martinguerre

This is precisely what i mean by uncivilized. The fundamental idea of civilization is the relinquishment of private violence. As Weber puts it "a legitimated monopoly of violence" is requirement of the existance of a state. You may prefer a world in which private violence is legitimate. What i suggest is that this assumption is incompatible with a belief in the rule of law. This isn't a "i can prove you wrong" question, but an exploration of values. What i'm doing here is drawing your statements to their logical conclusion.

edit. just saw your other post. the only thing i will say about visceral reactions is that i believe them to be a lot more optional than the term implies. if your imagination and values include intense dislike, fear, disgust, etc... of a given concept, then link a hypothetical encounter with a premediation of violence (as you have already done) this play of mind, this practice of thought becomes the lens by which you will in fact react.

in short? we do what we think. if you think you will react with violence? my guess is you very well might.

__________________
For God so loved creation, that God sent God's only Son that whosoever believed should not perish, but have everlasting life.

-John 3:16

Ustwo

I do not agree that civilization requires a relinquishment of private violence. Private violence has been a cornerstone of civilized society until only recently. Dueling of sorts has been a part of our civilized history for ages. Such duels were at times legal, or at times illegal but they were thought of as legitimate means of resolving a dispute between equals.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

Gilda

Violence is justified only in defense, never in response to offense or wounded pride. Never for revenge.

We cannot always choose how we react to something emotionally, but it is, at least partially, within our power to anticipate a given situation and thus plan our reactions and how we will handle them.

The question of Gwen's physical sex had been raised weeks in advance, and what was to be done if their suspicions were confirmed had been discussed.

She had not harmed them in any way. She was no threat to them in any way on the night they killed her, or for that matter, at any time during the relationship. They could have easily solved the problem of not wanting to have sex with her or associate with her any longer simply by not associating with her any longer.

As for visceral reactions, sure, that happens to us. We may not be able to choose our emotional reaction, but we certainly do get to choose our actions.

Gwen was foolish in her choice of associates, but her actions in no way justified their so much as laying one finger on her in violence.

Gilda

__________________
I'm against ending blackness. I believe that everyone has a right to be black, it's a choice, and I support that.

~Steven Colbert

Ustwo

I respectfully disagree.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

zakool21

I remember this case when it originally happened. It sort of hits home in a literal sense when something like this happens in the next town over from yours. It's a bit of a different thing to say that the killers should go free when you live on the other side of the country, but I certainly don't want these killers walking around in my neighborhood.

While I'm not 100% behind the death penalty, I sure would feel better knowing these sick bastards are behind bars for the rest of their lives.

FoolThemAll

Of course she harmed them. Probably pretty badly, considering the account of how they reacted.

I agree with you, though, that no violence was justified.

__________________
I wonder if we're stuck in Rome.

martinguerre

Certainly there is a history of lex talionis, but i would suggest that this process is not compatible with the modern state as we know it.

take this case for instance. democracy holds that the citzen is the basic unit of society, and despite difference or conflict between groups or individuals (in this situation, a homophobic expression of anger), all citizens are required to affirm the idea of the nation over and against any of those private claims. The alternative is the war of all against all. If we affirm this expression of violence, or any like it...we deny our beleif in the rule of law.

__________________
For God so loved creation, that God sent God's only Son that whosoever believed should not perish, but have everlasting life.

-John 3:16

martinguerre

Many abusers will hit their spouses because dinner is not ready on time, chores are not to specifications, or other small, often imagined reasons.

Did the abused spouses harm their abusers? Reactions of violence do not create a presumption of harm.

__________________
For God so loved creation, that God sent God's only Son that whosoever believed should not perish, but have everlasting life.

-John 3:16

FoolThemAll

I'm not talking about just the violence, the account read like they were fairly freaked out. You don't think they were harmed by the deception? I'm sure there are plenty of people who can shrug it off like nothing, but it definitely doesn't appear that these people were those kind of people.

edit: And jftr, I don't blame them for being freaked out. Just for everything else resulting.

But as I said, didn't justify a single punch.

__________________
I wonder if we're stuck in Rome.

martinguerre

it comes down to how one defines harm. upset, freaked out, i can understand and sympathize with all of that. finding out things about the people you're intimate with can be a very intense thing, and we don't always like what we discover.

but i contested the word harm because it implies some level of justification...as if the violence these perps had chosen was a lower level, say just beating her up, that it would have been okay.

i get it that that's not your point...but that's why i didn't like that train of thought.

__________________
For God so loved creation, that God sent God's only Son that whosoever believed should not perish, but have everlasting life.

-John 3:16

Gilda

Their reaction is irrelevant to the issue of whether she had harmed them. She certainly wasn't any kind of threat to them on the night she was murdered.

What did she do? She hung out with them for a period of several months. She shrared their marijuana with them, exchanging "power hits". She actedly provacatively, turning them on, followed by having consensual sex, which they seem to have enjoyed.

Was it her actions that led to the revelation that so offended them that they killed her? No. The revelation of her physical sex was a direct result of their holding her prisoner after she tried to leave, and extracting the information from her by use of force. Any harm that resulted they brought on themselves.

They could have resolved the situation quickly and easily by simply allowing her to leave and not associating with her any longer.

