It is real violence happening to real people
The Rainbow Times (Connecticut/Vermont)
by Lorelei Erisis
Jan. 7, 2010 - Feb. 3, 2010

http://www.nighttimez.com/trt_jan2010.pdf (page 6)

Lorelei,

I was at the (transgender) day of remembrance last week and I couldn't help feeling a little detached. As the names were read I found myself wondering if we have all become so desensitized to violence that we justify it under certain situations.

<snip>

So my questions: do you know anyone personally who has been a victim of a hate crime? Are you worried about violence towards your person? If so, from whom and in what situations? What do you think women can and should do to stop justifying violence under any circumstances? Do you watch crime shows? What is your take on the cultural obsession with violence and safety?

I believe the root of societies issues with violence stem from the stifleing of any form of male agression.
I know it sounds counter intuitive but consider. ..
Every social mammal species has male on male violence and chalenges. In the animal world if anouther male pisses you off you issue a chalenge and fight it out. Ussually these fights are minor with just a few minor injuries. The males learn how to fight better.
In humans we can see the mechanism attempt to raise its head all the time. How many times have you seen two men ready to go to blows and they are forced by 'morals' to walk away?
That leaves a man with pent up unexpressed rage that eventually will surface and become downright homicidal in some men. Had the two men been able to fight they would walk away with most of the rage gone.
I believe the only way to lower the violence in our world is to allow boys and men to fight without fear of jail. They should be allowed to chalenge eachother and fight for their honor. It is after all a hard wired survival mechinism.

I'm sorry but that is complete nonsense. Men do not need to fight to prove themselves nor get out any rage. If a person has rage or other emotional issues, there are more constructive ways of accomplishing this. An example is exercise. If a person is upset, he or she could go for a nice long jog or do some serious push-ups. Any built-up energy will be released this way in a healthy and constructive manner. Since exercising builds up endorphins, the person should be much happier after exercising. Additionally, if a person consistently has emotional problems, they should probably re-evaluate what is wrong with their life and fix it in a productive manner. There is nothing constructive about violence when not used for self-defense. What a crock of nonsense.

Hi Allamakee -

since my specialty is working with domestic violence, child abuse, trauma and survival - both perpetrators and victims - I have known both perpetrators and victims of violence. Some violent behavior is purposeful or instrumental - eg robbery. But most violence is based on either hatred or fear or both. I respectfully disagree with Cyntialee - who is not alone in her beliefs - men are not born with a "need-to-fight" gene. There are almost always healthier ways to handle things than fighting. Both men and women get violent when they feel threatened or when they want to dominate and control others. People raised in healthy environments do not grow up afraid or needing to control, even if they are male. Unfortunately, few men are raised in healthy ways, and many feel their male identity threatened for many minor reasons. A core problem for most men is having to deny being anything like women, whcih makes empathy for women impossible. It also makes it easy for such men to feel their "masculinity" threatened or disrespected. If they feel that, they usually feel a need to prove their manhood by being or threatening violence. People also get violent when they feel humiliated or abandoned. I have observed that many men feel particularly threatened by and willing to attack feminine men, gays and trans-women - expressing fear, disgust and hatred while doing so.

I think the cultural obsession with violence is a misguided unconcious effort to master fear with imagined violence.

Women, trans-women, trans-men and feminine men can to some extent protect themselves by being strong and assertive - and not giving off "victim" signals. It is also important to know that even nice men can be dangerous, but controlling men and jealous men are especially dangerous and should be avoided. I emphasize that a "victim" is never responsible for being hurt. That is totally the perpetrators fault. Strong, aware and assertive women sometimes still get hurt. I still recommend self-defense classes for everyone.

The movements to help society become a safe place for everyone regardless of their differences are very important. Part of that is arguing that - except for self-defense - violence is never a solution. We need to stop glorifying it. It is also important to assert that trying to control anyone else is a form of violence. I get to control my own personal space in safety - but not yours.

