Queerty is better as a member

Log in | Register
OUTRAGE

Swedish Judge Apparently Believes Trans Women Can’t Be Raped

How is this possible? An alleged rapist has been acquitted in Sweden when it turned out that his victim was a trans woman. In essence, the judge ruled that it’s not possible to rape trans women.

The original article is in Swedish, but you can read an English version here. We keep hoping that we’re simply missing something in the translation, but it sure doesn’t seem that way.

The facts are presented thusly: a 61-year-old man attacked a woman outside her ex-boyfriend’s apartment building. The woman and her ex fought the attacker off, and he was arrested.

But at trial, according to the slightly awkward translation, Judge Dan Sjöstedt stated: “We believe that he wanted to rape… this woman. But as she proved to be a man, his plan [would] never have been possible.”

Right, because rapists are known for being picky. An appeal is likely, so there’s that. Geez.

By:           Benji Douglas
On:           Jul 3, 2012
Tagged: , ,
  • 46 Comments
    • hamoboy
      hamoboy

      WTF? SMH…

      Jul 3, 2012 at 3:01 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • David
      David

      Wrong. It isn’t that the guy got off, it is that he would be guilty of a different charge, equally serious, such as attempted forcible sodomy or sexual assault. It is simply a matter of which charge applies, not whether he escapes punishment.

      In any event, this has nothing to do with gay people. Stop posting stories about transsexuals and transgenders in your ridiculous attempt to brainwash us into thinking that gay people want to be women or that we are in a “community” with people who want to be women. We don’t and we aren’t. LGBT is a lie.

      Jul 3, 2012 at 3:18 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Dani Alexander
      Dani Alexander

      @David: Hi, you’re not part of my community. Please go sit over there in the Chick-fil-A along with the other bigots.

      Jul 3, 2012 at 3:52 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • axon
      axon

      I’m Swedish. It’s a case of a naive judge, who obviously never heard of oral or anal rape, or about simply coming while grinding against the victim. The soon-to-be woman (who had undergone hormone treatment) was dressed in women’s clothing when brutally attacked. The rapist began ripping her clothes of and grabbing at her crotch, when her boyfriend came to her aid. Of course it was attempted rape, but the judge changed the charge to physical assault, and the attacker got four months in jail and must pay the victim damages. The verdict will almost certainly be appealed, and the judge says he’s very interested in the outcome.

      Queerty – Sweden is not Britain. Our judges don’t wear wigs! :)

      Jul 3, 2012 at 3:58 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • M
      M

      The idea behind it is that the man would have never gone through with the rape. So if he hadn’t been interrupted he wouldn’t have raped her anyway and would never have been charged with rape – so therefore now that he was interrupted he cannot be charged with attempted rape. I get the logic behind that but there’s an awful lot of semantics involved there. I think it’s fine as long as the punishment for assault and attempted rape is the same so he didn’t “escape” any punishment.

      Jul 3, 2012 at 4:49 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • GreatGatsby2011
      GreatGatsby2011

      @David: Nice try, David. But, just because you’re too lazy to pick up a history book and educate yourself about the community you claim to represent, doesn’t mean you get to come on here and wave your Magic Wand of Ignorance and rewrite history. Only a person who is completely devoid of critical thinking skills would believe that the only reason that the LGB and T communities are combined is because all gay people suffer from gender identity issues. There were many reasons why the LGB and T communities joined forces, not the least of which was the fact that, back then, there was little to no distinction between the LGB and T communities. We were all categorized under the singular title of “Pervert” to a majority of Americans. Dear God!! I mean, you do know that it is due, in major part, to the unified efforts of the entire LGBT community (yes, T included) that the general public is even aware that there is a difference between gender identity and sexual orientation, right? And yet you have the gall to utter this ridiculous “they are not like me therefore they do not belong” garbage??

      So please, next time, save your xenophobic word-vomit for the right-wing fundamentalists’ websites that abhore critical thinking as much as you do.

