Ohio Transwoman killed, called "Satan"

[Camicon]

]
Again, that is not what I am saying. If you aren't going to read my post then don't bother responding.

Since there's clearly a misunderstanding why don't you tell me exactly what I'm missing.

I am not asking you to assume that a problem exists when you don't have the data to prove that it exists. I am asking you to not be skeptical of a community that is very clearly being systemically discriminated against. I am asking you to cooperate with a marginalized and victimized community, to reduce the extent to which they are marginalized and victimized.

Things like public awareness campaigns to reduce the social stigma around transgender people. Additional training for law enforcement, so that they are not biased and discriminatory in the way they carry out their duties. An expansion of hate crime laws and civil rights protections to specifically include transgender people. An expansion of crime statistics tracking, so that we actually know the full extent of the situation, instead of the incredibly small and myopic snapshot we currently have. These are things which are a good investment in society, regardless of whether or not transgender people are being murdered because of who they are at a higher rate than the rest of the country.

And for those things where we do have data that is correct and unbiased, such as the abhorrently high 40% attempted suicide rate among transgender people, promote targeted programs to address them. Government-funded clinics to provide emergency counselling services, community services to provide support to transgenders who have been rejected by their families, and the like.

I am not asking for your unthinking support. I am asking you to recognize the flaws in our law enforcement organizations and data collection practices, work to correct those flaws, and in the meantime promote solutions to make society a safer, more tolerant and caring place for people who are not safe, or being tolerated or cared for.

[Des-Bal]

I am not asking you to assume that a problem exists when you don't have the data to prove that it exists. I am asking you to not be skeptical of a community that is very clearly being systemically discriminated against. I am asking you to cooperate with a marginalized and victimized community, to reduce the extent to which they are marginalized and victimized.

Things like public awareness campaigns to reduce the social stigma around transgender people. Additional training for law enforcement, so that they are not biased and discriminatory in the way they carry out their duties. An expansion of hate crime laws and civil rights protections to specifically include transgender people. An expansion of crime statistics tracking, so that we actually know the full extent of the situation, instead of the incredibly small and myopic snapshot we currently have. These are things which are a good investment in society, regardless of whether or not transgender people are being murdered because of who they are at a higher rate than the rest of the country.

And for those things where we do have data that is correct and unbiased, such as the abhorrently high 40% attempted suicide rate among transgender people, promote targeted programs to address them. Government-funded clinics to provide emergency counselling services, community services to provide support to transgenders who have been rejected by their families, and the like.

I am not asking for your unthinking support. I am asking you to recognize the flaws in our law enforcement organizations and data collection practices, work to correct those flaws, and in the meantime promote solutions to make society a safer, more tolerant and caring place for people who are not safe, or being tolerated or cared for.

I support community programs, I support better data collection, and I eagerly spread the gospel of equality in my unique "mind your own backyard you nosey fuck" sort of way. While I object to expanding hate crime legislation and government funded clinics it is for reasons outside the scope of this thread. The point of contention here is that you are asking me to not be skeptical: Fuck that shit. Skepticism is what you get, the default position should always be doubt you should always demand proof especially when you want to believe the person you're listening to.

This brings us back to the thread I decline to believe Rae'lynn Thomas was shot while he was watching TV by a person he shared the house with apropos of nothing without evidence to that effect. I decline to accept 20 homicides as a significant number when the only data available says it's very low. I decline to accept the proposition that nearly all transgender people who are murdered are murdered because of their identity.

[Llamalandia]

Oh ok, sure, how will that bill make it less safe for trans folk and/or less safe to "shit in safety".

There's also the risk of being arrested for using the one on the left, and of being raped or killed for using the one on the right.

How many transgender people have actually been murdered based on bathroom use?

[Camicon]

I am not asking you to assume that a problem exists when you don't have the data to prove that it exists. I am asking you to not be skeptical of a community that is very clearly being systemically discriminated against. I am asking you to cooperate with a marginalized and victimized community, to reduce the extent to which they are marginalized and victimized.

