Poll: Gender recognition offence

[Something Amyss]

First, i just want to be clear that it's not only trans people who are following steryotypes, but cis people as well. I 100% support anyone's decision to identify as they want, i just think that the notion of gender as a whole is a flawed one. Anyway, my point i guess is that there has to be some reasoning in why you identify the way you do, right? If there wasn't some reasoning behind why you identify as trans, you'd largely default to cis, since cis is regarded socially as the default, right? If you have reasoning for identifying as a woman, wouldn't that be influenced by what you perceive womanhood to be? After all, it's hard to identify as something if you have no perception of it, right? And wouldn't that perception of womanhood largely be based on stereotypes? What else could a perception of something so broad be based on?

I don't know you well enough to make any assumptions, but i would be interested as to why you identify as a woman. I hope you don't think i'm trying to be mean or aggressive about this, i'm really not, i'm just not sure how someone forms a concept of a gender without stereotypes, and i would actually legitimately appreciate some reasoning if there is any, you don't have to have any reason for identifying the way you do of course, but if there is any, it might help me get a better grasp on the subject in general.

Fair enough. I'll try to explain it as best I can, and hopefully I don't come off poorly in the process. Because I'm really not looking for a fight, I was just kind of confused as to this notion of stereotypes.

First off, I do feel like I should say that I speak for me only in terms of specifics. I can point to general things, or even to anecdotes from other trans people I know, but I'm the only person for which I can speak with authority on what they think and feel. There are other people who may or do not fit in with things I'm about to say, and that's fine. I don't even necessarily think they're wrong, but again, speaking for me.

Also, this may be a particularly weird POV, in part because while I am not a man, years of social conditioning have made me feel like calling myself a woman is encroaching on the "real" women.

Anyway, my point i guess is that there has to be some reasoning in why you identify the way you do, right?

The reasoning is that there exists a disconnect between my body and my sense of self. Since I recently kicked a hornet's nest about some related concepts, I'll try and avert bringing that into this thread by pointing out that I'm not really concerned with the precise mechanism that causes this. It exists, and that's enough.

Now, I suppose if you want to get super technical, any description of myself as a woman is tied to a social construct, because of the use of language. Thing is, I'm not even particularly interested in that. My physiology is male and whatever it is that makes me "me"--whether someone thinks it's my brain, my soul, my sense of identity or whatever else--says I should not be. Linguistically, we codify the body that I want/feel I should have/what have you as "female" or a "woman's" body (and, admittedly, somewhat idealised would be preferable, but not necessary). That is technically a social construct and stereotyping, but that's dicing things very fine. I'm more concerned with feeling right than specific pronouns and labels, but I admit that it is a signifier of social acceptance for those terms to be used, and damn if I didn't squee when a friend of 20 years called me "her" without any specific prompting. Well, outside of me saying I was trans.

There are certianly social elements. I would ideally like to fit within the social standards of Western beauty, in part because I crave normalcy. Also, because being trans, especially being identifiably so, puts a target on your head in our culture. But this is a very loose sense, and beyond the loosest sense, I don't know that I qualify.

The analogy that keeps coming to mind is being gay. Now, we have certain cultural ideas of what a gay person might do, what they might look like, etc. Even if you don't hold those ideals yourself, you probably have an idea of at least a few of them. A lot of people may be looked at as gay due to meeting these criteria socially (and we have a field day trying to decide if historical figures were gay), but if you're not someone with same-sex attractions, it doesn't really matter. Now, there may be overlap--many gays do meet some or all of these criteria. I would argue that this is more nurture than nature, and I would argue that with a lot of our ideas of gender roles as well. But a gay man is gay whether he meets any of those social criteria or not.

Personally, I do fit into some of the stereotypes, but I don't think that informs my gender identity any. In fact, a lot of those things post-date my awareness of being trans (though I didn't know the term, because I hadn't even entered kindergarten yet) and some may be informed by my desire to blend in with the "real" girls. It's actually interesting to me because I wonder if I'd still be me without associated programming that comes from being raised as a boy or not. I'm inclined to think I would have similar interests, though maybe not the same. My little brother loves to cook and sew and knit. While I was playing with Transformers, he was playing with She-Rah and had Rainbow Brite stuff. Like, I doubt you would consider him a girl. And as far as I know, he's the cisgender one in the family. I can't rule out he isn't also hiding, but for the time being I'm forced to go with "not a girl." He's also straight, as far as I know. But he is waaaaaaaaaaay more effeminate than me. See, this is the sort of thing that comes to mind when talking about gender and stereotypes. And, I mean, I don't think these things should be gendered in the first place: I don't give a crap if my brother fits into a world thats coded "girly" or "gay." I'm fine with him being true to himself and doing the things he likes (the irony, of course, is the fear that he won't feel the same). And it's not even like we're polar opposites--at Thanksgiving, his wife decided to point out how similar we are. And in some cases, that is true. But, I mean, like, if you were to look at our childhood toys and ask which one of us was the girl, I'm betting most people would point at him.