      Jul 3, 2012 at 5:13 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Alexi3
      Alexi3

      @David: Do you really know so little about our history and why all the vehemence in your words?

      Jul 3, 2012 at 5:35 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • David
      David [Different person #1 using similar name]

      @GreatGatsby2011:

      “We were all categorized under the singular title of “Pervert” to a majority of Americans.”

      By that logic, gays should also be deemed in a single community with every sex fetishist in existence, voyeurs, obscene phone callers, and child molesters. The point is: the bigoted assumptions of the majority is not the basis on which to form a community or identity. If 1950s America lumped gays and transsexuals together, that is a great argument for educating 1950s America, not for redefining ourselves around false prejudices. LGBT reflects stereotypical and prejudicial thinking. It should be seen as an affront to every gay man and lesbian who has a shred of self-respect.

      Jul 3, 2012 at 6:38 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Korinne
      Korinne

      @David

      My younger brother is G, my older sister is L, and I am T. You’re literally calling for them to draw a line between us. You know, because we haven’t shared our struggles together…

      Jul 3, 2012 at 7:12 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Daez
      Daez

      @Dani Alexander: @David: It is really simple. Without the T there would have never been Stonewall. Stonewall was the birth of the gay rights movement. So, without the T there would have never been a gay rights movement in the late 1960s and early 1970s. You should be thanking them not discriminating against them.

      Jul 3, 2012 at 10:04 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Making up stuff is fun!
      Making up stuff is fun!

      @Daez: Wow. What a complete load of bull$hit. Without transsexuals, LGBs would have simply sat around accepting discrimination up to the present day? Do you have any idea how dumb that sounds?

      Jul 3, 2012 at 10:24 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • jwrappaport
      jwrappaport

      @David: I’m reminded of the words of Martin Niemoller, roughly translated:

      First they came for the communists,
      and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a communist.

      Then they came for the trade unionists,
      and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a trade unionist.

      Then they came for the Jews,
      and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a Jew.

      Then they came for me
      and there was no one left to speak out for me.

      Your comment, roughly paraphrased, is essentially this: Trans folks desire somewhat different social, political, and legal goals than I do. Likewise, they act in a manner I clearly don’t understand. I am thus indifferent to their suffering and will not deign to be included in their movement for equality.

      It is vulnerable to the very criticism you level against the article: it is a sweeping and ultimately misleading generalization about a group of people you likely know little about. There are plenty of gay men who enjoy flouting conventional gender roles and assuming the identity of women – I am not among them, but I nonetheless resent your tacit endorsement of rigid, unchanging gender roles, especially considering how much fun it is to bend them in bed. I highly recommend it.

      Moreover, the movement for trans equality and acceptance is a trifle more nuanced than “people who want to be women.” There are plenty of trans women, sure – but there are also trans men. What about bigendered people? Fluid gender? Genderless? Point made, I should think: do your homework and think before speaking glibly about people whose lives you know nothing about, especially considering they are fighting the very same problem we are: rigid, unnuanced, and artificial constructs of gender, sex, love, and the human condition.

      Jul 4, 2012 at 12:11 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • David
      David [Different person #1 using similar name]

      @jwrappaport: Your Holocaust references are bizarre and offensive but illustrate nicely the complete lack of perspective that the LGBT crowd has.

      No one is saying that we can’t be allies with Ts or speak up if they are abused. We were allies with Ts before anyone started using the term “LGBT” and we would continue to be allies when we finally stop using that ridiculous term.

      What I and many others object to is the insistence that we believe in the lie that we are one “community” with Ts. We aren’t. Not any more than all Jews and all Communists and all Gypsies were in one mythical “community” or formed one “people”. It is a lie and you can’t base an identity on lies.

      I am well aware that T includes more than transsexuals, although exactly what is included under that letter seems to change from week to week. But the point is that the gay community should not be merged with millions of straight people who might be “gender nonconforming” any more than it should be merged with people born with 2 sets of genitalia or people who want to alter their gender via surgery. Although they might have common cause on some issues, these are different groups. To force them all into one corral is to insult all of them, not to mention to dilute the gay rights movement to the point of incoherence.