Things like public awareness campaigns to reduce the social stigma around transgender people. Additional training for law enforcement, so that they are not biased and discriminatory in the way they carry out their duties. An expansion of hate crime laws and civil rights protections to specifically include transgender people. An expansion of crime statistics tracking, so that we actually know the full extent of the situation, instead of the incredibly small and myopic snapshot we currently have. These are things which are a good investment in society, regardless of whether or not transgender people are being murdered because of who they are at a higher rate than the rest of the country.

And for those things where we do have data that is correct and unbiased, such as the abhorrently high 40% attempted suicide rate among transgender people, promote targeted programs to address them. Government-funded clinics to provide emergency counselling services, community services to provide support to transgenders who have been rejected by their families, and the like.

I am not asking for your unthinking support. I am asking you to recognize the flaws in our law enforcement organizations and data collection practices, work to correct those flaws, and in the meantime promote solutions to make society a safer, more tolerant and caring place for people who are not safe, or being tolerated or cared for.

I support community programs, I support better data collection, and I eagerly spread the gospel of equality in my unique "mind your own backyard you nosey fuck" sort of way. While I object to expanding hate crime legislation and government funded clinics it is for reasons outside the scope of this thread. The point of contention here is that you are asking me to not be skeptical: Fuck that shit. Skepticism is what you get, the default position should always be doubt you should always demand proof especially when you want to believe the person you're listening to.

This brings us back to the thread I decline to believe Rae'lynn Thomas was shot while he was watching TV by a person he shared the house with apropos of nothing without evidence to that effect. I decline to accept 20 homicides as a significant number when the only data available says it's very low. I decline to accept the proposition that nearly all transgender people who are murdered are murdered because of their identity.

You decline to believe that Rae'lynn Thomas was shot while she was watching TV because she was transgender, despite her murderer being transphobic, calling her the Devil numerous times beforehand, and calling her the Devil while shooting her and beating her to death.

You decline to accept that 20 homicides is significant despite clear evidence that what data we do have is unreliable, incomplete, systemically biased, and assuredly far lower than the reality because a full 140 major American cities either don't bother to collect relevant data or do an absolutely abysmal job of it.

I am not asking you to stop being skeptical, I am asking you to be consistent in your skepticism; because, as of right now, it is very clearly skewed in one direction.

[Des-Bal]

You decline to believe that Rae'lynn Thomas was shot while she was watching TV because she was transgender, despite her murderer being transphobic, calling her the Devil numerous times beforehand, and calling her the Devil while shooting her and beating her to death.

You decline to accept that 20 homicides is significant despite clear evidence that what data we do have is unreliable, incomplete, systemically biased, and assuredly far lower than the reality because a full 140 major American cities either don't bother to collect data or do an absolutely abysmal job of it.

I am not asking you to stop being skeptical, I am asking you to be consistent in your skepticism; because, as of right now, it is very clearly skewed in one direction.

First of all, not parent of the murder victim, I switched to male pronouns when I saw that his mother used them. If you watch ever watch your kid bleed to death I promise to let you pick the most appropriate words.

The murderer lived in her house. If this was an issue of pure transphobic murderlust why did it pop up now? In your mind because the killer was transphobic and less than respectful in the course of the killing there is no reason to be skeptical. Without more information I'm not going to guess at the motive.

YES, you finally get it. I refuse to accept 20 homicides as significant because it is in no way significant. You're saying that perhaps the number is significant because of other numbers might exist and that I should assume there's a crisis. The number 20 detracts from the idea there's a problem, at the absolute best you can argue 20 is off. What you can't do is present the number 20 and then hope that people's emotional reactions and wild assumptions lead them to agree with you without any evidence.

My skepticism is skewing in the direction of not assuming anything.

