New York Bans WHAT?

I grew up in Hollywood during the height of the metal / glam era. To say the gender lines were a bit confused is as reductive as it is obvious.

I've been paid to do an acoustic set in the buff at the natural fudge café. I've been offered free drinks by married women and gay men too. My usual response (as a musician who usually ate every other day) was "THANK YOU!"

Short of drugging someone or kidnapping them, I can't imagine the panic reaction TBH. Just say no thanks and move the hell on? It seems pretty basic to me.

EDIT: I actually initially misread the OP and my eyes just glazed over leading me to believe that NY state was actually introducing a new defence. Evidently, having properly read it to be a BAN, that makes perfect sense.

Allowing such a defense to be used would have been ridiculous anyway. Imagine if someone murdered a (heterosexual) natural born male but then pretended and used the "trans panic" defense, when the natural born male victim was NOT even trans at all. A wild example, but there are some dummies out there who for whatever reason label people as things they are not...

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: network dude

What are you talking about? Like I'm 100% confused as to what you are getting at and why. Distance myself from the term gay? How does that have anything to do with the gay or trans panic defense and my response to The Redneck? It's like you just invented this conversation in your head and assigned my part of it for me.

sorry, it must have been the other Krazyshot that wrote this:

Being gay has nothing to do with changing your gender. It's literally unrelated. Furthermore you keep trying to assign claims to me that I've never made. You got mad at me for suggesting you said that the science is settled (though you clearly believe that regardless if you said it or not) yet here you are telling me to prove things I never claimed. I'm willing to explore those claims provided you show me how science says that there are only two genders OR concede the point as being erroneous, but no sooner.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

In this discussion, I am having a hard time understanding how being gay has nothing to do with a dude wanting to be with another dude. Even if one wears a dress. If you don't know, it's cool, just say so. I sure don't. Which is why I asked.

Or does sexual preference have nothing to do with being gender confused?

a reply to: network dude

Or does sexual preference have nothing to do with being gender confused?

Look. You figured it out all on your own. Without my help.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: network dude

Or does sexual preference have nothing to do with being gender confused?

Look. You figured it out all on your own. Without my help.

not even close.

Does a dude, who now thinks he's a chick, want to do other dudes? If he does that, isn't he gay?

If he wants to do chicks, and he thinks himself a chick, then wouldn't "she" be a lesbian?

Again, the rules used to be pretty simple, innies paired with outies, and everyone was good to go. Now, is it just the title and appearance you want? Validation? Or do you want to re-define the terms to suit the few confused folks?

I don't understand, and if you want to keep pushing your agenda, it would be nice to know what it is you are pushing.

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: network dude

Or does sexual preference have nothing to do with being gender confused?

Look. You figured it out all on your own. Without my help.

not even close.

Does a dude, who now thinks he's a chick, want to do other dudes? If he does that, isn't he gay?

If he wants to do chicks, and he thinks himself a chick, then wouldn't "she" be a lesbian?

Sounds to me you are working the logic out on your own. If a person assigned male at birth identifies as a female now and likes women then she (no scare quotes) would be a lesbian. Just like you said. Though the previous logic doesn't follow. If she likes guys then she is straight.

Again, the rules used to be pretty simple, innies paired with outies, and everyone was good to go. Now, is it just the title and appearance you want? Validation? Or do you want to re-define the terms to suit the few confused folks?

Aren't you already married? Why does it matter to you?

I don't understand, and if you want to keep pushing your agenda, it would be nice to know what it is you are pushing.

Understanding new concepts in the English language really isn't an "agenda". It's just learning.

a reply to: RickinVa

It took me until middle age, as a woman, to fully understand males had their own way of settling things, including violence. Going to the point of killing a person is of course wrong, but sometimes a guy getting his lights punched out teaches him not to think of doing that again. I abhor violence, but I cannot deny it does have a place.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: network dude

Or does sexual preference have nothing to do with being gender confused?

Look. You figured it out all on your own. Without my help.

not even close.

Does a dude, who now thinks he's a chick, want to do other dudes? If he does that, isn't he gay?

If he wants to do chicks, and he thinks himself a chick, then wouldn't "she" be a lesbian?

Sounds to me you are working the logic out on your own. If a person assigned male at birth identifies as a female now and likes women then she (no scare quotes) would be a lesbian. Just like you said. Though the previous logic doesn't follow. If she likes guys then she is straight.

Again, the rules used to be pretty simple, innies paired with outies, and everyone was good to go. Now, is it just the title and appearance you want? Validation? Or do you want to re-define the terms to suit the few confused folks?

Aren't you already married? Why does it matter to you?

I don't understand, and if you want to keep pushing your agenda, it would be nice to know what it is you are pushing.

Understanding new concepts in the English language really isn't an "agenda". It's just learning.

confused. You acknowledge the logic doesn't follow, but still act as If I'm supposed to know all this? We didn't have a class. And the alphabet boys/girls/other seem to keep changing the damn rules. Again, if you don't know, all good. There is stuff I don't know too. Like this stuff.

