LGBT and the US Conservative Movement

[Abhorsen]

The difference is that when trannies trick straight men to sleep with them by not disclosing that they were born male, they end up tricking that man into being gay.

That doesn't actually make the man gay.

This is why trsns panic is a legitimate legal defense IMO.

No, it very much isn't. It doesn't work under self defense priniples, because there's no need for violence to not have sex, and if there is, then it's actual rape and we don't need any trans panic defense. It doesn't work for insanity, as the person doesn't lose knowledge of right and wrong. Usually, on the reveal the trans person is killed not because of panic at being confused, but fear for being thought gay, and the latter is straight up murder.

What it does result in is people who hate trans people IDing them at bars, taking them home, then murdering them while claiming trans panic.

Also @Abhorsen it’s bizarre to me you’d justify someone working with a deranged communist atheist sex cult. Is it okay for others to work with communists?

Oh, no, I just don't have much faith in politicians generally. Him working with them was wrong. So did everyone else, but it was still wrong. My opinion of him is that he was great at politics, and helped the gay movement a lot. Not that he was some hero.

As for working with communists, it can be acceptable, with the biggest example being WW2. Generally for it to be okay, either the communist must be pretty bad at pushing communsim (see: Harry Hay, who while being a communist, only really succeeded at gay activism), or you must be up against a greater evil (which are hard to find, but do exist).

 

[The Immortal Watch Dog]

What it does result in is people who hate trans people IDing them at bars, taking them home, then murdering them while claiming trans panic.

This is just not true, outside of some serial killer looking for an excuse.

Ah but who am I kidding the staff is openly threatening people to defend Arxy.

So.im done with this fucking thread.

 

[ShadowArxxy]

The staff has done no such thing. They literally just asked people to keep cool, with a specific notation that no one had actually done anything wrong.

 

[Abhorsen]

This is just not true, outside of some serial killer looking for an excuse.

Ah but who am I kidding the staff is openly threatening people to defend Arxy.

So.im done with this fucking thread.

But this happens though. I mean, here are cases where it was used:

Murder of Gwen Araujo - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

They (four men) didn't know if she was trans, so days after oral sex, they isolated her, forced her to strip to determine she was trans, beat her unconscious, came back hours later, strangled her, hit her again in the head, then buried her. One tried to use the trans panic defense, and managed to plead down to involuntary manslaughter instead of murder 2 after two hung juries, when it's clearly murder.

Another, the murder of Islan Nettles, happened not because the killer suddenly realized she was trans, but because he got embarrassed that his friends made fun of him for having sex with a trans woman.

So yeah, it's used by the worst of the worst people as an excuse to hide things, not as a legitimate defense.

 

[The Immortal Watch Dog]

I said I was done with this thread because its clear how this is playing out @Abhorsen stop quoting me.

I'll debate this with you another time or someshit. Not here, not anymore.

 

[ShieldWife]

I can understand supporting his gay rights positions, but I’m not sure if defending Harvey Milk is a wise strategy. Imagine the right wing equivalent: a far right politician who was extremely cozy with a literal Neo-Nazi cult that was the cause of almost 1000 murders including a US congressman, and this politician also married a 16 girl when he was in his 30’s - I can’t imagine many conservatives standing by the guy because he was really good on some particular conservative issue.

 

[King Arts]

But this happens though. I mean, here are cases where it was used:

Murder of Gwen Araujo - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

They (four men) didn't know if she was trans, so days after oral sex, they isolated her, forced her to strip to determine she was trans, beat her unconscious, came back hours later, strangled her, hit her again in the head, then buried her. One tried to use the trans panic defense, and managed to plead down to involuntary manslaughter instead of murder 2 after two hung juries, when it's clearly murder.

Another, the murder of Islan Nettles, happened not because the killer suddenly realized she was trans, but because he got embarrassed that his friends made fun of him for having sex with a trans woman.

So yeah, it's used by the worst of the worst people as an excuse to hide things, not as a legitimate defense.

Dude that Gwen case you gave is extremely dishonest.

Araujo first met Michael Magidson, José Merél, Jaron Nabors, and Jason Cazares in late August or early September 2002.[11] The night they met Araujo, she flirted with all four men and they smoked marijuana together. After she left, Nabors asked the other three "Could this be a dude?" but none of the four men took the thought seriously.[12] Later, she engaged in oral sex with Magidson and anal sex with Merél.[13][14] She claimed to be menstruating and during sex would push her partners' hands away from her genitalia to prevent them from discovering that she had a penis

From the Wikipedia article. The way I see it this trans guy tricked some men into being gay with him then when those guys found out they killed their rapist in a rage. People saying a hate crime being appropriate are insane. They weren’t going around lynching trannies or putting them in camps or burning crosses on the front lawns of people who are minding their own business. They killed the man that raped them.

