This one is going to be long, so I'll probably break it up into two halves for easier reading.
We hear a lot about “Transgender Day/Week of Remembrance” and hate-crimes/murders affecting transgender people. Figures get reported uncritically in the media and, more importantly, on social media. But how accurate are they?
I’m going to go through a 2024 report from the Human Rights Campaign Foundation, where they call it an “epidemic of violence”. Then I’ll list the names they give of transgender people who were killed in 2023/2024 and what I’ve found online reported on the deaths.
That will let us see, at least, if people really are being murdered wholesale simply for being trans, or if it’s simply for the same reasons people have been murdered throughout history.
Make up your own minds. I’m not doing this for any agenda pro- or anti-anything, except for having accuracy (as much as we can get it) as to who is getting killed and for what reasons (if there are reasons to be established). (I like this new phrase, “gender expansive”. Must remember that is the correct term to use in future).
Several of these cases are to do with “victim was sex worker/may have been engaged in sex work/may have had criminal ties”. Several are “current/former romantic partner”.
The Epidemic of Violence Against the Transgender & Gender-Expansive Community in the U.S.
The 2024 Report
Human Rights Campaign Foundation, November 2024The epidemic of violence against transgender and gender-expansive people is a national tragedy. Each life stolen from us in this way is the result of a society that demeans and devalues anyone who dares challenge the gender binary. This year, we’ve seen an explosion of violent and hateful rhetoric aimed at the LGBTQ+ community—words that make both physical violence and discriminatory legislation more palatable for those in need of a scapegoat. This is one of many reasons why, last year, HRC declared a State of Emergency for LGBTQ+ people for the first time in our over 40-year history.
Since the day after the last Transgender Day of Remembrance on November 20, 2023, at least 36 transgender and gender-expansive people have been killed in the U.S.
So this is everyone who was deliberately murdered solely for being transgender, no other reason? Well, no:
Between January 2013 and October 2024, the FBI recorded 16 fatal hate crimes committed against trans and gender-expansive people, including bias-motivated deaths categorized as murder, manslaughter, or negligent manslaughter, far fewer than the 372 deaths recorded by HRC.
The discrepancy is due to the fact that ‘hate crime’ carries a legal definition—albeit one which differs between jurisdictions and across state and federal regulations. In addition, not all jurisdictions collect and report hate crimes data to the FBI, meaning that the FBI’s database is not exhaustive.
A case does not have to be categorized as a hate crime to be included in our reporting. Rather, we include those cases where bias, hate, and structural violence and stigma played a role in the killing of individuals, including indirectly through fostering the conditions in which the death occurred (e.g. if a person was killed while engaging in survival sex work, after being pushed out of the formal economy).
So basically – if you were trans/gender non-conforming/cis gender non-conforming and you died by violence, you get counted in the list of “anti-trans hate”. Yes, even if you got whacked in gang-related crime or were shot by a random shooter who was in a quarrel with a completely different person or got knocked down in a hit-and-run:
Victim Identification
We do not include every death of a transgender, gender-nonconforming, or non-binary person. To be included:
• The death must have occurred in the United States, including Puerto Rico and Outlying American territories.
o Deaths that occur in other countries, even if the victims are Americans, are not included.
• The death must have been committed by another person, either directly or through contributions to the circumstances that resulted in the death.
o This means that suicides and death from illness and substance use are not included.
• The cause of death must be confirmed by authorities to be a homicide and/or caused by another person.
o “Authorities” includes official statements (or press reports of official statements) from law enforcement and/or lawyers and advocates involved in the case.
• Violence, including structural violence, must also be a component of the circumstances, even if the perpetrator did not set out to kill the victim.
o Thus, deaths due to robbery/burglary, hit-and-run and vehicular homicide, and deaths which occur at the hands of the police/while in police or law enforcement custody, are included, in addition to deaths from homicide and manslaughter.…Identification of cases
We include victims who identify as transgender, non-binary, gender-expansive, or some other non-cisgender identity at the time of their death, or who were gender-expansive in their gender presentation, or who were cisgender but presumed to be trans.…Expanding our inclusion criteria – inclusion of non-trans victims
As noted above,this year’s report now includes people who are cisgender and gender non-conforming in their gender expression/presentation, as well as those who were presumed to be trans and whose presentation or the presumption thereof was a motivating factor in their death. The decision to expand our inclusion criteria was made in acknowledgement that these victims lost their lives to the same transphobic forces, and thus should be memorialized and included in discussions of the epidemic of anti-trans violence.…Data collection
The information presented in this report reflects the most recently available data on all included cases, as identified to the best of our ability.
