Well I'd say the God-fearing, Christian "West" have a bad view of Islamic Middle East out of religious disposition, but beyond that,sravankb said:
which bit? Beaten up and killed bit or "still treated like inhuman pieces of garbage"?
Transgendered Woman Beat Up In McDonald's; Employees Do Nothing
- Thread starter AngelOfBlueRoses
- Start date
Recommended Videos
which bit? Beaten up and killed bit or "still treated like inhuman pieces of garbage"?
I don't quite understand where you're coming from. If you could elaborate, from the top, that would be just dandy.sravankb said:
You sir are indeed admirable and I applaud you for speaking your mind honestly. I can agree with you on many accounts and well, you gave me a bit of courage to say that.LastGreatBlasphemer said:
On a side note it can be inferred that some of the people didn't get involved mostly due to the uncertainty of the situation and it is an element of organizations amongst people to try and incorporate as much uncertainty avoidance as possible, but that shouldn't stop them from at least breaking up the fight and sorting the situation out from there...Only in a perfect world though. *Sigh*
...okay, thanks. I thought you were being deadpan sarcastic and mocking. The example clears it up.sravankb said:
Actually it didn't. Your attempting to defend a position by being deliberatly obtuse, and also projecting a lot onto what I've said.SamElliot said:
I never said, not once, that the assault should be excused. Only that there were aggravating circumstances. There is a substantial differance between that and saying someone "deserved it" or was trying to "gay someone up" or that it excused an assault.
What I have said from the very beginning is that people have to be responsible for their own choices in expression. Also, just because someone is a member of a minority group does not mean that your dealing with a hate crime.
If it was an actual girl as opposed to a TG, then this wouldn't even be newsworthy, it would just be another cat fight over a guy. However because it's a TG, and people had a negative attitude towards that along with the behavior, it suddenly becomes worse somehow.
Face it, my arguement has not been "cornholed", it's simply people like you are trying to justify a position that is fundementally indefensible in this situation. You don't like what I'm saying, and I get that, but don't try and extend what I've said. Several people have been implying that I have said "it's okay to beat a transgendered person up" and that has not once been even implied.
Now you might not like the fact that I support the rights of the majority over those of tiny minority groups, and can consider acts of personal expression to be aggravating factors, but that's all you really have, the fact that you personally don't like it, or the points I was making.
In short, it's a case of a minor incident being sensationalized to try and garner more attention than it warrents.
You can argue as much as you want, but transgenders go to multiple therapists and undergo alot of procedure before we begin treatment, we arent like emo kids who just have shallow problems that pass by on a whim, we have a legitimate condition, diagnosed by medical professionals, you may not accept that but it doesn't make it any less factual. Maybe you should actually look into what you are talking about. Fine, some transgenders or transvestites can just be happy with crossdressing, but guess what, some can't, compare it to shallow problems as much as you want, but the medical field disagrees with you, and guess what, they actually know what they are talking about. You used the example before that you payed to fix your broken leg, so if someone had a broken leg and was happy living without it getting fixed, that makes your spending stupid and unjustified right?LastGreatBlasphemer said:
ok, so since i can't quote 50 people i'll just quote myself here and anyone who responded to my comment, this is for you. alot of you misunderstood what i was saying here. I said the reasons why they didn't step in, not that i supported their choice. I too would risk my job here to help someone, but i can't begrudge someone for caring for their job. some of us my not need the McDonald's job, hell i worked there myself for a while, but i also worked with many people who did need it. they needed it to feed their kids, and how can you tell anyone that a stranger is more important than their kids, because i am telling you now, with no remorse at all, that i would watch 100 people get beaten to death in front of me if it meant keeping a roof over my kids heads. anyone who says otherwise is a troll or shouldn't be allowed to have kids.ThongBonerstorm said:
To those who said it isn't a rule, well, here it is, don't know what to tell you, i've seen people get fired for chasing a shoplifter or getting into a confrontation.
To the guy who said that the workplace has to offer safe conditions, THIS IS WHAT KEEPS YOU SAFE. nothing says you can't defend yourself, but the second you jump into an altercation on your own, you're gone.
Well, the idea of a melting pot culture is a touchy one in general because people tend to forget about the whole "melting" part and assimilating to become part of the mainstream. The rights of minorities who want the benefits of citizenship, but don't want to assimilate into the society is a big deal. It goes beyond things like transgender rights, and into issues with larger minority groups like demands for all important media and annoucements to be put into various languages instead of requring people to adapt by learning to speak the dominant language of the culture they are in.Char-Nobyl said:
It's a tricky area in a general sense, because while people can make points about minorities becoming second class citizens who are just tolerated, the flip side is that by catering to minority groups you wind up turning the majority into second class citizens.
This is why I make the point about tolerance, nobody has brought genocide into this even as a concept. A more sane way of putting it is that we aren't going to arrest or exile someone for not fitting in. But that doesn't mean the rest of society should be expected to adapt to them or be uncomfortable.
