WTF!!! You have a d--k??!!!

[Sephirah]

Nobody on this thread has said that there is an excuse for violence.

You know the point that's been made. You can argue it all day and maybe you will feel comfortable and secure in the knowledge that you are right. But one thing is certain, if you indulge in that particular behavior you are putting yourself at risk. It's not about being right or wrong, it's about your safety. It's just common sense. Argue with that enraged >-bleeped-< as he is beating the crap out of you, tell him he has latent homosexual tendencies because he has a problem with a transgirl. I doubt it will change how he feels.

Wouldn't the better course of action be to not put yourself in that situation to begin with?

But, for the sake of argument, if I wasn't gay... I should point out that even after full transition, I would probably still be more physically imposing and able to defend myself than any 'enraged >-bleeped-<' that decided to try anything. Plus I have military self defence training, so it's highly unlikely that there'd be any 'beating the crap out of me'.

So... um... yeah, I would be perfectly happy to discuss things with him in a calm, rational manner... at least whilst he's hog-tied to the refridgerator, cooling down a little.

There's risk involved with everything. What it comes down to is risk management. If you're afraid of getting beaten for something, don't walk around meekly, like you're doing something wrong and have to apologise for even being alive... learn to defend yourself.

[one4me]

The point of the blog, lest you've forgotten, was how much one can sympathize with Mr. Andrade's reaction. Should one do some things to eliminate the possibility of violence against her? Well, yes.

But, if violence seeks her out should she be damned for leaving her home? Having a job? Perhaps running a red-light when a "phobic" cop is sitting at the corner waiting? I might do that if I felt I had to justify the cop's actions if he slew her or maimed her or beat her down. But, finally, we all live our lives.


N~

This is an actual quote from the original blog:

"In the case of this woman being murdered...I really dont think he needed to go that far. In no way shape or form is it ok to KILL any living human being. It is not in your power to decide whether a persons life should be ended or not. He didn't even have sex with the person yet. Yeah you got your dick sucked. Big deal, you got a hummer by a >-bleeped-<...deal with it. See, this is the type of >-bleeped-< that Im talking about when people just want to to what they want to do to satisfy their own sexual nature and dont think about the consequences or how it may hurt other people, and in the end probably hurt you."

How in any way, shape or form was this the persons way of sympathizing with the murderer? Please explain that to me.

See this is where everyone was turning that blog into what THEY wanted it to be.

The guy clearly said about Andrade's reaction,  "big deal, you got a hummer by a ts. Deal with it." That was pretty much a sign that the person who wrote this blog is NOT a bigot because they are saying that he should have just sucked up the fact that he was mistaken and NOT gone so far as to do what he did.

[one4me]

Nichole,

Thank you for the thesis on phobia. I still fail to see how homophobia has anything to do with a hetero guy's rightful anger at being deceived. His instant feelings about it are totally valid. He does not need to examine his own sexuality as deeply as you do, after all, he's just a regular guy who is happy with his body and his sex life.

The problem lies in the fact that a choice was denied him, that is just the inescapable fact. You can rationalize it away with psych-babble all you want but the bottom line is that it is stupid to put yourself in that situation. And yes, his violent reaction would be wrong and criminal. But is it worth your safety to be right?

/quote]

Yes, I suppose my ability to comprehend has totally left me when it comes to your argument.

At the risk of being seen to have "jumped on you" I'll leave you to your thoughts. You're welcome to them. Let's just hope that the next time you dress-up, no one who might derive some fear from seeing you crosses your path and ends it there.

It simply seems to me that you are entrenching yourself in an untenable position in order to not make any change, or even acknowledge that perhaps a change might be needed, in your own "phobias." So it goes.

Nichole

Saying that someone would derive fear just from seeing a CD and end it there is a pretty lame comparison to this topic being that this is about going as far as having sexual relations with heterosexual men. Not walking past them.

