Good times turn bad

[Helen_Highwater]

I don't want to get into a dispute here but "Hate crimes" in my opinion, is a valid expression. Yes dead is dead, but being dead just because of the way you are, and in our case CD/TV/TG is as deplorable as killing someone for the colour of their skin. When you read so many of the threads on this site it is so apparent that being CD isnt' a simple life style choice, a fashion statement. It goes far far deeper than that.
Labeling something as a Hate Crime focuses the law enforcers to recognize that, if dressed you or I are stopped while driving in our cars, or walking down the street, or being in a restaurant, we're not doing something that is inherently wrong. We have the same protection as any body else and that they, the law enforcers, have a DUTY to recognize that fact and to offer the same protection to us as to any other citizen.
Attacking someone just because of the skin they're in is something that should have passed it's "Sell by date". Society has moved thankfully, on, albeit as yet not far enough. I am what I am. I don't want to live in fear for being the person that I am. Unfortunately there are still too many morons out there; but that is not a reason to let the bast**ds win! All I need now is the courage of my convictions to get out there enfem (and backed by the full support of the law!).

[docrobbysherry]

Don't assume that just because you do, everyone does! Lol

I stand corrected! Thank u Karren! I should never say "never"! Or, "everyone"!

So, EVERYONE except Karren and a FEW other unnamed folks have inappropriate thots! (Is that BETTER!?)

[girlygirly]

Nobody attacks you because they like you.

They will, but you have to pay extra for that.

I have to agree about hate crimes. I wouldn't like it if someone received less time after beating me to a pulp, simply because I'm a heterosexual white male.

[Persephone]

Attacking someone just because of the skin they're in is something that should have passed it's "Sell by date".

So let's see if I understand . . . Attacking someone because of their skin color or their gender identity is definitely wrong, but singling them out and keeping them socially distinct and different so that you can offer them unique and special "protection" is O.K.? Both are forms of discrimination.

Once upon a time I was instrumental in the hiring of a young woman for a rather good job in our department. One day she came to me and said, "I have to ask you a question that I need you to answer honestly because otherwise it will bother me for the rest of my life. Was I hired because I was the best qualified applicant for the job? Or was I hired because I was a woman?"

I told her the truth, that she was hired because she was the best applicant.

"Preference," be it in hiring, or in special treatment under the law ("hate crime"), or in being singled out for a beating is just plain wrong.

Hugs,
Persephone.

[Chickhe]

Hate crime is not not just a crime against the victim, it is a whole minority group that is the target. The hate laws apply even if there is no assult... too bad your state is behind in the times.

I had a taste of being sought after the last party I went to ...still makes be shiver a bit. It was nothing bad, but the guy was a bit off... and he seemed smitten...my wife still teases me. Sure is a taste of what women have to deal with... there were a couple other instances when we were in the radar... can't say I've had any bad situations though...just no experience, so that makes me nervous. I'm always on gaurd, but in a way after having gone out a few times, my trust in people has gone up...almost always have a positive experience.

[IwishIwasTracy]

So if I kill you because it is some random act I should get a lighter sentence because I killed you because of who you are? Think about it from this prospective.

Court room one: A mother is sitting through a trial for the person that murdered her son. He is convicted and given 50 years to life.
Court room two: A mother is sitting through a trial for the person that murdered her gay son. He is convicted and give life without parole.

In which case was justice done? Why is the victim in court room one deserving of less justice than in court room two? I say in both cases life without parole. The reason for the killing doesn't matter what does matter is that the killing was done and the sentences should match. Hate crimes are liberals way of making themselves feel good about themselves. Think about the victims.

I am sure someone will think I am some dumb conservative that just doesn't understand because Rush Limbaugh has dulled my brain. Nothing could be farther from the truth. I value each persons life and refuse to accept that one is more precious than another's base on some made up social category.

Alright, off the soapbox.

Tracy

[DanaR]

If you watch women, usually you don't see them walking around at night by themselves. If you do, there is probably a group of them. So if you are out by yourself, walking around, you'll be attracting attention.

Let fear be you guide.

[ReineD]

First of all I had a scary encounter with a man that got me thinking about how vulnerable we CD/TG girls are.

...

Feedback???

