Transgendered teen bound, strangled, beaten to death with shovel: Hate crime or not?

Great Debates
121

Probably because what you are stating is an opinion (one held by many people) but not a fact per se.

First let me say that I generally agree with you, that if this individual in question was living her life as a female, than considering her a “transgendered” female is more appropriate than labeling her a homosexual male.

However, I’m not sure that this individual was necessarily making the full adjustment to transgendered status. If the alleged story is correct and this individual is “tricking” men into having sex without informing them of her transgendered status, as a psychologist I would be concerned that she is not making an adequate adjustment to transgendered status. I believe that part of the process of transgender psychotherapy, is not only to live as the opposite sex entirely for some period (I think a year) but also either to refrain from romantic relationships until this “probationary” period is past, or at least to be direct and open with potential romantic partners about what is going on. Legitimate transgendered folks are usually very open when it is appropriate to be so (they don’t go around with T-shirts advertizing to everyone, naturally). There are other folks with a variety of gender dysmorphic disorders that may partially or fully act like the opposite sex without making appropriate psychological adjustment. In the case of this individual who (judging from the OP, which may not be accurate) seemed to enjoy tricking men into sex for thrills, I would be very concerned about the psychological status of this individual, and not quick to consider him “transgendered.”

also I want to point out that considering sex and gender to be fully seperated is not generally accepted in science. Our sense of “gender” is dictated to us through the brain. In the case of true transgendered people, their hypothalamus is similar in structure to the opposite sex, which probably explains their feeling like the opposite sex. But for the majority of people sex and gender are in synch, for the most part at least.

By the way, although the law varies, most state laws have difficulty figuring out what to do with transgendered folks. I work at a jail, at which a transgendered “male to female” was put in with the male inmates. What a mistake. :smack:

Lastly none of this is important in considering whether this was a hate crime. Frankly I would not necessarily consider this a “hate crime” in the legal sense, since these males did not set out specifically to kill random homosexuals or transgendered folks. On the other hand, it certainly wasn’t a “love” crime. Either way, these fellas deserve to be guests of the state for quite some time.

122

That’s cool, mhendo, but would you mind leaving your sig here?
:smiley:

123

mhendo, don’t worry about it if they don’t respond. Just think of your responses and cites as speaking over their shoulders to the rest of us and to all the lurkers out ther. You’ve done a good job. Anyone who reads this thread will not be able to draw a conclusion without knowing the facts. I thank you for the work you’ve done on this thread even if your adversaries won’t acknowledge you.

124

Sigh! Now i’m going to whine again.

Did you even bother to read my post citing the CA Penal Code, Section 422.75, on hate crimes?

Nowhere in that statute does it mention the need for “random” killing in order to qualify for a hate crime. I realize that the statute, like most legislation, is open to a certain amount of interpretation, but to make a statement that appears in no way to reflect the content of the statute suggests laziness or obtuseness.

To D.the C. - thanks. I don’t like to sound like a petulant child, and i don’t expect bouquets or medals for my contributions (i enjoy making them), but it’s nice if those who you are addressing at least acknowledge your existence, if only to dismiss you.

Here you go, mangeorge; plenty to go around:

God was my co-pilot, but we crashed in the Andes and i had to eat him.God was my co-pilot, but we crashed in the Andes and i had to eat him.God was my co-pilot, but we crashed in the Andes and i had to eat him.God was my co-pilot, but we crashed in the Andes and i had to eat him.God was my co-pilot, but we crashed in the Andes and i had to eat him.

125

I give up on this particular thread. I’m going to start another one, if it hasn’t happened already.

Let me clear some things up, so the PC Police can get back to hounding AirmanDoors and leave me alone.

The men that killed M. Araujo are scum, and IMHO deserve to die. It would appear from the evidence presented that they are guilty of a hate crime. Fine. Hate crime legislation is badly written, but whatever will get these pieces of human filth the most time in fine by me.

I was attempting to debate a possible second issue, and it got mixed with the first issue. My bad, as the kids say. I should have started another thread, which I will do now.

126

Lol…sorry, I forgot that after your postings, I am no longer allowed to give my opinion. :rolleyes:

I am sitting here, spending time, wondering exactly where the line is in the gray area between “hate crime” and “garden variety murder”…try to come to some sort of thoughtful conclusion, which I understand may, perhaps all other folks may not agree with, and here I get shot down simply because you’re afraid folks aren’t reading your post.

Good god man, can the rest of us Puuuleeeease put some of our thoughts into this. You don’t have to agree, but at least let us voice our opinions.

:mad:

Just cuz it’s in the CA Penal Code, doesn’t mean I (or the other 49 states) have to agree with it.

Now, can we shake hands, hug and agree to disagree? :slight_smile:

127

We don’t need to “agree to disagree” on the general problem of hate crimes, because i sense that we’re probably not far apart on the issue. You’re perfectly entitled to your opinion, and i’m perfectly happy to have people’s subjective positions become part of the debate. I never said anything to the contrary.

As you might have noticed, i don’t really agree with the implementation of hate crime statutes, and i think that in cases like this, charging people based simply on their actions should be enough. We are probably pretty close on that issue, in many ways.