[Sephirah]

Leiandra, risk management isn't so much about being bold as it is being smart. Being so bold that you do stupid things you know are going to get you hurt and then thinking you can change reality is just insane.

Not talking about you of course, nothing personal.

Anyway we had a discussion much like this on another thread last week and you stood by and allowed a few others to break the rules, even chimed in with them a few times, just like you are doing now. Then you jumped on me...perfect timing.

Lol. I must be insane, then. I've often suspected as much.

I dunno, I guess it's not so much about being bold or smart as much as it's about wanting to be normal, or as close to as possible. And I wouldn't want to go through everything to do with transition, attempt to put that old, unwanted part of my life behind me for the last time... only to have to have it stamped all over a relationship 'passport' in order to be able to explore that part of my life.

Call it belligerance if you like.

I know what you're saying, honey, and I can see your point of view. In a lot of ways I agree with you, but doesn't there have to be some personal responsibility on behalf of the other person to control their temper?

Um... I'm not sure where you got the idea that I 'jumped' on you. As I said at the time, it wasn't specific to any one member. That thread was getting out of control. I apologise if you felt a personal affront by that, Kelley. It was in no way intended as such.

[Truth Seeker]

The way I see it, transgendereds should not have to feel different to women, or take extra cautions, and it's not their fault if they are posed with risks they did not ask for - however that doesn't negate the fact that it is just good sense to take steps to avoid danger when it presents itself.

In an ideal world, I should be able to cross the road when the little man turns green, and not need to look left and right. In an ideal world, all the drivers on the road will have stopped as soon as the traffic lights go red. In an ideal world, I should not have to feel more vulnerable simply for being a pedestrian, and it's my right to be able to cross a road safely.

But we're not *in* an ideal world. And when I cross the street I still look left and right, doing so is not some admition of my own handicap or inferiority, it is just survival instinct. It's not a question of whether it is fair or not, the fact remains that you know you are running the risk of something like this happening to you the moment you make the decision to take the risk.

It is that risk which must be accepted, not some insulting limitation on yourself. Whether rational or not, sometimes people are going to feel and react this way, and there's no getting around that fact. It's just good sense to try and take precautions, it has nothing to do with fair or unfair, it's about survival.


Truth Seeker

[NicholeW.]

@ Nichole:

I would have replied in private but I see no reply button.

Any true, common sense information that is twisted and corrupted into being viewed as bigotry does deserve defending.

Okay, yeah, you need need two more posts to do that. Sorry, my bad for not paying attention.

Your blog post can stand alone for what it is, was. That you aren't responsible for the commentors to it is simply self-evident.

How people are going to accept or not accept your pov and how well they read it and comment on it, here or there, you simply cannot control. It's the nature of blogging in public. We don't chose our readers nor their attitudes.

You've made a very good case for not feeling like the two commentors you had on the blog. But, fact is, you don't need to apologize for or explain them in any way. They are not you and you haven't the power to do that anyway. If you accept comments from pretty much anyone, which as I read it, you do not, then perhaps choosing to allow those two rather than any others might make one wonder why those two. But, even then allowing them doesn't mean you agree with them.


Nichole

[cindybc]

Hmmmmmmmm, practically missed this entire thread, don't even remember if I made a coment or not but I do agree with you Leisandra, not just because we are friends but because it is common sense what you have said:

I'd rather not make this personal, if you don't mind. It's about an issue, not a person.

And judge not, lest ye be judged.

But, for the sake of argument, if I wasn't gay... I should point out that even after full transition, I would probably still be more physically imposing and able to defend myself than any 'enraged >-bleeped-<' that decided to try anything. Plus I have military self defence training, so it's highly unlikely that there'd be any 'beating the crap out of me'.

So... um... yeah, I would be perfectly happy to discuss things with him in a calm, rational manner... at least whilst he's hog-tied to the refridgerator, cooling down a little.