The thing to understand is that in a lot of cases, it comes down to a situation where there is no way to make everyone involved comfortable with something. In such cases, the correct choice is to go with the lesser of two evils, which is simply put to work in favor of whichever side has more people and minimize the number of people who wind up having to make sacrifices or be uncomfortable.
In practice however it's a lot less straightforward than simple matters of JUST looking at a minority group, of whatever sort, against the majority. One major concern is that there are TONS of differant minority groups, and they don't nessicarly get along with each other. In some cases you have situations where you see minority groups having their expression curved specifically to present conflict with other minority groups. An example of this would be say the banning of "ethnic" material in a school, not so much because of the "majority" of white students but because you don't want say the blacks and the Latinos going at it in the hallways when you have ethnic gangs of both sorts in the area. Some guy wearing a stylized "Malcolm X" hat running into a guy wearing a "Latin Pride" T-shirt can lead to a knife fight in some areas. Of course the "evil white majority" gets it from both ends when they come in and institute a dress code banning all similar things, and people scream about being second class citizens, when really it's being done to cut down on the violence. The result of such dress code changes have been mixed depending on the location and exact situation.
The point I'm making here is in response to the point about so called "second class citizens" and perceived attitude that the majority shouldn't have the right to enforce any standards whatsoever. It's not a straightforward thing in a general sense. In most cases you wind up with people who will make arguements based on what they think of the specific group being dealt with. I tend to take one position, and remain consistant with it. While there are going to be exceptions to every rule, they tend to be few and far between. In my case there are groups I like and have sympathy for, but don't think should avoid having to take responsibility for what they do and how people perceive it. A good example of this would be the whole "punk" movement (having grown up in the 80s, it was largely gone before I seriously got old enough), I get the whole non-conformity thing, and can support people who want to dress and act that way on a lot of levels, on the other hand people who do that need to take responsibiluity for it, and you can't with a clear conscience FORCE people to have to accept them, or absolve them of responsibility from the reactions their appearance and attitudes elicit.
-
At any rate, when it comes to aggravating and mitigating factors the basic gist of it is that if one person gets under another person's skin, "pushes their buttons" so to speak, the person's actions become less severe because the person they acted against contributed to bringing it upon themselves.
It's sort of like how if you insult someone and they punch you, the guy is going to get in trouble for punching you, but not as much trouble if they had just come and and did it out of the blue, or as part of say trying to beat you down and steal your money.
In such cases what the "buttons" happen to be is irrelevent. Even if the buttons are detestable or something you don't like, simply by pushing them your basically making the assault less severe.
In this case, you might really hate people who don't like or are uncomfortable with transgendered people. However it's not an uncommon attitude. If someone who is obviously transgendered gets into it with someone like that, it's going to push buttons more severely than it would otherwise.
This is at the root of my point about responsibility among those who choose very contreversial forms of expression, no matter how they justify it. If someone approaches them and goes after them just for making a lifestyle choice, that's a hate crime. On the other hand if someone reacts to them from something they initiate, and the reaction is enflamed by their presentation, well that's the risks you take in choosing to go against the grain of society.
I'm not making much in the way of moral judgements, just saying that this is the way things are. Largely because every arguement you can make in defense of a minority "just being that way" can be made about someone who reacts negatively to that group "just being that way" in the other direction. People might not LIKE that point, and want to take sides based on their personal beliefs, but inherantly taking sides causes even more problems.
Thus, in looking at situations like this impartially, it comes down to who actually initiated the incident. The transgendered person was not simply attacked out of the blue, it seems to be a matter of record that they had contact with a male patron, which caused the women with him to react violently. The violence is not inherantly excused, however it's apparently not entirely unprovoked either. Going by the reports, the person being a TG was apparently a factor to those involved, or at least witnessing the incident, it didn't lead
to the inititation of the incident, but apparently aggravated it and probably lead to it's escalation and contributed to the lack of sympathy.
Sadly, by definition a society that is fair to everyone in an absolute sense really isn't possible unless you do something like genetically alter everyone within the society to be the same. You have to work with what is there. Overall someone's right to dislike other people and even hate them, is just as important as someone's right to express themselves. Hence my point about tolerance, and how who initiates a confrontation like this being important.
Outside of this specific incident, in most places and situations simply bu there being a fight, both people involved are going to be held accountable and punished. Fighting in self defense, as opposed to trying to run away first in of itself makes someone liable. In many cases though where the situation is paticularly nasty, there are injuries and/or it's not going to be solved by simply seperating the parties and having them spend a night in a lock up, the issue of who said what, how the people were dressed, whether there were threats made, and of course who inititated first contact, and who threw the first blow can all be incidents. It doesn't apply everywhere but there can be a differance between contact and an attack in certain kinds of incidents. Such as if say a security professional initiates contact by say stepping between someone and an area they can't access (a doorway or access point for example) causing them to run into the security professional, or the holding up of an arm, or presenting a shoulder for similar purposes. This is to differentiate it in court if someone tries to claim that a physical intercession/impedement was a "first strike" and the guy who actually decided to throw a punch was "defending themselves". Of course that's an academic point and has little to do with this incident, and it's a distinction that doesn't nessicarly exist everywhere.
