Talk:Violence against LGBTQ people

Inclusion of serial killers

The inclusion of the serial killers John Wayne Gacy and Jeffrey Dahmer is problematic. It's not clear that self-hate was the only (or driving) reason behind their crimes. Recommend either deletion or move to separate section. omgwtf

Commenting to add date for bot archiving EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:06, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

State-sponsored violence

The article says that "The Roman Empire starting under Constantine around 400 CE." Since Constantine was emperor between 306 and 337, I think "The Roman Empire starting under Constantine in the early 4th century", or maybe "The Roman Empire starting after Constantine around 400 CE." would be more appropriate.

Commenting to add date for bot archiving EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:06, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Updated Hate Crime stats

Here's the link to the 2010 hate crime stats: http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/hate-crime/2010/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.1.233.206 (talk) 16:03, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Historical state-Sanctioned violence; Only in Europe?

I have a funny feeling there was probably at some point state-sanctioned violence against LGBT people somewhere outside of Europe. I will look into this further, but it might be a bit of a task... any help would be appreciated. Cheers! ☻☻☻Sithman VIII !!☻☻☻ 04:10, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Eggs

Does throwing eggs actually count as violence? Can kids get criminalised for throwing eggs at each other, or at houses on halloween?

SuperMudz (talk) 07:37, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, of course it's violent, and a criminal offense. Your second question doesn't make any sense. If you mean, "can they be arrested and charged?", of course, they can. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 19:33, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

SuperMudz it depends on the context and the relationship. In some contexts throwing eggs may be considered playful high jinks but in other contexts it can constitute a belittling hate attack linked with a potentially wilful damaging of property. How do you think it would affect (I don't know if I have terminologies right) someone, say, with a princess mentality. GregKaye 19:43, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Original research: Macho culture and social homophobia

"From an evolutionary point of view male-to-male homophobia makes little sense, as the existence of homosexual males in the population reduces for any heterosexual male the number of competitors in the heterosexual mating process. If anything, from the same point of view hetero males would be expected to encourage homosexual preferences in other males."—Source

Although plausible, this claim isn't referenced and looks like original research.—109.231.234.46 (talk) 11:31, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Missing reference

^ a b c d e f g h i j k Stahnke, Tad, et. al. (2008). Violence Based on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Bias: 2008 Hate Crime Survey. Human Rights First.

This pdf currently 404's, not sure if it has been moved or has just disappeared completely. --91.209.142.224 (talk) 16:00, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

More than hate crime

From an outsiders perspective to LGBT it seems to me that prejudice is inclusive but not limited to hate. Just because Violence against LGBT people is classified as a hate crime I dispute that this should limit the classification.

I suggest that the LGBT entry in: Template:Discrimination_sidebar is changed from "LGBT hate crime" to the actual title "Violence against LGBT people".

(Also wondered if there was a way to promote the use of My bad(ge) - Template:User recognises LG significance) Gregkaye (talk) 12:36, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

"64% of the victims were gay men, 32% were trans women, and 4% were lesbians" (section "criminal assault")

While the interaction between the greater male inclination to violence and the existence of trans panic tropes supports the idea that the incidence of heterosexuality and bisexuality among transgender female murder victims may be higher than the incidence of heterosexuality and bisexuality among transgender women as a broader class, it would surprise me greatly if the number of transgender lesbians killed out of any given sample of LGBTQ+ murder victims was less than 1% of the total sample. Therefore, the fact that this statistic adds up to 100% suggests to me that it's fallaciously using "lesbians" to mean "cisgender lesbians". 86.153.60.194 (A) (talk) 17:30, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Of course trans women can be lesbians, and of course they are more likely to be violently killed than cis lesbians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.153.60.194 (B) (talk) 18:01, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Exactly, so the statistic is misleading86.153.60.194 (A) (talk) 18:05, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Why? If anything, I'd expect more of the sample to be lesbians, since roughly a third of trans women identify as lesbian in the surveys I've seen -- so it's surprising that the proportion of lesbians is not 10% or so. (Actually, this might be explained by the proportion of trans women who identify as lesbian being different in Brazil, where this statistic is from, than in the surveys I've seen.)

Oh! I see what you mean now. I completely misread "adds up to 100%" in your comment, and thought it said "adds up to more than 100%". Yes, you're completely right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.153.60.194 (B) (talk) 18:22, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure why the article is using statistics from a 2009 report, when the [2014 one] is available. Here's what it says, in highly dubious language: "Brazil remains the world champion of crimes motivated by homophobia and/or transphobia. According to international agencies, 50% of transgender murders last year were committed in Brazil. Of the 326 dead, 163 were gay, 134 transvestites, 14 lesbian, 3 bisexual and 7 were persons specifically known as t-lovers or transvestite-lovers. There also were 7 murders of heterosexuals, straight men who were mistaken to be gay or because they found themselves in homoerotic circumstances and/or homoerotic spaces." So I suspect that "transvestite" has been changed to "trans" in the article's quoting of the report, which obscures problematic biases in how the victims were categorized. 86.153.60.194 (B) (talk) 18:39, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Why are you arguing with yourself? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:07, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Two different posters who happen to have the same IP, which is slightly odd; maybe we're coming from the same ISP's NAT? I just forgot to indent my response. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.153.60.194 (B) (talk • contribs)

Same IP address. Please stop. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:14, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Yep, we're both coming from British Telecom's NAT. Not surprising since that covers a whole country! Anyway, now we've all hopefully learnt something about how unique IP addresses are :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.153.60.194 (B) (talk) 18:19, 6 December 2015 (UTC)