      LGBT is pushed for ideological reasons by people who don’t want gay people to focus on gay rights. Rejecting it does not mean rejecting friendships with other groups but it does mean rejecting the lie that we are all the same group.

      Jul 4, 2012 at 12:43 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • David
      David [Different person #1 using similar name]

      @Daez: You moron. The vast majority of people at Stonewall were not Ts. Look at any picture of Stonewall. There are no Ts in those pictures. There is one account by homophobic journalist at the Daily News that has at least 1 drag queen present, although I don’t know if that counts as “T” since the definition of T changes all the time. But one or even a handful of drag queens doesn’t mean that Ts were responsible for Stonewall. Nor would it mean that they did whatever they did because they thought that “trans” = gay.

      More to the point, Stonewall is not some kind of religious event. Its participants are not gods and we don’t worship them nor do we define ourselves based on the particulars of whatever happened on that street corner 43 years ago. Even if every last participant in Stonewall were T, it wouldn’t justify how we define ourselves in 2012. There were also druggies, mafia informants, and blackmailers at Stonewall, but that doesn’t mean we owe an eternal debt to the mob or to the heroin trade. There were no Asian Americans at Stonewall, but that doesn’t mean we should exclude Asians. Stop being a reactionary and outsourcing your brain to 1969.

      Jul 4, 2012 at 12:53 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Dani Alexander
      Dani Alexander

      @David: Speaking as a FTM T, also as a gay transman: David, your transphobia is showing and speaking volumes about you.

      PS: @Daez: I believe your misreading my statements. I said I wasn’t part of DAVID’s community. He can sit alone, thank you.

      Jul 4, 2012 at 1:02 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Kevin
      Kevin

      By your own admission, the LGB and T communities have “common cause on some issues” and should continue to be allies. Why, then, can’t they share a news source, when there are so few good ones aimed at either community?

      Jul 4, 2012 at 1:03 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • The Real Mike in Asheville
      The Real Mike in Asheville

      @David: Well David, perhaps you should be the one headed elsewhere: this is not “Gaity” nor “Lesbity”, its Queerty — and transsexuals are certainly as queer as the rest of us!

      *****

      And why the picture of Rumple at the Baily? Ehnglish, not Swedish, oops, no need to ask, this is Queerty afterall.

      *****

      And, again, this is Queerty afterall, the translated story is very confusing with contradicting statements. But it does say that the attempted-rapist was found guilty of gross assault, is headed to prison, alas only 4 months, and fined $15,000, alas, not enough. Meanwhile, the prosecution is appealing and Swedish law professors are taking up that appeal.

      Jul 4, 2012 at 7:55 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Martin
      Martin

      @David: I agree totally with you. Gay and trans are totally different things. Im interested in gay stuff, NEVER in trans stuff. Trans people have my sympathy and I wish them well, but Im not in a “community” with them.
      News sites with special interests like queerty works a lot better if they focus. I dont like hamster owner related news on queerty either, and its not because I hate hamsters or those who care about them. Its just not me…

      @Daez: @GreatGatsby2011: Take it easy and relax guys… He is entitled to his opinion…

      Jul 4, 2012 at 8:05 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Dani Alexander
      Dani Alexander

      @Martin: Did you just compare the relationship of queers and trangender communities to those of hamsters and their owners? Is that what you just did?

      Jul 4, 2012 at 8:14 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Trent
      Trent

      @David:

      Here is where I think you are losing focus. Queer is not longer just a term for a gay man. It has been taken and changed. I won’t try to define it because from what I am told, it covers everything. So this is not just a gay news site. It is an all LGBT (yes T comes under the term Queer) encompassing word. This change has only occurred in the past few years and I know many people who think of Queer as a man loving man. It is no longer that. The word has changed like all the words in the GLBT community seem too.