Data on each case are gathered daily through review of news reports, police reports, case records, and discussions with local advocates and loved ones of the victims.
All information is then recorded in an internal database and reviewed on a quarterly basis to confirm accuracy and update with emergent information as available.
Because new details may emerge as cases work their way through the justice system, and as law enforcement agencies release new information, data in this report may not always reflect what was noted in original reporting, or what may emerge in the future.”
HereAndGone
3mo ago
Oh boy yeah, the amount of merry-go-round of A is with B, has baby, they split up, A goes on to C and B goes on to D, new babies: it's horrible. I saw it in a former job. But generally it is easier for a guy to move on to new partner (and new baby if new partner thinks this will solidify the relationship, though why they think that I can never figure out; he's already walked out on former wife and kids) than a woman with kids to get a new partner willing to commit. That's for nice middle-class people, not just the dregs and underclass.
And if you have a middle-class lifestyle, having the main breadwinner walk out and leave you with a couple of dependents does hit harder.
HereAndGone
3mo ago
I hated to say it because it's attributing motivations to someone I don't know at all, and also being unpleasant to OP, but I do think that after ten years if there's no co-habitation and girlfriend is content with "see you every so often" then she's not likely to change, and there may well be a little friend in her own city that she sees from time to time. Not cheating exactly, but if she doesn't see this relationship as anything other than a casual thing, she may well consider that they are both free to have friends with benefits on the side.
Like I said, I was a bitch to ask that, but sometimes you gotta ask the ugly questions.
HereAndGone
3mo ago
Yeah, with the caveat that (1) if you liked the Divinity games, you'll like this (2) if instead you are coming for the D&D and series lore, you won't. From what I gather elsewhere, it plays about with the lore and takes it different ways.
It's a Larian game, so it's very open to romance (let us say); you don't have to play it that way but if you want the option of sleeping with party members, it's there, and it likes to take the viewpoint that the gods are bastards, the Great Heroes of the past were maybe not all that and being slightly grubby roguish grayish (not all good, not all bad) is the way to survive and have fun in the world. If you've played the Divinity games, you know what I mean.
It's fun, it's not very deep, the plot goes fairly linearly from A to B (you get Good Enough ending, Kinda Good ending, and Bad ending, slightly varying depending what character you are playing). The best thing is to play through the first time fairly straightforwardly so you get a handle on combat mechanics (which can be frustrating; why the razzle-frazzle does this gang of low-level mooks get about three turns each while my party of what should be killing machines just have to stand there and be pincushions?) but then the second time you can experiment with do you want to be a hero or a villain, different original characters, and so on.
I hesitate to say it's a relationship game, but (at least from my view of it), it is mostly about who you choose to play as, how you get on with other members of the party, and how you get on with other characters in the world. There's almost two plots running at the same time: the main one about Saving The World and the second one dealing with Raphael, the arch-devil who keeps popping up and offering you a bargain. Not to get too spoilery, since the surprise is all part of it, but his boss fight should have you going "well, that was different".
Would I recommend it? Yes! And while you play, don't forget to be good to yourself in the matter of treatos!
HereAndGone
3mo ago
No, I don't say mine carry more weight. People who blow up their marriages for stupid reasons, no matter their sex, are in the wrong.
But if a possible mate is saying "Look, I think whatever work you do in the home if we marry is not valuable", then why would I marry them? Why would I give up a job and career on the assumption "my dear husband will appreciate what I do to support his career and raise our children in the years when I am no longer the hot 20 year old he bagged"?
The unfortunate reality is that very few men are going to marry women rich enough to support them if they give up their job and become house-husbands, while for women it's in general the opposite. Love may be blind, but there's an increasing trend towards pre-nuptial agreements even among those not wealthy or upper-class, simply out of mutual distrust: the men, that they will be 'divorce raped', the women, that they will be abandoned post-divorce. Or even in an amicable mutual separation, what happens to joint property? There's really an attitude of "what's mine is mine and what's yours is yours".
And even if you both trust one another, the pragmatic thing is "what happens if I become a widow? with young kids? what do I do then?" Granted, not so much a likely outcome as in the past, but still a possibility.
HereAndGone
3mo ago
Thanks for the clarification, there have been so many cases and accusations I get muddled.