Now, can we get back to the issue at hand, please?

There's risk involved with everything. What it comes down to is risk management. If you're afraid of getting beaten for something, don't walk around meekly, like you're doing something wrong and have to apologise for even being alive... learn to defend yourself.

A word of caution to all. I have a friend who is the coordinator for the Trans support group here in Vancouver. She told me a little story about an expereince she had two years ago when she was one year into full time on HRT. She is a tall girl and use to have the muscle bulk to go with it.

I know we have had a discussion about this before but it might be the smart thing to refresh peoples minds. After some time on HRT you will lose muscle bulk, I have, I can still lift stuff and push pull what ever but with much more difficult then before.

Well my friend was on foot just coming out the other end of a highway overpass when this guy not watching where he was going just shoved her to one side and all she could see was red, didn't even stop for a second to think and she just lunged at the guy, the momentum pushed him against the concrete wall of the overpass. Immediately he lunged back at her. She would have been mince met if this other girl hadn't come out of no where and grabbed the guy by the arm and shouted for him to stop. He stopped and looked at his companion as she said, What were you about to do? Hit a girl? Fortunately that ended it.

Cindy

     

[whatsername]

I still fail to see how homophobia has anything to do with a hetero guy's rightful anger at being deceived. His instant feelings about it are totally valid. He does not need to examine his own sexuality as deeply as you do, after all, he's just a regular guy who is happy with his body and his sex life.

As I see it there are basically two issues and two thought processes going on with this topic.  And both revolve around the concept of "deception".

One strain of thought, which it seems you're arguing Kelley, is that this cis-man was deceived by full genetic disclosure not happening within a sexual relationship.

The other strain of thought, which Nichole articulated and which my argument came from as well, is that it is not lack of disclosure but something deeper which causes rage at discovery of a trans or intersex past/present.

This is basically what I was arguing earlier, that there is something unique to the information of a trans/intersex past.  That other information is routinely left out of discussion before sexual relations take place, and that discovery of it, even important, life impacting sorts of things, do not result in murder.  Taking that into account, there must be a unique element to the information of T/I to the person hearing it, that DOES cause such reactions.

I think Nichole hit the nail on the head, that unique element is homophobia.

The man in this case is not upset that you didn't share information with him.  Certainly a man you've been married to for 20 years probably IS upset at that, but that's not the case we're discussing here.  The man in this story is upset because you "lied" to him, you "fooled" him into think you're a "real" woman.  It's not your words or your lack of words that creates this "lie", it is your very existence and his response to your existence.  He is attracted to you, and by his definition you are not a "real" woman, but in fact a man.  Thus he was attracted to a man, in his mind.  His resulting rage is therefore rooted in homophobia.

This is also a larger part of what I was arguing before, these responses from these men aren't about you (the T/I person) they are purely about themselves and their fear of what their attraction to you means to their self identity.

This is why my cissexual husband wouldn't respond this way.  I discussed this with him last night, setting up a scenario wherein he meets an attractive woman, they go home together and when things get naked or shortly before, he discovers she has a penis.  I asked him what he would do.  He said he would be a mixture of disappointed and terribly amused.  Amused at this "oops" moment, because he is simply not sexually attracted to penis.  Disappointed that he's not actually getting laid that night.

I asked him if he would feel this woman lied to him or deceived him.  No, he said.

This is not to laud my husband, he's a good guy and I love him but he's far from perfect and yes we butt heads.  But it does reflect something about hetero-cis men in my opinion.  You say that they don't need to examine their sexuality in depth the way Nichole did.  I couldn't possibly disagree more.  In fact I think het-cis guys are the ones who MOST need to examine their sexuality, because (as my husband reflects) I believe their homophobia is directly rooted in their NOT doing so. 