 

[Abhorsen]

From the Wikipedia article. The way I see it this trans guy tricked some men into being gay with him then when those guys found out they killed their rapist in a rage. People saying a hate crime being appropriate are insane. They weren’t going around lynching trannies or putting them in camps or burning crosses on the front lawns of people who are minding their own business. They killed the man that raped them.

I'm not arguing for the hate crime (I think those are generally bad). But this is 100% murder 2. You aren't allowed to do vigilante killings either, even if one knows the person is guilty. It doesn't even matter what she did, given they had hours between determining she was trans and killing her, they made an active, knowing, decision to do so. That makes it murder, with no self defense or insanity plea good enough to get out of it.

As for rape, it simply isn't, unless you think you can create separation between this and a pushup bra. Both leave guys with unrealistic expectations. Both aren't rape.

 

[ShieldWife]

Regarding the issue of so called “Trans panic” while I certainly think that misleading people about your sex/gender to have sex with them is odious, it would be really hard to have a law against it without opening the door to all kinds of crazy things being called rape. Kind of like how modern left wing universities have these nutty consent codes where every intimate act requires affirmative consent. We would have all kinds of questions about whether or not there needs to be an actual lie to count as rape or just omitting the truth or implying a falsehood. There would be the issue of what the Trans person should reasonably expect their partner to object to and the subjective judgment of how harmful such a deception would be to both a reasonable person and the victim.

Would a law that designated this deception as rape specify that it just applies only to transsexuals or would it apply to any major deceit that leads up to sex? Would it be rape, for example, for a Neo-Nazi to keep his or her political beliefs secret from a left wing sexual partner, reasonably being able to assume that the left wing partner would refuse sex and be disgusted by the prospect with full knowledge?

On the flip side, killing someone is only legally justified when you or others are in danger. If the transsexual person who committed the rape (assuming that we call it such) is not an active threat, then killing them would not be legally justified. In fact, a victim of more standard rape isn’t allowed to kill the rapist if there is no active threat involved, nor are other people legally allowed to kill for revenge even if the victim terribly wronged them - though such a mitigating factor might reasonably cause the judge and jury to show mercy to the accused murderer. Can revenge be a good mitigating factor for a lighter sentence for murder? Yes, but it’s a really tricky issue, because we need people going through proper legal channels if they are wronged rather than taking justice into their own hands. Though what if the deceptive Trans person didn’t officially break the law and won’t be punished? Is revenge the victim’s only recourse for justice? Maybe just a beating would be a more reasonable reaction than killing.

I think it’s one of those topics where there is no easy answer. It’s probably best to just be a bit careful who you have sex with - the possibility of your partner being transsexual is just one of numerous reasons for this. Caveat Emptor.

 

[LordSunhawk]

OK, the Boot is going to step in here.

Nobody is being 'protected', nobody is getting 'special treatment'. The Boot is of the strong opinion that it is perfectly possible to express strong feelings about a topic without engaging in childish name-calling and the slinging of mindless insults that do nothing to advance your point. The Boot will not protect anybody from criticism. The Boot will, however, direct staff to try and keep things CIVIL during discussions. As such, the Boot, upon seeing how posters were sniping at each other with insults rather than debate, directed staff to post a mod voice post reminding people to remain civil, which was done.

TLDR - feel free to express your opinions, no matter how 'politically incorrect', but please refrain from mere name-calling and slinging insults. You can make the same point perfectly well without using slurs, disparaging terms, or insults.

 

[King Arts]

That doesn't actually make the man gay.

I guess this is just a differance of oppinion where I think being gay is doing an action, while you think being gay is because of your preferences.

I'm not arguing for the hate crime (I think those are generally bad). But this is 100% murder 2. You aren't allowed to do vigilante killings either, even if one knows the person is guilty. It doesn't even matter what she did, given they had hours between determining she was trans and killing her, they made an active, knowing, decision to do so. That makes it murder, with no self defense or insanity plea good enough to get out of it.

As for rape, it simply isn't, unless you think you can create separation between this and a pushup bra. Both leave guys with unrealistic expectations. Both aren't rape.