I think we will reduce violence when we raise our children non-violently and able to resolve conflict non-violently. Children can be taught empathy, consideration, respect and cooperation. We have to show them these things and insist that they show them as well. We have to raise them in safety and compassion with appropriate boundaries. Most of us get some of that, but also unhealthy doses of fear and domination/control.

Am I afraid? I think it is healthy to be a little afraid. There are people who are willing to hurt anyone who is different - or vulnerable. But not too afraid to be yourself - not too afraid to live.

I view the world holistically.  Where all is one and one is all.  So long as defense spending is the greatest outlay of our national government (and most governments), and so long as war is thought of as heroic, necessary and just - so too will the use of violence to solve problems on a smaller scale using the same justifications of being just and necessary.  So long as carrying arms in public is seen as a reasonable action, then so long will using violence (and the threat of violence) be seen as reasonable.  So long as people view the death penalty as a punishment for crime, then so long will death as a personally applied solution be viewed as OK also.

Gandhi was right, we must first be the change we want to see in the world, and at least on his board we might start by condemning in the strongest possible terms every time someone on here wishes death to anyone who might disagree with them, or who might make a joke on late night TV.   

Quote from: tekla on January 12, 2010, 02:33:19 AMI view the world holistically.  Where all is one and one is all.  So long as defense spending is the greatest outlay of our national government (and most governments), and so long as war is thought of as heroic, necessary and just - so too will the use of violence to solve problems on a smaller scale using the same justifications of being just and necessary.  So long as carrying arms in public is seen as a reasonable action, then so long will using violence (and the threat of violence) be seen as reasonable.  So long as people view the death penalty as a punishment for crime, then so long will death as a personally applied solution be viewed as OK also.

*nods in total agreement*

Thanks Allamakee for posting the link to my column!!!  Very much appreciated!

An interesting discussion on the nature of violence as well, if somewhat unrelated to what I wrote about.

Slainte!
Lorelei

Lorelei, thanks for paying us a visit and thank you even more for writing a regular column on trans issues!  This kind of visibility is good. 

Quote from: tekla on January 12, 2010, 02:33:19 AM
I view the world holistically.  Where all is one and one is all.  So long as defense spending is the greatest outlay of our national government (and most governments), and so long as war is thought of as heroic, necessary and just - so too will the use of violence to solve problems on a smaller scale using the same justifications of being just and necessary.  So long as carrying arms in public is seen as a reasonable action, then so long will using violence (and the threat of violence) be seen as reasonable.  So long as people view the death penalty as a punishment for crime, then so long will death as a personally applied solution be viewed as OK also.

Gandhi was right, we must first be the change we want to see in the world, and at least on his board we might start by condemning in the strongest possible terms every time someone on here wishes death to anyone who might disagree with them, or who might make a joke on late night TV.

This is kind of like looking at the world through rose-colored glasses if you ask me. You have identified the "end" but not the "means." In an ideal world people would be intelligent, peaceful, and cooperative. That is the kind of world I want, you want, and most of us want. The problem is that the real world as it stands now is extremely far from this ideal utopia. So what this really comes down to then is two questions: how do we advance towards this ideal and how do we protect and maintain the parts that currently are in line with the ideal? I do agree with what Gandhi said, "You must be the change you wish to see in the world." I'm not sure I agree with all of his philosophy, however.

Because there are so many people in the world and so much that is out of our control, you can only really set the example yourself but you have to do so in a realistic manner. A kumbaya way of life is not advisable because "all are one and one is all" is NOT currently the case. There is always the conflict of the haves vs. the have-nots. The item could be money, love, ego, physical or mental abilities, power, respect, or a number of other things. Some people who would like to have whatever it is that they don't have will go about it different ways. Some will be responsible people and work hard for their dreams. Others will play victim-mentality and never be happy with themselves and make self-defeating choices. Sadly, others will use violence or other wrongful means to take what does not belong to them.