[Camicon]

You decline to believe that Rae'lynn Thomas was shot while she was watching TV because she was transgender, despite her murderer being transphobic, calling her the Devil numerous times beforehand, and calling her the Devil while shooting her and beating her to death.

You decline to accept that 20 homicides is significant despite clear evidence that what data we do have is unreliable, incomplete, systemically biased, and assuredly far lower than the reality because a full 140 major American cities either don't bother to collect data or do an absolutely abysmal job of it.

I am not asking you to stop being skeptical, I am asking you to be consistent in your skepticism; because, as of right now, it is very clearly skewed in one direction.

First of all, not parent of the murder victim, I switched to male pronouns when I saw that his mother used them. If you watch ever watch your kid bleed to death I promise to let you pick the most appropriate words.

The murderer lived in her house. If this was an issue of pure transphobic murderlust why did it pop up now? In your mind because the killer was transphobic and less than respectful in the course of the killing there is no reason to be skeptical. Without more information I'm not going to guess at the motive.

YES, you finally get it. I refuse to accept 20 homicides as significant because it is in no way significant. You're saying that perhaps the number is significant because of other numbers might exist and that I should assume there's a crisis. The number 20 detracts from the idea there's a problem, at the absolute best you can argue 20 is off. What you can't do is present the number 20 and then hope that people's emotional reactions and wild assumptions lead them to agree with you without any evidence.

My skepticism is skewing in the direction of not assuming anything.

Rae'lynn Thomas was a woman, she made that pretty damned clear when she transitioned. Using male pronouns to refer to her is incredibly disrespectful. That her mother used male pronouns to refer to her daughter is entirely irrelevant, because she doesn't get to decide anything about who her daughter was.

And your skepticism is not skewed in the direction of assuming nothing, because repeatedly stating your belief that Rae'lynn Thomas was killed because of some convoluted revenge scheme that her murderer was using to hurt her mother, and that the transgender community is not being victimized at higher rates than the rest of the country, is most certainly not an assumption of nothing. If you were truly assuming nothing then you would have no opinion either way, on either matter.

No, your skepticism is obviously skewed in the direction of "look away, nothing wrong here", and I find that entirely unacceptable. I said before that we as a society have a moral obligation to protect the weakest among us, and a "look away, nothing wrong here" attitude is antithetical to that.

[Jumalariik]

There's also the risk of being arrested for using the one on the left, and of being raped or killed for using the one on the right.

How many transgender people have actually been murdered based on bathroom use?

Why do I have to see such transphobia wherever I turn? Proof, data and evidence is really offensive.

[Jumalariik]

I support community programs, I support better data collection, and I eagerly spread the gospel of equality in my unique "mind your own backyard you nosey fuck" sort of way. While I object to expanding hate crime legislation and government funded clinics it is for reasons outside the scope of this thread. The point of contention here is that you are asking me to not be skeptical: Fuck that shit. Skepticism is what you get, the default position should always be doubt you should always demand proof especially when you want to believe the person you're listening to.

This brings us back to the thread I decline to believe Rae'lynn Thomas was shot while he was watching TV by a person he shared the house with apropos of nothing without evidence to that effect. I decline to accept 20 homicides as a significant number when the only data available says it's very low. I decline to accept the proposition that nearly all transgender people who are murdered are murdered because of their identity.

You decline to believe that Rae'lynn Thomas was shot while she was watching TV because she was transgender, despite her murderer being transphobic, calling her the Devil numerous times beforehand, and calling her the Devil while shooting her and beating her to death.

You decline to accept that 20 homicides is significant despite clear evidence that what data we do have is unreliable, incomplete, systemically biased, and assuredly far lower than the reality because a full 140 major American cities either don't bother to collect relevant data or do an absolutely abysmal job of it.

I am not asking you to stop being skeptical, I am asking you to be consistent in your skepticism; because, as of right now, it is very clearly skewed in one direction.

Systematically biased against a community that the government favors? I've now seen everything.

