presidents of the International Association of Genocide Scholars, the United States is seeing the conditions that historically precede mass violence: sustained dehumanizing rhetoric, coordinated political targeting, and the normalization of fear toward a specific group. One former president of the association has stated plainly that he is concerned about genocide against trans people in the near future. Another scholar has said the country may already be in the early-to-mid stages of that process, driven by moral panic and an avalanche of anti-trans legislation.

This is not hyperbole. It is pattern recognition.

And Christians, of all people, should recognize the pattern.

---

How Dehumanization Actually Works

In the years leading up to World War II, Jewish people in Germany were not immediately rounded up and killed. They were first talked about differently. They were described as corrupting influences, moral threats, dangers to children, destabilizing forces undermining the nation from within. Their presence was framed as a social problem that required firm action, and their humanity was slowly flattened into caricature.

The purpose of that language was not persuasion. It was desensitization.

When a culture is repeatedly exposed to the idea that a group is dangerous, predatory, or inherently suspect, cruelty begins to feel reasonable. Harm begins to feel preventative. Violence, when it finally arrives, is no longer shocking—it is experienced as unfortunate but necessary.

This is why genocides do not require most people to become monsters. They only require enough people to become comfortable.

Comfortable with jokes that dehumanize.
Comfortable with policies that isolate.
Comfortable with suffering that feels abstract or deserved.

What we are witnessing now in the United States follows this same arc. Trans people are discussed less as neighbors and more as threats. Their existence is framed not as a human reality but as an ideological contagion. Their bodies become battlegrounds, and their lives are reduced to flashpoints in broader cultural conflict.

In Florida, for example, lawmakers have repeatedly introduced and supported legislation that singles out transgender people and LGBTQ+ communities in ways that make ordinary everyday existence into something framed as dangerous or unnatural. State bills have sought to ban gender-affirming care for minors, restrict discussions of gender identity, and limit where trans people can live and participate in public life. These are not abstract policy debates; they are legal efforts to remove recognition, medical care, and public presence for people whose identities are rooted in their personhood, not politics.

Some individual politicians’ rhetoric has contributed to this shift in how entire communities are perceived. Florida State Representative Randy Fine, who has sponsored multiple bills restricting drag performances and gender-affirming care, defended his drag-restriction bill by saying that if it “means erasing a community because you have to target children … then damn right, we ought to do it!” when pressed about the impact of his legislation.

When transgender people are described not as neighbors but as threats to children, communities, or social order, the language itself normalizes exclusion. When being transgender is defined as a problem to be solved rather than a personhood to be respected, empathy begins to shrink. When isolation becomes legislation and living authentically is recast as danger, it trains a population to stop seeing a group as fully human—and once that happens, almost anything can be justified.

---

There Is No Moral Fog Here

For Christians, this moment is not morally ambiguous.

It only feels that way because ambiguity has been practiced for a very long time.

Jesus does not leave room for neutrality when people are scapegoated, targeted, or pushed to the margins in the name of order, purity, or protection. He does not speak in abstractions or offer caveats. He does not say, “This applies unless you sincerely disagree,” or “This depends on your theological framework.”

In Matthew 25, Jesus is explicit about how judgment works. He does not say nations or individuals will be evaluated by correct belief, doctrinal precision, or political alignment. He says they will be judged by how they treated the hungry, the stranger, the imprisoned, the vulnerable. “Whatever you did to the least of these,” he says, “you did to me.”

Not symbolically.
Not eventually.
Not in theory.

This is not metaphorical.
It is not optional.
It is not conditional on agreement.

Jesus does not merely advocate for the marginalized; he identifies with them. When a group is targeted or stripped of protection, Jesus does not remain neutral. He places himself among the ones being harmed and judges accordingly.

This is where the American church has failed—repeatedly—not because it lacked Scripture, but because it chose safety over obedience.

The church once used the Bible to defend slavery, framing abolition as a political disruption of God’s order. It opposed Reconstruction, resisted integration, and preached patience while terror lynchings occurred within walking distance of sanctuaries. Silence was framed as prudence. Neutrality was called faithfulness.

Then came the AIDS crisis.