I do think the 34 FELONIES thing is disingenuous because it refers to one over-arching crime. The impression it is intended to leave is that Trump has committed all these BIG SERIOUS CRIMES in a series of BIG SERIOUS CRIMES, but it's really THIS ONE CASE.
I think most people laugh at it, though.
HereAndGone
3mo ago
I hope so, though "dummies get degrees in English" makes me go 😐 as a wordcel (granted, I have no degree in anything, so what do I know?)
HereAndGone
3mo ago
a stable marriage resulting in 4-6 kids?
Do men want six kids? Think about it: you have to be able to earn enough to keep yourself, wife, and six kids in our modern economy. You have to be able to help raise those kids (and I don't mean "change their nappies", I mean "be involved as a parent forming their characters and guiding them"). Some men do complain that "now we have kids, my wife has less time for me and clearly values the kids more than me" which puts strain on a marriage and may break it up. "We have six kids, but when I come home from work I disappear into the shed and do my own thing and she has full responsibility for every thing to do with the kids" is also a way to break up a marriage.
It takes two to tango, as the saying goes. If you want stable marriages with six kids, then men as well as women have to be prepared to be spouses and parents in that relationship.
HereAndGone
3mo ago
There is that census category "White Hispanic", so I think some people might be classed as "Hispanic" or "White" depending on different times they were labelled or what their view of their identity is.
Also, FistfullOfCrows, you saying Spaniards are not white? 😀
HereAndGone
3mo ago
I think you can say "In my view, X is illegal" and that's free speech. What this video seems to be doing is stating (by implication?) "X is illegal and moreover you should disobey orders to do X" which I think is going beyond their authority when it's addressed to members of the military specifically and not the general public at large.
HereAndGone
3mo ago
they would have run this past the lawyers before running the ad.
One would hope, but if someone has a Bright Idea and can persuade other squirrels that this is a great notion to win votes and position themselves so as to survive any intra-party purges once the fighting over who will steer the ship, the moderates or the progressive wing, is done - then they're likely to have leaped at the chance before asking advice of sober heads.
HereAndGone
3mo ago
Oh, the Letitia James case. The 34 FELONIES!!! case. I've always disliked Trump, but the way his political rivals and enemies have gone after him is just ludicrous.
The solemn, po-faced repetition (which I have encountered elsewhere just recently) that he committed 34 FELONIES!!! is risible. "Okay, what did he do?" "Mortgage fraud!" "Okay, that's one crime, and the other 33?" "Mortgage fraud!"
34 charges for one offence are not at all the same as 34 different and separate crimes. Murdering one person is wrong, but it's not the same as murdering thirty-four people, but this is the equivalence they are trying to make. I'm not even sure that it is a crime as such, since Wikipedia calls it the "New York business fraud lawsuit" which sounds more like a civil than criminal case, and this bit confuses me:
Investigators stated that the "focus of the subpoena, and the investigation, is Mr. Trump's statement of financial condition," alleging that Trump's financial statements were used to secure more than $300 million in loans, and that these "were generally inflated as part of a pattern to suggest that Mr. Trump's net worth was higher than it otherwise would have appeared".
So they charged him with... lying about being richer than he was in fact? And that turned into 34 FELONIES!!!!?
Or am I completely wrong and the 34 FELONIES!!! is the "paying hush money to the porn star" campaign finance case? Even so, the same applies: 34 charges for one offence not the same as 34 different offences in different crimes.
HereAndGone
3mo ago
Yeah, that's what is so tiresome about it. It's not really about appealing to the military, whom they probably think are a bunch of ignorant white rednecks, but to signal to their own side that they are La Résistance, vote for us in the upcoming elections, we take all your concerns seriously because look, we're repeating your talking points.
I was somewhat amused that in that glowfic quoted in a different post on here because of course, naturellement, ICE are Le Ebil. Le big grand monstrous eeeeevuuuulll. Not a bunch of guys doing their jobs in a government department, nope, Big Evil. That is the attitude amongst the Bay Area Rationalist glowfic writers who are going to vote straight Democrat in the midterms, and that's the constituency this kind of video is appealing to: the military are being forced to follow illegal orders by the evil moustache-twirlers in power, and if they don't raise their consciousness enough to realise this is what is going on, well you and your views about the boots on the ground grunts have been proven to be justified.