Because of these forces in existence, we have to be realistic about protecting the things we do have or cherish. That is why national governments do have militaries, that is why we lock our houses at night, and why some of us carry weapons or learn hand-to-hand combat techniques. You can't successfully live an ideal that doesn't exist. It would be great for me to say "I love my neighbor" and then never lock anything up, and never take measures to defend myself when required. It simply doesn't work.

So ultimately changing the world on the individual level should come down to living as virtuous of a lifestyle as possible while reasonably protecting what you do have at the same time. Take good care of your children, be courteous in public, treat your spouse with respect, do charitable deeds when possible, spend wisely, and don't hesitate to speak out against wrongdoing. That will set a good example. At the same time, virtuous living does not mean tolerating those who live a life of vices, are intent on harming you, and you do nothing. So all this anti-defense talk is really just nonsense. Even if you spend all day in spiritual meditation, I still advise grabbing a gun and blasting away any burgular who would break into your private dwelling. The ideal is important to focus on but negating the real is looking at life through rose-colored glasses.

That' going to crack up all my pals at work who would tend to think I'm about the least Kumbaya person they have ever met.

I just think that if you run around with L-O-V-E tattooed on one hand, and H-A-T-E tattooed on the other everything in between is all kinds of messed up. Either violence is an acceptable way to solve problems, or its not.  The scale is not relevant.

I lived way, way out in the country for a long time.  Like most, if not all, of my neighbors I never locked my doors, I left the keys in the car.  It's not like anyone would have heard anyone breaking in, so why have to replace the window too.

And protecting people is one thing, but stuff?  Material stuff in exchange for a human life?  What exactly is worth that much?  Really, if you want it all that bad you can have it, I don't need it bad enough to shoot you for it.  Matter of fact, most of the people I know who have lost everything (material) in life found their life was much better off without it than it was with it.  It's like 'instant Buddhahood.'  Material possessions are a sickness, we get too attached to them and miss what is truly important.

And all that defense spending?  Has it kept us safer?  Any proof of that?  Or has it just brought down more weapons, escalating conflicts, arms races? 

And the real fallacy is here:
Even if you spend all day in spiritual meditation, I still advise grabbing a gun and blasting away any burgular who would break into your private dwelling.

If you really spent your life like that, you have treasures that no man can break in and steal. Or, put another way, you don't have enough to make it worth stealing.

QuoteAnd protecting people is one thing, but stuff?  Material stuff in exchange for a human life?  What exactly is worth that much?  Really, if you want it all that bad you can have it, I don't need it bad enough to shoot you for it.  Matter of fact, most of the people I know who have lost everything (material) in life found their life was much better off without it than it was with it.  It's like 'instant Buddhahood.'  Material possessions are a sickness, we get too attached to them and miss what is truly important.

Stuff is stuff but different types of "stuff" mean things to different people. If you are like most Americans who are living paycheck to paycheck, the cash in your pocket determines whether you eat or not. Someone trying to rob you of your wallet in such case is directly infringing on your survival. The same with a vehicle. I depend on my vehicle to get me to work. I cannot afford to lose my job. While it is possible to take buses and taxis, I bought the car, paid for it, and use it to my advantage and nobody is to take it. As to a person's home, it makes no difference to me if my home is wall-to-wall treasures worth millions of dollars or if it is nothing but junk that would be better off if it was stolen. My house is my castle, it is my private space, and my site of sanctuary. When someone forcefully comes in, it is not about my personal belongings, it is about violating that space that is mine.

I have been a victim of crime many times including theft, burglary, attempted robbery, and physical assault. It sounds like you have been living in a sheltered life. I know people who have been brutally raped and had guns put to their heads. Not one of these victims talks the nonsense you are about "oh it is just stuff, nobody should lose their life, blah, blah, blah." It is true that anyone who wishes to advance spiritually will work on attaining a positive indifference to the material things they own and the material world they live in. That doesn't mean they fail to understand the concept of ethical duty.