Maybe i’m being too narrow here, but your post didn’t say “In my opinion, this shouldn’t qualify as a hate crime,” it said that you did not “necessarily consider this a ‘hate crime’ in the legal sense.” Well, in the legal sense of the state in which the crime was committed, it seems to fit perfectly within the hate crime statute.

The point i have been trying to make to others on this thread is that, whether they agree with the general issue of hate crimes or not, the DA in this case seems well within the appropriate legal boundaries in bringing a hate crimes charge.

And now we can hug and shake hands. :slight_smile:

128

Done. :wink:

129

mhendo, I truly appreciate your response. I’m sorry that I haven’t been able to check the boards in the last two hours. I just checked on this thread, and you have indeed cleared up any controversy I had. I can now conclude that he most likely is guilty of a hate crime. I find it rather unfortunate that you have to be so impatient, though.

m-w.com has one listing of “female” as:

One listing for “gender” is

Which shows that my definitions aren’t wrong. I understand how some could call him a female by one definition. I also understand that it isn’t incorrect to call this individual a male. It seems like some people don’t, though. I personally feel more comfortable calling him a male. I hope you respect this, as it is certainly not incorrect.

I think this discussion should be closed or pitted- or we could get on track, maybe?

130

I’m sorry Splanky, I can’t respect your behaviour since I find it offensive.

131

Are you referring to the distinction between gender and sex? If so, you are wrong. This distinction is fact.

132

I’ll admit that I can’t keep track of every post, but what exactly has Splanky done that is “offensive” per se? It seems that he doesn’t agree with you, but that hardly qualifies as “offensive”

Hold on a second here, cowboy. Just becaue you learned this in your sociology class doesn’t make it “fact”. It can be a useful distinction in many cases, but the distinction is largely a heuristic, as opposed to a distiction which exists in a strictly objective sense. Gender is dictated by the brain, not by the genitals, and thus in some cases can fail to be linked with “sex”, I’ll agree that far. But gender remains a biological construct, and when it doesn’t match well with “sex” is usually an indication of a hormonal abnormality in utero.

I am more than happy to debate this with you, but shall we keep the arrogant grandstanding to a minimum? :slight_smile:

133

Regardless of Eddie/Gwen Araujo’s gender, and regardless of what adjectives and pronouns you chose to use, there are some points worth considering, to whit:

Did the two who claim to have engaged in sex with Eddie/Gwen really remain in the dark about the nature of Eddie/Gwen’s genitalia? If so, then why did they dispatch some girlfriend to grill Eddie/Gwen at length in a bathroom – clearly by the time of the party they were led to believe something. When did Eddie/Gwen shift from being a person who was desirable as a sex partner to someone to be treated with disdain and suspicion?

Now, I have to say that I’m not well-versed in the specific mechanics of male-male anal intercourse, but it seems to me that it would’ve taken a bit of work for Gwen/Eddie to keep the presence of a penis and scrotum hidden while on the receiving end of vigorous thrusting. Certainly the position and the motion of the act would negate any “tucking.” Also, I’ve got to wonder why things didn’t become screamingly obvious during the sex acts when the men reached for Gwen/Eddie’s breasts or genitals – or did they refrain from doing so because they suspected (or flat out already knew) that they wouldn’t like what they found? Did Gwen/Eddie stop them from doing so, which would have also aroused suspicion?

Either way, it seems like questions would have sprung up during the sexual encounter(s) but I have to wonder if the men were okay with who or whatever Gwen/Eddie was so long as they were enjoying themselves but afterward got all antsy because they were afraid of what people would say? It seems that fear of being branded as gay would provide ample motivation for the idea that the way to prove their masculinity would be the brual and “macho” elimination of Gwen/Eddie, who, after a couple of weeks of stewing and scheming amongst the defendants and their friends had almost certainly been reduced to the role of subhuman villain.

In short, I doubt claims that this was a “surprise” thrown on these guys and that they just reacted violently. But even if it was, the entire basis for their reaction is something covered entirely under the hate crimes statute. This case was tailor-made for hate crimes considerations.

http://www.bayarea.com/mld/bayarea/news/columnists/dennis_rockstroh/4374314.htm

134

What I find offensive, avalongod, is the insistence of some on this board, including Splanky, in referring to Gwen and other transgendered youth by their biological gender. It shows a definite lack of respect for the individuals living that life. I would go as far as saying that referring to a transgendered person as he is as offensive as calling a gay person a fag.

I’ll definitely apologize if I’ve come off as arrogant or strong headed. I suppose I’m simply frustrated. However, your reference to “sociology class” doesn’t help things. Since it seems as you place an importance on education, you should know that I hold an honours degree in biological psychology.

Although a person’s psychological gender almost always follows their genetic sex, you yourself acknowledge that there are cases where the link breaks down. This fact illustrates that sex and gender are two separate concepts. I am not trying to say that they are exclusive by any means. I acknowledge that their development is heavily linked (to the degree that most laymen believe that they are a single entity). What I was attempting to point out, is that no matter how closely they are linked, they are not the same thing.

135

No, it was a love crime.

136

Bo…I am on your side in that I refer to transgendered individuals by the gender they identify with. “No sweat off my back” I figure, and if they feel more respected in the process, then I don’t see a problem with that. I suspect that most people never meet a transgendered individual, and thus the concept must seem strange to them. Most people are comfortable equating sex and gender fully, so I regard their difficulties in refering to transgendered individuals by their preferred sex as simply a matter of “cognitive assimilation” if you will, not intentional offensiveness.

Apology certainly accepted.
:stuck_out_tongue:

You’re absolutely right, and I hope you will accept my apology as well.
:smiley:

137

I know other posters have already challenged this, but your post makes a highly offensive assumption.

Clearly.

What I find staggering is the assumption in your post that if you receive a personal disappointment, you should naturally be prepared to commit torture and murder.

They tortured and murdered the victim.
How can you call that ‘punishment’?
If someone flirts with you, but then refuses to have sex (even though you’re aroused), does she deserve ‘punishing’?
Should this flirt be raped before being killed?

Your entire spectrum of human behaviour (as posted here) seems incredibly limited.
Something is either ‘OK’ with you, or should be punished by painful death?
If you get overtaken by another driver, who then cuts you up, would you ‘punish’ them (by say dragging them out of their car at gunpoint and beating them to death)?
If we protested at your barbaric attitude, would you then say “Oh, bad driving is OK with you, is it?”
In case you haven’t noticed, civilised behaviour is to walk away (and call the police if necessary).

Maybe you have difficulty with English. What do you think of people killing simply because someone was homosexual (or what you think is homosexual)?
Why should anyone torture and kill someone just because they are homosexual?
Why do you casually post this stuff, as if it were normal?
If (as others have posted) you go into a bar, make a pick-up and go straight to sex, then be prepared for disappointment.
What is the difference between what they did and raping and killing someone?

Your post has an alarming lack of morals.
To you sexual disappointment automatically deserves violence, does it?
I certainly hope anyone with that attitude never comes anywhere near me or my family.

Fine.
Except your postings above give an alarming impression that being angry means you ‘naturally’ torture and kill people.

And you’re not the only one.
Apparently torture and murder is now simply ‘a bad reaction’. :smack:

138

**I believe, based primarily on gut feel, that this was a hate crime. I also believe that the killers are vile brutes who deserve to be punished. Nothing justifies their actions.

Having said that, and in the sincere hope this can lead to interesting discussion (i.e., not be interpreted as antagonistic), I believe that the penal code wording allows for the possibility that this is not a hate crime. The “because of” wording is a little circular, it seems to me; it clearly assumes the presence of a bias against one of the characteristics itemized without expanding on what that means.

Isn’t it still possible that a person could have no bias against transgendered individuals, respect their right to live as they choose, interact with them with dignity, and simultaneously be repulsed by the thought of personally engaging in sexual activity with a transgendered person? Aren’t those type of sexual preferences hard-wired (through whatever process) in all of us?

And if that’s the case, why does the wording above demand your interpretation, mhendo? Can’t it be fairly asked whether personal sexual preferences–i.e., the acts we want to participate in ourselves, which by definition exclude certain other acts–are outside the realm of “bias”? And if they are, can’t it still be asked if a crime like the one in question was prompted not by the killer’s hatred of a certain person’s characteristics, but purely because of that person’s deception? IOW, in the absence of “bias,” can there be a hate crime?

Do you agree that one’s personal preferences for sexual activity do not constitue a de facto “bias”? If that’s the case, couldn’t a crime have been triggered purely by the violation of these preferences?

Use a hypothetical that might help clarify: Using the “glory hole” scenario previously described (the person on the other side is NOT who the first person thinks it is), suppose there’s a third person involved. Suppose that third person does not in any way possess a characteristic that our “dupe” would find unappealing, undesirable, repulsive, etc. Hell, assume they’re great friends.

But as a joke, that third person tricks the soon-to-be killer into engaging in the “glory hole” sex with the 17-year-old girl (the dupe thinks she is a man). If the dupe finds out and kills the third person (his buddy, not the girl), enraged over the deception, would that be a hate crime? How could it possibly be?

And if that could be the case, why isn’t it at least possible that in a scenario where the third person is removed–i.e., the sexual partner is also the deceiver–that the crime is still not a hate crime? What would be substantially different?

Let me close by reaffirming that I am not interested in justifying the acts of these horrible men. Those acts cannot be justified. I am only intellectually interested in discussing whether or not these acts are by definition hate crimes.

139

On the one hand, I have to side with Herman that Eddie or Lida was a homosexual.

On the other hand, I have to say this was most assuredly a hate crime(were it not for their hatred of homosexuals, there would have been no rage at the deception), and these punks should get the max and then some.

140

I’ve seen someone become uncontrollably enraged over someone else in a Chevy cutting him off in traffic. That doesn’t mean he hated all people who own Chevrolets, the level of his anger notwithstanding. How angry someone becomes does not necessarily equate with what you suggest it does.

Couldn’t someone be angry over being duped into homosexual sex, a preference he does not hold, without hating homosexuals? Why is this murder necessarily prompted by hatred of the individual instead of anger over the perceived injury?