HereAndGone
3mo ago
Are you saying that their assertion (that under US law, as a soldier or whatever you are allowed to or even obliged to ignore illegal orders) is false? Because if it isn't,
No, it's not. But that's not what they're arguing. They're arguing "whatever orders you are getting are illegal because the administration is illicit/Not My President/it's mean if you do these things against our favoured groups/do what we tell you not what they tell you".
HereAndGone
3mo ago
As stated above, THEY ARE HEDGING AGAINST THE WRONG RISK. The risks associated with picking the wrong guy who abandons you in middle age (which can be mitigated!) are significantly smaller than the risks of delaying picking a partner at all.
It's still a risk that is higher for the wife than the husband. I've come across plenty of cases where "couple splits up, guy takes up with new partner, who if she isn't already pregnant soon becomes pregnant, guy is too involved with new family to do much about kids he's left with former partner".
And for Mackenzie Bezos, the attitude I wish to point out was that she did nothing, contributed nothing, so had no right to a fair share of Jeff's money. If it's demonstrably an attitude by the men who will be the future husbands that "marry me and be a full-time homemaker, and I will consider that the work in the home and family you do is nothing and isn't real work and isn't worth a monetary value". Do you really think a woman with any prudence will go into a marriage where she knows the view is "being a stay-at-home wife is being a leech on your husband" and leave it up to his good will as to whether he'll continue to support her should he decide greener pastures lie elsewhere? Having your own job and means of earning a living is security, quite apart from the modern pressure that both partners in the couple must be working and earning to have any kind of chance at home ownership, avoiding debt, etc.
HereAndGone
3mo ago
Okay, you want some performative abasement?
Oh mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa! Let me beat my breast in penitence!
Happy now?
I'll apologise to the person I offended, but let me remind you of this from Chesterton:
It takes three to make a quarrel. There is needed a peacemaker. The full potentialities of human fury cannot be reached until a friend of both parties tactfully intervenes.
HereAndGone
4mo ago
No idea how old any of them are, but it really is a very young woman's view of emotional reactions. Or maybe I'm just insufficiently Bay Area to get it and people really do melt into puddles of awwww! all over the place there.
HereAndGone
4mo ago
Sorry, it's the whole "pfft, caring for kids is so easy-peasy even the stupidest woman (but I repeat myself) can do it!" thing that is not making "hey, being a wife and mother is indeed an important work that should be allocated a higher status than it is". If you're trying to fight decades of "staying at home and having kids is wasting your talents, your value and your life" teaching, then repeating "child care is unskilled labour any fule can do" is not gonna help.
Long excerpt follows:
The outlaws grumbled and scuffed, kicking at stones. A hoarse voice bawled from a safe shadow, “Na, Willie, sing us a true song. Sing us one about Robin Hood.”
"Who said that?” Cully’s loosened sword clacked in its sheath as he turned from side to side. His face suddenly seemed as pale and weary as a used lemon drop.
“I did,” said Molly Grue, who hadn’t. “The men are bored with ballads of your bravery, Captain darling. Even if you did write them all yourself.”
…An aging rogue in tattered velvet now slunk forward. “Captain, if we’re to have folk songs, and I suppose we must, then we feel they ought to be true songs about real outlaws, not this lying life we live. No offense, Captain, but we’re really not very merry, when all’s said —”
“I’m merry twenty-four hours a day, Dick Fancy,” Cully said coldly. “That is a fact.”
“And we don’t steal from the rich and give to the poor,” Dick Fancy hurried on. “We steal from the poor because they can’t fight back—most of them—and the rich take from us because they could wipe us out in a day. We don’t rob the fat, greedy Mayor on the highway; we pay him tribute every month to leave us alone. We never carry off proud bishops and keep them prisoner in the wood, feasting and entertaining them, because Molly hasn’t any good dishes, and besides, we just wouldn’t be very stimulating company for a bishop. When we go to the fair in disguise, we never win at the archery or at singlestick. We do get some nice compliments on our disguises, but no more than that.”
…“And as for righting wrongs and fighting for civil liberties, that sort of thing,” Dick Fancy said, “it wouldn’t be so bad—I mean, I’m not the crusader type myself, some are and some aren’t—but then we have to sing those songs about wearing Lincoln green and aiding the oppressed. We don’t, Cully, we turn them in for the reward, and those songs are just embarrassing, that’s all, and there’s the truth of it.”
...He opened his eyes. Most of the outlaws were chuckling and tapping their temples, glad of the chance to mock him. Captain Cully had risen, anxious to pronounce that part of the entertainment ended. Then Molly Grue cried out in a soft, shaking voice, and all turned to see what she saw. A man came walking into the clearing.