      Jul 4, 2012 at 8:28 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Martin
      Martin

      @Dani Alexander: If you cant read then any explaining i can do writing will be of very small assistance to you…

      Trans issues are no more my business than hamster care advice. Im not trans. I dont read straight womens feminist blogs either. Im gay. I like men and to read related articles…

      Jul 4, 2012 at 11:37 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Martin
      Martin

      @Trent: Could it occur to you that it might be what he doesnt like? Having his gay identity exchanged for the meaningless all-encompassing queer identity? Queer theory is bullshit in an Pseudoacademic package. Basically the people who occupy themselves with it write articles no-one bothers to read, using words that sound impressive but have very little content.

      Political LGBT is rubbish. Sure lets be kind and supportive to each other, but lets try to be that to all people.

      Jul 4, 2012 at 11:45 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Chris
      Chris

      Yeah, queer people have definitely lost perspective when they compare their struggle to that of holocaust victims; it’s not like queer people were holocaust victohwait.

      Anyway, actually on topic, I am passing on the rumourmill here:

      Perpetrator is serving 4 months for assault. It appears (vague and dodgy sources) that the judge may have believed the perpetrator was culpable for rape but that the jury (lay judges; council workers I think?) outvoted him (in which case presumably the judge is summarising their argument?). Conviction is likely under swedish law on appeal; appeal courts have a larger bench of judges and a smaller jury. (also I think jury is the wrong word here; ‘lay-judges’ seem to be somewhat less than UK magistrates but maybe more than completely random joes?)

      Jul 4, 2012 at 12:04 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Trent
      Trent

      @Martin: I can agree and personally do not want to be called Queer. I am just not a fan of the term. I can also agree that I personally know nothing about T issues. I would not say that I don’t care, but I don’t go out of my way to inform myself on them. That does not mean that we cannot support them; even if we do not understand.

      Jul 4, 2012 at 12:16 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • amily4dukang
      amily4dukang

      [Brand sale Ma Kai slave / the makino male models outdoor shoes – $131.00 :

      Jul 4, 2012 at 12:17 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Chris
      Chris

      So the misreporting is rife; the quotation from the judge is translated from a newspaper paraphrasing him explaining under what legal justification the crime was altered, the lay-judges (random politicians), not the judge; the judge appears to be very much of the opinion that this is a case of rape and is at worst kicking it up the greasy pole.

      This is from a swedish-speaking acquaintance who is sifting through the actual court document and original articles for me.

      Jul 4, 2012 at 12:22 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Dani Alexander
      Dani Alexander

      @Trent:
      @Martin:

      I had a big long post written out, but frankly, you’re not worth it. I get enough hate from the right, I’m not going to deal with it within the umbrella.

      Jul 4, 2012 at 12:40 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • A Friend
      A Friend

      @Dani Alexander:

      Ah, paring down your words to make the perfect point.

      I would stand under your umbrella, any day.

      Jul 4, 2012 at 1:08 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • jwrappaport
      jwrappaport

      @David: Bizarre and offensive? No one is equating the suffering of different groups; rather I am saying that organized, legally sanctioned injustice to a group in any form is dangerous, unacceptable, and abhorrent. It was certainly true in the Holocaust, but Niemoller’s words have a broader meaning that has been expressed long before and after WWII. Nobody is saying that you should make trans equality your own fight. Nobody is saying that you should even care as much about it as you do gay rights – I know I don’t. We, if I may speak for some others on here, are only saying that we find your “it doesn’t affect me so I just don’t care” attitude troubling. Read John Donne’s Meditation XVII: no man is an island – we are all interconnected such that the suffering of one impacts the peace of all.

      @Martin: Yes, David (et al) are entitled to their opinion. No one is disputing that. We are simply saying that his “I don’t care” attitude is vulnerable to criticism that we are happy to provide.