As a GG, I don't place myself in situations where I chance to have a nasty encounter with a man. I foresee potentially dangerous situations and I make sure I'm protected. Last summer I left an establishment later than planned, which meant that I had to get to my car at a latish hour, in a parking lot that was dark and isolated. This is a college town and there were tons of college kids around on the main street. I approached 3 guys (I'm old enough to be their mom ), explained my situation, and asked if they wouldn't mind walking me to my car. They understood and they were happy to do it.

This might not be a tactic that you can use, but you could park your car in visible places and you could stay away from bars or parts of town that you don't feel safe in, especially when you're dressed and you might attract violent homophobic reactions.

And now my question about something I've never understood. I know that you open yourself up to being beaten up for who you are by some homophobes, and I understand your fears about this. But, if you weren't dressed and you ran into an unsavory character you felt intended you harm, would you feel as scared? By this I mean, if you feel you can protect yourself in guy mode, how does this change when you're dressed, unless of course they outnumber you?

[vivianann]

I'm with Linda and Vickie. From my perspective "hate crime" is just a way for government and "LGBT political activists" to use and manipulate people.


I so agree


If "hate crime" was really about who you "are," then why would it have selective definitions? Why could lesbians and gays, but not the transgendered be "covered" by hate crime legislation one week and then transgendered would suddenly be "covered" when the legislation is modified the following week?

Tell me, if such laws exist to especially protect people who are victimized because of who they "are," then how come such laws do not apply to all women? After all, women are far more often the victims of rape, beatings, kidnappings, being held in basements and repeatedly raped, etc. Far, far more often than "members of the LGBT community," yet they aren't covered by "hate crime" legislation?



Doesn't that seem stangely selective and at odds with the basic premise of "hate crime"?

Persephone.

They will, but you have to pay extra for that.

I have to agree about hate crimes. I wouldn't like it if someone received less time after beating me to a pulp, simply because I'm a heterosexual white male.

Me neither

?

So let's see if I understand . . . Attacking someone because of their skin color or their gender identity is definitely wrong, but singling them out and keeping them socially distinct and different so that you can offer them unique and special "protection" is O.K.? Both are forms of discrimination.

That is so true, I have always believed special protections for certain groups is discrimination for those who not a part of the special groups.


Once upon a time I was instrumental in the hiring of a young woman for a rather good job in our department. One day she came to me and said, "I have to ask you a question that I need you to answer honestly because otherwise it will bother me for the rest of my life. Was I hired because I was the best qualified applicant for the job? Or was I hired because I was a woman?"

I told her the truth, that she was hired because she was the best applicant.

"Preference," be it in hiring, or in special treatment under the law ("hate crime"), or in being singled out for a beating is just plain wrong.

Hugs,

I believe it is wrong and very unfair too.


Persephone.

So if I kill you because it is some random act I should get a lighter sentence because I killed you because of who you are? Think about it from this prospective.

Court room one: A mother is sitting through a trial for the person that murdered her son. He is convicted and given 50 years to life.
Court room two: A mother is sitting through a trial for the person that murdered her gay son. He is convicted and give life without parole.

In which case was justice done? Why is the victim in court room one deserving of less justice than in court room two? I say in both cases life without parole. The reason for the killing doesn't matter what does matter is that the killing was done and the sentences should match. Hate crimes are liberals way of making themselves feel good about themselves. Think about the victims.

I am sure someone will think I am some dumb conservative that just doesn't understand because Rush Limbaugh has dulled my brain. Nothing could be farther from the truth. I value each persons life and refuse to accept that one is more precious than another's base on some made up social category.

I love your analogy you made comparing the the crimes and victims in court 1 and court 2. You said best, because when peaple are murdered it should not matter who the might be, justice is supposed to be blind, and as far as I am concerned if a person commits murder, and it can be proved that they committed the crime in a court of law (especially with dna evidence) they should get the death penalty. Because when you kill someone it is because you hate, no matter why.
Alright, off the soapbox.

Tracy

As a GG, I don't place myself in situations where I chance to have a nasty encounter with a man. I foresee potentially dangerous situations and I make sure I'm protected. Last summer I left an establishment later than planned, which meant that I had to get to my car at a latish hour, in a parking lot that was dark and isolated. This is a college town and there were tons of college kids around on the main street. I approached 3 guys (I'm old enough to be their mom ), explained my situation, and asked if they wouldn't mind walking me to my car. They understood and they were happy to do it.