Legally, non-violent theft at least in my state such as stealing cars or items left unattended does not allow you to kill the person. So I wouldn't shoot someone for taking my vehicle unless they threatened my life when I tried to subdue or stop them. As to a home invasion, you have no way of knowing whether the attacker is interested in any of your stuff. They could be high on drugs or drunk, mentally insane, or a host of other things. They could be armed themselves. They may try to rape and kill you, kill you for no reason, or a host of other things. While non-violence is important it should never negate duty. In other words, a non-violent person may not attack someone who is carrying their TV set out but if that person then comes back to try to rape and kill their spouse, standing around and doing nothing is seriously relinquishing one's moral duties. As to doing nothing other than calling 911, the Supreme Court has ruled that the police are not obligated to protect you.

It sounds like someone here is either very sheltered or simply needs to seriously wake-up and smell the coffee. This should be taken even more seriously by our trans community because the same criminals who as you think may only be interested in "stuff" could then commit violence on us at the same time because of who we are. The same with the gay community. They didn't just rob Matthew Shepard, they killed him. Wake up.

If you are like most Americans

I'm pretty sure I'm not.  And I don't carry all the cash I have in my pockets, and even if I did, it's at most a couple weeks worth.  & When they get computers and banks in Arizona, then you can have direct deposit too, and not have to worry about it.  Besides, there is another check coming in soon (the advantage of working for four, five, or more payrolls at at time).  But of course, if you really want it, all you have to do is ask me, I'll give it to you, or at least share it.  I'm sure not going to kill you for it.

Besides, if you ever saw me, you would know it's highly unlikely that missing a few meals, or even a week of meals will do anything bad to me.  I've got them suckers all stored up.  Besides I have friends and family, if I was that hungry, someone would feed me.  So that's kind of a silly argument.

I don't own a car.  Gave it away on 9-12 for political reasons.  I do have a bike.  It's #7 for me in my life.  Some of the others got jacked.  I was bummed, but I sure would not shoot anyone for it.  I just went out and got another.  Sometimes, like now, a nice new one, one I like so much more than the old one I almost feel like writing the guy who jacked the old one a thank you note, other times, hey, I can get one for a few bucks at Salvation Army, so I did that. Either way, not worth a human life - but of course, I value human life.

My house is my castle, it is my private space, and my site of sanctuary.
Really? A castle?  Like Princess Di had Kensington Palace, that would be cool, but expensive to heat. And exactly, because I sure don't get it, sanctuary from what?  Reality?  That is not to your advantage in the real world, but you know that.  Most of the places I've lived in my life were built between 1906 and 1910.  They were built by people like me, so they were built right the first time, and built to last.  Lots and lots of people lived here before me, and I hope, lots of people will live in those places after I'm dead and gone.  I'm only passing through.  I try to take care of them, and respect those whose work went into them, so that those that come after me might use them too, but I've never thought of it as 'mine' - even when I own it.  It's just a short term lease at best.  I'm not going to live forever, so I'm not all that into it being 'mine' (by the way, 'mine' is the second word most kids learn after 'mommy' - true fact) in any realistic sense.

And hey, I got beat up so often that my mom insisted that I take martial arts.  And once I really knew it (3 years of constant effort), oddly enough, I've never had to really prove it.  Something about attitude comes to mind.  And I've been robbed, if you want to call it that, some guy, with a gun, asking for my wallet.  Yeah, twice.  Both times I just asked him if I could keep my drivers liecence, because getting a new one in California is even worse than being robbed.  Once the guy took my wallet, and said "->-bleeped-<-, seven dollars, you got less money than I do" and threw it on the ground and walked away.  Too poor to rob.  I was almost offended. But I kept my seven bucks.

But I've also worked in the Third World, were I was well aware that even little old me, the bottom guy on the pay scale there at Bechtel, was no doubt making more in a month than most of these people made in a year.  But, not being a total idiot, I never flaunted that in front of them either.  Some of my co-workers did, one got shot to death, me, never had a problem, even though I am kind of drawn to even worse places than he went to. Came close a few times, even gave up money - because what was a few bucks to me?  A lot less than it was to that guy.  Share the wealth and all that.  We were taking all their natural resources, he got twenty bucks, fair exchange don't you think?