And that's when I pull this out:


(Sorry, I am taking you seriously, but the late hour is making me a little silly)

Anyway, I think I'm meandering a bit too much. It's after 3 AM where I am and I'm tired but I can't sleep because reasons.If any of this is unclear, feel free to let me know.

So, had I been born physiologically female, but no other differences existed in my personality? I'm pretty sure I'd still be the one who was more interested in the action and the giant stompy robots and such. My parents at the very least didn't try and force their son to be more of a boy.

So, what makes me trans? I feel dysphoria with the "maleness" of my body and wish to have that corrected. Actually, what I wish involves a time machine and Star Trek technology, but I'm a slightly realistic individual. So barring that, there are things like hormones and surgery which can make me feel normal. I don't really think someone needs to go that far, but this is what informs my sense of "womanhood." But I'm not even sure I'd consider that "womanhood." Closer to "Amysshood."

Does that mean I'm ambivalent to the social elements? Not really. I would like to be accepted in society, rather than being treated as some sick perverted freak, but I don't think that's what you mean. I call myself a woman because it's descriptive, rather than prescriptive. I dislike being called a man, and I dislike use of my birth name, but these are things associated with a condition that causes me no end of anxiety, depression, etc. I love it when people call me Amy and/or "she," because this signifies acceptance or at least a basic level of respect. And I don't think any of that's what you mean, but I'm still not exactly sure what you do mean.

One of the first things I told the friend I referenced previously was that I was still exactly the same person they were talking to two minutes before. From his frame of reference, this may be an exaggeration (after all, he has found out things he's said in the past are things I don't like), but I'm the exact person he's been friends with for a couple decades now.

It's just that 24 hours ago, he thought the "guy" who had his back in high school and went out drinking with him and played hours of video games and tabletop RPGs with him and was in his wedding party (and despite my apprehension about the title, would have been his "best man" had he asked) and thousands of other things was a man. And now he knows she isn't. A lot of my best friends are guys, largely because we share the same interests. A lot of my girl friends are tomboys, though masculine-coded interests aren't a requirement for me to like you. But they're the people I fell in with because of shared interest, which goes back to my point about how these social elements swing more masculine for me. I want to keep doing the things I do with the people I call friends. Just in a body that doesn't freak me out.

But again, I'm not sure if this meets your criteria or not. Perhaps, given this much information (provided the end result is coherent), you can give me a better idea of whether it does fit. I don't know. I feel I've answered to the best of my ability. Especially given it's now 4 AM and I'm a little loopy.

I'd also add, I guess as a followup, that I'm largely unconcerned with gender as a notion in terms of gender roles and societal perceptions. I have always been fairly nonconforming to any (overall trend of) gender stereotypes, and have always felt free to do my own thing. That thing often swings to our culture's idea of masculine, and that's fine. I'm fine with men liking girly things and women liking manly things or not as they see fit. And I'd rather living in a world where those preconceptions didn't exist (or at least, didn't rule us). And I'm pretty sure I'd still hang with the people who shared my interests.

 

[mrgerry123]

I use they and them if a person requests me to. However I dislike using them as they are plural pronouns and a non binary person is (I believe) singular. In an ideal world we would create a new gender neutral singular pronoun. Or just use it. Why don't we?

 

[celeritas]

Honestly, there is not rationally cogent part of your argument. Try this: provide a singular consistent defnition of female or male which all men and women can agree on, but which is not biological. It's an honest challenge: what, if not biological sex, defines say 'a women'? Is it physical attraction to men? If so, then are lesbians not women? Is it the ability to have children and where does that leave women with fertility issues? Is it a penchant for flowers, chocolate or romantic comedies?

The immediate and insurmountable wall you hit is that no social definition of man or woman can be offered that does not in some way imply a limit on them. It's not a 'trans exclusionary radicial feminist' ideal - it's the basic premise of gender equality: my sex shouldn't dicate who I can be or what I can do. This isn't some radical fringe, it's a core tennet.

