Nobody changed anything. Your definition of “homosexual” (in reference to a person) was never correct. For the zillionth time, a person can be celibate, or even faithfully married and still be a homosexual. He’s defined by the orientation, not the acts. Transgendered people have always existed too, and have always been identified seperately than gays; it’s only new to you.
If a person who looked like and identified as a woman, but was physiologically male, was attracted to and had sex with other women, would you finally relent and refer the person as a transgendered “she”, or would you call him a heterosexual male?
There’s no objective way to determine emotions either, but would you argue a person if she told you she was angry?
And there are no “protected classes” of people in hate crime legislation (it’s nice how you people keep trying to slip things like that in). “Sexual orientation” is specifically protected, “homosexuals” are not.
And, since Araujo had the orientation and participated in the acts, s/he was homosexual.
I would call him “he” if he were physiologically male.
What would you call him? Is there a separate set of pronouns you use for every possible combination and permutation of gender, sex, and orientation? What about all those transgendered folks who are physiologically male, identify themselves as male, and want to have sex with women? What should you call them? How do you know that they don’t “feel” like people who should be called “she”?
Words have standard meanings. Don’t try to change the meanings and get huffy if people don’t understand you. Double especially don’t get huffy if people don’t figure out what you are at some pains to conceal - like Araujo.
No, it does not justify his/her murder.
If she were smiling when she said it, I might question her. If someone claims to be a woman, and is sporting testicles, I would question her as well. And if she told me that her gender identity was different, and that “angry” for her meant that she was feeling happy and relaxed, I would not immediately apologize for trying to impose outdated social and sexual mores on a highly advanced life form.
Neither would I beat her to death. I might snicker under my breath, and I would try to avoid her in future. If she was using deception to get her jollies, I would condemn her actions as immoral.
No, this does not justify his/her murder.
Above you claimed that the orientation determined who was and was not a homosexual. Now you say there is a difference.
That’s the trouble with acting like Humpty Dumpty in Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland.
Fine - unless you want to be understood, in which case you better make yourself a lot more clear.
How do they know that? How is it that a person can know with absolute and total certainty that it’s their body that is wrong if gender is nothing more than a socially defined construct of ‘typical behavior’?
I’m not trying to be inflammatory. I just don’t understand how that happens.
I’m also confused on why it is that if biological characteristics like vaginas and breasts aren’t relevant to gender, why is it that it’s so important to obtain those biological characteristics if one feels feminine.
I don’t understand how it works, to say that gender isn’t about the body, it’s a mental thing, yet also say that changing the body is so vastly important.
A website that quotes the DSM-IV on the subject of transgender (I’ve found a bunch of such while searching on “DSM-IV 'gender identity disorder”, which is the formal medical terminology for same, all using identical language):
I don’t believe that anyone has posted a link to the diagnostic criteria for transgenderism as of yet in this thread; if someone has and I missed it, I apologise for my redundancy.
That’s what Merel (I think it was) said upon discovering that someone he’d had sex with has a penis. Kind of an odd remark, imo. Sound’s more like a realization to me than a statement of fact. If read in context, one can almost hear the silent “Am I?” that could follow.
Perhaps this a tragedy born out of self-hatred and denial. That would explain a lot for me, because I just cannot get my mind around the extreme reactions of these men. They killed the only “evidence” of something within themselves they couldn’t face.
Read the accounts. Look at her pictures! She didn’t “trick” anyone. She gave them exactly what they wanted, and then others found out. They knew.
There’s a lot more to this story, isn’t there? We’ll see.
I imagine that if I were a person with male genitalia who identified as a woman I might want to have sex reassignment surgery just so I could live openly as a woman without worrying that some goons would attack me, rip off my clothes, and then beat me to death because I had a penis.
I don’t know if this is a factor in many people’s decisions to transition, but I think it would be a big reason for me if I were in that situation.
I guess that’s a joke. If they were male and identified as men, they wouldn’t be transgendered. Who they wanted to have sex with would be irrelevant.