Because all he is spewing is ignorance, anyone who has an actual understanding of what being transgender is can see that he has no idea what he is talking about and is saying some things that can be taken as a purposeful attack against transpeoplestinkychops said:
First off, transvestite and transgender are different, and while i dont find the mistake particularly offensive, a lot of people can.stinkychops said:Hm. I have been warned for my post but I think discussing what he said should be fine. *Famous last words*Kerra said:
I don't see why someone would be probated for ignorance. In fact, in most cases at least one side of an argument expresses some amount of ignorance. (If everyone were completely informed, there wouldn't be much to discuss).
The thread covers a sensitive issue. People should expect to be offended. I'm offended all the time, usually by poorly made food, inane conversation or terrible music. It doesn't mean anyone needs to be punished, if we're to be mature. However I've seen many people question each-others sexualities and insecurities based off far less, and they received no visible punishment. I don't see why transvestites should view themselves as a group of people deserving of internet protection.
Everyone should be allowed critique. I don't see any purposeful attack. Maybe I don't get it because I'm not transgendered (not a word according to spellcheck :S). Please though, elaborate.
-edit-To be honest I am offended simply by the topic. That doesn't mean I'm going to ask people to stop talking.
Now to the point, Blasphemer's comments are extremely intolerant garbage that could easily be seen as an attack of provoking self harm or something worse. I quote him "Why would I want to learn what it means to be unaccepting of what I am and try to be something different? It's not like a man who has gender reassignment will know what it means to be a woman, and vice versa." A comment like that is something that can be utterly devestating for a transperson to hear, ive seen transgirls pushed to the brink of suicide simply by being called 'sir'. Now, im lead to believe by blasphemer that he has some knowledge of transgenders and even thought himself to be one at one point, so its not a stretch to assume that he would know the possible consequences of what he said, and repeated, many times.
Now lets assume that he didnt know what the possible effects may be, transpeople are still, under the eyes of medical field, the government, and the law, their proper gender, its is idiotic to be so vehement that we can never be our desired gender
It makes me upset, it really does... being called "sir" or "son" or "mr" or "he" or "him", no matter what my mood is at the time, causes me to feel depressed... its horrible, and yet we have "people" like this guy saying all these thingsKerra said:
And these people are getting are temporary suspensions for a single day!? not good enough!
With a community that has a suicide rate of 31% and a suicide attempt rate of 50% (source: http://www.tglynnsplace.com/suicide.htm) (I'm glad I'm not one of those) LastBlasphemer's actions are only going to increase those numbers
Once again, you keep assuming that the victim was aggravating her attackers just by being there, despite evidence to the contrary that the attacker was simply jealous her boyfriend was flirting with the victim (and didn't find out until the attack that the woman was transgendered, so you're right in that it's not a hate crime). That part doesn't seem to get through to you, and probably because to acknowledge that inconvenient fact would mean that your entire argument that transgendereds are 'forcing themselves' on the majority is kind of silly.Therumancer said:
You also throw in a lot of talk about 'responsibility,' ignoring once again that the victim did nothing other than appear to be a woman. She didn't force herself on anyone, the attackers didn't even know she was transgendered until they had already attacked her. Everything else you've drawn from that argument is just an extension of the homophobic view of "I don't mind as long as they're not trying to cram it down my throat," which is a silly view because it assumes that if a straight man and a gay man (or transgendered woman) are standing next to each other that the latter is going to try and get the straight man. It's not projection when that's what you're saying the victim was doing, and no amount of parroting the word 'responsibility' is going to change that. How about the attacker's responsibility to not beat the shit out of people just because her boyfriend happened to think they were cute? How about society's responsibility to just grow up already and recognize that sexuality is not as neat and tidy as some want it to be, and neither are gender roles? How about every person's responsibility to really, truly look at the world around them and see what needs fixing, rather just holding onto convenient platitudes that reinforce their own sheltered sense of entitlement? Or does 'responsibility' only extend to people who fall outside your narrow worldview of 'the majority'?
I wouldn't have helped. but I would have A. Recorded it on my phone or something for evidence. and B. Called the police. But no way am I risking my ass in a possibly lethal fight.
maybe you dont go outside to preach hatred of transpeople... but you certainly are online. And what you say can't be easilly ignored by everyone, I myself can just list you off as ignorant but many transpeople would look at your posts and they would bring all the negative suicidal feelings back... and yet you continue to do so which means I can only come to the conclusion that you are completely heartlessLastGreatBlasphemer said:
It's ironic, in the McDonalds incident you said a few times that "she should not have been beaten up" but you condone a behaivior that leads to depression, self-hatred and suicidal tendancies
in all serious though, if I had to make the choice between being trans or beating beaten up... I'd choose being beaten up without hesitation. I have been beaten up a few times and the pain of that doesn't even come close to the pain that I have to go through just by being trans