All of that, of course, assumes that their being offended, or having their obviously delicate egos bruised constitutes harm. I don't think it does, at least not in a way that justifies even the smallest amount of violence.

With which part?

Is it being offended or having a wounded pride that justifies violence in revenge? Could you explain this further?

I'm genuinely curious, because I really can't concieve of words or actions that, while causing me no harm in and of itself, would be so offensive, or would cause me a wounded pride to such a degree that it would justify my exacting violent revenge.

Now to be clear, this isn't to say that I would never be violent as a result of offense or wounded pride. It's entirely possible that I might under certain circumstances do exactly that. I can't think of any right now, but I can conceed that there might be some. However, my being so emotionally sensitive to a particular stimulis as to respond violently would not justify that violence.

Nor would it in this case.

Gilda

__________________
I'm against ending blackness. I believe that everyone has a right to be black, it's a choice, and I support that.

~Steven Colbert

FoolThemAll

Only if you ignore that she deceived them. She was first in line to prevent the harm. And although my reaction to how they discovered the fact is revulsion, they did deserve to know and might've found out eventually through more acceptable means.

I feel for how agonizing her last moments must have been (before and after the violence), but I disagree that she didn't do anything harmful.

__________________
I wonder if we're stuck in Rome.

Ustwo

It is infinitely compatible with the modern state as we are all 'equal'. You speak of democracy as if it were a surrender of all private rights and I see it as not so. Admittedly, the state would have the power to over ride private claims but only if the people so chose. If they were to choose another path, lets say dueling to resolve disputes of honor, then that too would be acceptable. What has changed is modern sensibilities, and while the concept of a duel was just and honorable just four generations ago, it is no longer deemed so, that does not mean it can not return should our sensibilities change. The alternative is not anarchy as you basically stated but simply a different set of laws and custom which allows for private violence without any weakening of the state.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

Gilda

No need to ignore that. Her having male genitals did nobody any harm. The only harm that came from this situation came as a result of her muderers discovering a secret she wished to keep, through forcible compulsion, against her will.

I believe it's a good idea to know a partner's sexual history before being physically intimate for a variety of reasons, and that, for their own protection, transsexual women are much better off if they aren't intimate with men who do not know their history.

However, this was casual sex, and neither partner seemed to be overly concerned with knowing the other person's history.

I think the same standards should apply as to a natal woman. Under what circumstances should a woman reveal to her partner the intimate details of her past, especially those that are emotionally sensitive? That's the standard I think should apply, and there doesn't seem to have been that degree of emotional intimacy here.

Can you explain this? I really cannot understand how what she did hurt anyone. If she had concealed that she had an STD, that would be different, but the nature of her genitals? If you're kissing or trading power hits or even having oral or anal sex, why should that matter?

I was discussing the same basic issue with a friend a couple of weeks ago, and asked him if he found out that his girlfriend was transsexual, how would he react? His reply was that it wouldn't matter, and he wouldn't end the relationship. He would, however, if she weren't Jewish.

The point being that there are all kinds of things that a person might find out about a partner that hold the potential to offend one's partner or interfere with the relationship, even to the point that, had this been known at the outset no relationship would not have occurred. Such as personal history, sexual history, issues of race or religion or political beliefs, class, national origin, etc.. None of these things are harmful to our partners except in their minds, and none of them justify the slightest degree of violence at their revleation.

Gilda

__________________
I'm against ending blackness. I believe that everyone has a right to be black, it's a choice, and I support that.

~Steven Colbert

analog

Not to put too fine a point on it, but it's obvious the guys weren't the smartest men in the world. If you meet a girl who will let you and your buddy have sex with her, right off the bat, but demands you give her nothing but anal, that should be setting off all kinds of red flags.

I can sort of understand the people who are calling what the girl did 'shocking' and all, and while I can't honestly say I wouldn't maybe give "him" a slap or something, that would be the initial shock- but you can't beat a person to death and say it was because you were blindsided by a lie. Being lied to does not justify murder. That's really the bottom line here.

I agree with the removal of the hate crime charges only because it was an immediate reaction to the situation which had more to do with their shock over being deceived, and not about the girl. Had they slapped her, left, and gone back at some future point to kill her, then I would absolutely say it was a hate crime.

Ustwo

I don't think anyone is arguing that they were justified in killing him. I think calling it a hate crime if they came back may be a little iffy.

If you stole from me and I beat you up, came back later and then shot you, would it be a hate crime? No.

In his case, I could only see it a hate crime if the two guys in question had no interaction with him at all, found out a transexual lived in the house and went and killed him.

Reguardless hate crime laws are stupid. If you kill me because I'm white, or because you wanted my shoes, I'm still dead and I see no reason for you to be punished less because you liked my shoes. Hate crime laws are ways to buy votes from political groups by supporting unequal penalties under the law for the same crime.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

pig

Gilda et al, I have a question about the bolded. You seem to be taking a position that "the nature of someone's genitals" is of no consequence...that it's almost a superfluous part of someone's identity. I do not understand this position, in the light of your own gender-orientation, and what I would presume to be a recognition that the sexual gender orientation of an individual is something which is special, and which comprises a very important part of their core identity.

This seems to me that the initial shock, and the question of whether or not finding out that you had sexual intercourse with someone of a gender you are not sexually attracted to, under the premise of deception, can be very psychologically damaging. Furthermore, this damage (which I would be comfortable calling harm) is reasonable, and predictable, as far as I can understand. What if you (or I, for that matter) found out that your SO was actually a biological sister you never knew you had. She was aware of your relationship, and sought you out for some reason or another. Her motivations are irrelevant, I think, to your initial response. Which might be akin to "I am disgusted by incest."

I don't think this girl's action justify the murder, or the serious degree of abuse, by a long shot. I don't think it would be my style to give her a serious ass whipping, but I might. I know I would be super pissed off in the most serious fashion to the nth degree. If I slapped the taste out of her mouth, I really don't think that's the worst thing in the world.

None of this negates the fact that these guys took it way too far, and they deserve very serious justice. I fail to understand how you can essentially state that her deception in the area of sexuality and gender-orientation is essentially an inconsequential point.

__________________
You don't love me, you just love my piggy style

martinguerre

I usually try to get to know the people i may be sexually intimate with. I often talk with them, trade stories, and ask them about their lives. It's often called dating.

When you seek out random sexual encounters...it's just that. Random.

I'm not saying it's a great practice to withhold that kind of information. but i think it's equally bad not to find out.

__________________
For God so loved creation, that God sent God's only Son that whosoever believed should not perish, but have everlasting life.

-John 3:16

Gilda

When your gender identity matches your physical sex, your genitals are often a fundamental part of your sexual identity. When your physical sex is at odds with your gender identity, as with a MTF transsexual, the genitals are, to use your word, superfluous to their sexual identity.

They were interacting with Gwen through talking to her, flirting with her, kissing, and eventually oral and anal sex. In all those activities, they related to each other in a male-female fashion and none of those activities, though often sexual, involve her genitals. Because they believed at the time the interaction took place that Gwen was female, this makes them heterosexual. They were attracted to her because they saw her as a pretty, sexy young woman, and that's likely what she got out of the relationship, a confirmation that she was an attractive young woman.

These were all heterosexual interactions, because in all cases both parties saw them as such. The later revelation of the nature of Gwen's genitals does not change this.

Were they justified in being upset? Sure, I'll go along with that. I'd also say they would have been entirely justified at evicting her from their home and cutting off any ties with her.

Perhaps it would be better to amend my previous statement from, "she caused them no harm" (which I still believe) to "Gwen had caused them no physical harm and was no threat to them physically, so they were in no way justified in any degree of violence towards her." There was no defense here, nothing to mitigate physical violence.

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by sexual gender orientation or how my orientation is relevant. My physical sex and gender identity are female, and my orientation is homosexual, three separate, but related aspects of my sexuality. I recognize that for most of us, gender identity and orientation are important aspects of our sexuality. Heck, I believe that for many, it's a fundamental part of our core identity; it certainly is with me.

And it is also with a MTF transsexual, whose core gender identity is female. Gwen's orientation was pretty clearly to males, which, given that she saw herself as female, would make her heterosexual. If she is anything like the MTF transsexuals I know, she likely found her male genitals as abhorrent as her attackers did.

Her murderers saw themselves as heterosexual males, and this was apparently very important to them. That's reasonable and fair.

What I can't understand is how her genitals are fundamental to their sexual orientation, esepeciall given that her genitals were never a part of any of those interactions.

Is it reasonable and predictable that they were upset at this? Sure. Is violence a reasonable response to their anger? Hell no. That you are angry does not in any way justify or mitigate violent acts against a person who is not a physical threat to you.

Gilda

__________________
I'm against ending blackness. I believe that everyone has a right to be black, it's a choice, and I support that.

~Steven Colbert

Martian

I mostly agree with Gilda.However, the visceral reaction can go as far as violence. It doesn't make it right, but it does make it in some circumstances more understandable. Would I behave in a violent fashion towards my girlfriend if I found out she was transgender? Possibly. Probaby not. A girl on the street? Hard to say. I'd like to think not, but that becomes a situation of high stress and that's when reactions become less predictable. The stress in this case is emotional. I do know that if I were to find out that my girlfriend was transgender I'd have to spend a long time thinking about it and figuring out what my position would be. Whether or not I'd break up the relationship, I'll never know.

So that's that. Like I said, emotional stress creates unpredictable response. That's one thing. It has nothing to do with this case. These boys spent a long time debating and planning whether or not she was transgender and what they'd do. The murder was premeditated from the sounds of it and it was in no way a reactionary response, which a response under duress is. They didn't find out and panic; they considered carefully, decided what they'd do if their suspicions were confirmed and then set up a situation where they could confirm or refute their suspicions.

Gilda, your main problem in understanding this is that you lack a point of reference. It's difficult for you to understand how her biological gender could factor into the issue because for you it's not an issue. You aren't on the male side and being put in that position. I do believe that a transgender girl should inform any potential partner prior to any consentual sex act, not only for her safety, but as a moral issue. Many (even most) men would not be comfortable to have sex with a girl knowing that she was born a guy and they deserve to know in advance that this is the case, due to further psychological and emotional trauma that could be caused by being deceived. Note that one of the boys broke down crying upon discovery, an emotional reactionary response that is indicative of a high stress situation. This was due to the confirmation and sexual identity issues raised by having sex with a biological male, even if it was unintentional. That was the sort of response I mentioned above. Her subsequent assault and murder was not, as it had been planned beforehand. Hell, two of the boys went home for shovels and picks prior to the murder. This wasn't in the moment or a crime of passion. They all knew what was going to happen.