We lost a fantastic Governor over this little fantasy, so I feel it does matter to me. And seriously, you don't comprehend "the agenda"? It's propaganda 101.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I really hope you aren't using either of those sources as the norm.

Doesn't matter what I'm using as my source. What matters is what the majority of people are using as their source. That will color attitudes and incite resentment and concern.

Care to quote where I specifically called you bigoted?

That is usually the common definition of "homophobe" and "transphobe."

What group of people is that intolerant against?

Intolerant is not the same as bigoted. I was stating that gay and trans people should ensure their partner knows what is in store before getting between the sheets... that's what most people do, and I maintain that gay and trans people are just as capable of doing so as anyone. You seem to think this is too much of a burden for them. That's where I get the "bigoted" comment.

Gay and trans people act normal all the time.

Of course they do! That's because they are people!

Most of them. There are some who give the entire group a bad name, and it would behoove anyone concerned with gay and trans issues to call them out when they do it. But you seem more interested in calling out the people trying to call them out for some perceived slight that only exists in your mind. Go figure.

The phobe only equals fear thing is so stupid.

Calling a definition that has stood for centuries in a dead language (Latin) stupid is the ultimate stupidity.

Don't like the definition? Try using a different word.

Yet you defended punching gay people when finding out they were gay and basically said that gay people have to act straight all the time or you'll attack them.

No, sir, I did not!

I stated that waiting until in the sheets to spring a surprise that is essentially a homosexual encounter on someone who is straight is asking for trouble. If someone pretends to be female, flirts with a straight man, entices or accepts an invitation to have sexual relations with said straight man, and then surprises him with the wrong equipment, that someone deserves to be soundly beaten about the face and shoulders! Just being gay or just being trans is not the reasoning there... enticing someone into an act they find disgusting is.

You know how so many people keep worrying that gay folks are going to turn people gay? Your attitude is why they think that. Stop supporting people doing it and you might find less people are concerned about it happening.

Making up an insulting acronym then saying it isn't a dig because you can't be bothered to learn what the actual acronym even is doesn't acquit you of being offensive in your words.

Nope, sorry, not going to waste my time learning whatever the newest acronym is today. Pick one and I'll use it. Keep changing it, and I'll make up whatever sounds good at the moment.

If you want to promote something, it is your responsibility to advertise it in a consistent way, not my responsibility to keep relearning the new letter arrangement all the damn time.

I also find it interesting that you consider the alphabet insulting... that's all I used.

Funny how you are the one doing the "ticking off" here as a cishet by making up reasons why it is ok to assault people (even though physical assault is ALWAYS illegal).

OK, first of all, what the hell is a cishet? For that matter, what's a cisgender? If you're going to insult me, you'll have to do better than use made-up words.

And I made up nothing. If I pay you for a new Challenger and you hand me the keys to a worn-out Yugo, you're likely going to get punched. Tricking someone into compromising situation via false advertising has always been considered reason to be angry and a cause of the diminished capacity doctrine. I just don't think it should extend to murder, nor should it be used where circumstances do not warrant (as in, finding out before things get all hot and sweaty).

Oh they are #ing off, hun.

Wait, that's the best you got?

You are no ally of lgbt

You're right. I am an ally of humanity and reason. If you don't believe the [insert whatever acronym doesn't offend you today here] community is part of humanity and possesses the ability to be reasonable, then that doesn't seem to be my problem.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Sexual orientation is about what sex you sleep with and that's based in biology. Transgenderism is about wanting to be the biological sex you are not and cannot be. So a dude who identifies as a female is *still* a dude biologically and therefore *not* a lesbian although he/she may want to believe he/she is.

There are lesbians who would get very, very upset to discover they are sleeping with a dude and have been lied to. Why? Because for them, their sexual orientation depends on what sex a person is. You know ... biology, not mental perceived reality.

OK, to clarify a few things here...

I. They wouldn't 'get away' with it.
II. It's isn't a 'defense' per se, but more of a mitigating factor. (During sentencing when found guilty, the judge takes into account aggravating factors which add weight to the seriousness of the charge(s), and also mitigating factors, which may explain some impulses and therefore, 'mitigate' the weight of the crime somewhat.)
III. This type of mitigating factor usually helps the defense to argue a 'Crime of Passion', rather than a 'Premeditated Crime', or a 'Crime of opportunity'. Having this factored into the sentencing hearing helps the defendant in some cases. A crime of passion is a infraction where due to uncontrollable emotional stress the individual lost control of himself or herself. It reflects what many people would do in a similar situation when confronted with overwhelming emotions. A decent analogy is if a husband comes home and finds his wife in the middle of making love to his best friend. He didn't plan (Premeditate) or take advantage of a situation (Crime of Opportunity), rather was so overwhelmed with rage he was not able to control his response and ends up killing someone.