This is why he generally dislikes other het-cis guys.  He finds them homophobic and it bothers him.  Their lack of security in their identities and sexuality grates on him.  And he attributes it directly to the fact that they don't ever think about their sexuality, don't entertain the possibility that they might not be "all the way" straight. They can't even think about it because it causes how they view themselves to shift so much.  Whereas he did.  It occurred to him one day to be curious about the possibility and so he went out and watched some gay porn, studied it, absorbed his reactions to it.  What did he discover?  Did nothing for him, he envied the guys for their bodies a little bit, and then he went on his merry way.

I think if every "hetero" guy did this same thing, two things would happen.  1. There would be more gay guys in the world () and 2. us women would not be abused or murdered by them anymore (because I think misogyny and homo/transphobia are inseparably linked but that's an argument for another time) at the very least gay men and trans women in all their variations wouldn't be.  It is that sort of thinking that I am trying to encourage by the "hard line" I take on this issue (where ever these stories emerge).


[edited for grammar mistakes]

[whatsername]

I know in this community homophobia is accepted as a term used to describe even the objection to homosexuality. However, a phobia must meet some strict criteria to qualify as such.

You mean like, killing people over it?

Someone who's sensibilities are shocked upon discovering that their prospective partner is something other than what was presented

No, not other than presented.  That person made specific assumptions based on presentation that are not always a biological reality.  The presentation is still accurate, simply the person underneath is more complicated than the simple-minded binaries our culture has naturalized as "normal".  But you know what they say about assumptions.

I'd call that a healthy fear even if they are misinformed....But then as a group of people whose very self is based on the concept of warping everyday ideas of what nature is, I can see why you don't get it.

I never thought I would read something like this in a community created to be supportive of T2QQI people.  You have plenty of places where you can spout this sort of ignorant junk, why don't you just leave it there.  "Warping what nature is"?!  Not even a little bit.

[Laura Eva B]

Guess I read the first post or two here a while back ... will read the lot eventually.

But f*** if you date a macho guy pre-op and "hide it" guess you're wishing yourself onto the "TG Day of Rememberance" roll ? 

Can honestly understand why a guy like that would have a gut reaction to hit you ...

Sure I did it, but with "academic type" guys who I figured didn't have a violent bone in their body.

Post-op now guess I'm never going to be "outed" in bed, so I take way more risks in relationships. 

But I'll always tell a guy if its about repeat sex, if its looking serious, you just don't hide stuff like that do you ?

Laura x

[Kelley Jo]

I don't have a problem with you, ladies. I love you, I am more like you than not. You have schooled me and forced me to re-think many long-held beliefs.

[Terra]

I know in this community homophobia is accepted as a term used to describe even the objection to homosexuality. However, a phobia must meet some strict criteria to qualify as such. Simply being in fear of something is not enough. It must cause the person serious life difficulties and interfere with their ability to function on a daily basis.

Someone who's sensibilities are shocked upon discovering that their prospective partner is something other than what was presented is reacting the way the vast majority of the population would. I'd call that a healthy fear even if they are misinformed.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. The violent reaction is not justifed or even sympathized with. It is not however entirely unanticpated. It's the nature of the beast.

But then as a group of people whose very self is based on the concept of warping everyday ideas of what nature is, I can see why you don't get it.

I think I understand that last line, in fact I even agree with it. However I would have chosen a more...tactful way of stating my point.

if I read and understand right, sometimes we lose sight on what it means to be confronted by us. After all, society has determined that there are only two sexes and two genders. Black and white. But we all know differently, we live with it and we try to get others to understand, though it is sometimes a slow process. I think I get more surprised when people find out about me and that i'm not the first transfolk they have meet.

So walk a mile in the other guys shoes. Not only are they under constant stress to be manly and macho but constant scrutiny by peers to see if they are gay. All the ladies here can sympathize with this situation, as we all had to deal with similar BS. So here is a guy being presented with a woman he likes, except that under the hood was something he wasn't expecting. So not only is he thrown for a loop right there, but suddenly he has to confront who he is in less then 60 seconds. Then comes the natural resentment we all share for things that complicate our lives, in this case the woman who stands before him. I don't condone the violence, but I can understand the reasons. In fact it is the rare individual who can be given such a shock and be completely calm afterwords. I've meet a few, and only a few who fit that bill.