Sorry if this is slightly incoherent. I've tried to state my opinion as clearly as I can but it's a complex issue and I'm not sure I'm expressing it properly.

__________________
I wake up in the morning more tired than before I slept
I get through cryin' and I'm sadder than before I wept
I get through thinkin' now, and the thoughts have left my head
I get through speakin' and I can't remember, not a word that I said

- Ben Harper, Show Me A Little Shame

jorgelito

I think the premeditation makes the crime especially heinous.

Secondly, how is violence justified for "perceived offense"? If that were the case, then, it would be entirely justified to use violence against George Bush because of some "perceived offense" (for example).

QUOTE:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilda
Violence is justified only in defense, never in response to offense or wounded pride. Never for revenge.


I respectfully disagree.

This would mean that the massacre in Colombine was justified because the perpetrators (or victims depending on your perspective) were bullied and sought "revenge", to "teach them a lesson", to "right a wrong".

__________________
"The race is not always to the swift, nor battle to the strong, but
to the one that endures to the end."

"Demand more from yourself, more than anyone else could ever ask!"

- My recruiter

ophelia783

Just to clarify, Gilda's sister is transgendered, which would lead me to believe that she does indeed have a point of reference, since she's exposed to delicate issues like these as her sister's guardian.

__________________
~*~* He with a sharp tongue slits his own throat *~*~

Schwan

It's sex. It should be something wonderful and fun. When you mix it with things like morality and religion, you get a powder keg, just waiting to explode. Sure, it wasn't cool for those guys to find out they actually boinked someone who used to be a man and they had the right to be pissed of. Just shut up about it and write it off as a bad (or good) experience and get on with your life. Why kill? Humans are a loathsome bunch.

martinguerre

as i suggested earlier, i think we need to take ownership of these reactions, and acknowledge our participation in shaping them. Living in a homophobic culture makes it harder to assert a heterosexual idenity. Practicing the thoughts of anger, imagining a reaction of shock, horror, rage...all of these things work to help produce our frame of mind. there is nothing about seeing a penis that biologically causes rage in heterosexual males. what does that say about our culture? it might suggest that our society has come to believe that hetero orientations are quite fragile, to the point where they need to be defended with violence. i don't know if that's how people *want* to think about hetero orientations.

Again. Is it a moral demand upon men that they inquire as to the natal gender of their potential sexual partners?

__________________
For God so loved creation, that God sent God's only Son that whosoever believed should not perish, but have everlasting life.

-John 3:16

raeanna74

In our swinger circles I know several straight men who have been confronted with the issue of meeting a transexual and engaging in sexual acts with them. None have chosen to do so because they are not comfortable with it 'at that point yet'. Most would not completely rule it out because it is not a reflection on them of their sexuality. The transexual would be playing the part of a woman, often dressing the part, and the encounter in the straight man's mind would be that of male-female intercourse.

I have met and spoken with a transexual man/woman. He dressed like a woman, acted like a woman and looked like one in many ways. He was a bit taller than the average woman and he was married. His wife was aware of his sexual orientation, which he came to terms with post-marriage and did not choose to leave him. I'm not sure if he is the true definition but his personality was quite a bit female. He wanted to meet men and wasn't interested in acting the man when with other men. I find this hard to describe. He put it into words better.

I guess what I'm saying is that the victim in this case was not trying to turn the men into homosexuals. She interacted with them as a female and they recieved it as such. Their egos were all that was 'harmed' and the 'wound' was something that WILL heal. She was not a continued threat to the men and their act was not indefence. IF I dated a man who had a physically violent viseral action when he discovered he'd been decieved by anyone I would not stay with him. That kind of man is the abuser.

__________________
"Always learn the rules so that you can break them properly." Dalai Lama
My Karma just ran over your Dogma.

pig

I think there are multiple items involved in this discussion.

1. Is it natural that someone would have a strong reaction to finding out that the person that they had slept with was of different gender than they had been led to believe.

2. Pacifism.

I'm focussing on 1 for right now. If this separation is not accurate, then please let me know.

Then why get rid of them?

For now, I'm going to skip the issue of whether the nature of the sexual interactions was heterosexual or homosexual or something in between, by virtue of the fact that all parties believed them to be for a moment, because I do not understand what I consider to be a more fundamental aspect, which I will try to get to below.

Only in that you do have one. Other than that, the details are irrelevant. However, I fail to understand how on one hand, you can say that it is irrelevant if this person had male genitals, and on the other hand draw a distinction between sexual attraction to men and women. It seems to me that apparently gender is something that matters to you - and not just you, but me and I'm guessing a pretty fair amount of people.

Thus, I am left to the conclusion that you would hold the position, in this situation, that gender is primarily a question of social roles and psychological make up. I have to then ask you if you would be interested in dating effeminate males, or if your SO's more dominant qualities have any gender-bending qualities. I am not trying to be overly personal, and I hope I don't seem rude. I genuinely find this to be a very interesting discussion - I just happen to know some things about your situation from other posts. I seem to perceive a conflict or inconsistency in your position, and I would think it might be attributable to the understandably strong emotions you must have in this case - but I am fully open to the idea that I don't fully understand your position.