What huffy? The only people who got huffy were the OP who was irritated that people ignored his denial of transgenderism and another poster who likened the use of sex pronouns opposite of the object’s identified gender to a slur. If you’re talking about our insistance that the victim was not a homosexual male, it’s because she’s just plain not. A male homosexual is a MAN who is attracted to other MEN. If a male identifies as a woman, he is not a MAN. I can’t even imagine why you would insist he is a “homosexual male”, I mean, what happens after surgery, she’s suddenly not gay anymore? If a female identified and presented herself as a man and was attracted to men would you describe her as a heterosexual woman?
…I think you missed the point (maybe I’m being wooshed and you did that on purpose). You said “homosexuals” were a protected class, which implied that they’re protected above heterosexuals, thus giving you open to call such protections “unfair”. I corrected you, saying that it’s “orientation” that’s protected, meaning either homosexual, heterosexual, or bisexual. I.E., if you were attacked because you were straight, hate crime laws would come into effect over that crime, just as it would for any homophobic attacks.
If you’re talking about the “deception” thing, not only does no one condone that, but there’s conflict over whether that even happened. It was never mentioned in the article the OP presented. Besides, the “shame on her/them” game ultimately goes back to the men. What were four grown men doing looking for teenage girls to have sex with?
And to me it sounds like the kind of ignorant statement that would be made by someone who was ignorant enough to think (like several posters here) that because one genetic male has sex with another genetic male then they’re both homosexuals.
If it were just self-hatred, that’d be one thing, but I think it’s more like this – “If Gwen is dead, no one can prove that I had sex with her, and it won’t matter and I won’t be a disgusting faggot like s/he was.”
Unfortunately, Lamia, many post-operative transsexuals, particularly post-op women, still face violent reactions from those who learn about their status. I’ve seen a disgusting number of stories of rapes or near rapes which have been committed with the comment “You wanted to be a woman so bad, this is what you deserve.”
Possessing body parts isn’t an arbiter of gender, but that doesn’t mean that they’re not a major part of gender. If I lived in a male body but knew that I was female, having a penis and scrotum would not only be a major barrier to others recognizing who I knew that I was, having to deal with them on a daily basis would, I’d think, become revolting. They would become the symbol of everything that I did not wish to be. To have those symbols replaced with the analogues for the gender I felt in my head and heart to be mine would be the natural desire.
“I can’t be gay.”
I think mangegeorge and probably a few others have hit on what to me makes this a hate crime. I don’t think the perpetrators would have reacted nearly as strongly if they’d been deceived by what they regarded as a woman into having some form of sex they saw as immoral. I get the impression that finding out Gwen was a genetic male threatened their images of themselves as good, normal, heterosexual males, and that’s what outraged them to the point where they planned and committed torture as well as murder.
Mothchunks, I meant to ask you this Sunday, but was otherwise occupied. You said you didn’t consider the scenario I layed out involving a married man and a woman analogous to this one. Why?
Here’s the test for me. If these men would have done the same things to a woman who deceived them into having immoral sex that they did to Gwen Araujo, then it’s not a hate crime. If they wouldn’t, it isn’t. From what I’ve read, I’d say this is one.
The commonly accepted definition of “man” = a person with XY chromosomes (and, usually, a penis). The commonly accepted definition of “heterosexual” is someone with XY chromosomes (and, usually, a penis) whose primary sexual orientation is towards those with XX chromosomes (and, usually, a vagina).
The transgenderist definition of “man” = a person with XY chromosomes and a penis who insists that everyone else pretend that he doesn’t. The transgenderist definition of “heterosexual” in this thread seems to be “a person who wants to have sex with people who would never have sex with him/her if they knew s/he was playing head games on them.”
You are perfectly free to pretend you are whatever you want. But if you sometimes use the term ‘woman’ to mean what everyone else means by ‘woman’, and sometimes to mean ‘whatever I am currently fantasizing about being’, there is going to be confusion - and, in this case at least, silly and misguided teenagers who take advantage of the confusion to have sex with people who clearly would not have consented to sex with him/her if s/he was up front about his/her gender identity issues.
Why is it so important that everybody else respect your feelings that you are really ‘a woman trapped in a man’s body’, but not important at all that Araujo disrespected the feelings of others that they did not care to have sex with anyone with a penis and XY chromosomes? Why don’t they get to determine that as part of their gender identity?
No, this does not justify his/her murder.
What gives you the right to decide what is relevant and what is not in deciding who is what? How is that different from someone using the word ‘he’ to refer to someone with XY chromosomes and a penis? Why are your definitions authoritative (although still subject to change without notice), and the definitions which can be objectively established a symptom of callous indifference to people’s feelings?
