Shooting at San Diego Synagogue

[AmazonQueen]

Yes, no one is disagreeing with what you are saying about harassment, but the problem is that people have used it as an attempt to defend themselves from assaulting and literally murdering LGBT people, which leaves a very bad taste in my mouth and is an example of the issues any LGBT might face, especially transmen/transwomen.

I ask you to reflect why i and others may take issue with what you are saying, even if it seems self-evident to you.

People who have experienced harassment are not going to take kindly to having it dismissed because there are cases when false accusations have been made. You should reflect on that as well.

 

[Synobun]

Refusing "Some LGBTQ people really are scummy tho :/" as a counterargument to "There are men who murder LGBTQ people due to homophobic tropes" isn't dismissing your harassment, it's dismissing your implied point wherein that murder is somehow okay. It's not a one-or-the-other deal. You can be harassed by a woman, AQ, and have that be terrible, and it still be terrible that there are people who genuinely wish to kill someone because of the threat of an "encroaching gay".

More to the point, your experience of being harassed doesn't really apply to the latter situation, unless you're trying to imply that the murder "makes sense".

 

[Cloud_Strife]

People who have experienced harassment are not going to take kindly to having it dismissed because there are cases when false accusations have been made. You should reflect on that as well.

What do you think is more prevalent? The former or the latter?

 

[Kyriakos]

What do you think is more prevalent? The former or the latter?

Should this matter at all to how harassment feels like? No one here is defending violence; it was just surprising to be met with dismissal of a rather logical point about harassment. There is no collective guilt of heterosexual people or of any other over-group.

 

[Lexicus]

People who have experienced harassment are not going to take kindly to having it dismissed because there are cases when false accusations have been made. You should reflect on that as well.

No one is dismissing harassment. What I am questioning is the reason behind saying "well gay dudes are fine, unless they sexually harass people! then they're totally not fine", like, duh, everyone knows that harassing people is not fine, so why bring it up in that way, in that context? It reads like an invocation of the "gay panic defense" trope, which is why people don't like it.

The other issue is a double standard. Many of the same men who will say "well women should take it as a compliment when I hit on them/catcall them!" will, to put it lightly, not take it as a compliment if a gay man hits on them or catcalls them. And I am of the opinion that hitting on someone is not harassment in and of itself but many homophobes treat it as harassment when it is coming from a gay man.

 

[AmazonQueen]

What do you think is more prevalent? The former or the latter?

I've no idea. So far as I know there are no statistics collected on the issue.
Nor does it really matter. Harrassment or violence towards someone is wrong regardless of who the victim or perpetrator is.
To me what you're doing is equivilent to those people who try to downplay rape or other violence against women because there have been cases where false accusations are made.

 

[Kyriakos]

No one is dismissing harassment. What I am questioning is the reason behind saying "well gay dudes are fine, unless they sexually harass people! then they're totally not fine", like, duh, everyone knows that harassing people is not fine, so why bring it up in that way, in that context? It reads like an invocation of the "gay panic defense" trope, which is why people don't like it.

The other issue is a double standard. Many of the same men who will say "well women should take it as a compliment when I hit on them/catcall them!" will, to put it lightly, not take it as a compliment if a gay man hits on them or catcalls them. And I am of the opinion that hitting on someone is not harassment in and of itself but many homophobes treat it as harassment when it is coming from a gay man.

Hm, i think it would be easier to just accept you over-reacted, than posting such stuff which had nothing to do with my own post

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I would invite you to read up on the concept of gay/trans panic and how it's been weaponised against the LGBT community.

Examples can be seen here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_panic_defense

I'm trying to be cordial here, but your refrain of "Not my issue, though" is a cop out, the fact is that women, LGBT people etc are at risk of violence from men, be they straight or otherwise, not just for engaging in any sort of activity with them, but also for refusing or even being seen as somehow "leading them on". I don't like any sort of apologism for this and i don't tolerate it either.

You might be having fun with statistics, but you're not having self-consistency with using statistics.

Everyone is at risk of violence to some extent, depending on who you are and where you go. When it comes to violent crime, men have roughly as much to fear. Overall, men are targeted by what BJS calls "violent crime" slightly more than women (difference is negligible), but you get big spreads on the specific types of crime. I suppose it depends on preference between being raped vs killed, since there are pretty big swings in biological sex of targeted person between the two.