I think we can basically agree here. I'm only saying that I would be able to understand a slap or a shove in the heat of the moment. As Martian stated, that's clearly not the case here, and these guys were morally bankrupt in their actions. I do not condone these actions in any way. I am more interested in the discussion concerning whether or not a much more muted reaction akin to the one in this case, is natural and understandable. If you are an absolute pacifist, then I don't expect that any form of violence will ever be condoned, but I think that is a separate topic.

I think this is related to the question above concerning where does gender reside. I know this may seem callous, but just because she wanted to be female, it doesn't make it so. I think that's just a fact - you can't ignore biology. However, that doesn't mean that she was a bad person, or disgusting, or any of that sort of thing because of what she was. A MTF transexual.

I don't necessarily think that they were. Which is exactly why I would expect them to have a fairly strong reaction to it. They had unknowingly (and that can be debated...seems like they had been wondering about her gender for a while...but regardless, for the discussion we've been having I'll let that pass) participated in behavior that violated a part of their core sexual identity. It'd be something like if somone crept in bed with you one night, and you thought it was your (general you, not "you") SO, and you were intimate with them, you would most likely naturally feel violated. Now throw on top of that if they were of the opposite gender than your SO. I think you would feel doubly violated (or many people would) because now you've de facto had sex with someone outside your gender preference, regardless of who you thought they were at the time. Doesn't change your orientation; neither does it change what you actually did.


Well, I don't think that whether or not there was actual dating or just casual sexual interaction is really the point...I think that's a whole different discussion. Sure, none of what happened sounds like the best idea...and everyone in this thing was asking to be in a clusterfuck situation, start to finish. But it's not completely random if you're only targeting half the population based on gender. As I said, there's no way to condone what these bastards did, and I'm not trying to defend them in any way. I'm simply curious about the position that seems to be emerging that the biological facts of this person's gender has no relation to actual gender, or how sexual interactions with her would be perceived.

__________________
You don't love me, you just love my piggy style

martinguerre

I don't think anyone is saying that someone doesn't have the right to feel upset at things that are hard for them to process, or are dissapointing, or unsettling. My point has been that we constantly assume that "freaking out" for lack of a better word is the correct response to this situation. For someone who finds themselves at that point, and who doesn't know what to do, they might take those cultural images to help shape their reaction. If they think they have to defend their heterosexuality by flipping out.... what do you think they might do?


It's entirely the point. This is the kind of information one deserves to explore in the context of a trusting relationship. If you go by appearances only, then that's the only information that determines who you end up with. Appearances do not always accurately reflect natal gender.

I don't mean this as a bogeyman...sleep around, and someday this will happen to you. I'm just trying to get at what a big honking deal we do and don't make about sex. Sex is casual, and you can have it with anyone who looks hot. Sex is serious, and if you are intimate with someone who has a dick, you're gay forever. That social disconnection on how we imagine sex is the problem here. We want sex to be casual in many ways...but we can't seem to let go of some of these problems. What starts out as some sex suddenly gets cast as a life altering and idenity shattering trauma. No wonder people choose not to reveal gender transitions. Society still collectively flips shit.

__________________
For God so loved creation, that God sent God's only Son that whosoever believed should not perish, but have everlasting life.

-John 3:16

filtherton

Hate crime legislation makes sense in the context that legal consequences should have a deterrence effect. It is arguable whether such beliefs are founded in reality. I doubt the death penalty saves too many people from being murdered.

Martian

ophelia, I'm well aware. And I'll amend that to say that she does have a point of reference, but not the correct one to understand how such a thing would be important to these boys.

Allow me to reiterate that I'm not condoning the reaction here. What I'm ultimately getting at is that I know why they reacted as they did, at least initially. This makes it all the more reprehensible to me, because I understand the situation and their emotional response to it and I still don't think it justifies anything.

I have never and will never intentionally kill another human being unless it is in defense of myself or my loved ones and I have no other recourse, which in itself is a very improbable scenario. I know that I can get violent, but that's not due to distress and I wouldn't see myself reacting violently in this situation. Can I say with absolute certainty that I wouldn't slap someone if I found out that I'd been deceived in the manner these boys were? No, I can't. Can I say with certainty that I wouldn't beat her with a frying pan? Yes. They went far past the level of a reasonable reaction on this and deserve what they get.

This is sort of like 'I never told you because you never asked.' If I see a girl I find attractive, the first thought in my head isn't whether or not she was born with a penis. The transgendered girl is a special case and one most men aren't going to think about under normal circumstances. While it's important and certainly a wise idea to inquire as to someone's sexual history before becoming intimate with them, I don't think it's a moral obligation under most conditions. A transgendered girl who does not reveal the nature of her sexual history, however, is engaging in an implicit deception which I believe is morally wrong. Once more, I don't think it justifies this sort of response, but that doesn't mean she was in the right by any means.

We (collectively) have a habit of reducing things to black and white when the reality is that there are all manner of shades of grey. 'What those boys did was wrong, which means that what she did was okay.' I truly hope I don't need to point out the flaw in this logic to anyone.