Hell, on that job site - in Papua, New Guinea - the Ok Tedi mine we were pretty much required to carry side arms.  Not because of any robbers, or bandits, but because we had pushed the jungle back, but not very far, it that jungle still had a lot of things that though humans were tasty treats.  And from time to time they would walk, slither, crawl, out of the jungle and check us out.  I never killed them either.  Just firing a few shots in the air got them scampering but quick.

They could be high on drugs or drunk, mentally insane, or a host of other things. They could be armed themselves. They may try to rape and kill you, kill you for no reason, or a host of other things.
Umm, I'm not living in Bed-Sty, or the South Side of Chicago, or in Liberty City, so that's not going to happen.  And, if it did?  Really?  The most expensive thing I own is an eight year old Ibook, I bet my sox drawer has more cash value. I guess they could take my original silver-nitrate print of the Grateful Dead, circa 1967 signed by Herb Green, but who would even know what that is worth?  For sure they were not much too look at, and I keep it only for sentimental value of a time over the hills and far away now.

At any rate, I'm pretty sure I'm not sheltered, but I am pretty sure you are paranoid.  And for sure, the best way to avoid problems, is to prevent them before they happen.

Quote from: tekla on January 14, 2010, 03:46:16 AM
If you are like most Americans

I'm pretty sure I'm not.  And I don't carry all the cash I have in my pockets, and even if I did, it's at most a couple weeks worth.  & When they get computers and banks in Arizona, then you can have direct deposit too, and not have to worry about it.  Besides, there is another check coming in soon (the advantage of working for four, five, or more payrolls at at time).  But of course, if you really want it, all you have to do is ask me, I'll give it to you, or at least share it.  I'm sure not going to kill you for it.

Now it looks like you are on a roll with Arizona. First it is Mississippi, then Texas, and now Arizona. I guess we just don't measure up to good old California. As to your other points, I don't keep all of my eggs in one basket and I certainly think others should diversify any funds they have. In tough times, however, when every penny counts, getting robbed of even $100 can be a serious setback to a lot of people. Carrying less cash and keeping more in the bank can be wise options for many people but they aren't the only options. Clearing up fraud on a checking account after a debit card is stolen can often be a far more serious headache than stolen cash. While you may ultimately get the money back, it could take a couple of days or more although not always the case.

Quote
Besides, if you ever saw me, you would know it's highly unlikely that missing a few meals, or even a week of meals will do anything bad to me.  I've got them suckers all stored up.  Besides I have friends and family, if I was that hungry, someone would feed me.  So that's kind of a silly argument.

The problem here is that this isn't about YOU, it is about people as a whole. I don't care how many meals you have or how much money or property you own as that isn't what the topic was ever about but obviously something you changed it to. The topic was about violence in general particularly against trans people. I don't know why you keep thinking it is all about you.

Quote
I don't own a car.  Gave it away on 9-12 for political reasons.  I do have a bike.  It's #7 for me in my life.  Some of the others got jacked.  I was bummed, but I sure would not shoot anyone for it.  I just went out and got another.  Sometimes, like now, a nice new one, one I like so much more than the old one I almost feel like writing the guy who jacked the old one a thank you note, other times, hey, I can get one for a few bucks at Salvation Army, so I did that. Either way, not worth a human life - but of course, I value human life.

What about people who can't afford another bike? Have you ever thought about that? Again, this is about people in general, not about you. If you are a multi-millionaire who can afford anything then that is great but don't think you or your experiences represent the rest of America. Millions of Americans have zero savings, live paycheck to paycheck if they are employed at all, and being a victim of a property crime could cause them to lose an awful lot more than someone who is in a better financial state. While I could debate all night about maybe those people should have lived more frugally in the past or made wiser financial decisions with their lives, the point is that being a victim of a crime to one person can be extremely more damaging than to someone else. Stealing a homeless person's shopping cart filled with junk would hurt them far more than stealing one of Bill Gates's cars. I don't know where you keep getting this idea that I am advocating shooting someone over simple theft because I have never said that.