So yes, we do warp what nature is...in society's eyes. That is why they fear us and don't understand us. We challenge their concepts and historically this is usually meet with resistance, sometimes even violently. Living with this means that sometimes we forget about the fact that not everyone has. I was 20 when I first meet my first trans person, before that my only exposure was the Jerry Springer show. Even then, the one I meet probably wouldn't be the best spokesperson. We all have to remember that as we interact with people and let them know this very personal aspect of ourselves.

[cindybc]

Strange, freaks of nature, weird, queer, odd, alien etc, etc, yep I can attest to those descriptions by those whom folks in this group call cisgender. I spent most of my life working, talking, and sharing with cisgender folks and I have heard those quaint epithets as mentioned above. For most cisgender folk they brand everything that differs from them as queer, and shows like "Jerry Springer" that exploit the willing do no good for anyone.

Some cisgendered people don't mean any harm by it.  I believe that actually most don't. They are by and large ignorant, or unknowing of the subject of transgender and transsexual and queer.  The majority of people are unfamiliar with the gender variances and don't truly even know the distinction of one from the other, except from what they see in the media which is usually derisive towards the relatively small transsexual community. It seems that the distinction of transsexualism becomes blurred when considered a part of the many gender variances.

There has been much progress in the enlightenment of opening people's minds in the past century, but there is still much antiquated mindset remaining in society at-large today. Many people still fear what they don't understand, or fear the unknown without considering its possible effects on them. It is like the reaction many have upon seeing a strange insect that appears to be a threat to them. The automatic and instinctive reaction is to stomp on it before it somehow crawls up their pant leg and bites their genitals causing them to die of genital bug bite syndrome.

Cindy

[Truth Seeker]

The correct description of a phobia is that it must be an irrational fear, one which you cannot control. It doesn't neccesarily have to be something which frequently imposes on your life, it simply has to be irrational.

For example, the fear of falling is rational, it's perfectly logical to be afraid of that. Hence it is not a phobia. The fear of flying, however, is a phobia is because it is not rational. Now at the end of the day, fear is fear, whether classed as a phobia or not. Phobias are more like a malfunction, an unavoidable short cirtuit that causes fear, but the fear itself remains the same as any other kind of fear.

Fear is there for a reason, to warn of us danger and to compell us to protect ourselves from it. In times of heightened stress fear can literally take over our good senses and virtually force an action that the mind percieves is neccesary for survival. To comprehend this outside of the phobia example, just imagine yourself in a situation in which your life is genuinely at risk.

Ever leaned too far over a tall balcony, and felt your body shock you into pulling back? Raised your hand on instinct to protect yourself from a falling object? What if you were attacked? You can imagine the adrenaline that would start pumping, how the mind would become deadset on finding a way to survive regardless of your situation?

These manifestations of fear are exactly the same as the fear felt through phobia, the only difference being, in phobias the fear is not necessarily justified - how it effects you however remains the same.


So I agree, Kelley, that homophobia is often a misused term, used to justify mild intollerance or hate, however that doesn't mean that the only definition of a phobia is something which makes every day life harder. Most people can live just fine with phobias, and those that do have them may seem perfectly ordinary.

I would imagine in fact, that if someone were, genuinely homophobic, it might be easy to dismiss them as small minded or foolish, but even a seemingly biggoted fear is still a genuine fear, and real phobias are not something that one can control. Your actions, however, in my opinion, are always something which ultimately you have power over, and everyone should be held accountable for what they do.