When vocale individuals like Caitlyn Jenner tell the world that they feel like they can finally 'wear nail' polish now that they've transitioned, they send out the message that as a man they couldn't. They tell men everywhere who might quite like to wear nail polish that actually, they're not men, they were born 'in the wrong body'. I don't know what qualifies as 'invalidating' a person, but I'm pretty sure this would also.

None of this ignores the issues of gender identity disorder, but it doesn't need to. There two ways to look at the issue: either a person feels unable to express themselves in a certain manner because of prevailing gender stereotypes, or they feel a disassociation from certain aspects of their physiology. If the former, then working to demolish gender stereotypes is the major step forward (look at how far women have come in a century - it's not the impossible feat you want it to be)if it's the latter (which may well be the result of sociological pressures in the first place) then we don't have a gender phenomenon so much as a straight forward issue of BDD or a more nuanced dissociative disorder (neither of which are generally treated by reinforcing the person's beliefs).

It's really that simply. Trans, by definition, reinforces gender stereotypes to the extent that they believe them to be more compeeling even than biology. You might think the goal of breaking down gender roles and giving people more freedom to be whoever they want to be without feeling as though they're limited by their genes is unrealistic, but it's not.

This is the same battle that gay people fought: that their desires and expressions did not align with accepted stereotypes about their gender and even today, society still fights for this balance casting gay men as 'camp' and lesbians as 'butch' and by assuming '*****' and 'butch' M/F roles in homosexual relationships, even though this is simply not true. The solution wasn't that gay men needed to be 'women' or lesbians needed to live as 'men', it was simply that our understanding of what constitutes a 'man' and a 'women' needed to change and gradually it has and in time it will continue to do so.

If you want to prove me wrong, just give me that definition of men or women that isn't biological and my argument no longer makes sense.

 

[chocolate pickles]

If you have the physical characteristics of a man/woman, then you are a man/woman. That is simple biological fact. I don't care what you 'think' you are, the facts are there. Gender is not some kind of social construct. By this tumblr-BS, you should all acknowledge me as a lizard. What? I feel like one.

 

[SecondPrize]

If someone's going to be a giant ass about a mistake, which is what I think you're getting at here, then I'll be a ************ right back. If they simply correct my mistake I'll apologize for it and never repeat it. Do unto others... goes both ways, nice people get treated well and dicks get the same in return.

 

[JimB]

Honestly, there is not [a] rationally cogent part of your argument.

Whose argument? To whom are you talking?

Try this: provide a singular consistent definition of female or male which all men and women can agree on, but which is not biological. It's an honest challenge.

No, it's not. Demanding that all seven-point-whatever billion human beings in existence agree on a word's definition before it be validated is nonsense, because by those same rules you just set, "female" is not defined by biological factors. I disagree with your assertion that it is; therefore, since even one person disagrees, your definition is invalid.

The immediate and insurmountable wall you hit is that no social definition of man or woman can be offered that does not in some way imply a limit on them.

That is not a problem. That is an inherent condition of nouns. If I define my nightstand as a nightstand, then I am limiting it from also being a cat or a hamburger or a Volkswagen. The entire concept of definition, not just linguistically but along any axis, depends on setting limitations.

When vocal individuals like Caitlyn Jenner tell the world that they feel like they can finally 'wear nail' polish now that they've transitioned, they send out the message that as a man they couldn't. They tell men everywhere who might quite like to wear nail polish that actually, they're not men, they were born 'in the wrong body.'

I haven't seen the interview you're referring to, so all I can say is, if this is literally what she said with nothing else attached, then you need to work on your comprehension, celeritas. "I feel I can" does not mean "You must not." If it did, then when I fall asleep every night to ASMR videos, I'm telling you you're not allowed to sleep unless you're doing the same thing.

Quite frankly, I think this is a case of "No one fears theft like a thief." You can to this thread to dictate to other people what they are required to perceive themselves as, and now you're insisting trans people are doing it to you. It's disingenuous and blatant. Please knock it off.

Trans, by definition, reinforces gender stereotypes to the extent that they believe them to be more compelling even than biology.

People want boundaries to set for themselves, because boundaries provide definition. You have extremely little business telling others they're required for their own good to accept your anarchistic approach to the topic, that they have to "tear it all down wooo," because this sudden change of tactic--that you're just trying to help trans people by enlightening them and tearing down the oppressing social structure--comes much too late after your cold, snide dismissals based on bad science to read with any kind of authenticity.

If you want to prove me wrong, just give me that definition of men or women that isn't biological and my argument no longer makes sense.

