Ahh. Of course. There's always a next step isn't there? You do realize that that particular attitude makes compromise from the opposition a simple tactical error, right? If it provides no respite, just a quick celebration of taken territory and renewed hostilities, there's no reason for anyone to ever "give ground" with progressives. You do realize that, right?
Hmm.. One thing here is that I am PRO discrimination. Not that I think anyone should be discriminated against, but that compelling individual reactions to differing people is a cure worse than the disease. That goes for individual reactions, not public institutions, but a lot of employment situations are private, not public. So I won't be joining you on that crusade. In fact, I will be opposing that. I don't think that people should be compelled to associate with anyone they don't wish to.
The right to be wrong is important. In fact, it's probably the MOST important one, because if you don't have it, then the question is, "Who decides what's right and wrong?"
What makes you think that I am such a self-centered tool that simple personal involvement would blow this issue that far out of proportion for me? Sure, I object to a number of injustices that are foisted on those of my current gender/situation, such as the fact that men are sentenced to 50% more prison time than women for the exact same crimes, are virtually never granted custody, are presumed guilty after domestic violence accusations, or that people with different colored skin are hired and promoted preferentially purely *because* of their skin color. But, in general, you don't hear me whining about it! Those minor issues haven't been the centerpiece of elections for 25 years!
None of that means that we can continue to borrow/print 40% of the federal budget, or that the riots/doubling of the murder rate is being solved, or that the decline of manufacturing/economics are being handled, or the fact that our society is becoming a fascist plutocracy is being reversed. Those (and others) issues affect everyone in probably catastrophic ways. This issue affects a few people in minor ways. A sense of scale would be REALLY useful here.
ETA: Oh, and as for "trans people being murdered", can you demonstrate that they disproportionately are? Can you demonstrate that they are disproportionately murdered because specifically of trans-ness? I haven't seen a controlled study.
You put an * after "Trans", was that an emphasis typo, or were you intending a footnote?
Honestly, I was certain employment discrimination would be outlawed BEFORE marriage was legalised. Employment law affects everyone; marriage law only affects people who decide they want to get married. So it's not a "next step", it's a previous step which has been missed out.
"Trans*" is the way to encompass transgender, transsexual, genderqueer, and other gender-nonconforming identities.
Just giving the raw numbers of trans murders is really unhelpful in this context. It's completely lacking in controls, ratio, or really any other comparisons that would allow a determination as to whether or not trans people face a particular targeting. Yes, I can Google, and all I found when I did was advocacy organizations throwing raw data (that included a bunch of things out of the reach of US law) at a wall. In general, they specifically "cherry-picked" statistically insignificant data-points to demonstrate their pet cause (7 murders in Miami in 2015 is an interesting sound-byte, but without population, trending, controls, or trend analysis, it's just a talking point, could be a single serial, or any of a thousand other factors). Really, none of those links give me anything to work with in terms of stats. The closest is the huffpo (50% higher), unfortunately, that one includes south america, and I have no idea of, or responsibility to, the citizens of south american nations. Digging beyond the headline on that one, In July, 2013, only 1 of the 23 murders was in the US. Again, not statistically useful.
So, yeah, The proposition that Trans people are disproportionately murdered in the US remains undemonstrated.
Hmm.. One thing here is that I am PRO discrimination. Not that I think anyone should be discriminated against, but that compelling individual reactions to differing people is a cure worse than the disease. That goes for individual reactions, not public institutions, but a lot of employment situations are private, not public. So I won't be joining you on that crusade. In fact, I will be opposing that. I don't think that people should be compelled to associate with anyone they don't wish to.
The right to be wrong is important. In fact, it's probably the MOST important one, because if you don't have it, then the question is, "Who decides what's right and wrong?"
What makes you think that I am such a self-centered tool that simple personal involvement would blow this issue that far out of proportion for me? Sure, I object to a number of injustices that are foisted on those of my current gender/situation, such as the fact that men are sentenced to 50% more prison time than women for the exact same crimes, are virtually never granted custody, are presumed guilty after domestic violence accusations, or that people with different colored skin are hired and promoted preferentially purely *because* of their skin color. But, in general, you don't hear me whining about it! Those minor issues haven't been the centerpiece of elections for 25 years!
None of that means that we can continue to borrow/print 40% of the federal budget, or that the riots/doubling of the murder rate is being solved, or that the decline of manufacturing/economics are being handled, or the fact that our society is becoming a fascist plutocracy is being reversed. Those (and others) issues affect everyone in probably catastrophic ways. This issue affects a few people in minor ways. A sense of scale would be REALLY useful here.
ETA: Oh, and as for "trans people being murdered", can you demonstrate that they disproportionately are? Can you demonstrate that they are disproportionately murdered because specifically of trans-ness? I haven't seen a controlled study.
You put an * after "Trans", was that an emphasis typo, or were you intending a footnote?
Reply
After the precedences set this week, I'm finally feeling hopeless it can't.
Reply
"Trans*" is the way to encompass transgender, transsexual, genderqueer, and other gender-nonconforming identities.
As far as trans murders, you can google as well as I can:
Trans Murder Monitoring Project
Seventh trans murder in Miami in 2015
Worldwide, one trans person is murdered every three days
Trans murders 50 percent higher than gays
Trans women of colour are particularly at risk
Reply
So, yeah, The proposition that Trans people are disproportionately murdered in the US remains undemonstrated.
Reply
Leave a comment