You said that serial killers would go to gay bars to hunt down trans women and then kill them when they are alone and claim trans panic to get off murder. Thats a pretty big claim. As for murder 2 you are aware of jury nulification right, if a father kills his child's rapist before the rapist goes to court the law may say it's murder. But the jury can say "Fuck the law, I decide what is right and wrong, the legislature and constitution can kiss my ass, this guy is innocent"

Regarding the issue of so called “Trans panic” while I certainly think that misleading people about your sex/gender to have sex with them is odious, it would be really hard to have a law against it without opening the door to all kinds of crazy things being called rape. Kind of like how modern left wing universities have these nutty consent codes where every intimate act requires affirmative consent. We would have all kinds of questions about whether or not there needs to be an actual lie to count as rape or just omitting the truth or implying a falsehood. There would be the issue of what the Trans person should reasonably expect their partner to object to and the subjective judgment of how harmful such a deception would be to both a reasonable person and the victim.

Would a law that designated this deception as rape specify that it just applies only to transsexuals or would it apply to any major deceit that leads up to sex? Would it be rape, for example, for a Neo-Nazi to keep his or her political beliefs secret from a left wing sexual partner, reasonably being able to assume that the left wing partner would refuse sex and be disgusted by the prospect with full knowledge?

On the flip side, killing someone is only legally justified when you or others are in danger. If the transsexual person who committed the rape (assuming that we call it such) is not an active threat, then killing them would not be legally justified. In fact, a victim of more standard rape isn’t allowed to kill the rapist if there is no active threat involved, nor are other people legally allowed to kill for revenge even if the victim terribly wronged them - though such a mitigating factor might reasonably cause the judge and jury to show mercy to the accused murderer. Can revenge be a good mitigating factor for a lighter sentence for murder? Yes, but it’s a really tricky issue, because we need people going through proper legal channels if they are wronged rather than taking justice into their own hands. Though what if the deceptive Trans person didn’t officially break the law and won’t be punished? Is revenge the victim’s only recourse for justice? Maybe just a beating would be a more reasonable reaction than killing.

I think it’s one of those topics where there is no easy answer. It’s probably best to just be a bit careful who you have sex with - the possibility of your partner being transsexual is just one of numerous reasons for this. Caveat Emptor.

For your neo nazi example I would say yes, if a Nazi guy lied to an anti nazi woman to sleep with him(maybe she's Jewish) I would see that as rape or akin to it. The same if a Jewish guy lied to a Nazi girl to sleep with her. To me you need to disclose things that you either know that person wants to know, or that a reasonable person would want to know. For example having an STD you have to disclose that. The color of your hair no. Most people will not be horrified if you tell them you dye your hair blonde after you slept with them. However many MANY men will be shocked, sick, and horrified if they found out the cute "girl" they are intimate with was born a man. Being trans is not like wearing make up, or changing your hair it's at your most deepest nature. If everyone in the world was bi, or if technology existed so people could go back and forth between being a man or a woman, and society was ok with this. Then you could make the argument that there is no need to disclose your past sex. But the fact that trans people are worried about that reaction after telling someone they used to be another sex tells me that no society at large does not see it as a trivial issue like hair color.

 

[Abhorsen]

I guess this is just a differance of oppinion where I think being gay is doing an action, while you think being gay is because of your preferences.

I mean, this isn't an opinion. There's an established definition of a gay man, and it is a man who wants to have sex with/romance other men. Then there are gay acts, which include both consensual and nonconsensual sex. Doing gay acts doesn't make one gay, just like pretending to be straight never made the gays straight.

You said that serial killers would go to gay bars to hunt down trans women and then kill them when they are alone and claim trans panic to get off murder. Thats a pretty big claim. As for murder 2 you are aware of jury nulification right, if a father kills his child's rapist before the rapist goes to court the law may say it's murder. But the jury can say "Fuck the law, I decide what is right and wrong, the legislature and constitution can kiss my ass, this guy is innocent"

For the first one, pretending to be gay (or actually being gay) and trawling gay bars to pick up men and murder them is a classic thing that has been done many times by serial killers. If the serial killer is smart, they could easily claim gay panic if the cops only know about the latest kill, and get a reduced sentence.

As for jury nullification, I am aware of it, yes. It can be used for both bad and good though, allowing both Klukkers to go free as well as escaped slaves. When it comes to the gay panic defense, part of the reason it works is by exploiting people's prejudices (obviously, it's not as effective now, but it definitely was).Gay panic is very prone to this, as it plays off of prejudices and is frequently a lie. The example I gave? There was no panic. They had 4 hours to get over it, and decided to kill her. Same in most other cases that try to use gay panic. It was a lie plain and simple. And that lie got the man 6 years off his sentence.