      Regarding your criticism of postmodern academic scholarship, I tend to agree: much of it is literally (and often intentionally) meaningless, unintelligible, and even serves to eviscerate and delegitimize senses of identity as “socially constructed.” I’m certainly not suggesting that we abandon our identity or assume another’s. (I mean, after all, gender may be “socially constructed,” whatever that means, but it’s still real and very much a part of my identity. If it weren’t, I’d be straight and date women for the sheer convenience.)

      I think the crux of the argument is this: we LGBers know what it’s like to be told (and have enshrined into law) that a fundamental part of our identity is illegitimate and wrong, which is why we should give a damn about trans equality and not have a “let them eat cake” attitude about it. Why? Because it affects us. Because, and you’ll forgive the cliche, “injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.”

      Jul 4, 2012 at 1:26 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Codswallop
      Codswallop

      LGBT people don’t deserve rights because we’ve suffered, just as black people don’t deserve rights BECAUSE of slavery or Jews due to the Holocaust. We all deserve rights because we were born with them, not because some quota of suffering has been met!

      And suffering isn’t a competition. However, if you want to get down to the nitty-gritty, the reason there is no Capital-Letter event associated with gays like Slavery or The Holocaust (setting aside for the moment that gays were also victimized by the Nazis) is because those are finite events that started with specific events and ended on certain dates, with the Emancipation Proclamation and the liberation of the concentration camps. Because Article 175, the German Law that made homosexuality illegal, was STILL in effect after the war (unlike the anti-Semitic laws) some gay concentration were taken from the camps and sent to prison!

      The history of treatment of gay people is not pretty. There may be a few pockets of relative acceptance here and there but in general it’s been one long bloodbath that continues today across the globe, with people beaten, murdered, and hanged in many parts of the world, including the US and Europe. The only difference is that in North America and Europe those abuses are no longer state sanctioned but are carried out by individuals and groups, and even that is a relatively recent historical development. It was a mere 50 years ago or so that Alan Turing was forced to undergo “chemical castration” with female hormones or that gay people were sent to mental institutions in the US. It’s no accident that the slur for gays is “faggot,” a term also used for sticks intended to be burned. About the only clues we have for early American gay history is from criminal trials, the documents left from when people were convicted and hanged for homosexuality.

      So don’t give that “You don’t know the trouble I’ve seen” bullshit because we’ve seen plenty and it’s still not over. Just be glad that the events you’re whinging about are over.

      Jul 4, 2012 at 2:20 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • The Real Mike in Asheville
      The Real Mike in Asheville

      @Chris: You are an idiot, idiot. Ever hear of Pink Triangles, the badges the Nazis used to indicate homosexuals, similar to the Stars of David stitched on the Jews clothing?

      Jul 4, 2012 at 2:25 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • David
      David [Different person #1 using similar name]

      @Chris:

      Yes, gay people were victims of the Holocaust. The Holocaust ended in 1945. Nothing that is happening today is comparable and it is offensive to suggest otherwise. It is extremely bizarre and offensive to suggest that if you object to the concept of “LGBT,” a term which didn’t exist before the mid- to late-1990s, you are silently aiding and abetting a Holocaust.

      @Trent:

      My objection was to “LGBT” the concept that explicitly and deceitfully links homosexuality with transsexuality and transgenderism. But “queer” is essentially the same thing, and it came to us in a similarly deceptive manner. “Queer” was used by gay people in 80s and early 90s as a reclamation of a slur. We were taking back a word that was used against us. And so gay groups like “Queer Nation” were born.

      The reclamation clearly didn’t work, as queer is still very much a slur, but the motive in using it was good and the meaning of the term was clearly understood as a synonym for gay. But then, “queer” began to be used as a catch-all term for anyone who is marginalized in society, anyone who “transgresses” societal norms. This is a completely different beast. Most “queers” would necessarily be heterosexuals. And many gay people would not be queers. Worse, it amorally makes no distinction between the transgression of good social norms and bad social norms. An effeminate hetero male would be queer but so would a public masturbator. A “transman”, a “cis” cutter, a functional heroin addict, a bigamist, a shoe fetishist and a rapist would be all be “queer,” and all captured under that amoral umbrella term. This is the sewer of confusion into which you would inject the gay community?