This might not be a tactic that you can use, but you could park your car in visible places and you could stay away from bars or parts of town that you don't feel safe in, especially when you're dressed and you might attract violent homophobic reactions.

I agree with Reine. 100% we need to be aware of our surroundings, and avoid dangerous places.


And now my question about something I've never understood. I know that you open yourself up to being beaten up for who you are by some homophobes, and I understand your fears about this. But, if you weren't dressed and you ran into an unsavory character you felt intended you harm, would you feel as scared? By this I mean, if you feel you can protect yourself in guy mode, how does this change when you're dressed, unless of course they outnumber you?

I never understand this way of thinking either. When I am dressed enfemme and out in public I am not scared at all, because I know how to protect myself, just because I am wearing a dress, it does not make me weaker, or unable to fight back. I was in a fight last summer when I was attacked by a man taller than I am, I was dressed enfemme that night when this altercation happened, the man who attacked me ended up in the hospital with a severe cuncussion, and smashed nuts. And this fight was caught on security video, he was charged with assault and battery, and his girlfriend was charged with assault when she tried to tear my dress off of my body at a dance club. I dont need any special laws to protect me, all I need is my legs and fists to protect me.

[Marie-Elise]

So let's see if I understand . . . Attacking someone because of their skin color or their gender identity is definitely wrong, but singling them out and keeping them socially distinct and different so that you can offer them unique and special "protection" is O.K.? Both are forms of discrimination.

I guess the fact is that they are socially distinct, and not by their own choosing but by the dominant society's choosing. I mean, blacks didn't ask to be enslaved, shipped halfway around the world and then sold like cattle. Even the Constitution had a 3/5s amendment, determining that a black man is 3/5s of a man for population purposes in defining the number of representatives a state was entitled to. Then, after emancipation, there was willful discrimination, Jim Crow, separate but equal...I could go on.

Then they got "special discrimination" (lynching, etc.) so, yes, special protection is probably reasonable. I mean, an organization (KKK) was created to persecute them. Neo-Nazi groups continue the tradition against Jews and other non-white races today so, yes, I think special protection might be reasonable against their persecutors.

[linda allen]

.............., "hate" crimes are so ugly because the victim is usually innocent of any act that brought retaliation. .

In most cases, the victim is "innocent". You're walking down the street and someone pulls a gun and robs you. Or beats you so they can take your money. You're driving in your car and stopped at a stoplight and someone jumps in your car and pushes you out and steals the car. There are very few incidents where the victim asked to be the victim or even did something to deserve to be the victim of a crime.

[Marie-Elise]

So if I kill you because it is some random act I should get a lighter sentence because I killed you because of who you are? Think about it from this prospective.

Court room one: A mother is sitting through a trial for the person that murdered her son. He is convicted and given 50 years to life.
Court room two: A mother is sitting through a trial for the person that murdered her gay son. He is convicted and give life without parole.

In which case was justice done? Why is the victim in court room one deserving of less justice than in court room two? I say in both cases life without parole. The reason for the killing doesn't matter what does matter is that the killing was done and the sentences should match. Hate crimes are liberals way of making themselves feel good about themselves. Think about the victims.

I am sure someone will think I am some dumb conservative that just doesn't understand because Rush Limbaugh has dulled my brain. Nothing could be farther from the truth. I value each persons life and refuse to accept that one is more precious than another's base on some made up social category.

Alright, off the soapbox.

Tracy

Ummm...hate crimes do not carry different or more heavy penalties than other crimes. A murder is prosecuted as a murder. The hate crime designation is for statistical purposes and used to measure the trends of the nation.

[linda allen]

Does anyone think "Hate Crime" laws do anything to stop this sort of crime? Can you picture a bunch of guys standing on the corner half drunk watching a gay man walk by and one says "let's go jump that (insert slang word for gay man)." and another says "No, we better not, that would qualify as a hate crime." ?

Hate crime laws allow the government to seek stiffer penalties in some cases, but that doesn't stop the crimes from happening in the first place. At best, it puts the offender out of society for a longer time.

Hate crime laws may do more to cause resentment of the protected group because of the impression that some people are considered more equal than others.

