I wasn’t, but neither were the prosecuters. I’m just some dude offering commentary, while the prosecuters want “hate crime” charges, even though they werent at the actual event.
I thank you for your direct question.
No, I do not believe they would have killed a female that they had sex with, even if she had stuffed her bra or lied about her age. They killed Aroujo because he was a man who had fooled them into having sex with them, not simply because he was homosexual.
No problem Airman. Most people have no idea how to handle the situation.
From perhaps the least controversial source on the internet, the Merriam-Webster dictionary, you get the following definition for gender:
“the behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits typically associated with one sex”
Granted, merriam-webster cross-lists the defintion of “gender” with the definition of “sex”, which is a word more heavily linked to someone’s genetics.
I have an interesting quote for those interested in learning more about this aspect of sexuality.
Whilte gender usually follows physical sex, sex is by no means an absolute determinant.
More can be read at www.gender.org
Anytime four guys gang up on one guy/girl, beat and kick them, hit them in the head with a can of soup, with a frying pan and then with a shovel, tie them up, beat them some more and then wrap a rope around their neck–basically torture them, of all things it could be called, this murder was definitely a hate crime.
I have been racking my brain, trying to figure out what the OP means when he says that Araujo “fooled men into having sex with him”. In my many years I have had sex many times with many women, and I have always “felt my way around”, so to say, 'cause I want to make sure we have parts that fit. If they got fooled it was because of their own stupidity, and now they are going to pay for being stupid.
AD: So, as a matter of terminology, despite what their anatomy is, the gender is purely independent? If I wanted to call myself a girl I could?
If you genuinely identify yourself as female—and AFAIK transgendered females, as I said, automatically and naturally think of themselves as women, just as I do—then yes. Individual gender identification is a psychological thing. It usually matches up with bio-sex, but sometimes it doesn’t. IMHO, it is not fair to require people to pass some kind of “equipment test” before we accept their statement about what gender they identify as. I would no more refuse to call a man a man just because he didn’t have a penis than I’d refuse to call a man a man just because his penis happened to be very small.
I apologize to the thread. For some reason my post was submitted while I was working on it. I’ll play closer attention to what my fingers are doing on the keyboard 
I guess I’m sort of old fashioned, then. I believe that if a person is born with a penis, they are male. If they are born with a vagina, they are female. A small minority are born with both, they are called hermaphrodites.
Do you have evidence to the otherwise? A simple DNA test will show whether a person is male or female, regardless of their sexual orientation.
Gender and sex are two different things-- and neither of them has anything to do with orientation.
[quote}this murder was definitely a hate crime.[/quote]
Why?
Once again, I go back to my original post. If you pick up a chick in a bar and you go outside so she can give you a BJ, and then you discover that she is in fact a he, and then you go and knock him upside the head, are you guilty of a “hate crime”?
Except that oral sex isn’t sex. Or does that depend on what the meaning of "is’ is? 
Yes.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Hermann Cheruscan *
**
Pretty much, yep, that’s it. Are you done playing now?
HC: *I guess I’m sort of old fashioned, then. I believe that if a person is born with a penis, they are male. If they are born with a vagina, they are female. A small minority are born with both, they are called hermaphrodites. *
That is indeed the way biological sex is determined. But gender identification and biological sex, as I said, are nowadays not considered to be the same thing.
If you want to go on thinking that they are, hey, it’s a free country and you can think what you want. I’m just explaining to you why many people would be confused or even offended by your referring to a bio-male heterosexual woman as “he” or as a “male homosexual”.
(Instead of chastising you for your beliefs about gender identity, I’m going to chastise you for your choice of thread title. It’s customary to try to put in the title some clue to the OP content, and this has gotta be one of the most uninformative thread titles I’ve ever seen.)
Aw shucks, Diogenes said it first, and with better coding skills.
And by the way, gentlemen, I know most of you already understand this, but just as an explicit reassurance: if you are attracted to a woman and have some form of sex with her, and find out at some point that she was concealing the fact that she is bio-male, that does not make you in any way homosexual.
You have not been contaminated by some type of mystic “homosexual cooties” which can only be wiped out with the blood of the person who deceived you. You are still an undisputed heterosexual male and bio-female women will still want you. Okay?
I understand there are medications for that sort of thing! :eek:
Oh, yeah, “homosexual cooties” = BAND NAME! 
Again, thank you for your honest and direct attitude.
First, I would like to clarify something. I have read the original article, and nowhere can I find any reference to the men and victim engaging in any sexual activity. Because of the probability that the men would have discovered the girl’s male genitals soon after sexual contact initiated, I believe it is unlikely that much sexual contact took place, if any at all. It is more likely that the girl simply admitted she had a penis to these men, so they would not be surprised when she took her underwear off.
This being said, let me address the points you brought up in your previous post. You admitted that these men would likely not have beaten up a genetic female who stuffed her bra. You are adamant that this situation is different because she wasn’t simply a girl with small breasts, but she was a girl with a penis. I agree with you, that the penis is the main difference between my hypothetical situation and the murder that actually occurred. That being said, since the presence of a penis on a genetic male is what “set off” these men, AND the presence of a penis on a genetic male is part of what makes a person transgendered, AND hate crime laws protect one against violence which is a result of a persons sexual identity (presumably), then it logically follows that this incident was a hate crime. If you are not following this logic, please point out exactly where you think I went wrong :).
Your question about the DNA test demonstrates that you are still confused about the difference between gender and sex. You are right, a DNA test will confirm a persons genetic sex. Specifically, the presence of a Y chromosome means a person is a genetic male. However, the persons gender - by definition - is a result of social constructs and pyschology. This is a fact, but disagreement may still arise because of confusion over the terminology.
Furthermore, there are many genetic disorders which demonstrate that even the genetic/biological distinction of man versus woman is insufficient.
Most genetic/biological females have two X chromosomes, while most genetic/biological males have an X chromosome and a Y chromosome. However, a significant portion of children are born with different combinations of chromosomes. Some have only one X. Others have XXY. This later group suffers from Klinefelter Syndrome. One symptom of this disorder is incomplete masculinization.
These cases are perfect examples of why a person’s genetic or biological sex should not and can not determine their gender identity: simply, there are many instances where a person is no clear cut sex!
Hermann, please visit www.gender.org and have a read. You may find that you have much to learn on this topic. Please don’t take that as an insult. Most people are undereducated when it comes to the topic of sexuality.
Great post Kimstu! I spent so long composing my post (see page 2) that I didn’t notice someone else had made most of the same points… and more eloquently I might add!
I don’t know if I already said this in the pegging thread, but it’s worth saying again:
part of my work involves the testosterone receptor. There is a genetic syndrome in which the testosterone receptor is mutated in such a way that it no longer responds to testosterone. People who are genetically male who have this syndrome appear to be female, externally. (The only real exception is that they have neither pubic nor underarm hair.) Internally, however, they have no uterus or fallopian tubes, because the hormone which prevents them from forming is different from testosterone, and their bodies can still respond to it.
So, are such people male or female? If such a person presented herself to you as female, but the genetic test came back and she turned out to be XY, would it be a “hate crime” to get three of your friends to torture her to death?