Man: An adult person who identifies as a man.
Woman: An adult person who identifies as a woman.

Happy to help out.

 

[JimB]

Gender is not some kind of social construct.

The field of social sciences has been recognizing the difference between sex and gender for nearly forty-five years. If you know better than common, peer-reviewed consensus among a specific scientific discipline, then I invite you to tell us your credentials and show us your data.

By this Tumblr-BS, you should all acknowledge me as a lizard. What? I feel like one.

Sure, I'll call you a lizard if you want me to call you a lizard. Doesn't cost me anything to do; why wouldn't I? How's it hanging, my lizard? Are you a specific lizard, or just generically four-legged and reptilian?

 

[Akjosch]

If you have the physical characteristics of a man/woman, ...

Good luck getting that info for anyone. Hell, I don't even know mine. Nor do I care. It's only something that has any significance for the rare few diseases where having a functioning Y-chromosome means you're either lucky or get shafted (didn't happen to me yet) or when trying to produce biological offspring (I don't).

 

[JimB]

I tend to blame this on total, absolute, toxic self-absorption. I think some people are so obsessed with themselves and with being indulged in as many ways as possible that they develop a weird, warping filter in their brains (kind of like Cartman's filter in the episode about fish dicks) so that when a trans person says, "This is who I am," what that kind of person actually hears is, "I demand the right to usurp your very brain and command it to say and think whatever I say!"

I'm not sure there's any useful application for that knowledge even if my suspicion is right, but I definitely believe there's a warped perspective going on.

In my experience, a lot of it comes down to groups of people for which the world largely revolves around. Or, at least, the only parts that are said to matter. I imagine when one is made to be the center of everything and then someone else starts getting consideration, it's a pretty big deal to them. I imagine this falls into the description of "toxic self absorption" quite well, so I think we're on roughly the same page, albeit possible from different angles.

I agree with you about the source of this toxic self-absorption. I just didn't mention it because, in this specific instance of people on the internet crowing about how they get to decide what gender you personally are, I don't care about the whys of it; I just care about the what, because that is the part I have to deal with. If we were in the real world, where people weren't being emboldened and calloused by their inability to look people in the eye and feel shame at themselves for what they do, then I'd be rather more compassionate about the why; but online? Nope.

 

[Lictor Face]

If you want to prove me wrong, just give me that definition of men or women that isn't biological and my argument no longer makes sense.

Man: An adult person who identifies as a man.
Woman: An adult person who identifies as a woman.

Happy to help out.

Isn't a biologically male person who identifies himself as a woman wrong? Or is he also correct because he defines who he is and not biological requisites?

 

[Something Amyss]

I agree with you about the source of this toxic self-absorption. I just didn't mention it because, in this specific instance of people on the internet crowing about how they get to decide what gender you personally are, I don't care about the whys of it; I just care about the what, because that is the part I have to deal with. If we were in the real world, where people weren't being emboldened and calloused by their inability to look people in the eye and feel shame at themselves for what they do, then I'd be rather more compassionate about the why; but online? Nope.

You have a point. I'm just always curious how people tick, and so I guess my mind goes there. Though I really do have to deal with these attitudes in real life, and from people who carry these attitude they have online offline.

...actually, I kind of prefer the internet, because people, emboldened by both anonymity and mob mentality, tend to become a lot easier to spot. It's a lot harder when you don't know who you can trust.

 

[01189998819991197253]

Having read this thread in its entirety, I think this new study would be well suited to it.

http://news.sciencemag.org/brain-behavior/2015/11/brains-men-and-women-aren-t-really-different-study-finds

In the mid-19th century, researchers claimed they could tell the sex of an individual just by looking at their disembodied brain. But a new study finds that human brains do not fit neatly into ?male? and ?female? categories. Indeed, all of our brains seem to share a patchwork of forms; some that are more common in males, others that are more common in females, and some that are common to both. The findings could change how scientists study the brain and even how society defines gender.

For the purposes of this debate, it might be worth accepting how little we understand the brain and stop talking about "male and female brains". It's bullshit, and known to be bullshit for a while. It might also be good to stop pretending that humans are not what we obviously are, and that's more continuum than discrete when it comes to a lot of things. Most things perhaps.

Male and Female brains are nonsense, Male and Female hormones on the other hand.

No getting around them, and there is probably a limit to the plasticity of the brain after early childhood too.

If you want to prove me wrong, just give me that definition of men or women that isn't biological and my argument no longer makes sense.