As thousands of people—overwhelmingly young gay men—began dying, much of the church responded not with care but with distance and judgment. AIDS was framed as punishment rather than suffering. Compassion was withheld in the name of moral clarity. Many churches avoided hospitals, denied funerals, or debated sin while people died alone. Once again, the church had proximity, resources, and Scripture—and chose restraint.

History remembers that silence.
And the pattern continued.

During the rise of mass incarceration, churches largely ignored the devastation of Black and Brown communities, spiritualizing suffering rather than confronting the policies creating it. After 9/11, many baptized Islamophobia as patriotism, blessing wars that killed hundreds of thousands while treating dissent as disloyalty. In the wake of police killings, churches urged calm and unity while avoiding clear condemnation of injustice, as though neutrality itself were peacemaking.

More recently, during the COVID-19 pandemic, many churches framed basic public health measures as persecution, even when those measures were aimed at protecting the elderly, the immunocompromised, and the poor. Once again, freedom was elevated over care—and the vulnerable paid the price.

At every stage, the logic was the same:

This is complicated.
This is political.
The church should not take sides.
Now is not the time.

And every time, history rendered its verdict.

This same instinct appears in Luke 4.

When Jesus announces his mission in his hometown synagogue, he names the poor, the captive, and the excluded. He invokes stories of God’s care crossing boundaries his listeners want preserved—boundaries that define who belongs and who does not.

At first, they admire him.
Then they recognize the implication.
Then they become enraged.

They do not object because Jesus is unclear.
They object because he is unmistakably clear.

The congregation moves from admiration to fury, forming a mob and attempting to throw him off a cliff. And Jesus does not retreat. He does not soften his words or accommodate their fear. He crosses the line they draw—and forces a choice.

Follow him beyond the boundary of respectability, or stand with the crowd convinced it is defending righteousness. That choice has never gone away.

Every generation of Christians likes to imagine it would have stood with Jesus. History tells a different story. More often than not, the church has stood with the mob—not because it hated Jesus, but because it feared the cost of following him.

There is no safe middle ground between Jesus and the mob.
There is only the illusion of safety, purchased at someone else’s expense.

And Jesus has never accepted that bargain.

The danger is not only how individual Christians respond in moments like this, but what the church becomes when it chooses comfort over courage again and again.

---

When the Church Chooses the Nation Over the Neighbor

History offers more than a cautionary parallel in the Protestant churches of Nazi Germany. It offers a case study in how faith is slowly reshaped to serve power while still sounding like faith to those inside it.

The German Christians did not wake up one morning and decide to abandon Jesus. They believed they were protecting Christianity from collapse in a moment of national humiliation, economic instability, and cultural change. They saw themselves as realists. As patriots. As responsible stewards of tradition in a fragile time.

They blended Christian language with nationalist identity, recasting Jesus as a symbol of cultural strength rather than a threat to it. They reframed obedience to the state as obedience to God. They told themselves that preserving influence required compromise, that resistance would only make things worse, and that aligning with power was the only way to maintain a Christian presence in public life.

This alignment did not happen all at once. It unfolded incrementally.

First came rhetoric about moral decay and social enemies.
Then laws designed to “restore order.”
Then the quiet removal of people deemed disruptive or dangerous.
Then the church’s voice softened, then disappeared, then was repurposed.

Pastors reassured their congregations that things were being exaggerated. That political leaders should be given the benefit of the doubt. That the church’s role was spiritual, not political. That unity mattered more than protest. That resistance would only bring persecution.

By the time violence became undeniable, the church had already surrendered its moral authority in exchange for institutional survival.

They are remembered not for their intentions, not for their sincerity, and not for their theology—but for their complicity.

What makes this history uncomfortable is not how foreign it feels, but how familiar.
American Christianity is not standing near this moment. It is standing inside it.

Once again, the church is responding to cultural anxiety by clinging to nationalism. Once again, it is framing certain bodies as threats to social stability. Once again, it is blessing policies that isolate and erase people in the name of protection. Once again, it is insisting that this is about order, not cruelty—about safety, not exclusion—about faithfulness, not fear.

And once again, it is telling itself that silence is wisdom.