So again, no one 'gets away' with murder in these cases. In some extreme situations, it may reduce the 'murder' charge to manslaughter... still a hefty prison sentence.

The truth is Murder is Murder is Murder. The fact the we have to have this discussion over the different 'levels' of Murder is rather insane. All Murders are 'hate crimes', and should be treated as such. The added fact that we now are making laws distinguishing a special class of people - transgendered, shows well the artificial construct the government is sowing amongst the populous. If we are all truly equal, then every murder should be treated the same, and no one class of people or another should have 'extra' rights.

It does usually work this way. Unfortunately, certain political groups are trying to change this, and this law is just such an example.

a reply to: TheRedneck

Yep. Harvey Milk, Mathew Shepard, Brandon Teena are the famous victims.

I wouldn't hold your breath for the false gender identity law. I don't see that happening in New York.

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: TruthxIsxInxThexMist

Is it okay for a woman to beat/kill a man that lied about the size of his dick? Is it okay for a man to attack a woman that lied about her age? What about a woman that agreed to sleep with a man because he claimed he was rich but barely had a dime to his name?

Where do you draw the line on where it's acceptable to kill or viciously attack someone because they didn't tell you the whole truth?

LOL!!! are you seriously comparing size and age to someone who is portraying the opposite sex but isn't? smh

wow..... just wow.

originally posted by: 0zzymand0s
I grew up in Hollywood during the height of the metal / glam era. To say the gender lines were a bit confused is as reductive as it is obvious.

I've been paid to do an acoustic set in the buff at the natural fudge café. I've been offered free drinks by married women and gay men too. My usual response (as a musician who usually ate every other day) was "THANK YOU!"

Short of drugging someone or kidnapping them, I can't imagine the panic reaction TBH. Just say no thanks and move the hell on? It seems pretty basic to me.

ok you're saying, hypothetically....making out with someone for like...i dunno 20 minutes, then you go down and they have the same tools as you....you will just say oh...no thank you and walk away like nothing? I don't think anyone here is saying they have a problem with getting hit on....the problem is finding out about it when it's practically too late.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Krazysh0t



I stated that waiting until in the sheets to spring a surprise that is essentially a homosexual encounter on someone who is straight is asking for trouble. If someone pretends to be female, flirts with a straight man, entices or accepts an invitation to have sexual relations with said straight man, and then surprises him with the wrong equipment, that someone deserves to be soundly beaten about the face and shoulders! Just being gay or just being trans is not the reasoning there... enticing someone into an act they find disgusting is.

You know how so many people keep worrying that gay folks are going to turn people gay? Your attitude is why they think that. Stop supporting people doing it and you might find less people are concerned about it happening.


TheRedneck

On this I kind of agree with you. It is the responsibility of the trans/gay person to act in a reasonaby honest manner. Tricking someone into a sexual position or making unwanted and unsolicited sexual advances is wrong and while we can argue that violent responses are wrong, we live in the real world and anyone playing that game is more than aware that this may be the outcome. I'm never going to accept murdering someone as a proportionate response though.

However the tricky area is defining what is construed as unwanted advances. Take a situation I witnessed where a friend of mine spent a half hour chatting to some guy at a party only to find out later he was gay and becoming enraged because he therefore must have been trying to chat him up. I have no idea if he was or not but the fact he didn't twig to it himself shows that, if he was, it must have been fairly subtle. Violence in that case would have been disproportionate and more about the guys ego.

How many times a day to girls get this kind of scenario, men chatting to them, being friendly or flirty or just enjoying passing the time of day chatting to a pretty woman. How many times has a woman been enticed into a situation where a man wants to get her on her own and make some fumbling pass at her. What if women started to lash out, attack or murder when this occurs. Wouldn't we need some clarity about what response is/isn't acceptable because even if there's a fine line between coming onto someone and forcing yourself on someone, it's still a line.

The mistake with this argument is making it an issue about trans/gay men. Lets face it whatever label they have, they do it because they're men. Men tend to have a more predatory aspect to their sexuality.

a reply to: TheRedneck

So, if a woman feels that a man is going to sexually assault her she can claim an affirmative defense, but if a man claims the same thing then he can't?

Isn't that blatant gender discrimination?

My question: Does this apply to Lesbians, or just straight men?

Go into any LGBTQ+ support group and ask how many lesbians have thought that they were "encountering" another lesbian, only to find out that the other person had transitioned from male to female.

Within the lesbian community this is a really big deal.

This law could essentially strip them of any affirmative defense.

Double post, deleted.

a reply to: AaarghZombies

Wouldn't that depend on the circumstances of each individual case.

a reply to: TheRedneck

So let me get this straight....if you see a (post surgery man) "woman" at a bar. Hit on said "woman", take said women home and have sexual relations with said "woman" but then then later find out she used to have a penis....you thinks it's ok to assault her/post.him?

If you are attracted to him/her....what difference does gender make...you didnt know and you were attracted

Have your fun get your jollies off...is one of the one night stands more Christian than the other?