Man: An adult person who identifies as a man.
Woman: An adult person who identifies as a woman.

Happy to help out.

Isn't a biologically male person who identifies himself as a woman wrong? Or is he also correct because he defines who he is and not biological requisites?

Who cares if they're right or wrong? This isn't about being a dick and correcting people for no reason after all.

 

[Biran53]

Honestly, I don't see the issue.

I have encountered several transgender folks in my travels, and I have never been "shamed" for "offence", 'cause common courtesy and decency is NOT a hard thing to do. Why the hell would you go up to random people and go "ohhh you MALE", "ohhh you FEMALE". That's ridiculous.

How is this something that inconveniences you?

 

[JimB]

Isn't a biologically male person who identifies himself as a woman wrong?

Wrong by what standard? I personally define right and wrong, correct and incorrect, with a heavy component of how much harm is done by a conclusion. Whom is being hurt by this biological man identifying as a woman? What is the specific nature of the harm done? So far as I'm aware, the trans person is helped by that identification (it helps to resolve her gender dysphoria), and the only people who are hurt are people who get offended on pedantic or didactic levels, which I simply do not care about. So no, that hypothetical woman calling herself a woman is not, by any estimation I place value in, wrong.

Or is he also correct because he defines who he is and not biological requisites?

We do not currently possess language to cleanly describe a person based on gender identity; that is, "woman" is required for both a biological woman and a trans woman. I am not personally convinced we need a word to distinguish between the two (for instance, a biological woman being a woman and a trans woman being a gurblefletch or something), because the only benefit I see to drawing a distinction is for diagnostic purposes; i.e., whether the trans woman has a particular condition related to her biology.

Until and unless such distinction-drawing language is drafted, I don't see a point to using biology as the sole factor in determining if someone is a woman, so I think someone who ignores her biology to express herself as a woman and thereby claim the title of "woman" is right to do so.

 

[01189998819991197253]

Honestly, I don't see the issue.

I have encountered several transgender folks in my travels, and I have never been "shamed" for "offence", 'cause common courtesy and decency is NOT a hard thing to do. Why the hell would you go up to random people and go "ohhh you MALE", "ohhh you FEMALE". That's ridiculous.

How is this something that inconveniences you?

I think we're all still supposed to be reeling from the fiction story on the first page. "Trannies are gunna hurt our feelings if we can't guess their gender, and they'll MAKE US DO IT!!!" seems to be the underlying theme. I'm a pretty open minded person, lived East and West coast, and afaik never had a conversation with a transexual person. If I did, they were passing and I would have gone with the gender I assumed they were, and from their perspective they are.

There are always the, "You'd be mistreated in a gay bar!" stories though. They're essential fictions to maintaining a hateful myth.

 

[JimB]

I kind of prefer the internet, because people, emboldened by both anonymity and mob mentality, tend to become a lot easier to spot. It's a lot harder when you don't know who you can trust.

That's true. I often forget that for me, this is an issue of simple respect and human courtesy, but for the trans community, there are real safety concerns involved. Thank you for the reminder.

 

[happyninja42]

If you want to prove me wrong, just give me that definition of men or women that isn't biological and my argument no longer makes sense.

Man: An adult person who identifies as a man.
Woman: An adult person who identifies as a woman.

Happy to help out.

Isn't a biologically male person who identifies himself as a woman wrong? Or is he also correct because he defines who he is and not biological requisites?

I'm not sure it matters if he/she is wrong/right at all. It's not a contest where there is a victor. The person can declare they are whatever they want, whether it's male, female, a Jedi, a Dudist, a devout Muslim, whatever. Nobody bothers to check the validity of other claims that people make about who they are, and how they wish to be perceived. So I don't see why this other issue should be any different. Whether it's based on biology, or a personal decision, it's there business, and not mine, and I don't really have an issue with them doing it.

I think we're all still supposed to be reeling from the fiction story on the first page. "Trannies are gunna hurt our feelings if we can't guess their gender, and they'll MAKE US DO IT!!!" seems to be the underlying theme. I'm a pretty open minded person, lived East and West coast, and afaik never had a conversation with a transexual person. If I did, they were passing and I would have gone with the gender I assumed they were, and from their perspective they are.

There are always the, "You'd be mistreated in a gay bar!" stories though. They're essential fictions to maintaining a hateful myth.