__________________
I wake up in the morning more tired than before I slept
I get through cryin' and I'm sadder than before I wept
I get through thinkin' now, and the thoughts have left my head
I get through speakin' and I can't remember, not a word that I said

- Ben Harper, Show Me A Little Shame

Ustwo

As a swinger myself I'd have to say I don't agree with your interpretation of the males reactions. They are not 'at that point yet' because they are not sure of their own bisexual feelings. A man in a dress with hormone induced breasts may sometimes look female but the dangely between the legs says otherwise. Perhaps their genitals are unimportant to them in terms of their sexuality, but to the rest of the world they define sexuality. If it were truly not a reflection on the other mens sexuality then they would not be so hesitant to proceed. I think you know the touchy subject of male bisexuality in swinging, and its taboo nature. I would place them at 'bisexual curious' and perhaps doing it with a transgender would be less 'gay' to start with.

I agree, he was trying to make them think he was a woman.

True, and no one in this thread has justified his murder.

I have to disagree with you here as well. You don't quite understand what at least I meant by a visceral reaction. It wasn't visceral at being decieved, being lied too was secondary, it was to being tricked into a homosexual act. Just because he was 'acting' as a woman, does not make him a woman. To many of us who are 100% straight, no bi feelings at all, male homosexuality is revolting. I would feel no less revolted committing a homosexual act than I would doing 'scat' play, necrophillia, or pedophilia. Its something my brain is hardwired to reject. Now many homosexuals will refer to this as homophobia (they tend to refer to ANY rejection of homosexuality as homophobia) but that is not what it is at all. I have no fear of homosexuals, I have no fear of becoming one, I am not repressing my 'gay' side, or whatever else this can get labeled as, its just something I have no desire to do at a fundamental level. Now if someone were to trick me into a homosexual act, you have not just lied to me, you have tricked me into doing something which is against my very nature. This is where the visceral reaction comes from. It is not unlike the adrenaline rush you get when you are attacked, it is fight or flight. What 'he' did at this point is what would determine the outcome. Murder was obviously far to extreme a reaction, and they deserve to be punished for it.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

jorgelito

The problem with that is the murder was premeditated. Otherwise, I can understand a 'gut' reaction but this was premeditated. They discussed in advance what they were going to do as they already had suspicions. This changes everything.

I have 'hit' people on accident because they 'snuck' up on me triggering my 'natural response' so I definitely understand the 'nature' argument.

pig

martin, I'm not entirely sure I understand the above, so allow me to ask a question. Are you essentially saying that we as a society can train ourselves to be less prone to destructive violent reactions through introspective reflection? I would agree. I'm not entirely sure that's the most germane point to the topic of this thread, but maybe it is. I think that this quickly becomes a point of departure for meditative practices and intense self-psychoanalysis. If you wish to argue that we pursue this is a culture, fine with me. Solves a lot more problems than the single situation here.

I'm not sure that "defending one's heterosexuality" is the only issue at stake, but also the processing of the divergence of reality from your previously held perception of reality. I'm not sure I can completely invalidate a physical response to this, in a blanket sense. I do think that the levels here were drastically innapropriate, but we are repeating ourselves at this point I think.



Ok, how about the flip side of the coin? First, I would like to note that this wasn't a one night stand. This occurred over a period of time. All parties should have been getting to know one another more seriously. It sounds to me like these guys were basically, as analog pointed out, perhaps not too bright. How about ignorant rednecks? I would think after a while, this girl would have realized that. In my opinion, everyone involved made bad decisions leading to a bad situation; however, what these guys did to handle that situation was completely and totally inappropriate.

You also mention "not mentioning gender transitions;" I don't know how much of a difference it would make / have made, but it might be important to note that this girl was still rolling quarters in her drawers. It's not like "yeah, I used to have male genitalia, but that's all in the past." It's more like "yeah, I have a dick." It's just dangerous. I strongly disagree with what happened, and I'm not blaming the victim. What these guys did was absolutely wrong. I'm simply saying that in the general sense, I can understand someone having a strong adverse reaction to finding out that they just had anal sex with a man, considering that they are a heterosexual. I'm further saying that, even if I don't like it, I can understand how that might translate into a physical reaction, in the immediate sense.

Last thing, this seems to me to be a situation where you want to encourage tolerance, but only in the sense that you want to be tolerated. If you want to further tolerance, then you have to tolerate people who are not going to have happy warm feelings, and indeed may "flip out", about having sex with someone not of their gender orientation. I don't tolerate murder, but I can tolerate the human emotion of disgust and confusion that naturally will occur upon finding out you have violated a fairly strong innate principle of your identity. I'm not sure we can condition ourselves out of these emotions, without essentially conditioning ourselves out of gender preference - at least within the confines of this situation.

Either way, I've got to bust out for the day. I've enjoyed the discussion - things to think about. Have a nice weekend.

__________________
You don't love me, you just love my piggy style

martinguerre

Understood. I don't think that saying that you would be upset by this makes you a bad person. I don't think it automatically makes you a homophobe. I'm not trying to imply any of that... Just making sure here...i think this has been a really productive thread so far, and i say keep it that way.

First, i think it is a moral obligation to discuss sexual history before an encounter, at least as far as transmission of STDs is concerned. AIDS is still a death sentence, even with better treatment options, and infection rates are on the rise again.

Second, the highlighted comment. Some natal (and self identified) women have an enlongated clitoris. Some men might be upset by this...after all it does resemble a small penis. Do they have a moral obligation to disclose this, even though it has no bearing on their perception of the sexual activity they engage in? What you're saying is that numerically smaller populations bear the responsbility for communication about issues in human sexuality. Do men with small dicks have a obligation to speak up? Women with inverted nipples? I'm not trying to be crass. But why exactly is this not a two way street?

I'm not handing her a gold star. Her judgement was not the greatest, specifically in her choice of companions...but the fact that some people think that it's okay to flip out when they encounter a transgender person does not oblige them to walk around with a big sign around their neck that says "i at one time had a dick/vagina."

I don't think introspection could entirely determine our actions...but i think our imaginative practice makes a large difference in how we react. Self-fufilling prophecy is a widely observed phenomenon elsewhere...i think it's very apt here. Try day dreaming for a week about how horrid gas stations are, how gross they are, how scared you feel about them, how angry you become when inside of one, etc. Then walk into a gas station. It's a pretty specious example, but i think you might get what i'm saying. Now think about having all those same associations about something you've never experienced before. Regardless of if you would have liked that whatever something is in other circumstances....you're quite likely to go with those pre-recieved associations. I don't expect that 100% of the population would enjoy or seek out relationships with transgendered persons. But i do question the social practice of nearly universally imagining them as the monsters of the sexual world, the horror story to trump all others. Is there any justified reason for that? Does it not create an enviroment in which people will process any encounter in a sharply negative cultural lens?

I don't think i really disagree with that...I have no reason to characterize the perpetrators as rednecks, but i would say that errors in judgement occured with all parties. For instance, Gwen who was 17 told the perps (who were all older than her) that she was 19, and that's not cool. But her age might also explain her choice not to reveal this information, and some of the risk taking behavior she engaged in. all said, not quite stellar, but i still don't think that it creates and implication of moral duty for other transgendered persons.

If it were me, i don't think i would have cause to have sexual relations with someone without conveying that kind of information. But as long as we're assuming the morality of casual sex, i don't know how gender transition moves on to the short list of "things you absolutely must talk about before getting it on."

As i think i've implied before, this isn't personal. And i do get it that some people would feel very hurt or upset by this kind of a situation. I don't think that reaction makes a person evil...and so long as they deal with their feelings in appropriate ways, i won't stand in judgement. My question is how much of that reaction is socially constructed? How much do our cultural practices contribute to those people processing what has happened to them as a violation or hurt? Our society on the whole choses to validate the idea that a sexual experience with a person of the same natal gender makes a person gay. Is that reflective of reality? Is that helpful? Does that cause hurt?

__________________
For God so loved creation, that God sent God's only Son that whosoever believed should not perish, but have everlasting life.

-John 3:16

pig

Ok, so I lied I had to stick around work longer than anticipated, so I chose to respond to this quickly. I did a little cut and paste, and a little bolding.

1. going in reverse order, I think you're 100% correct. Our responses to a certain situation are hugely determined by social surroundings, and moreso the less introspective / reflective you tend to naturally be, or have learned to be. Which leads me to...

2. Realizing this, and realizing the social climate that we live in, I think the approach taken in this type of case to get people to start accepting transexuals is maybe not the best...so I think it's a better option to say something about it up front, or to leave a note that says it or what not.

This situation is kind of a worst case scenario, as far as I can tell. I think if we keep this up, we'll end up agreeing on something, and that's a beautiful thing

Oh, and I feel pretty comfortable calling these guys rednecks, based on the depiction given in the story quoted by Gilda. I grew up around 'em. I can see people I went to high school doing this. I can see them getting a fair amount of support from the local communities. I can see no one wanting to talk about it. I guess I'm keying off "party shack out in the woods," lots of casual sex with people whose gender you're not really sure of, planning a murder out in advance and then doing it so sloppily, the involvement of ropes (in general), and the fact that they stopped to shove some artery-clogging McD's down their gullets after the fact. It's like a modern day Deliverance movie in my mind.

__________________
You don't love me, you just love my piggy style

Ustwo

Since redneck always implies 'white' I should point out that one of the convicted is black. You could argue its a 'redneck mindset' but even the term 'red neck' would only apply to people who could get a red neck.

Plus this happened in Newark NJ, not exactly redneck capital of the US.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

pig

Shit, come down South and I'll show you plenty of redneck people who aren't white. Both those that are truly non-white, and those we threw away. And yeah, redneck mindset is more what I was going for, and I don't know if he's the black one or not, but one of them is also named Jose. Not a big cracker name.

__________________
You don't love me, you just love my piggy style

Gilda

Because, to use your word again, for a woman, male genitals are superfluous. As in, "serving no useful purpose, having no reason for being" [dictionary.com]. Something that is superfluous is something that can be easily disposed of without harm.

I can say this because genitals determine one's physical sex, but do not always indicate whether a person's gender itentity is male or female. They didn't in Gwen's case; they were, to use your word (which I love, by the way, as it describes the situation perfectly) superfluous.

Also, the interactions were primarily social, and Gwen was socially female. The sexual interactions didn't involve her genitals, so for those interactions, her genitals were irrelevant.

Agreed.

Correct.