[linda allen]

I guess the fact is that they are socially distinct, and not by their own choosing but by the dominant society's choosing. I mean, blacks didn't ask to be enslaved, shipped halfway around the world and then sold like cattle. Even the Constitution had a 3/5s amendment, determining that a black man is 3/5s of a man for population purposes in defining the number of representatives a state was entitled to. Then, after emancipation, there was willful discrimination, Jim Crow, separate but equal...I could go on.

Then they got "special discrimination" (lynching, etc.) so, yes, special protection is probably reasonable. I mean, an organization (KKK) was created to persecute them. Neo-Nazi groups continue the tradition against Jews and other non-white races today so, yes, I think special protection might be reasonable against their persecutors.

But, hate crime laws do not provide "special protection". They only provide special prosecution and punishment for the offenders.

[Marie-Elise]

But, hate crime laws do not provide "special protection". They only provide special prosecution and punishment for the offenders.

It seems you would only worry about that if you were, or planned on being, such an offender. Otherwise, it doesn't affect you, does it?

[Leslie Langford]

...And now my question about something I've never understood. I know that you open yourself up to being beaten up for who you are by some homophobes, and I understand your fears about this. But, if you weren't dressed and you ran into an unsavory character you felt intended you harm, would you feel as scared? By this I mean, if you feel you can protect yourself in guy mode, how does this change when you're dressed, unless of course they outnumber you?

I think I addressed that last point in my above post, Reine - at least from my own perspective.

I don't quite know why - it's just a feeling of vulnerability that comes over me when out en femme in certain potential "at risk" situations. It probably comes down to the fact that as males, we're usually pretty "invisible" when out in public and not used to being checked out (unless, of course, your name happens to be Johnny Depp, Steven Tyler, George Clooney, Brad Pitt, Colin Farrell, or the like - LOL!). However, when I'm out en femme, I'm keenly aware of the fact that someone might be looking me over whether they realize that I am a crossdresser or not, and it's simply the female image that I am presenting which triggers the typical male response to such sexual visual clues.

As a heterosexual genetic male, I fully realize how that side of my brain functions when stimulated by a pleasing visual image under similar circumstances - call it "inside information", if you will , so perhaps that just heightens my awareness of how exposed I might be to an unwanted advance when in female mode.

[Alice Torn]

Leslie, Good post. Yes, it is like being a deer, in the area of many hunters! You feel like a whole different being! It makes us feel extremely vulnerable at times, almost like wearing a target, or sign, that says "notice me."

[vivianann]

Ummm...hate crimes do not carry different or more heavy penalties than other crimes. A murder is prosecuted as a murder. The hate crime designation is for statistical purposes and used to measure the trends of the nation. .

You need to check your facts, hate crime laws do carry stiffer penalties.
Just because it is the law, it does not stop a criminal from commiting the offense.

[Marie-Elise]

You need to check your facts, hate crime laws do carry stiffer penalties.
Just because it is the law, it does not stop a criminal from commiting the offense.

My mistake. Yes, they do carry stiffer penalties.

But, again, if you have no intention of committing a hate crime, why does it matter to you? Help me understand.

[GBJoker]

linda allen: Agreed, 100%.

moondog: And of course, the famous story of the robbers trying to use guns to rob a Toy-For-Tots box that had three Marines there. The robbers slipped on the ice and broke their noses, shoulders, arms, fingers, ribs, and suffered concussions. Pretty slick ice, if you ask me.

dawn cd: Should there be hate crime laws for a man killing his ex-wife, or vice versa, then? They are violent against their victims because of what they are. What about nerds/bullies? See Dateline NBC for the former, Columbine and VT for latter.

Meg East: I disagree. I have noticed little phobias from "bullies" other than standard dying type stuff.

docrobbysherry: 5000 years and counting.

kimdl93: I have always said what I thought. Just to put a... Smile on their faces.

[donnalee]

All violent crime is hate crime. I have been harrassed and jeered at because i was white. Hate knows no colors or gender. Malicious crime is malicsious crime. I agree, that any attractive gg or cd, will get lots of unwanted attention.

The simple truth is that a$$holes come in all colors, creeds, nationalities and sexes. Just because someone falls into one of those descriptions does not justify carte blanche because of it.

They will, but you have to pay extra for that.

I have to agree about hate crimes. I wouldn't like it if someone received less time after beating me to a pulp, simply because I'm a heterosexual white male.