I think bo989’s comment
and
and Polycarp’s insistence that anyone who refuses to accept feelings about what you ‘really’ are over what can be objectively determined is showing “invincible ignorance” - these seem to be indications of a certain ‘huffiness’.
Actually, you said that orientation determined who was a homosexual. Then you said that orientation constituted a protected class. Orientation determines homosexuality, orientation is a protected class, therefore homosexuals are a protected class. QED.
You also seem to be arguing that all heterosexual rapes are, or should be, prosecuted as hate crimes. Indeed, by your logic, Araujo committed a hate crime when s/he had sex with his murderers. S/he presented as a woman, so that s/he could have sex with heterosexual men. In other words, s/he targetted heterosexual men. Hate crime? By your definitions, it would seem so.
No, this does not justify his/her murder.
What do you mean by MAN? What do you mean by MEN? What do you mean by ‘woman’, or ‘homosexual’, or ‘male’, or ‘heterosexual’, or ‘gay’? Why do you get to pick what these words mean, based on how you feel, and no one else gets to pick based on what they feel?
If Araujo gets to say, “I’m a woman, because that is how I feel”, and we all have to respect that, why don’t the rest of us get to say, “I don’t want to have sex with anyone who has XY chromosomes and/or a penis, because that is how I feel”?
I guess there aren’t many heterosexual women, then!
**
That seems more like your definition of a man – he’s a man because he’s XY and has a penis, no matter how he feels about it or how he wants to live his life.
You seem to have a hard time coming up with these definitions and keeping your meanings straight. Perhaps you aren’t cut out to be the grand high judge of everyone else’s sex and sexual orientation.
You do, and there’s no evidence that Ms. Araujo felt otherwise. There’s not even much evidence that she ever had sex with the defendants at all. And if she did, did she force those men to have sex with her? No, by their own account they were perfectly happy to do it. They wanted to have sex with her, so obviously they did want to have sex with someone who wasn’t a bio-female.
Well, perhaps their real sexual orientation was “I don’t want to have sex with anyone I know isn’t a bio-female”, although given the circumstances of the case even that seems unlikely to me. But if it was so, did they ever mention this fact to Araujo? Apparently not. Araujo was open about her personal identity, if perhaps not her physical state (again, even that is unclear from the available evidence), but if the defendants thought of themselves as people who would never under any circumstances have sex with a bio-male then they seem to have kept this pretty well to themselves. If they’d been honest with Araujo I doubt she’d have been willing to have sex with them; who wants to have sex with someone who’s going to want to murder you for it? So who was really being deceptive? Who was taking advantage of whom?
Oh yeah, right - it’s me who can’t be sure of who has what bits, what they think about them, and what a man is vs. what a woman is. Pot, kettle, etc. :rolleyes:
Now you are just making things up.
You meet someone in a bar. He/she is gorgeous, and wearing a T-shirt that reads, “HIV Negative, and Proud of It!” The two of you do the deed, and shortly after it is all over, you notice Kaposi’s lesions on his/her legs.
Would you say that since no force was involved, you “obviously did want to have sex with someone who was HIV+”?
Play out the same scenario in your head for someone who is not wearing a wedding ring but turns out to be married (as with cjhoworth’s experience), or who is wearing a dress and calling herself 'Gwen" but turns out to be possessed of a penis.
Do you really consider giving a false name and wearing woman’s clothing as being ‘open’ about one’s identity?
I suppose you would consider the person in the scenario I mentioned about as being "open’ about his/her HIV status. After all, you never asked whether s/he was borrowing the T-shirt from someone else, so you have only yourself to blame. Don’t you?
You have got to be kidding.
Don’t you think beating someone to death with a shovel is a pretty clear indication of the state of mind of the murderers? They thought that being tricked into having sex with Araujo was a Really Bad Idea. I cannot imagine any way in which they could have been more clear.
To pretend that the murderers were being deceptive because they believed that someone who presented as a biological woman was exactly what s/he claimed to be, is beyond ridiculous.
Charging him under hate crime statutes is not in the spirit of that law. If there was evidence that the guy had a history of hate crimes that’s one thing, otherwise, murder 2.