Quote
My house is my castle, it is my private space, and my site of sanctuary.
Really? A castle?  Like Princess Di had Kensington Palace, that would be cool, but expensive to heat. And exactly, because I sure don't get it, sanctuary from what?  Reality?  That is not to your advantage in the real world, but you know that.  Most of the places I've lived in my life were built between 1906 and 1910.  They were built by people like me, so they were built right the first time, and built to last.  Lots and lots of people lived here before me, and I hope, lots of people will live in those places after I'm dead and gone.  I'm only passing through.  I try to take care of them, and respect those whose work went into them, so that those that come after me might use them too, but I've never thought of it as 'mine' - even when I own it.  It's just a short term lease at best.  I'm not going to live forever, so I'm not all that into it being 'mine' (by the way, 'mine' is the second word most kids learn after 'mommy' - true fact) in any realistic sense.

Again, you are missing the point. This topic is about violent crime. Property crime is part of violent crime when the threat or use of force is used to steal the property. Someone can break into your house and you may not miss the guitar they intend to steal. Suppose though that the attacker knows you are transgender and decides to kill you? The people that murdered Matthew Shepard started it out as a robbery. This should be something to think about. They may not have originally intended to kill him. They may have planned on robbing him and just "roughing him up" but they were screwed up on drugs, and kept getting more and more violent until they killed him (or left him to die).

Quote
And hey, I got beat up so often that my mom insisted that I take martial arts.  And once I really knew it (3 years of constant effort), oddly enough, I've never had to really prove it.  Something about attitude comes to mind.  And I've been robbed, if you want to call it that, some guy, with a gun, asking for my wallet.  Yeah, twice.  Both times I just asked him if I could keep my drivers liecence, because getting a new one in California is even worse than being robbed.  Once the guy took my wallet, and said "->-bleeped-<-, seven dollars, you got less money than I do" and threw it on the ground and walked away.  Too poor to rob.  I was almost offended. But I kept my seven bucks.

But I've also worked in the Third World, were I was well aware that even little old me, the bottom guy on the pay scale there at Bechtel, was no doubt making more in a month than most of these people made in a year.  But, not being a total idiot, I never flaunted that in front of them either.  Some of my co-workers did, one got shot to death, me, never had a problem, even though I am kind of drawn to even worse places than he went to. Came close a few times, even gave up money - because what was a few bucks to me?  A lot less than it was to that guy.  Share the wealth and all that.  We were taking all their natural resources, he got twenty bucks, fair exchange don't you think?

If you think violent crime and robbery is a "fair exchange" that is pretty sick. I don't know where you get this bogus "share the wealth." Sharing means you voluntarily give a poorer person money. Being robbed of it is not "sharing." Forced volunteerism is an oxymoron.

Quote
Hell, on that job site - in Papua, New Guinea - the Ok Tedi mine we were pretty much required to carry side arms.  Not because of any robbers, or bandits, but because we had pushed the jungle back, but not very far, it that jungle still had a lot of things that though humans were tasty treats.  And from time to time they would walk, slither, crawl, out of the jungle and check us out.  I never killed them either.  Just firing a few shots in the air got them scampering but quick.

I don't like killing animals either but firing shots in the air as you did is violating one of the most serious rules of gun safety.

Quote
They could be high on drugs or drunk, mentally insane, or a host of other things. They could be armed themselves. They may try to rape and kill you, kill you for no reason, or a host of other things.
Umm, I'm not living in Bed-Sty, or the South Side of Chicago, or in Liberty City, so that's not going to happen.  And, if it did?  Really?  The most expensive thing I own is an eight year old Ibook, I bet my sox drawer has more cash value. I guess they could take my original silver-nitrate print of the Grateful Dead, circa 1967 signed by Herb Green, but who would even know what that is worth?  For sure they were not much too look at, and I keep it only for sentimental value of a time over the hills and far away now.

At any rate, I'm pretty sure I'm not sheltered, but I am pretty sure you are paranoid.  And for sure, the best way to avoid problems, is to prevent them before they happen.