Nobody makes you the target of a criminal act because they like you (what you describe is more in the nature of a business transaction). They do it because they perceive you as being weak and unable to fight back effectively. Luckily, sometimes they are wrong.

So let's see if I understand . . . Attacking someone because of their skin color or their gender identity is definitely wrong, but singling them out and keeping them socially distinct and different so that you can offer them unique and special "protection" is O.K.? Both are forms of discrimination.

Once upon a time I was instrumental in the hiring of a young woman for a rather good job in our department. One day she came to me and said, "I have to ask you a question that I need you to answer honestly because otherwise it will bother me for the rest of my life. Was I hired because I was the best qualified applicant for the job? Or was I hired because I was a woman?"

I told her the truth, that she was hired because she was the best applicant.

"Preference," be it in hiring, or in special treatment under the law ("hate crime"), or in being singled out for a beating is just plain wrong.

Hugs,
Persephone.

Agree.

[Persephone]

But, really, as a member of a minority group (LGBT), I'm surprised you would identify as conservative.

Precisely because I am a thinking individual able to understand the issues.

Persephone.

[ReineD]

Folks, I've had to delete three strongish political posts, and edited three or four others. This isn't about political parties. Please keep government involvement vs. non-involvement, liberal vs. conservative out of this thread and limit the discussion to the OP or hate crimes.

If members can't keep politics out of it to the point where it gets into a political debate (right wing vs. left wing), I will need to close this thread.

[Helen_Highwater]

There has recently been a high profile case in the UK of 2 men convicted of the killing of a young black man, the attack taking place some years ago but finally being brought before the courts, and, successfully prosecuted. This young man was attached because of the colour of his skin, because the perpetrators HATED him for that very fact.
I whole heartily agree that the punishment the perpetrators received should reflect the outcome and not carry a special "tariff". However in some cases there are mitigating circumstances, something which the law has always recognized, the difference between pre-meditated murder and manslaughter.

I understand the argument about positive discrimination leading to individuals asking if "Did I get the job because I'm worthy or because of my gender or sexual orientation" Can I suggest that that is a world apart from having a society where wife beating was acceptable and now one which gives women specific legal protection from domestic abuse. Positive discrimination is not the same as reinforcing in law that certain attitudes are wrong.

It is sometimes necessary to force change in society; you WILL wear a seat belt or a crash helmet, in order to bring about a change for the better. We here in this forum I would suggest have a natural tendency towards the libertarian, something that often opposes draconian legislation. However it is necessary to sometimes forcefully demonstrate that previously socially acceptable attitudes are no longer so and this is recognized by law

[DebbieL]

Folks, I've had to delete three strongish political posts, and edited three or four others. This isn't about political parties. Please keep government involvement vs. non-involvement, liberal vs. conservative out of this thread and limit the discussion to the OP or hate crimes.

Here in the United States, there are places, like Houston Texas, where gays and transgenders have been beaten to death and the perpetrators were charged with involuntary manslaughter, and given probation. On the other hand, when the victim fought back sufficiently to stop the attackers, they were charged with the maximum possible crime, and given the harshest possible sentence.

In my own case, my ex-wife had found someone, through her new husband's church, who would help her make sure that I never saw the kids again if I continued transition. She knew which social workers to talk to, and which judges to talk to, and could get the visitation rights issue in front of a judge who would be hostile to transgenders and friendly toward fundamentalist Christians. The city was Colorado Springs - headquarters for "Focus on the Family" - which in addition to being a source of programming for Christian radio stations, was also a forum for convicted Watergate conspirators Chuck Colson & G Gordon Liddy - who advocated anti-GLBT positions, including opposing the Mathew Sheppard act - which would have protected Gays and Transgenders.

Very hard to separate politics when there are those who openly advocate execution, beatings, and forced "conform to society's norms" - even if it means killing a few "deviants" to make an example. We often don't see the worst of the the vitriol in the news casts, but the United States is a very large country where attitudes range from very open in some cities like San Francisco and New York - to life-threatening in places like Houston, Mississippi, and Colorado Springs. Ironically, Colorado Springs is 75 miles from Denver, and they are two very different places. In Denver, there are clubs, support groups, and laws to protect the transgendered. In Colorado springs all the GLBT bars were shut down, and never allowed to re-open - even under new ownership.

But if I want to see my Daughter, or my grandchildren - I have to go to Colorado Springs.