I'm curious about your "You'd be mistreated in a gay bar" comment. Could you elaborate a bit on that? I know you are using it as a false premise example, but I'm curious what you've heard from people on that front. Because speaking as a straight cis male who has been to several gay bars on multiple occasions, I experienced no such stigma, even after declaring my straightness. I got a few *blink blink* "Oh, you're straight?" *mental gears running about why he's here, then sees he's here with friends of mixed orientation and just rolls with it* "Oh, ok then! Hey nice to meet you!" Then it was just your typical night in a club. Drinking, laughing, yelling over loud music, and general bullshitting like you would in a typically straight bar.

 

[JimB]

How is this something that inconveniences you?

I saw a video series once I won't mention the name of in public because I don't want to derail the conversation as this particular video series will (for the record, it is not Tropes vs. Women in Video Games, so get that out of your head). The series posits that when someone gets angry about social issues, there's a pretty good chance their anger is because they recognize on some level that they are being forced to recognize their actions have not been one hundred percent virtuous and perfect, and that they will have to change and grow and evolve and do other hard things if they want to maintain this self-image of being perfect and virtuous; and that they choose fury instead, to perceive the person responsible for the realizations as an attack, because if they convince themselves the other person is attacking them, then they can claim a moral high ground and not have to examine themselves or their own behavior further.

There are specific instances in which I don't believe this general rule applies--a significant portion of it is just hate for hate's sake, a variant on gay panic--but I think a lot of it is that people who genuinely perceive a request to have their gender identity recognized are people who need trans people to be morally and objectively wrong in order to keep perceiving themselves as righteous and perfect who don't need to improve themselves at all.

 

[ThatOtherGirl]

If you want to prove me wrong, just give me that definition of men or women that isn't biological and my argument no longer makes sense.

Man: An adult person who identifies as a man.
Woman: An adult person who identifies as a woman.

Happy to help out.

Isn't a biologically male person who identifies himself as a woman wrong?

The experts in the field say no, she is not wrong. The problem here is you are conflating gender and sex, tying personal identity to rigid physical characteristics. Turns out these things, while highly correlated, are not the same.

Or is he also correct because he defines who he is and not biological requisites?

I think an important point to note here is that trans people do not define who they are in the sense that they don't choose. We never got to choose. Many of us fight against being trans for years and years. For whatever reason we are the way we are and we have to figure it out.

Well the math I was talking about was designed to debunk the 1 in 12 chance over a life time HRC statistic.

Anyways you're preaching to the choir on the under reporting problem, especially when it comes to trans folk.

Oh, I figured that about the 1 in 12 stat, seeing as the numbers don't add up at all. I just wanted to make sure it was clearly stated. The rest of my comment was directed to the thread at large, lots of people are talking about statistics here, it is worth noting that the data we have is massively crap and underreported in this area so statistics are not reliable.

Edit: Crap my post did not properly quote, fixed that

 

[happyninja42]

Do your studies actually specify the number of confirmed hate crimes in those figures?

As stated these stats come from the National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs, which deals exclusively with hate crime. As @ThatOtherGirl said, it's more than likely than the statistics are actually are even worse than reported than the reported statistics say, especially when you're dealing with a group that might avoid help due to further victimization.

Edit: I know it's hard to swallow, especially in light of how awful the statistics look, how hard it is to fathom that people can be so hateful. But if you look at the vitriol spewed directly at the trans community, people calling us things like; "rapists", "dangerously mentally ill", "pedophiles", "liars", "perverts", even things like "hellspawn", and even worse. That there are enough people making horrible unfounded accusations to put us in serious danger just for existing. People say bad words don't hurt, but really the big lies can be easy to believe and people aren't hard to incite to violent action, especially when they see a group as a direct threat.

This is especially considering that over a quarter of people believe homosexuality should be illegal, period: http://www.gallup.com/poll/1651/gay-lesbian-rights.aspx It's been getting better, but consider the fact that trans folk are even less accepted than lesbian, gay, and bisexual folk.

Actually no it's not that hard to swallow for me. Well, I'm assuming you are directing this comment to me, since you typed it directly under a quote of mine, so I'm going to respond as if you were. If not, and you are using the plural form of you, then just disregard my following comment. I'm not surprised that there are people in this world that are hateful and violent to others. We are a populous species, with an extremely varied mental landscape. I was simply pointing out that one statistic doesn't automatically mean another variable is the cause. Hence why I asked if the study actually stated the figures as being due to hate crime or not. I mentioned it simply because I've had discussions with people before, who would say "The figures say that X is happening, so it MUST be because of Y reason." When the data said nothing at all as to the reason for the data, and was simply stating the figures. It was a clarification request, nothing more.