This is not simply a failure of courage. It is a failure of imagination shaped by habit. The church has practiced this posture before. It has learned how to confuse proximity to power with influence, restraint with righteousness, and caution with faithfulness.

The result is a faith that can watch entire communities be targeted and still call itself neutral.

But history does not grant neutrality.
History does not record intentions.
It records outcomes.

It will not ask whether churches had the right theology about gender, sexuality, or culture. It will ask whether they used their power, resources, and moral voice to protect the people being scapegoated—or whether they chose comfort, access, and relevance instead.

Silence will not be interpreted as nuance.
Caution will not be remembered as wisdom.
Neutrality will not be understood as innocence.

Because neutrality always sides with the prevailing power.

Jesus has already taken his place.

He is not standing with the institutions trying to preserve their influence. He is not waiting in the middle for everyone to calm down. He is standing with those being marked as problems, threats, and inconveniences to the social order.

The only question left is where the church will stand when that choice becomes costly.

And it will become costly.
History guarantees that much.

---

What Faithfulness Looks Like Now

At some point, clarity has to turn into action.

Not performative action.
Not symbolic gestures designed to signal virtue.
But material, embodied choices that place real weight on the side of life.

For Christians, this moment does not require theological consensus. It requires moral obedience.

Jesus was explicit that the measure of faithfulness is not correct belief, cultural alignment, or institutional loyalty. He said that all the law and the prophets hang on how we treat others. Not how well we define doctrine. Not how carefully we protect tradition. How we treat people—especially those made vulnerable by the systems around them.

That is what Jesus meant by the narrow road.

Not ideological purity.
Not correct alignment.
But the Golden Rule applied when it costs you something.

This means churches—affirming or not—do not get to opt out.

You may disagree theologically. You may still be working things through. But none of that excuses participation in harm or silence in the face of escalating danger. Jesus does not ask whether we fully understand those being targeted. He asks whether we will protect them.

So what does that look like, concretely?

It looks like churches publicly naming the danger trans people are facing and refusing to participate in language that dehumanizes them. It looks like pastors choosing clarity over caution and telling the truth even when it risks attendance, funding, or reputation. It looks like refusing to host speakers, promote policies, or platform narratives that treat trans lives as expendable or suspicious.

It looks like material support.

If people need shelter, churches should provide it.
If families need mutual aid, churches should organize it.
If people are pushed out of housing, employment, or safety nets, churches should step in rather than spiritualize their suffering.

And yes, it may eventually look like sanctuary.

Christians have a long history of offering protection when the law becomes a tool of harm rather than justice. Underground networks, quiet resistance, and refusal to cooperate with dehumanization are not foreign to the Christian tradition—they are part of it. They emerge whenever following Jesus puts believers at odds with the demands of power.

This is not alarmism. It is pattern recognition.

When a people group is scapegoated, restricted, and framed as a threat, the window for prevention closes faster than anyone expects. Waiting for absolute certainty has never saved lives. Action, taken early and imperfectly, has.

And if your church refuses?

If your church chooses silence to preserve comfort,
If it prioritizes unity over protection,
If it frames concern as divisiveness or faithfulness as rebellion—

Then leave.

Leave clearly.
Leave publicly.
Leave in a way that names why.

Do not slip out quietly to spare feelings. Do not allow your departure to be reframed as personal preference or spiritual drift. Make it known that you are leaving because protecting people matters more than protecting institutions.

Rock the boat.
Jesus did.

He disrupted religious spaces that had confused safety with faithfulness and order with righteousness. He overturned tables, crossed boundaries, and refused to play the role of a reasonable mediator when lives were at stake. He did not wait for consensus. He acted as though love demanded urgency.

We do not have the time to play it safe.

Safety is what institutions choose when they want to survive.
Faithfulness is what people choose when they want others to live.

The pattern is no longer subtle. We know where dehumanization leads. We know how violence is prepared long before it is enacted. And we know, because Jesus told us, that neutrality in moments like this is not innocence—it is alignment.

The work ahead is costly.
It will be messy.
It will not always feel successful.

But it will be honest.
And it will lead toward life.
That is the road Jesus named.

And it is still open—for those willing to walk it.

---