When it comes to LGBT, do we have reliable data on the rate at which they're targeted relative to baseline? I suspect not, especially because "LGBT" includes quite a wide spread of different people/demographics with particulars that may or may not be apparent to an assailant.

Unless you're willing to spare similar energy in threads talking about defending Kyriakos' demographic(s) from violent crime, saying his position is a "cop-out" is hypocritical. Unjustified violence is bad in general and I've yet to see someone state otherwise in this thread.

 

[El_Machinae]

Here's just a drop of the statistics

https://www.hrc.org/resources/sexual-assault-and-the-lgbt-community

The two major theories is that being LGBT triggers an insecurity other people, making them more likely to commit violence. Additionally, we have cultures where there's been a strong subtext of LGBT people being 'the other', and therefore more likely to be attacked. The LGBT-on-LGBT violence is a separate issue, but can be unpacked to provide further 'cause' of straight people assaulting LGBT people. You have to compare like-with-like. For example "61% of bisexual women have been hassled by a partner" is not the same thing as "46% of bisexual women have been sexually assaulted", so cross-comparing the numbers cannot be done from the summary, but need to be unpacked from the (linked) CDC study.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Here's just a drop of the statistics

https://www.hrc.org/resources/sexual-assault-and-the-lgbt-community

The two major theories is that being LGBT triggers an insecurity other people, making them more likely to commit violence. Additionally, we have cultures where there's been a strong subtext of LGBT people being 'the other', and therefore more likely to be attacked. The LGBT-on-LGBT violence is a separate issue, but can be unpacked to provide further 'cause' of straight people assaulting LGBT people. You have to compare like-with-like. For example "61% of bisexual women have been hassled by a partner" is not the same thing as "46% of bisexual women have been sexually assaulted", so cross-comparing the numbers cannot be done from the summary, but need to be unpacked from the (linked) CDC study.

There are some immediately questionable things going on here:

• 35%, 44%, 61% "of women experiencing rape, physical violence, or stalking by an intimate partner" --> I defy that statistic. Even before "unpacking", all of those are serious criminal offenses (stalking obviously less so), and two of them leave irrefutable evidence with the third being likely to leave evidence also. We don't have anywhere near this many people being convicted or even charged. The language here also suggests that women are more likely to commit this kind of violence against women than men, which goes against general crime statistics strongly enough to at least raise an eyebrow.
  
• The data you're showing doesn't support the "homophobic" violence between men asserted by others in this thread. I'm sure it happens and people who do it suck, but it doesn't appear disproportionate to crimes in general. Between "being gay" and "going to a bar", the latter is likely the greater risk of violence by far, with only a marginal increase in risk if you're both gay and at a bar.
  
• I doubt the 47% number based on the survey in appendix B for the same reason I doubt over 1/3 of all women have experienced serious felonies per above. Unwanted touching does not belong in the same answer response space with rape, because they are wildly different degrees of crime.
• A notable takeaway is that the most common age for women to get assaulted is as teenagers. That bears out in the BJS stats I was reading for the earlier post too (for men #1 age to be targeted for violence was mid 20's to mid 30's...but not nearly as disproportionately as for girls under 20). It paints a different picture from homophobic bar fights and likely needs multiple things done to solve it.

 

[Senethro]

What proportion of rapes/sexual assaults do you think are convicted....????

 

[Cloud_Strife]

Wait til he hears about historical allegations of rape and sexual assault, you know the kind where evidence was often not kept, especially in days before dna was widely used or even known.

The London cabbie John Worboys was convicted of 12 assaults but even the police admit and acknowledge that the total number of victims is likely over a hundred, yet for some of the reasons listed above those other victims will never get a prosecution.

A small minority of victims got justice in this case, so what hope do others have when even a known convicted rapist has such a low conviction to victim rate?

Never mind people being let off with it because they are affluent, of high status or simply because they are white.

 

[Lexicus]

Traitorfish made a good post a while back about the immediate framing of the issue in terms of criminal justice:

You can certain dispute whether or not these attitudes we're alleging constitute "a culture". I'm not married to the concept; I tend to think that human beings in hierarchical society are given many opportunities to treat each other as garbage, and provide with ways to rationalise that behaviour, and that gender is one of several dimensions. I'm sure that many black men could tell their own stories of reduced bodily autonomy during encounters with the police, for example; I would not be the first to search that stop-and-search policies are comparable to sexual assault as acts of coerced and invasive contact.