All I'm saying is this does not invallidate the claim that in some situations, a genuine -albeit hard to understand- fear may have cajolled the reaction in the first place. My main point was really just to correct you on your definition of phobia though. All controversial topics aside, it is very possible for someone to be phobic to the point of acting irrational or violent without it seeming neccesary to us.


Truth Seeker

[Catherine]

Whatever feelings arise in the poor lil ole guy are totally valid

Very.

and his ability to act on them is somehow justifiable?

Please don't put up a false dichotomy on Kelley simply because she isn't blindly following your point of view.

Yes, I suppose my ability to comprehend has totally left me when it comes to your argument.

You're the one arguing with her.

Let's just hope that the next time you dress-up, no one who might derive some fear from seeing you crosses your path and ends it there.

It simply seems to me that you are entrenching yourself in an untenable position in order to not make any change, or even acknowledge that perhaps a change might be needed, in your own "phobias." So it goes.

I'd expect more coming from a moderator.




I believe it's time to shift back to where this thread was before the name calling began,(or a moderator could just be responsible and close it after a few pages of bitching back and forth, regardless of who started it).  I interpreted that as a few major points:
1) that the man's feelings were justified, but the actions were not. 
2) the actions were predictable.  what hasn't been fully discussed is if the actions are predictable, is the performer of the action or the person who stimulates the person to perform that action more to blame?
3) phobia has a loose definition that varies between the victim and the perpetrator.  The word defines simply as, "fear."  Perhaps the proper thing to question would not be phobias, but bigotry?

In answer to your point 2.

I would expect given the circumstances of the murder. That the perpetrator will in all probability get off with Manslaughter. I believe this would probably be the case in the UK possibly in the States.

[Annwyn]

Manslaughter is accidental killing.  Running over someone you didn't see in a car.  Defending yourself using excessive force.  Things that can't be helped.

This man deliberately dug up evidence to support his suspicions of her being transsexual and then acted on those suspicions.  Possible case for premeditated murder.  The clause that he acted out of shock end when he had time to consider the likely the two possibilities of her situation and decided to act the way he did even after time to consider.

[glendagladwitch]

Running over someone you did not see is more like negligent homicide, unless there is some element of recklessness.  Fleeing from a crime with a cop hanging onto your car and he falls off and dies, that is the typical example of manslaughter.  It is "reckless disregard for the probability of fatal harm" that is necessary at common law.  It might be the case that some jurisdictions would have a law for manslaughter that is specifically defined to include a negligent vehicular homicide.  But it would probably require that the driver be committing reckless driving at the time or something like that.

At common law in the US, first degree murder is usually premeditated, while second degree murder is usually spontaneous and occurs in response to some kind of stimulus.  Second degree murder is often called a "crime of opportunity" because the stimulus was the unanticipated opportunity to get some money or whatever.  There is a theory that second degree murder can be mitigated to manslaughter if the stimulus is one that is viewed as particularly "nasty."  The typical example is a man catching his wife in bed with another man.  Sufficient "nastiness" seems to be a morality judgment taken together with how rare the stimulus is and its propensity for driving an otherwise lawful person to commit murder by driving them over the edge temporarily.  Under what is called the "slow burn" theory, there have been cases in which first degree murder was mitigated to manslaughter.  The typical example is a man finding out his wife is sleeping with another man and then driving to wherever one of them is and killing them.

I think the defendent here will have a more difficult time getting manslaughter in view of the fact he found out about her situation long before he killed her.  That is not to say it is not impossible that he will get manslaughter, or that an affirmative defense of temporary insanity might be successful.

As always, I Am Not Your Lawyer (IANYL).  This Is Not Legal Advice (TINLA).

[Susan]

I have cleaned up this topic. Think three times before posting on this thread. If someone crosses the line on this thread or takes it off topic I will ban them for 3 days. Keep it to the issue and do not resort to personal attacks or name calling. If you see any of that in this thread use the report this thread option don't respond in the thread. If this thread gets out of hand again I will re-lock it forever.