Again, nobody is talking about where YOU live. We are talking about violence period and you keep talking about property crime. Obviously you can't address the points I'm making so you keep changing the topic to suit you. As to the cozy places you claim to live, keep in mind that crime happens anywhere any time. Statistically violent crime may be much more common in south central Los Angeles than in Beverly Hills but that doesn't mean that Beverly Hills has zero crime. Even if it did, you would have no way of knowing for sure that crime would never happen in the future.

I think your passive attitude on violent crime is a serious disservice to the transgender community. In 2009 there were over 70 reported hate-crime murders of trans people. I can't say if these murders occured in rich safe neighborhoods or in the worst parts of the world. I can't say if the victims made the best choices about their safety or if they left themselves completely vulnerable. In the end, it really doesn't matter. Violence is out there. That is what we are talking about here. Violence against trans people. We aren't talking about your experiences and your experiences don't represent all of San Francisco, San Francisco doesn't represent all of California, California doesn't represent all of the United States, and the United States doesn't represent the world.

First it is Mississippi, then Texas, and now Arizona. I guess we just don't measure up to good old California.
Well, if that's the scale, then yeah. Pretty much true.  Your new favorite band, I did them years ago.  What you think is cool to wear today, I gave up that look last year.  But you'll never see me bitch about NYC.  Or Miami. (Though the rest of Florida is up for grabs.)  What exactly don't you get about people who live on the 'coasts' (other than we are the majority of the population?) driving American Civilization, and the rest of the 'fly over' people simply following along?

Clearing up fraud on a checking account after a debit card is stolen can often be a far more serious headache than stolen cash.
Never had fraud on my checking account (which by the way tends to be something more that 'street crime' that tends to be 'suite crime' ie. its not anyone forgeing your checks, it's 'bank error' and good luck proving the bank ever made a mistake, and even if you do, they are not going to pay you for it), and the only credit card (no debit card) I have I keep locked up unless I'm on the road, and, at that, I would not have to pay a penny, (though I pay for that privilege too, a couple more bucks a year.  In the real world, we call that 'insurance'.)

The topic was about violence in general particularly against trans people. I don't know why you keep thinking it is all about you.
Well, because as a trans person, who has gone out, for decades and decades and decades now, in just about everywhere in the US, I just don't see it.  Nor do the stats prove it.  We (well not 'we,' you, see individual cases, but on an aggregate statistical basis), trans persons are much safer than lots, and lots, and lots of other classes of people, particularly when they are NOT involved in prostitution or dealing/using drugs). I've walked though some pretty bad sections of NYC, though those same areas in SF on a constant basis, and I've never had a problem in 30 years.  Of course, when I'm coming back from a night on the town I've got maybe enough money to buy a cup of coffee and doughnut, because I don't take more money with me then I need.  So if you really needed that buck and half all that bad, like I said, I'd just give it to you.  So, I'd miss the doughnut, but I got coffee at home, and that's only another 20 minute walk.

What about people who can't afford another bike? Have you ever thought about that?
Bike #5 cost me $20 at Salvation Army, I sold it for the same amount a year later.  If you don't have to support a car, $20 (like half a tank of gas these days) is not a big deal.

The people that murdered Matthew Shepard started it out as a robbery.
No, in fact, it started as a gay pick up.  Sex changes everything in this equation.  And since I don't do sex (except with very special - like the Olympics, but in a social/cultural sense) people, its never going to be a factor.  Had he not been looking to be 'picked up and sexed up' that would have never happened.  That is not to discount it, and I'm glad they get to die in jail, but it was more than a simple robbery.

but firing shots in the air as you did is violating one of the most serious rules of gun safety.
Are you high?  Really?  I gave you the exact location where I was.  Had you like googled it, you would have found it was the top of a mountain, in the middle of a jungle, that was a gold mine.  I could have shot a howitzer off and not hit anyone.  There were .50 caliber machine guns there (it was a gold mine after all, you know, security and all) we used to get drunk off our ass and see how much jungle we could mow down with those suckers (the company would not bring up us liquor, or even beer, but more ammo, the NEXT DAY).  And, being a jungle and all, three days later you could not even see the damage.