But, I don't think it follows that because this doesn't constitute "a culture", it's just a lot of errors and loopholes and lapses of judgement, occurring more or less by accident. If that were the case, we'd expect the system to err in the opposite direction about as often, which doesn't seem to be the case. I think it's hard to argue that there isn't some underlying, if not approval of sexual violence, then a disinclination to recognise sexual violence, an anxiety about identifying violent sexual behaviour in those terms. It can be in the culture, without being a culture, if that makes sense.

For sure, although I'll point out that the reason this is now considered generally abhorrent is because feminists have spent decades beating it into our skulls. But, again, the fact that we can point to explicit taboos is not strong evidence of a society which is consistently hostile to sexual assault. There is a long way between explicitly affirming a desire for sex and being unconscious, and

Part of the problem we're running into, I think, is thinking of this narrowly in terms of criminal justice. There's a large swathe of sexual violent behaviour which is not prosecutable in any practical way, just as there's a large swathe of other kinds of violent behaviour which is not prosecutable. While I can appreciate the romance of a song titled "The Severed Genitals of Every Rapist Hang Bleeding From These Trees", I readly admit that it's not an appropriate response to most instances of sexual violence. This is all as much a question about treating other people decently, of empowering people who may be victimised to force others to treat them decently, as it is about sending people to prison.

Speaking of prison: male-on-male sexual violence in prisons is frequently treated as a joke, and not infrequently cited as an appropriate and just part of a convicted person's punishment. So, if you want to think about "rape culture" in a way that doesn't invoke the spectre of the Feminist Agenda, about how bodily autonomy becomes degraded and sexually violent behaviour becomes excused, that's really not the worst place to start. As I mention above, gender is only one dimension of the various horrible ways that humans in hierarchical societies abuse each other.

 

[Hamid.H]

You implied it was a fad and used the incredibly charged word "degenerate", so don't give us this bullcrap, you know what you were saying and you know that it aligns with transphobic rhetoric.

i agree, its a term frequently thrown around by alt-right fascists.

Hmm, no, doesn't seem like he changed his perspective from when he was younger at all... In fact, seems like he outright says his suspicions were confirmed, that it is all a fad filled with degeneracy and deviancy.

the terms "degenerate" and "deviant" are used by the far-right as the modern equivalent of untermensch. fascists deploy these words regularly to target and assault those that they consider to be weaker and lesser them themselves. its dehumanizing and disgusting.

Dude has said he thinks the violence suffered by LGBT people is "conveniently imagined to happen..." what sort of bs is this?

is this really all that surprising considering his earlier comments?

You're not parsing 'degeneracy'. And it's not the same as deviancy. Degeneracy was clarified to mean "obsession with discussing sex". Now, I've assumed that he means sex involving nonbinary roles, but that's an argument that can be teased out.

why are you trying so hard to give legitimacy to his comments? we all knew what he meant by it, we also know where those terms come from, who commonly uses them, and their intent behind it.

There are an incredible number of sexual deviants. And there are people will unhealthy sexual desires (i.e., look at the success of misogynistic porn) And yeah, the deviants take a lot of the limelight. And we support them. Now, I don't support them because I am actually in awe of their deviance. I'm supporting them because they're the frontline of an entire community of historically oppressed people*. They fought the harder battles that we're only pretending to fight now. If you can see that someone can see deviants, but isn't aware of the non-deviants, then the trick is to point out the non-deviants.

am i the only one whos uncomfortable with the term "deviant" being normalized itt, especially in the context of discussing members of the lgbtq community?? considering where these terms come from and how they were originally foisted into the conversation??

I'm supporting them because they're the frontline

just the way you say this while trying to distance yourself from so-called "deviants" is concerning to me because it sounds a lot like usury, especially since you also mentioned that theyre fighting a battle that youre collectively "pretending" to fight.

I did this by (twice) mentioning that I know transgendered people that are not (in any reasonable way) 'deviants'.

is that like a token black friend? as in the kind of black friend that makes you forget that hes black? as white liberals do say.

This clarification changes nothing about his intended meaning. There's nothing degenerate and deviant about not being straight, even if you make a point of basing your identity around that fact (because hey, the people who think you're degenerate and deviant may just want to kill you for it).

i couldn't agree more.

