June 13, 2001
8:52 PM   Subscribe

You say that implementing gender-based discrimination laws for preoperative transsexuals is a joke? Try telling that to pre-operative transsexual Josephine Perez, raped in a homeless shelter and unable to obtain expedient care for injuries suffered after the incident. Transgender activists are trying to pass a bill to extend discrimination to amend New York's human rights law, but Guiliani calls it "unnecessary." It's the 21st century. When will the U.S. evolve beyond its myopic approach to gender?
posted by ed (17 comments total)
Ya know, this goes back to my point. People who can't run with the herd, are weaned out by nature. Our society has became so fractured pandering to the cares of every little hard on their luck individual that is it falling apart.
posted by crackheadmatt at 9:00 PM on June 13, 2001

It's easy to say things like that when you're part of the mainstream. crackheadmatt, have you ever been denied health care because the doctor didn't like the way you look? How would you like it if a police officer decided he didn't like you and didn't feel like investigating a crime that happened to you?

You don't have to like everybody, but you can't deny someone their basic human rights just because they don't look like you. It seems like we have to relearn this lesson with every minority group.
posted by RylandDotNet at 9:23 PM on June 13, 2001

Will I don't have the vitriol of crackhead, from what I read all these transgressions are violations of already existing laws. What is the need to make specific laws applying to transgender people? I don't believe that a transgender-specific law would have helped here.
posted by owillis at 9:26 PM on June 13, 2001

The need is to remind idiots who don't regard transexuals as "real people" that it is actually against the law to hurt and kill them. Some people aren't as enlightened as you, owillis.
posted by RylandDotNet at 9:32 PM on June 13, 2001

the cops told her that "nobody with a penis can be raped." wrong. had this happened to you, the outcome would be exactly the same and the reporter's story not much different. it's just as much a public safety issue as it is discrimination.

and by the way, you're a twit.
posted by patricking at 9:37 PM on June 13, 2001

(that was aimed at crackheadmatt, by the by.)
posted by patricking at 9:38 PM on June 13, 2001

*cough troll cough*

`scuse me.
posted by dong_resin at 9:41 PM on June 13, 2001

As much as I sympathize with what happened to this person, I think instead of creating yet another set of laws that attempt to make people think in ways that cannot be legislated, we need to find a way to move our people to regard all human beings as, well, human. You don't have to love all people, but it would be prudent to extend to all people the same basic rights.

Ryland, I agree with your statement that all people are deserving of equal protection under the law. All people. A law simply making it illegal to discriminate against the victim of a crime, regardless of race, creed or sexual orientation or identity would seem to suffice for me. It would include transexuals, and more importantly would not isolate them, which in my opinion could be quite dangerous.

I am unaware, unfortunately, as to the current laws in place. But a simple unified "All human beings deserve equal protection under the law" discrimination statute seems to me to be the best approach.
posted by Ezrael at 9:42 PM on June 13, 2001

As much as I sympathize with what happened to this person, I think instead of creating yet another set of laws that attempt to make people think in ways that cannot be legislated

Laws don't exist to change how you think, they exist to change how you act.

But a simple unified "All human beings deserve equal protection under the law" discrimination statute seems to me to be the best approach.

Hmm... OK, let's repeal all civil rights legislation ever passed, then. After all, it says right there in the constitution, all men are created equal and are endowed with inalienable rights. That ought to cover it.
posted by RylandDotNet at 9:56 PM on June 13, 2001

Ryland, I wasn't saying we should repeal anything. I think you're being a bit oversensitive here. Laws don't do anything to change how people act, they merely define the punishment for transgression after the fact. If laws prevented behavior, there would be no crime. And I know I never said we should repeal all civil rights laws...what I intend is that rather than create a hodgepodge of laws each targeting another subsection of humanity, we should create one overarcing law (perhaps a federal one) that spells out that all human beings in the United States, regardless of any condition (be it racial, religious, sexual preference or identity, nation of origin, or otherwise) would be guaranteed full protection under the law. Rather than a stew of laws, why not one?

Are you honestly opposed to that?
posted by Ezrael at 10:01 PM on June 13, 2001

Ezrael, sorry, you're right, I'm overreacting a bit. <must not get angry at words on computer...> I don't disagree with you, I'm just frustrated. I think we came at the same thought from different angles.
posted by RylandDotNet at 10:07 PM on June 13, 2001

Rather than enacting a whole new law, how about simply using the existing one(s) effectively?!

Somewhat sarcastically, I wonder if the officers and doctor who interacted with those interviewed would like to have someone else define injury to their person and have it similarly diminished and dismissed.

The terms "derelicition of duty" and "Hippocratic Oath" were brought to mind while reading this.
posted by sillygit at 10:55 PM on June 13, 2001

Not to mention the fallacy that a penis is some sort of magical anti-rape shield. Apparently the NYPD is unfamiliar with the work of James Dickey. Which is strange to me, considering that they once raped a man with a plunger.
posted by Ezrael at 11:27 PM on June 13, 2001

crackhead: This is not about pandering. This is not about focusing on one particular group of people. It is about looking towards a suffering human individual and granting the individual the care that he or she needs.

We are quick to sweep the problems of this world under the rug, all in the name of a self-righteous stance about whether the person in question is the "correct" individual in society. Well, who the hell cares if the person is a heterosexual consumer who lives in Pasadena or a confused kid who's still struggling to figure out their gender identity? If a person is suffering from pain, then it is our obligation to help them with the resources we have at our disposal. It is just that simple.

I was struck by the same statement that patricking pointed out. "Nobody with a penis can be raped." There are deeper ramifications within that particular "explanation" that speak endlessly about some of the amazing things we need to work out as homo sapiens.
posted by ed at 1:19 AM on June 14, 2001

"Things we need to work out as homo sapiens."

That's one big-assed list, Ed.
posted by dong_resin at 1:56 AM on June 14, 2001

Jesus dudes - don't feed the troll.
posted by metaxa at 9:29 AM on June 14, 2001

If it's a topic that interests me, why not? Besides, whenever I can mention the fact that the NYPD does things like ramming a plunger up their suspects and shoots people for taking their wallets out of their back pockets, why shouldn't I? I didn't post this thread, but here it is.

Yes, he's dragging in the Amadou Diallo shooting. Be sure to take your time and examine the links, because it can be fascinating reading and it does beg the question; At what point do the police stop being our guardians and start being our wardens?

Don't have an answer, just thought this recent display was a good time to start discussion going.
posted by Ezrael at 12:14 PM on June 14, 2001

« Older   |   'Necklace' designed to aid those with profound... Newer »

This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments