My reply does not preclude the issue being discussed or anyone saying anything. I hope my post above clarifies things a little, and as I said I realise that expressing this opinion is not popular, and so be it. In a public forum we can all say something and hopefully not get nasty about it. Disliking or disagreeing with alternative viewpoints, no matter how different they are from one's own, does not need to escalate, but then again, this is the internet :P

Just making sure people know it happens and isn't OK is a good step forward, actually.

Too many good people assume that everyone is as good as they are, and stuff like this doesn't happen. Too many bad people assume that everyone feels like they do. Correcting both of those misapprehensions is a good goal.

As for your other issues...I haven't seen you starting any threads about those things.Just derailing someone else's attempt to help. You're being hypocritical.

If you care deeply about something, make a thread about it. Don't hijack someone else's thread to whine that they aren't talking about what you want to talk about. You aren't being any better than the people you're complaining about.

I'd be happy to talk about the extensive international aid the US governmental, religious and secular aid organizations send overseas every year, in a thread about that topic.

Everyone has issues that are close to their hearts, and this is obviously the case here with dtgreene. Nothing wrong with posting about it, and I don't think Tarnicus was trying to diminish it in any way.

This is unfortunately a result of the fact that the media is no longer about providing unbiased news coverage. It's entertainment and big business and all about maintaining viewership and high ratings, and making as much money as possible. No different than any other business out there.

Media is biased because it has become a business.
Most of media has principle'Abuse or Misuse but bring us a breaking news'

Eh. You can't argue with the fact that he's tried to shut down someone talking about a serious social issue so he can derail the thread. It's extremely childish to insist that everyone only talk about what you want to talk about. Especially since he apparently doesn't have the gumption to make his own thread.


Media has always been about entertaining or titillating viewers and making money. When religious organizations were more popular, they would do a lot of media work to promote charitable causes. As they've fallen out of favor in US/EU countries that push behind publicizing charity has slipped a bit. There's also the fact that US/EU countries are having their own serious economic problems right now and so are less inclined to send massive amounts of aid overseas. People are looking to escape their problems and probably will until the economy makes a complete recovery...which is a long way out, I'm afraid, unless we seriously address income inequality.

Here is how I would go about solving this problem:
1. Education. People need to know about being transgender, what it means, and how to properly interact with such people. (Asking about someone's genitals, for example, is inappropriate.) Also, people need to know about the issue.
2. More trans people need to come out. In recent years, there have been such trans woman as Laverne Cox, Caitlyn Jenner, and Jazz Jennings who have come out as transgender in recent years, but there are still people who don't personally know (or know that they know) any transgender woman. It has been shown that people who know a gay person (or, more precisely, know they know a gay person) tend to be more accepting of gay people and things like marriage equality. (Also, we need some out trans men; the only ones I can think of off hand are Thomas Beatie (famous for becoming pregnant and giving birth) and Chaz Bono, neither of whom has come up in the news lately.
3. We need laws to protect trans people better. This includes things like non-descrimination lows, being able to change gender on ID easily, and access to the restrooms of one's preferred gender.
4. More education. Police need to be educated about trans people. Health care workers need to be educated on how to handle trans patients. In fact, everyone needs to be educated about trans people. For adults, this can take the form of sensitivity training on the job. For children, this should be covered in health classes.

Just to stress the most important point again, education is important: people need to learn about transgender people and how they should be treated.

Indeed, I'm not sure that black played a part in this. Fortunately, the lynchings related to being black, Jewish or homosexual have largely disappeared, but being lynched or otherwise murdered for being trans remains a problem.

It's not as big of a problem as Being black or Jewish in the south was, but it remains a problem.

It's definitely something that we need to keep in the public awareness. I'm personally uncomfortable with some of the changes being made to accomodate them, but I don't see any reason why we can't have a reasonable compromise.