      I consider it an objectively homophobic act to tell a gay young person that he is “queer”, i.e., that he is destined for societal marginalization and hostility with his community norms. If that is what “queerty” stands for, it should say so and let the exodus of readers begin. I don’t come here to read about mostly heterosexual people who violate all manner of societal norms. I come here to read about gay people, and most of the time, that is what Queerty writes about.

      Jul 4, 2012 at 3:07 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Martin
      Martin

      @jwrappaport: I am a convinced supporter and student of Carl Jungs psychology. That man had something genuine to offer mankind. He was not homophobic either even in the beginning of the twentieth century.
      With Jung you really appreciate the importance of the sex. The profound importance of motherhood etc. These are biological and spiritual imperatives that we cannot escape or change without suffering grave consequences. The beauty of Jung is among other things the relationship between masculinity and femininity in all of us. A man has a feminine soul (anima) a woman a masculine soul (animus). And from here all kinds of possibilities arise. I see my anima in dreams. Once she offered me a man LOL
      Queer theory is bullocks. Believing in it will lead to depression or worse because you remove yourself from the real you and replacing it with pseudoacademic doctrine

      Jul 4, 2012 at 4:08 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Codswallop
      Codswallop

      LGBT people don’t deserve rights because we’ve suffered, just as black people don’t deserve rights BECAUSE of slavery or Jews due to the Holocaust. We all deserve rights because we were born with them, not because some quota of suffering has been met!

      And suffering isn’t a competition. However, if you want to get down to the nitty-gritty, the reason there is no Capital-Letter event associated with gays like Slavery or The Holocaust (setting aside for the moment that gays were also victimized by the Nazis) is because those are finite events that started with specific events and ended on certain dates, with the Emancipation Proclamation and the liberation of the concentration camps. Because Article 175, the German Law that made homosexuality illegal, was STILL in effect after the war (unlike the anti-Semitic laws) some gay concentration were taken from the camps and sent to prison!

      The history of treatment of gay people is not pretty. There may be a few pockets of relative acceptance here and there but in general it’s been one long bloodbath that continues today across the globe, with people beaten, murdered, and hanged in many parts of the world, including the US and Europe. The only difference is that in North America and Europe those abuses are no longer state sanctioned but are carried out by individuals and groups, and even that is a relatively recent historical development. It was a mere 50 years ago or so that Alan Turing was forced to undergo “chemical castration” with female hormones or that gay people were sent to mental institutions in the US. It’s no accident that the slur for gays is the same used for a bundle of sticks intended to be burned. About the only clues we have for early American gay history is from criminal trials, the documents left from when people were convicted and hanged for homosexuality.

      So don’t give that “You don’t know the trouble I’ve seen” BS because we’ve seen plenty and it’s still not over. Just be glad that the events you’re whinging about are over.

      Jul 4, 2012 at 4:15 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • David
      David [Different person #1 using similar name]

      @jwrappaport:

      “Nobody is saying that you should make trans equality your own fight. Nobody is saying that you should even care as much about it as you do gay right”

      Actually, that is exactly what the cult of “LGBT” tells me. It tells me that it is wrong for gay people to fight for ENDA unless ENDA covers cross-dressing, and that even though we have fought for that law for 40 years, we have to lose for generations to come because it isn’t worth passing unless it covers transvestites. Any dissent is “transphobia.” There are innumerable examples of this. Tell the gay people of Anchorage, AK and Manhattan, KS how LGBT has not impacted their well being.

      LGBT was created so that T would always come as a mandatory package with LGB. It is a politically motivated lie and an attack on gay identity, not to mention on the ability of gay people to organize for *our* priorities. I have no problem being an ally for Ts, but when you attach them to my hip and tell me I no longer exist as a person without them, you are going to get a fight.

