What we transfolk are trying to get across to those of you immersed to the point of blindness in heteronormativity is that we are at risk not just from given blow jobs, but from walking down the street. From going to the bathroom. That it doesn't take orgasmic sexual deception to motivate a crime. "Gay things deserve to die" is the rallying cry for many more crimes than just Angie's murder.

If you're looking for a rallying cry, Angie is not your girl. Her death was undeserved, agreed. Grisly, agreed. Ultraviolent and overkill, agreed. There are a lot of undeserved, grisly, ultraviolent deaths that occur every day for reasons as morally repugnant racism, blanket ethnic hatred, sexism, and heterosexism, and as mundane as drug-motivated robbery. Angie is not the only dead person mourned and missed by her family, her murder is not somehow *more* unjust than all the other murders that take place every day because she lived a marginalized existence.

If you want a rallying cry free of questionable circumstances, try Barry Winchell, who was beaten to death just for *associating* with a transgender woman.

Or Lawrence King, actually, your own example from your previous post. That is a pretty clear example of some kid who was comfortable in his own skin, minding his own business and getting on with this life, mowed down just for existing.

Second-degree murder means that the murder was not planned ahead of time, but the actions that the person engaged in at the time were intended to cause death.

First-degree murder means that the murder was planned prior to the act itself.

As I've said, this case is *at least* second-degree murder. IF the prosecution is right that the murder was planned up to 36 hours prior then it would be a textbook example of first-degree murder. The only thing that seems odd about that is the timing: if they'd only hung out for 2 days, then 36 hours would have been only 12 hours into their first meeting, during some of which they would have been sleeping. Its possible, I guess, it just seems odd.

What of The Jim's posts are you specifically arguing against? Where has he ever excused violent acts as an output of that anger?

You're not the only one to do this, so I'm sorry to pick on you, but you're the most recent of these I've read. I've been accused of the same thing (along with a homophobia and self-hate) but with only one exception -- and that one is questionable at best since it actually addresses an appearance of double standards rather than suggesting appropriate behavior -- not one person that I've seen (there's my qualifier) has ever so much as excused violence as a natural output, much less advocated it as an acceptable method of resolution.

There are two issues at play in this story.

Issue number one is a fairly cut-and-dried case of second-degree murder. So far, everyone in this thread has been happy to agree that Andrade's ultraviolent reaction to his discovery that Zapata was actually physiologically male was wrong by every standard that defines a civilized society.

Issue number two is contributory, and even that is a provocative statement for which I will surely incur the wrath of the Salonistas. The contributory issue is deceit in matters sexual, and whether or not consent to sexual activity is or should be predicated on reasonable assumptions about your sexual partner, in this case their actual *sex*, based on information they provide to you and explicitly conceal from you.

The people discussing issue number two -- including me, because as it turns out I was the one who introduced it in something like letter #10 or so -- are not suggesting that it mitigates issue number one. I, at least, am treating it as a separate conversation. I freely submit that murder is wrong. The Jim freely submits that murder is wrong. Hieronymous freely submits that murder is wrong. All three of us find issue number two to be an interesting topic in its own right, and that is what we have been discussing.

When you wrote that none blamed, you were talking about your posts. I assumed you were talking about people, since a post can't blame: only the person who writes the post can blame. Sorry for the confusion and I hope you can understand why I was confused

This is an extraordinary statement that can only be explained by the possibility that you are not a native English speaker. Which, I suppose, is possible although unexpected given your writing style demonstrated thus far.

Letter 1:

"Your posts stated X"

Letter 2:

"None of them stated X"

The object of both the initial statement and the reply to that statement are the same: "your posts" (meaning, my posts). In Letter 2, the word "them" clearly and obviously -- to someone who is a native English speaker, which I see now perhaps you are not -- refers to the subject of the sentence in Letter 1.

If you are in fact a native English speaker, I am sorry for your lack of ability to parse a sentence, but your mealy-mouthed "unpology" is so absurd that I don't actually have the words to reply to it.

Given how opinionated I am, that's really saying something.

You quoted my post which explicitly and exclusively that *I* did not blame Angie for her own murder.

You then replied that you had disproved that statement.

Your claim is that you have disproved my statement that I do not blame Angie for her own murder, meaning that you have proved that I *do* blame Angie for her murder.

Cite, or retract. You choose.