[Camicon]

You decline to believe that Rae'lynn Thomas was shot while she was watching TV because she was transgender, despite her murderer being transphobic, calling her the Devil numerous times beforehand, and calling her the Devil while shooting her and beating her to death.

You decline to accept that 20 homicides is significant despite clear evidence that what data we do have is unreliable, incomplete, systemically biased, and assuredly far lower than the reality because a full 140 major American cities either don't bother to collect relevant data or do an absolutely abysmal job of it.

I am not asking you to stop being skeptical, I am asking you to be consistent in your skepticism; because, as of right now, it is very clearly skewed in one direction.

Systematically biased against a community that the government favors? I've now seen everything.

[Gauthier]

You decline to believe that Rae'lynn Thomas was shot while she was watching TV because she was transgender, despite her murderer being transphobic, calling her the Devil numerous times beforehand, and calling her the Devil while shooting her and beating her to death.

You decline to accept that 20 homicides is significant despite clear evidence that what data we do have is unreliable, incomplete, systemically biased, and assuredly far lower than the reality because a full 140 major American cities either don't bother to collect relevant data or do an absolutely abysmal job of it.

I am not asking you to stop being skeptical, I am asking you to be consistent in your skepticism; because, as of right now, it is very clearly skewed in one direction.

Systematically biased against a community that the government favors? I've now seen everything.

The federal government is not state government, as North Carolina and Oklahoma shows.

[Noraika]

Ensurance that transgender youth can, if need be, get necessary medical care = child abuse....okay...

You do realize that the American College of Pediatricians is not a recognized professional body within the psychiatric community, and is a recognized hate group right? Please check your sources.

Try the American Psychological Association. They have the most reliable and credible research on the matter. They're actually pretty much as credible and well-respected as you can go. I can provide you with some good information if you're interested.

No, forcing a minor into a life of artificial hormones along with the various health problems that fallow is child abuse. Your attempt to strawman away from this issues by reframing it is rather amusing though

Well, in all honestly, I probably shouldn't have used that source. Not because of your criticism, as that's simply an ad hominem; no, I don't care if Hitler wrote that article as it's their argument that ought merit a response. Though, still, the source I normally use has a compiled version of the DSM5 which makes it easier to hit all my points. I sadly could not locate the link, so I made due with the closest thing I could find. Oh well. I'll just do it by hand:

Rates of persistence of gender dysphoria from childhood into adolescence or adulthood vary. In natal males, persistence has ranged from 2.2% to 30%. In natal females, persistence has ranged from 12% to 50%. Persistence of gender dysphoria is modestly correlated with dimensional measures of severity ascertained at the time of a childhood baseline assessment. In one sample of natal males, lower socioeconomic background was also modestly correlated with persistence. It is unclear if particular therapeutic approaches to gender dysphoria in children are related to rates of long-term persistence. Extant follow-up samples consisted of children receiving no formal therapeutic intervention or receiving therapeutic interventions of various types, ranging from active efforts to reduce gender dysphoria to a more neutral, "watchful waiting" approach. It is unclear if children "encouraged" or supported to live socially in the desired gender will show higher rates of persistence, since such children have not yet been followed longitudinally in a systematic manner. For both natal male and female children showing persistence, almost all are sexually attracted to individuals of their natal sex. For natal male children whose gender dysphoria does not persist, the majority are androphilic (sexually attracted to males) and often self-identify as gay or homosexual (ranging from 63% to 100%). In natal female children whose gender dysphoria does not persist, the percentage who are gynephilic (sexually attracted to females) and self-identify as lesbian is lower (ranging from 32% to 50%).

I've left the full paragraph for pointless context and ease of location. The underlined is what is of importance to us. I will grant you your best argument and, as such, grant you the highest persistence of gender dysphoria in children as they progress in age (30% for males & 50% for females). I will not argue the increased chance of various sexual diseases (such as aids) that trans folk tend to get in higher numbers (to the national average) as these are often related to individual choice, nor will I argue the various health problems that come with taking hormones (such as cancer) because I'm somewhat lazy at the moment, instead I'll just point out the ridiculousness of encouraging (or "treating") a child when 70% of males and 50% of females will no longer be faced with their gender dysphoria (as they grow-up). Anyway, feel free to criticize the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders.

A link would encourage me more, ideally their research data.

In overall summary, I take the same stance to treatment on gender dysphoria as I do circumcision, wait till they are a (young) adult. Gender Dysphoria is not like Gangrene, they'll survive 18 years. Although I can't approve the butchering of oneself, I approve less the butchering of children, if I must make a compromise then I'll make it for legal adults.

Well, for one, you've quoted the American Psychological Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual v5. I mean the APA wrote the darn thing, so I would hope you're familiar with them. After all, they pretty much set the standards for the understanding of psychiatric conditions, their treatment (including puberty blockers), and the general practice of psychiatric care in the United States, and is also internationally respected.

How about their Guidelines for Psychological Practice With Transgender and Gender Nonconforming People. Oh! How About the WPATH Standards of Care v7 (click on the book to read it in full), which is a source for the APA and professional associations such as the Royal College of Psychiatrists, and general medical care?

Other good ones are the APA's Definition of Terms: Sex, Gender, Gender Identity, Sexual Orientation or their Answers to Your Questions About Transgender People, Gender Identity and Gender Expression.

The health risks associated with Hormone Replacement Therapy are very rare, and very minor. In fact, so long as it is administered and monitored by a medical profession - instead of self-medicated as many transgender people had to do before due to lack of resources - there are really no likely medical risks. (see the WPATH for more on that). There is nothing to suggest it causes cancer, at least not from any reputable source.

As we've already established, puberty blockers are neither dangerous, permanent, nor unhealthy. Hormone Replacement Therapy is only done when the individual is of an age where they are able to consent to the practice via their ability to adequately address the issue. If the child is no longer Dysphoric, then they can stop and proceed with their life with no permanent issues. If they are, and choose to, they can choose to take the next step into Hormone Replacement Therapy, and even THAT takes a long time for any permanent changes, and is mostly reversible.

Access to puberty blockers, and allowing youth who are experiencing Gender Dysphoria, to present as the gender they identify with, and the ability to prevent the wrong puberty's effects, so that a transgender youth can go through only the proper puberty of their gender, is a wonderful thing.

So no, we shouldn't restrict access to treatment to only legal adults. We should do what is in the best interests of the child, and withholding treatment which a patient needs, and which is critical in promoting the positive life outcomes of the individual child's life, is not good medical practice. We should 'watch and wait', as we place a child on puberty blockers, and if they wish to present as their gender, and then allow that child to make the decision later in life when they are able to make a properly informed decision.

In the event that the child decides not to, then there is no harm done. In the event that the child decides to, a lot of potential suffering, damage, and negative influences on emotional and mental health, to the child that would be brought on by having to go through the wrong puberty, and live as the wrong gender, is avoided.

In light of this, the with-holding of medical care and proper treatment, and the emotional damage that brings, in refusing to allow transgender youth the care that they need, is nothing short of child abuse.

[Arumbia67]

A random person committed a murder? Quick everyone act like It's a nation wide tragedy! Seriously murders happen everyday, why is this one anymore worthy of attention? To score some cheap political points?

[Camicon]

A random person committed a murder? Quick everyone act like It's a nation wide tragedy! Seriously murders happen everyday, why is this one anymore worthy of attention? To score some cheap political points?

Try reading through the thread. Your questions have been answered many times over.

[Noraika]

A random person committed a murder? Quick everyone act like It's a nation wide tragedy! Seriously murders happen everyday, why is this one anymore worthy of attention? To score some cheap political points?

Because it was a hate crime, and it points to a much greater issue within society that is not limited to this one individual, but effects 1% of the population, their friends, their family, their lovers, and their coworkers, and which points to the vast degree of disproportionate discrimination, violence, and (physical, verbal, and sexual) harassment, as well as rampant abuse, and inabaility to access medically necessary treatment, which transgender people face in their lives. To name but a few examples of the variables involved.

That, in short, is one of the reasons. Its not just about the individual murder, but also about the problem that society has. The rhetoric of violence, and at times calls for extermination, towards transgender people (religious or not), and Christian religious bigotry used as justification for the perpetuation of violence and murder, as well as other previously mentioned variables and more, of LGBT+ people.

[Arumbia67]

A random person committed a murder? Quick everyone act like It's a nation wide tragedy! Seriously murders happen everyday, why is this one anymore worthy of attention? To score some cheap political points?

Because it was a hate crime, and it points to a much greater issue within society that is not limited to this one individual, but effects 1% of the population, their friends, their family, their lovers, and their coworkers, and which points to the vast degree of disproportionate discrimination, violence, and (physical, verbal, and sexual) harassment, as well as rampant abuse, and inabaility to access medically necessary treatment, which transgender people face in their lives. To name but a few examples of the variables involved.

That, in short, is one of the reasons. Its not just about the individual murder, but also about the problem that society has. The rhetoric of violence, and at times calls for extermination, towards transgender people (religious or not), and Christian religious bigotry used as justification for the perpetuation of violence and murder, as well as other previously mentioned variables and more, of LGBT+ people.

Hate crime is often just a meaningless buzzword used to stir up media attention. Beyond the testimony of the mother (which is just heresay) is there any proof that's why she died? Let me know if they find some solid evidence.

[Des-Bal]

Rae'lynn Thomas was a woman, she made that pretty damned clear when she transitioned. Using male pronouns to refer to her is incredibly disrespectful. That her mother used male pronouns to refer to her daughter is entirely irrelevant, because she doesn't get to decide anything about who her daughter was.

And your skepticism is not skewed in the direction of assuming nothing, because repeatedly stating your belief that Rae'lynn Thomas was killed because of some convoluted revenge scheme that her murderer was using to hurt her mother, and that the transgender community is not being victimized at higher rates than the rest of the country, is most certainly not an assumption of nothing. If you were truly assuming nothing then you would have no opinion either way, on either matter.

No, your skepticism is obviously skewed in the direction of "look away, nothing wrong here", and I find that entirely unacceptable. I said before that we as a society have a moral obligation to protect the weakest among us, and a "look away, nothing wrong here" attitude is antithetical to that.

I'd say doing what the original article did and "correcting" the statements of a woman who watched the person she thought of and referred to as her son die is disrespectful.

I know that you envision everyone who doesn't accept your speculation as gospel as being part of a sort of transphobic blur but that's a different guy. I never said this was a revenge thing I actually immediately called the person who said that on making shit up. My opinion is and has always been that the evidence provided in this thread does not support the assertion that Transgender people are murdered at a rate higher than the norm.

You can spin it however you want, assuming the existence of problems in the total absence of evidence is bad policy. Show me there's a problem and I'll address it until then nobody is entitled to blind faith.

[Atreidun Universe]

You can't just call mentally handicapped people satan and shoot them it's rude.

[Alvecia]

You can't just call mentally handicapped people satan and shoot them it's rude.

http://www.apa.org/topics/lgbt/transgender.aspx

[Zottistan]

Because it was a hate crime, and it points to a much greater issue within society that is not limited to this one individual, but effects 1% of the population, their friends, their family, their lovers, and their coworkers, and which points to the vast degree of disproportionate discrimination, violence, and (physical, verbal, and sexual) harassment, as well as rampant abuse, and inabaility to access medically necessary treatment, which transgender people face in their lives. To name but a few examples of the variables involved.