I'm not interested in dating men, no, nor overtly masculine women. I'm primarily attracted to feminine women. I'd have no problem dating a woman like Gwen.

Grace is by far the more dominant partner in our relationship, is quite a bit more assertive than I am in other contexts, and works in a predominantly male profession, but she's also overtly feminine in dress and presentation. So, no, I don't see any gender-bending qualities in her, though I do see some ways in which she is more masculine than I am in a way that is complimentary to my personality.

I don't think I have been inconsistent.

Perhaps the seeming inconsistency that you percieve comes from my not being entirely clear.

You seem to be using gender and sex as if they were interchangable. I don't think they are, and don't use them that way.

Physical sex, gender identity, gender expression, and orientation are separate qualities. There are other things that are a part of our sexuality, and gender expression can sometimes be split into dress and presentation. None of these are strictly binary, though physical sex comes closest.

It is often assumed that there is one way in which these are related or supposed to be related, which is physical sex, gender identity, and gender expression are or should be the same, while orientation should be to the opposite of one's physical sex.

This isn't how it works in reality.

My physical sex and gender identity are female, gender expression feminine both in dress and presentation, and my orientation is to other feminine females, though I prefer my partner to be dominant. I differ from the expected correlation only in my orientation.

Gwen's physical sex was male, but her gender identity female, gender expression feminine, and orientation was to males, apparently to masculine males. Sexually, she was, as is typical with younger MTF transsexuals, a bottom. From all reports, she wasn't just feminine, she was hyper-feminine, another quality somewhat common to younger MTF transsexuals.

In other words, in every way except for her genitals and breasts, Gwen fit the expected profile of a normal female. Because she was underage, medical and surgical treatments would have been generally unavailable to her.

Genitals are an indicator of a person's sexuality, not the only indicator.

So would I. Understanding why a person commits a violent act does not, however, excuse the violence.

Understandable, maybe. Natural, no. Male homosexuality was considered as "natural" in Greek and Roman society as it is considered "unnatural" by many in our culture. Hatred for and violence against, or tolerance of those who are different from us is a learned response.

I'm not an absolute pacifist. I believe that violence is justified in defense of one's physical being, but not in response to having been offended or insulted, or in this case, in response to having one's sexuality questioned, particularly when the only one questioning their sexuality was the killers themselves.

Only if you assume that one's gender identity is determined by one's physical sex. It isn't. I know that's hard to grasp, because the correlation between being male and having a penis is so high, because our culture uses that as its primary method of identifying a person's sex, because it just seems right intuitively to say "I'm male because I have a penis and testicles".

It's sorta the same question as what is it that makes you you. Is it your body, or your brain, or your spirit, or some combination of those things? I tend to come down on the it's a combination side of the argument.

Gwen's physical sex was male, but her gender identity and mode of expression were female.

Agreed, though there's a shorter way of saying MTF transsexual: girl.

But they stopped and thought about it before the acted. It wasn't a sponteous reaction, they stopped, and discussed, and made plans to find out, then discussed it some more after they confirmed their suspicions. They put a lot of thought into it, and missed what seems to me to be some pretty blatantly obvious stuff.

When they had sex with her, kissed her, they believed she was a woman. This confirms their heterosexual status.

This was a person who was attracted to overtly masculine, straight guys, as evidenced by who she chose to hang out with and have sex with. That fact that she was attracted to them, that she wanted and chose to be with them was confirmation of their being straight and masculine.

I get that they didn't read it that way, that their interpretation was something along the lines of penis=male, sex with another male makes you gay, I don't want to be gay. I understand that in much the way I understand racism, in that I understand that that kind of thinking exists, but I'll never be able to connect to it emotionally, and what's more, it doesn't even make sense that one's sexuality is in some way determined by another person's body parts.

In any case, at no point was any violence justified. She was no physical threat to them, and harming her didn't change anything about what had happened. If having sex with her made them gay, then they'd still be gay after she was dead, or after they slapped her or beat her up. Nothing they did at this point would have changed any part of that equation that led them to question their sexuality.

Strike that. Telling her that they weren't interested in her any more would actually have solved the problem, because then they'd have been rejecting her for having male parts, thus confirming that they were straight.

Bad analogy. Gwen wasn't a stranger to her killers at the time they had sex with her; the sex was consensual for all parties involved.

In any case, that they felt violated does not justify group violence against a helpless victim.

Gilda

__________________
I'm against ending blackness. I believe that everyone has a right to be black, it's a choice, and I support that.

~Steven Colbert

Gilda

Thank you.

I've been saying for years that our sexuality is hardwired into the brain.

It's nice to have a conservative agree with me for once.

I would, however, grant Gwen Araujo the same courtesy of assuming that her gender was hardwired into her brain, and not determined by her genitals.

As for the rest of your post, we are so far apart on such a fundamental level that disputing it point by point would serve no useful purpose.

Gilda

__________________
I'm against ending blackness. I believe that everyone has a right to be black, it's a choice, and I support that.

~Steven Colbert

Gilda

Actually, it happened in Newark, CA, a small rural town about 25 miles from San Francisco, and we have a good share of people with a "redneck mindset" here in CA.

Gilda

__________________
I'm against ending blackness. I believe that everyone has a right to be black, it's a choice, and I support that.

~Steven Colbert

hrandani

I'm confused. Was the victim a minor?