You're reading the post as if there's not a subset of people who are deviant. The degeneracy was clarified. It was also not referring to people best classed as 'not straight', but of a specific obsession with portraying sex. I just allowed him the presumption that he wasn't referring to 'all LBGT' people when discussing 'deviants'. It's hardly a huge leap to allow someone.

There are two points to conflict against: that the 'non-deviant' component of LBGT activism is MUCH larger than what we see on the surface (i.e., the deviant proportion is only a small subset) and that the 'degeneracy' label is subconsciously only regarding non-straight sex discussion, because we've already normalized public discussion of straight sex.

Here's my thinking: you can tilt at his words with your interpretation. I'll tilt at them using my interpretation. We'll see who can change his thinking and who can just flame until he leaves the board.

this is insanity. dude, just stop. if you have to try this hard to shoehorn his comments into something thats still blatant homophobia then its just not worth the effort. just call it what it is - bigotry. hes even said himself that from a teenager, through to his early 20s and across the country that his views havent changed. in fact, he said his position hardened the more he was exposed to lgbtq people. stop deluding yourself. all youre achieving is the normalization of violent rhetoric thats commonly weaponized by alt-right neo-nazi fascists to out-group members of the lgbtq community.

The news prefers to emphasize exceptional cases. Yet people who don't pay attention to base rates/think a little bit are mostly not going to notice trans people in their day to day activities and then see this crap on the news and think that's normal, in defiance of their knowledge of every other news coverage pattern.

see what i mean? we went from "degenerates" and "deviants" to "having to see this crap and think its normal."

now lets take a quick look in the sewer at the kind of violent rhetoric that the alt-right was using today in response to the new time magazine cover and compare

Pete Buttigieg: TIME Magazine Cover of Me and My Husband Gives America Hope



hh

 

[Hamid.H]

Well of course it is. Arguing that something labelled as "violence" isn't actually violence, is just another act of violence that enables more violent violence. How could it be otherwise. This makes total sense and was a point well worth making. Well done.

What does choosing to lie about things that people said enable just out of interest? I mean to me it looks like it might encourage violence. But I gues actual violence isn't deserving of the label "violence" if it's to an end you agree with. Or something.

this is violent and harmful rhetoric that should not be tolerated

What are you doing!?!?

why are you so violent?!?!

stop promoting violence!!!

hh

 

[Patine]

hh

Are we on the unified, undivided, singularly-thinking, hive-mind "White Liberals," again? Or any such broad group in that light? Are you an entomology student? Because you seem to often be applying that kind of logic to human sociology quite blatantly....

 

[Hamid.H]

Are we on the unified, undivided, singularly-thinking, hive-mind "White Liberals," again?.

im just pointing out that white cis liberals are quick to present a untied front when it doesnt cost them anything, or while theyre directly benefiting from that co-called united front. unfortunately, ive found this to be very different when it comes to issues that almost exclusively effect ethnic, non-binary, or sexual minorities. ive found that white liberals are often quick to dismiss or downplay the interlocking systems of oppression and the distribution of power hierarchies because they are part of those systems.

hh

 

[Patine]

im just pointing out that white cis liberals are quick to present a untied front when it doesnt cost them anything, or while theyre directly benefiting from that co-called united front. unfortunately, ive found this to be very different when it comes to issues that almost exclusively effect ethnic, non-binary, or sexual minorities. ive found that white liberals are often quick to dismiss or downplay the interlocking systems of oppression and the distribution of power hierarchies because they are part of those systems.

hh

I haven't noticed any such unity of thought and opinion. I'm not sure what your source (or propaganda feed) here is.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I'm wildly guessing, but i suppose in the United States it's a really bad idea to have gaps in your CV.
Maybe @Timsup2nothin is willing to back me up on that?

​

I assume so, but cannot say from personal experience since I never left any gaps. Of course I come from an era of paper applications and resumes where references are much more challenging to verify so most of them weren't verified. Probably more difficult now, but stretches of being self employed, if parleyed correctly, can cover a world of sins.

 

[Kyriakos]

im just pointing out that white cis liberals are quick to present a untied front when it doesnt cost them anything, or while theyre directly benefiting from that co-called united front. unfortunately, ive found this to be very different when it comes to issues that almost exclusively effect ethnic, non-binary, or sexual minorities. ive found that white liberals are often quick to dismiss or downplay the interlocking systems of oppression and the distribution of power hierarchies because they are part of those systems.

hh

Well, LGBT issues are rather dealt with in the most heinous manner in the muslim world, so there is always room for improvement.