That, in short, is one of the reasons. Its not just about the individual murder, but also about the problem that society has. The rhetoric of violence, and at times calls for extermination, towards transgender people (religious or not), and Christian religious bigotry used as justification for the perpetuation of violence and murder, as well as other previously mentioned variables and more, of LGBT+ people.

Hate crime is often just a meaningless buzzword used to stir up media attention. Beyond the testimony of the mother (which is just heresay) is there any proof that's why she died? Let me know if they find some solid evidence.

Eyewitness testimony is considered pretty solid evidence by the vast majority of legal systems.

[Camicon]

Rae'lynn Thomas was a woman, she made that pretty damned clear when she transitioned. Using male pronouns to refer to her is incredibly disrespectful. That her mother used male pronouns to refer to her daughter is entirely irrelevant, because she doesn't get to decide anything about who her daughter was.

And your skepticism is not skewed in the direction of assuming nothing, because repeatedly stating your belief that Rae'lynn Thomas was killed because of some convoluted revenge scheme that her murderer was using to hurt her mother, and that the transgender community is not being victimized at higher rates than the rest of the country, is most certainly not an assumption of nothing. If you were truly assuming nothing then you would have no opinion either way, on either matter.

No, your skepticism is obviously skewed in the direction of "look away, nothing wrong here", and I find that entirely unacceptable. I said before that we as a society have a moral obligation to protect the weakest among us, and a "look away, nothing wrong here" attitude is antithetical to that.

I'd say doing what the original article did and "correcting" the statements of a woman who watched the person she thought of and referred to as her son die is disrespectful.

I know that you envision everyone who doesn't accept your speculation as gospel as being part of a sort of transphobic blur but that's a different guy. I never said this was a revenge thing I actually immediately called the person who said that on making shit up. My opinion is and has always been that the evidence provided in this thread does not support the assertion that Transgender people are murdered at a rate higher than the norm.

You can spin it however you want, assuming the existence of problems in the total absence of evidence is bad policy. Show me there's a problem and I'll address it until then nobody is entitled to blind faith.

Having her daughter murdered does not mean the mother gets to decide what pronouns Rae'lynn Thomas would have preferred. She already made it quite clear in life which pronouns she preferred.

You are correct, my apologies, in that you did not say Rae'lynn Thomas was killed because of some sort of revenge plot. No, you just argued that is was a run-of-the-mill-murder, and nonsensically suggested that it being a run-of-the-mill means it isn't a hate crime. Because the reason you flatly deny that this was a hate crime matters just oh so much.

And for the umpteenth time I am not asking for your blind faith. You can be skeptical while still helping vulnerable communities. You can be skeptical while still seriously considering the things that they tell us. You obviously don't want to do this, and are hiding behind your "I'm just being skeptical" excuse like it somehow absolves you of your inaction.

[Des-Bal]

Having her daughter murdered does not mean the mother gets to decide what pronouns Rae'lynn Thomas would have preferred. She already made it quite clear in life which pronouns she preferred.

You are correct, my apologies, in that you did not say Rae'lynn Thomas was killed because of some sort of revenge plot. No, you just argued that is was a run-of-the-mill-murder, and nonsensically suggested that it being a run-of-the-mill means it isn't a hate crime. Because the reason you flatly deny that this was a hate crime matters just oh so much.

And for the umpteenth time I am not asking for your blind faith. You can be skeptical while still helping vulnerable communities. You can be skeptical while still seriously considering the things that they tell us. You obviously don't want to do this, and are hiding behind your "I'm just being skeptical" excuse like it somehow absolves you of your inaction.

And the woman who raised, accepted, and supported him is mourning him a son but I'm more for respecting the bereaved than playing the pronoun game so you do you, I'ma do me.

Argued the evidence did not support the assumption that this was a hate crime and that is a simple fucking fact.