Also OT, but fuck them for creating new labels just to put on other people. Cis isn't a thing, that's just being a man or a woman. If it's really that important to distinguish between the sex one was born with and the sex one has later, they can always use trans and non-trans, in cases where it really matters.

It appears you are from Russia. In Russia, the situation is particularly bad because of the law against "homosexual propoganda", which essentially forbids positive coverage of LGBT issues. (Remember, many people don't understand the difference between being gay and being transgender, hence why education is crucial.)

Also, I should mention that the statistic mentioned only counts those in the US; trans woman have been murdered elsewhere in the world (including an East Indian politician who was going to run for public office.)

Bah, everything is a serious social issue in the eyes of the hysterical media. Lets give it some numbers:
http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/
Deaths today 124,000 roughly at the time I looked.

Also, if we are now linking random news stories on here, how about this one:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-coventry-warwickshire-33849863
"Yep, am sinking, who gives a f*, puff"

This is true, but it has grown far more about money making than actual news reporting and the glorification and kudos-gathering of individual reporters over the last few decades. I've personally noticed it and have come to the point that I rarely watch the news broadcasts other than to get the headlines (which are still only marginally useful).

Many things happen.. I'm not about to bash op about stuff. There is a stream of people coming from somewhere where there isn't laws, or anything. also Greece. If you pluck something with bad decisiouns and just wait.. Waiting makes it worse, that was how I was tought. (infact I wasn't tought)

Swedish people, there are grenades in the air, Isis still is going on strong and so on. In here (in finland) it seems to be awful if you are not gay and a vegan to say your opinion. And it's not so bad but the thing when previous crimes will make you have lesser sentences than normal and we also have those like slap on the wrist.

WTF is that

You misunderstand the purpose of the term "cisgender" (often shortend to "cis"). In discussions where a minority is involved, it is useful to have a term to refer to the majority that doesn't have obvious positive or negative connotations. If we're talking about blind people, the term "sighted" is often used. About disabled people, "able-bodied". About autism, "neurotypical". About gay people, "straight". About trans people, "cis". That term really means nothing other than non-trans, and is therefore a thing (though the term generally only is used in discussions that involve gender identity).

According to this article:
http://www.advocate.com/transgender/2015/07/27/these-are-trans-women-killed-so-far-us-2015?page=full
10 of the first 12 murders of trans women were of trans women of color. In other words, race is clearly a factor here.

(This article actually talks about each of those women, but despite being recently updated, is already out-of-date.)

Rather unfortunate phrasing I'd say. I mean, it makes it sound as if there was some acceptable quota for murder.

They should stop using the term cis-gendered. The only purpose it serves is to oppress people that identify as the same sex as what they were born as. In other words, the girly girls and the manly men. Both groups are a pretty small portion of men and women. And both groups have been hammered on increasingly hard as the construct of sex and gender has changed in recent times.

The fact that you're trying to draw an analogy between sighted and blind suggests that you don't get it. There is some disagreement about how blind you need to be to be blind, there's legally blind, vision impaired, blind, functionally blind and sighted. The distinctions are relatively reliable and require more than just being able to state that you belong in one group or another. And placing somebody else in one of those categories isn't the norm.

I went on a date recently with a deaf women and I'm a hearing guy. The distinction is incredibly important as the only way I had of communicating with her was cell phones. If things has worked out I would have had to learn ASL and accepted that we'd have two groups of friends as her friends would have a hard time communicating with my friends.

Additionally, the only people I see self-identifying as cis-gendered are people who have serious emotional problems and are in the process of blaming themselves for what every other non-trans person is doing. That's pretty fucked up.

Lastly, the term straight exists because we needed a word to deal with that situation. We can't label straight people as non-gay, bisexual and other groups are non-gay as well. And straight men have been having sex for various reasons for millenia. I'm not sure that straight or heterosexual are particularly good terms, but they exist because they serve a necessary function and are minimally judgmental.

No, you're assuming that it's the race. This is a rare event, it definitely could be race, but the main motivating factor isn't likely race.