 

[King Arts]

I mean, this isn't an opinion. There's an established definition of a gay man, and it is a man who wants to have sex with/romance other men. Then there are gay acts, which include both consensual and nonconsensual sex. Doing gay acts doesn't make one gay, just like pretending to be straight never made the gays straight.

That's a shitty definition of what gay is. Here is an example. Gay for pay people. Most people won't think these guys are straight. Having sex with those of the same gender makes you gay.

For the first one, pretending to be gay (or actually being gay) and trawling gay bars to pick up men and murder them is a classic thing that has been done many times by serial killers. If the serial killer is smart, they could easily claim gay panic if the cops only know about the latest kill, and get a reduced sentence.

As for jury nullification, I am aware of it, yes. It can be used for both bad and good though, allowing both Klukkers to go free as well as escaped slaves. When it comes to the gay panic defense, part of the reason it works is by exploiting people's prejudices (obviously, it's not as effective now, but it definitely was).Gay panic is very prone to this, as it plays off of prejudices and is frequently a lie. The example I gave? There was no panic. They had 4 hours to get over it, and decided to kill her. Same in most other cases that try to use gay panic. It was a lie plain and simple. And that lie got the man 6 years off his sentence.

Serial killers happen but they are rare, because that trick you think you pulled. It only works once, also I'm sure the rest of the gay club would find out about who that guy is and stay away from him. Also gay panic defenses are diffrent from trans panic. Trans panic you could be already in the bed room with the person have received oral sex, and then find out it's a man. With an actual regular gay man, you pretty much fucking know it's a man and chose to go to a bed room with them. Most gay panic defenses I've heard have been where a gay man who is on the down low kills their sex partner because they fear that that partner is doing something that will let that guys homies know that he likes it up the back door. It's basically a lover's quarrel that in the closet gay men used to get away with killing their lovers, it's not oppressing gay people when gay people do it to themselves.

Also those guys did not lie, 4 hours to get over rape is nothing. Hell 4 years to get over rape can still not be enough. I just disagree with western judicial systems and how strict they require "heat of the moment" I also am the same with someone who kills their cheating spouse, to me they don't have to do it immediately they can also have a time interval.

 

[DocSolarisReich]

That's a shitty definition of what gay is. Here is an example. Gay for pay people. Most people won't think these guys are straight. Having sex with those of the same gender makes you gay.

This is correct. Gay is something you do, not something you are. In Aristotelian terms, error has no subsistence of its own, only accident, because existence is a good.

 

[Abhorsen]

That's a shitty definition of what gay is. Here is an example. Gay for pay people. Most people won't think these guys are straight. Having sex with those of the same gender makes you gay.

You might say it's shittty, but it is the actual definition. A person is gay before they have sex, for example. On top of this, people who pretended to be straight to hide their gay feelings are also gay.

This is correct. Gay is something you do, not something you are. In Aristotelian terms, error has no subsistence of its own, only accident, because existence is a good.

I wouldn't be going down the aristotlian path when you believe transwomen aren't a type of woman no matter what. What if the fill the gender role of women, look like women, have sex like women raise kids like women, etc. By aristotelian logic, the more they fit in as a woman, the more of a women they are.

 

[DocSolarisReich]

I wouldn't be going down the aristotlian path when you believe transwomen aren't a type of woman no matter what. What if the fill the gender role of women, look like women, have sex like women raise kids like women, etc. By aristotelian logic, the more they fit in as a woman, the more of a women they are.

There is more to telos and substance than playacting social roles. It takes more than anti-liturgically aping the nature of woman to be woman.

 

[Abhorsen]

There is more to telos and substance than playacting social roles. It takes more than anti-liturgically aping the nature of woman to be woman.

... but you just said that all that was needed to be gay was to have gay sex, not have any of the internal feelings or desires of a gay man. So why doesn't that apply to Trans women?

 

[DocSolarisReich]

... but you just said that all that was needed to be gay was to have gay sex, not have any of the internal feelings or desires of a gay man. So why doesn't that apply to Trans women?

No, I said that 'gay' is something one does, not something that one is. You do the ghey, you cannot 'be' the ghey.

 

[Abhorsen]

No, I said that 'gay' is something one does, not something that one is. You do the ghey, you cannot 'be' the ghey.

Which is objectively wrong. Scientific studies have repeatedly found that gay people exist, and that it is immutable.

 

[DocSolarisReich]

Which is objectively wrong. Scientific studies have repeatedly found that gay people exist, and that it is immutable.

I'm sure there was no ulterior motive there.