If you think violent crime and robbery is a "fair exchange" that is pretty sick
There was no violence, they said 'give me all your money' and I did.  What's the violence there.  Most I ever lost was $20 in Jakarta.  And, having walked though Jakarta, I have an idea of what violence looks like. And, out of those three times, as I said, once I had so little that he didn't even take it.

In 2009 there were over 70 reported hate-crime murders of trans people.
Yeah, comparie that to real numbers and you'll find I'm right.  Being trans is a lot saver than being black or Mexican in the USA, which is saver than being anyone in 24 other nations.  Murder rates for trans person in the US are less than for average people in 75 other nations.  So, not so much eh?

I hope my world never becomes so fearful that I feel I need a gun, or that I ever become so paranoid or attached to my things that I would blast away at noises in the dark.

I think it is far safer to take a passive approach when facing a violent person than to pull out a gun and try staring them down, for goodness sakes.

This really is about violent hate crimes which is a different animal altogether.  These types of criminals are after something psychological and you can't just hand over whatever they want to appease their aggression.  Since I'm in a higher risk group I've been thinking about how I would handle such a situation and I honestly don't have an answer.  I think the biggest thing is to avoid bad situations and risky behaviors.  Of course that isn't foolproof, but I just don't see myself being able to scare off an attacker whether with a gun or any other means for that matter.  I just don't think I have it in me.

I feel the odds (70 out of how many?) are good enough that, if I pay attention and avoid danger -something a lot of people don't bother with- I'll just go ahead and feel safe walking out my door, in broad daylight even.

I hope I don't ever face anything that makes me change my mind.

You're odds are awesome.  Simple precautions - like if you see 20 gangbangers hanging on the next corner, take another route home - even a Hell's Angel would.  Most of those murders involve - should I spell it out for you? Sure.  S-E-X and M-E-T-H.  Brandon Teena was killed in a murder spree where someone unloaded a shotgun on a toddler.  Can you say METH?  Other famous trans murders almost all involve an intimate (SEX) relationship with the person who killed them.  The random murder of trans persons is very, very rare.

Quote from: Britney_413 on January 11, 2010, 11:45:53 PM
I'm sorry but that is complete nonsense. Men do not need to fight to prove themselves nor get out any rage. If a person has rage or other emotional issues, there are more constructive ways of accomplishing this. An example is exercise. If a person is upset, he or she could go for a nice long jog or do some serious push-ups. Any built-up energy will be released this way in a healthy and constructive manner. Since exercising builds up endorphins, the person should be much happier after exercising. Additionally, if a person consistently has emotional problems, they should probably re-evaluate what is wrong with their life and fix it in a productive manner. There is nothing constructive about violence when not used for self-defense. What a crock of nonsense.

I emphaticaly disagree. I know I am right.

I also emphaticlly disagree.

I'm pretty sure I'm right.

The whole Fight Club philosophy thing doesn't make any sense to me, but I've never understood men and I don't think I ever will, so I'll just take your word for it.

Well, I guess it is great that the rest of you seem to base your safety off of avoidance and "chance" because if I'm walking down the same street as you guys and a criminal wants to attack, I won't be the easiest target. As stated before, I certainly believe in avoiding problematic situations as much as possible. The last thing I want in my life is unneeded drama or headaches or any other problems. At the same time, I've always been a strong advocate for freedom and rights including personal liberties. So whether I am inside my home or in a public place and minding my business, people are to stay out of it. I have my own life, my own possessions, and my own lifestyles. People who try to interfere with that will be dealt with accordingly. So should someone pull a knife and demand 20 bucks, I sure will empty a magazine in them and I won't feel sorry for it. Everyone's different, though, and that is fine. Statistically criminals look for easy targets so if that is what you want to be that's up to you. I choose not to be a victim. Period.