You absolutely fucking are. I've made it clear that I'm behind everything except assuming the existence of problems whose existence is nothing more than an assumption with absolutely no evidence to support it. Community support? Great thing. Get better data? Great thing. Let's assume there's a transgender murder plague for no reason? No, that's fucking stupid. I don't need to be absolved of shit, I'm sitting on an extra computer right now that I'm going to turn into something cool and ultimately useless, I personally know people who could have their lives changed by this machine- I'm doing it anyway. I do what I can and what I please and I feel no worse for this exceedingly small segment of the population than I do for any other and protestations that they are weak and helpless and oh so wretched does not grant them or anyone speaking on their behalf a license to spin bullshit.

[Farnhamia]

Source

[. . .] making it nearly 20 in 2016 alone. Anyone who says transpeople just want attention, don't need equality, can wait, or that identity politics is the greatest evil ever . . .

Thoughts NSG?

20 20 20 20 20 20

Then I'll be the first to say that; trans folk just want attention (if their political about it), don't need equality (as they already have it), can indeed wait, and that identity politics is indeed the greatest evil ever as it's child abuse (when encouraged among children).

Bigoted people will always exist, attempting to use these few individual actions to imply some sort of systematic oppression is only as ignorant.

*** Warned for smiley spam. ***

One, maybe two ... but nine? No.

[The Greater Fire Nation]

So you're just as bad as someone who kills people because they are mildly anti-LGBT. Makes sense.

Saying they are "mildly" anti-LGBT doesn't excuse the position.

It does not need excusing. I am not anti-LGBT by any means, but are we seriously trying to back up the statement that those who personally do not approve of LGBT should be treated the same as mass murderers here?

[Central European Commonwealth]

Saying they are "mildly" anti-LGBT doesn't excuse the position.

It does not need excusing. I am not anti-LGBT by any means, but are we seriously trying to back up the statement that those who personally do not approve of LGBT should be treated the same as mass murderers here?

If you personally do not approve of LGBT - don't get involved in anything even mildly LGBT. It's that simple.

Anything else is impeding on the freedoms and rights of others, and basically, plain old bigotry. Using your imaginary friend to justify your own bigotry doesn't make you less of a bigot. And maybe worse of a person, as for example the KKK would not try to wrap their bigotry in a false message of "love", they're just bigots. Whereas many so-called "religious people" who are against the LGBT community will wish to limit this groups' civil liberties, and allow them to be discriminated against, all in the name of what they call "love".

And at the extreme end of (religious) bigotry, there is mass murder and genocide. I would not want to be in Raqqa right now, but Kampala isn't much better. And the latter is paid for by American fundamentalist pentecostals. So yeah, I don't see anything wrong with treating people who do not approve of equal rights for LGBT-individuals the same as those who are willing to use violence for their cause, for the simple fact that one leads to another.

[United Marxist Nations]

It does not need excusing. I am not anti-LGBT by any means, but are we seriously trying to back up the statement that those who personally do not approve of LGBT should be treated the same as mass murderers here?

If you personally do not approve of LGBT - don't get involved in anything even mildly LGBT. It's that simple.

Anything else is impeding on the freedoms and rights of others, and basically, plain old bigotry. Using your imaginary friend to justify your own bigotry doesn't make you less of a bigot. And maybe worse of a person, as for example the KKK would not try to wrap their bigotry in a false message of "love", they're just bigots. Whereas many so-called "religious people" who are against the LGBT community will wish to limit this groups' civil liberties, and allow them to be discriminated against, all in the name of what they call "love".

And at the extreme end of (religious) bigotry, there is mass murder and genocide. I would not want to be in Raqqa right now, but Kampala isn't much better. And the latter is paid for by American fundamentalist pentecostals. So yeah, I don't see anything wrong with treating people who do not approve of equal rights for LGBT-individuals the same as those who are willing to use violence for their cause, for the simple fact that one leads to another.

I can't say I agree that sex is a freedom or right. I would say it is solely a marital duty.

We can never reach anything other than an impasse, because we fundamentally disagree on what sex is. That's not bigotry, that's just holding a different worldview.