      As far as this “we are all connected” spiel, why do you limit yourself to Ts? If no man is an island, then gay people are also connected to Mongolian farmers, Mali rebels, Falkland Islanders and Tuvan folk dancers. We should demand that Queerty cover these folks because if it doesn’t, well, it is the first step toward the Holocaust.

      I understand that at some level all people are connected, but as a practical matter, we also exist in discrete communities and we can’t focus on everyone on Earth all the time.

      Jul 4, 2012 at 7:27 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • jwrappaport
      jwrappaport

      @David: I’m certainly not telling you to make it your fight (as I’ve not made it mine), and I’m fairly sure Queerty isn’t either – they’re simply telling you about an issue that is of conceivably general concern to LGBers. No one is taking your identity away either. I really don’t know how you’re arriving at any of this. You write with great hyperbole that seems out of proportion to the actual “offense,” that is, that an article here called into question conventional notions of sex and gender.

      Your characterization/rebuttal of my Donne reference leads us down a rabbit hole whose slopes are fallaciously slippery: trans folks are also heavily invested in the same-sex marriage fight in a way that I doubt most Tuvan dancers and Mongolian farmers are, hence, your extension of my general principle approaches the absurd. I completely agree that we should prioritize and approach the fight pragmatically, but I don’t see how Queerty’s article frustrates that end or implicates the ENDA problem. (We may not be so different – I also share your pragmatic, if non-PC view of ENDA and feel that the community in general let perfect be the enemy of good. Different debate.)

      My (and likely others’) main problem is that your comment, regardless of your intention, bespoke a “let them eat cake” attitude about trans folks. (The coldness of writing may stilt people’s words and obfuscate intent, but I think my interpretation is reasonable.) It seemed uncalled for given that the thrust of the article was pretty benign and unthreatening: to criticize what many feel are antiquated notions of gender and sex. That general topic is of great interest and importance to gays and lesbians, which is why I don’t understand your frustration. Your frustration seems to lie with a perceived dilution of the gay rights movement resulting from over-inclusion – a viable argument that nonetheless does not seem to be implicated by Queerty’s inclusion of such a brief article.

      Jul 4, 2012 at 9:40 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • 1equalityUSA
      1equalityUSA

      I’m not transgender, but if I were, the LGB would be the community with whom I relate to most. I can’t imagine how it would feel to have others debating whether or not T should be included in LGB. It seems cruel to shun transgendered people, as they already face so much discrimination and deprivation of understanding. Our community is strong enough to withstand additional hatred thrown at us. Our umbrella must include all. We all have value.

      Jul 4, 2012 at 10:30 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Hyhybt
      Hyhybt

      @axon: Thank you; not only an informative comment, but one of the very few that didn’t descend into the same old disgusting argument that runs every time there’s a trans-related article on Queerty.

      Is it possible that part of this depends on the legal definition of rape in your country? I believe that at times in the US the definition has required the victim to be a woman, and even that specific parts must be involved, and in that case it would indeed be impossible to rape someone still physically male down there. But of course that’s just speculation…. and, if true, simply an additional reason for such a law to be updated as quickly as possible.

      Jul 5, 2012 at 5:56 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Trent
      Trent

      @Dani Alexander: I did not mean any offense against you and I apologize if you took it that way. I just meant to say that I am supportive of Trans issues, however I do not understand all of it. I don’t need to understand to be supportive.

      Jul 5, 2012 at 9:00 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • lagunaflipsta
      lagunaflipsta

      some comments here are longer than the article.

      Jul 5, 2012 at 12:00 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • David
      David [Different person #1 using similar name]

      @jwrappaport: Thank you for your thoughtful reply. I didn’t mean to convey coldness or a “let them eat cake” attitude toward trans issues. If we had the opportunity to sit down and go down a list of issues, I think you’d find that I support 90% of trans activists goals. So I’m not unsympathetic.