He was dressed in green, but for a brown jerkin and a slanting brown cap with a woodcock’s feather in it. He was very tall, too tall for a living man: the great bow slung over his shoulder looked as long as Jack Jingly, and his arrows would have made spears or staves for Captain Cully. Taking no notice at all of the still, shabby forms by the fire, he strode through the night and vanished, with no sound of breath or footfall.
After him came others, one at a time or two together, some conversing, many laughing, but none making any sound. All carried longbows and all wore green, save one who came clad in scarlet to his toes, and another gowned in a friar’s brown habit, his feet in sandals and his enormous belly contained by a rope belt. One played a lute and sang silently as he walked.
“Alan-a-Dale.” It was raw Willie Gentle. “Look at those changes.” His voice was as naked as a baby bird.
Effortlessly proud, graceful as giraffes (even the tallest among them, a kind-eyed Blunderbore), the bowmen moved across the clearing. Last, hand in hand, came a man and a woman. Their faces were as beautiful as though they had never known fear. The woman’s heavy hair shone with a secret, like a cloud that hides the moon.
“Oh,” said Molly Grue. “Marian.”
“Robin Hood is a myth,” Captain Cully said nervously, “a classic example of the heroic folk-figures synthesized out of need. John Henry is another. Men have to have heroes, but no man can ever be as big as the need, and so a legend grows around a grain of truth, like a pearl. Not that it isn’t a remarkable trick, of course.”
It was the seedy dandy Dick Fancy who moved first. All the figures but the last two had passed into the darkness when he rushed after them, calling, hoarsely, “Robin, Robin, Mr. Hood sir, wait for me!” Neither the man nor the woman turned, but every man of Cully’s band—saving only Jack Jingly and the captain himself—ran to the clearing’s edge, tripping and trampling one another, kicking the fire so that the clearing churned with shadows. “Robin!” they shouted; and “Marian, Scarlet, Little John—come back! Come back!” Schmendrick began to laugh, tenderly and helplessly.
Over their voices, Captain Cully screamed, “Fools, fools and children! It was a lie, like all magic! There is no such person as Robin Hood!” But the outlaws, wild with loss, went crashing into the woods after the shining archers, stumbling over logs, falling through thorn bushes, wailing hungrily as they ran.
Only Molly Grue stopped and looked back. Her face was burning white. “Nay, Cully, you have it backward,” she called to him. “There’s no such a person as you, or me, or any of us. Robin and Marian are real, and we are the legend!”
Then she ran on, crying, “Wait, wait!” like the others, leaving Captain Cully and Jack Jingly to stand in the trampled firelight and listen to the magician’s laughter.
HereAndGone
4mo ago
Thank you, kind person!
While we're on the tangent of Tolkien's works, what finally clicked for me about the difference between GRRM and JRRT is this part from "The Last Unicorn", which I only thought about today, where Schmendrick the incapable magician is captured by a band of outlaws. Their leader, Captain Cully, aspires to the whole 'Robin Hood and his Merry Men in the greenwood' trope but in an ironic/deconstructionist way: he wants to write his own 'folk ballads' about the heroic Captain Cully and his dearest ambition is to have them collected by a travelling folklorist and included in something like the famous Child Ballads. The other members of his band point out the disconnect between the folkloric Robin Hood and the reality of being outlaws in the woods.
So far, so grubby realism GRRM: there are no heroes, all the stories are fantasies, the reality is mud and violence and grinding poverty and trying to scrape by, and the ones who claim to be the noble heroes as of old are liars and fantasists.
But then Schmendrick manages to pull off some real magic, without intending it, without knowing what will happen. And he evokes Robin and Marian and the Merry Men, and the outlaws run after them, calling them to stop and come back. Cully tries to bring it all back down to the grubby reality which is the only reality they can have, but Molly Grue tells him no. People want the fantasy and the heroism. In a sense, that is what is truly real, not the grubbiness of his petty ambitions. So far, so JRRT 😁
HereAndGone
4mo ago
Interesting story, but is it written by a teenager? Because "Evelyn is possibly, maybe, internally melting into a puddle of awwwwwwwwwwwww" is not generally how women in their forties who are foster parents react (I say this as a woman older than forty).
Or historically, for middle-class men, long engagements were the rule. Some careers wouldn't allow you to marry, or put impediments in the way of marriage: can't bring your wife (if you have one) out to India with you, can't marry locals, have to wait ten years to get leave back to Britain and then marry a suitable woman there:
Early marriage was seen as an impediment to a young man’s career and marriage was forbidden in the ICS before the age of thirty and made very difficult in the Indian Army. A marriage allowance was not paid until an Indian Army officer was twenty-six, and it was customary to seek the Colonel’s permission to marry. He could refuse, and mostly did, until the young officer had achieved the rank of Captain. In The Officer’s Wife, an angry Gerald recites to Daisy the military’s informal rule: subalterns cannot marry, captains may marry, majors should marry, colonels must marry.
Others involved lack of economic advancement for the man, e.g. the stock figure of the poor curate waiting for a living of his own before he could marry, see the Pre-Raphaelite painting of the long engagement.
And other men simply did not wish to marry 'early' (before the age of thirty*); there's a fair amount of fiction where a forty year old man ends up marrying an eighteen to twenty year old woman simply because now at last he's found 'the one'/he's ready to settle down since it's time he was married and had an heir or her family consider it an advantageous match where he's financially established, and it's nothing to do with emotional attraction.
*From a collection of ghost stories published in 1927, where the tale is set in 1905, so clearly this kind of attitude was socially acceptable since neither the narrator nor the audience feel the need for him to justify why he's not married beyond "I wasn't ready":
‘It’s twenty years ago, 1905, exactly twenty years, in the winter. I was very hard-working, very absorbed and very successful for a youngster. I had no ties and a little money of my own, I’d taken all the degrees and honors I could take, and I’d just finished a rather stiff German course in Munich — physical chemistry — and I was rather worn out.
‘I had not begun to practice and I decided to rest before I did so.
‘I recognized in myself those dangerous symptoms of fatigue, lack of interest in everything and a nervous distrust of my powers. And by nature I was fairly confident, even, I daresay, arrogant.
‘While I was still in Munich a cousin I had almost forgotten, died and left me a house and furniture.
‘Not of much value and in a very out-of-the-way place.
‘I thought the bequest queer and paid no attention to it; of course I was rather pleased, but I decided to sell.
‘I meant to live in London and I had not the least intention of an early marriage, nor indeed of any marriage at all.
‘I was nearly thirty and sufficiently resolute and self-contained.
HereAndGone
4mo ago
Eh, back in the Good Old Days, women were getting married early and still having babies into their forties. See Queen Victoria: married at twenty-one, first child nine months later, last pregnancy aged thirty-eight, widowed at forty-two. My own mother had her last child aged forty-two, and she only got married in her early thirties.
Yes, it gets harder to get pregnant the longer you put it off, but I have half a notion modern difficulty is due to prolonged use of hormonal birth control. You spend twenty years tricking your body into permanent sterility, you are not going to get it to turn on a sixpence after you decide "okay now baby" and stop the pill for six months.
HereAndGone
4mo ago
Of course, the risks of early marriage are significant, if they pick the wrong guy things can blow up and backfire.
And the risk is genuine, even if it's small. Get married in early 20s, be a housewife and mother, raise the kids, support his career (so he can work those crazy long work weeks to get the promotions and not have to worry about cooking meals, clean clothes, nice house to invite the boss back to for the networking dinner parties, bringing the kids to the doctor, etc.) and then you hit your forties and he trades you in for a newer, younger model and you're left with no independent income of your own, no career, no job history or one that is long out of date, and probably custody of and responsibility for the kids (if they're not adults by then).
Pretty much what happened to Mackenzie Bezos, except the new model wasn't younger, and pretty much the majority opinion on here was "why the hell does this leech expect to extract all that money from her poor husband who grew the fortune while she did nothing" (supporting him by working when he was trying to get Amazon off the ground, then being wife, mother, and homemaker for the rest of the marriage counts as 'nothing').
You see why women would want to be sure they have financial independence?
I’m putting the descriptions in quotation marks because I’m taking them as-is from the website, sometimes the people involved used different names or gender identities.
There we are: 36 deaths, but how many of them would you count as genuine anti-trans hate crime violence epidemic? I'm not trying to deny transphobia and hate crimes exist, just point out that the next time you see "X trans deaths! our society is homophobic and transphobic, this proves it!", that may not be the exact motive for murder instead of the traditional ones of greed, lust, revenge, etc. that happen to straight white cis people too.
More options
Context Copy link