      I think that LGBs and Ts can be allies on various issues. But allies still have their own existence and identity and have the right to say “no” when a demand is placed on them. The USA is allies with Belgium, but they don’t abolish their status as independent nations and merge into a jointly governed territory. If that experiment were attempted, you’d see a lot less friendly feelings and a lot more mutual hostility between Belgians and Americans. That is the hostility and resentment that “LGBT” has created and is creating. When I see trans stories on Queerty, it is well understood that these stories are posted because Queerty editors are trying to validate the notion that LGB is bundled with T. That notion is a lie and so I react to seeing trans stories in a more hostile manner than I would if “LGBT” had never existed.

      @1Equalityusa:

      It is not shunning Ts to reject LGBT. There was no such thing as LGBT prior to the mid-1990s. Was Harvey Milk a cruel, shunning transphobe? Because neither he nor any other gay or lesbian person in the world at that time used “LGBT” as a substitute for “gay” or in any other context. The term was created to push people to unthinkingly accept a connection where one does not exist. That’s dishonest and we should oppose dishonesty on principle.

      Jul 5, 2012 at 4:47 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Geri
      Geri

      @David: As the transwoman in this story is anatomically still male down there most people would consider her ex-boyfriend to be at least bisexual if not gay – even if he identifies as straight himself ( which may or may not be the case). So that’s another reason why this isn’t just a trans story with nothing to do with gay issues, whatever other tedious codswallop you may come up with.

      Jul 6, 2012 at 12:51 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • rose
      rose

      @1equalityUSA:
      what muddies the water for the vast majority of people including BTGLQs is that of all the LGBTQ people huddled under the QTBGL unbrella very few will be genuine transsexuals.
      I respect those few honest Gs who say they don’t understand transsexuals – I have yet to meet a LBQTg who does understand why Ts prefer to keep separate once they have overcome their wron upbringing and transitioned to become their real selves.

      Jul 10, 2012 at 1:10 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Hyhybt
      Hyhybt

      @rose: Interesting. The only T I know well enough to say is very much the opposite of what you describe… but then, he’s also G.

      (After previously identifying first as a bi woman and then as a lesbian… and though I’m not sure of the “official” rules on such things, I think it’s appropriate, when referring to those times, to say “she.” But regardless, he seems a lot happier now.)

      Jul 10, 2012 at 1:16 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • rose
      rose

      @Geri: whether the boyfriend is bisexual is hard to know but as the victim had been on hormones for some time and is due for surgery and lives as a woman the simple fact is that she would smelle, feel and act like a natural woman and so we can be sure that the b/f certainly isn’t gay.
      The rapist thought she was a natural woman and so the issue is simple heterosexual rape and there are no overtones of homosexuality or gay issues involved.

      Jul 10, 2012 at 1:17 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Geri
      Geri

      @rose: You are either failing to recognize, or choosing to ignore, how the average person thinks about sexuality.

      Are you aware that not all m2f trans people want full gender reassignment and that it is quite wrong to assume that they all want it? And you don’t know the intimate details of how this particular couple in question engaged together sexually do you?

      Forced sterilization of trans people is actually a big issue in Sweden.
      http://feministing.com/2012/01/17/sweden-keeps-forced-sterilization-law-for-trans-people/

      Also some men are, or at least say they are, exclusively attracted to “no-op” and/or “pre-op” m2f transwomen, and others are most strongly attracted to them. A man with such a sexual orientation can’t really reasonably be said to be fully bisexual, and he is clearly not gay or straight either. For want of a more specific term he could be reasonably described as queer however.

      Jul 10, 2012 at 2:51 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·

    Add your Comment

    Please log in to add your comment

    Need an account? Register It's free and easy.



  • QUEERTY DAILY

     


    POPULAR ON QUEERTY


    FROM AROUND THE WEB

    Copyright 2014 Queerty, Inc.
    Follow Queerty at Queerty.com, twitter.com/queerty and facebook.com/queerty.