Bearded trans woman beaten in Oregon after using women's bathroom, beater charged with hate crime

[Durgasarrow]

Lauren Jackson, a homeless trans woman who used a woman's bathroom in a state park, was beaten by an Idaho man after his wife complained that Jackson's presence made her uncomfortable. I think we can all agree that an assault charge is reasonable. Is it reasonable to call this a hate crime?

twitter.com/CNN/status/1223340439081824263

If it's a non-crime hate crime. But in both the Owen Jones case and the lesbians attacked on the bus it was stated that the judge needed to be sure that the attacks were homophobic in character.

I'm not sure whether that's for recording purposes, or just sentencing, though? It's possible that you can't pass an increased sentence without evidence, but it can be recorded as a hate crime on purely subjective belief, maybe? All sorts of messed up, if so. We need a lawyer to explain that one, either way.

The key point is that under Oregon law, transwomen can use women's loos. The victim was minding their own business, and was brutally attacked. I don't agree with that law, clearly, and don't want it to be that way here (bad enough that it's becoming that way via stealth) but the reality is that it exists and the victim was entirely blameless accordingly - and even if it didn't, the attack is appalling.

I want women's rights protected. I absolutely don't want anyone else harmed. The harm to us is the point here. I condemn any violence towards anyone, unless it is literal (in the truthful sense) self-defence.

I know the more aggressive transwomen don't want third spaces, but I do think they are the answer. For courteous transwomen, for transmen who are unsafe in men's single sex provision, and for fathers of daughters and mothers of sons, or opposite sex carers.

*Q:If there were no evidence that the attacker knew about trans status, I don't think a hate crime conviction could have resulted?

A:In the UK at least a hate crime is determined purely by the person reporting*

I wouldn’t like to comment on English law but this answer does not accurately reflect the situation in Scots Law. To secure a conviction for a an aggravated or ‘hate’ crime, it must usually be established that the offence was motivated at least in part by the victims membership or perceived membership of the protected group. It would NOT be sufficient for example for a black man who had been assaulted to simply say that he had been targeted because he was black.

I am GC and this sounds like it was legally a hate crime, as well as a disgusting act of violence. It does seem as though third spaces would be safer for all concerned, though (some) men not violently attacking other people would be awfully nice, too.

Assault is wrong whatever the situation.
The question here is Lauren identifies as a woman but to all appearances is a man.
Does this mean that any man can enter female spaces but if challenged can declare ‘I identify as female’??

I absolutely do not condone any kind of violence.

But I don’t see how it can be recorded as a hate crime as no one is a mind reader. Are people supposed to guess if a man is transgender?

Obviously they should not have been beaten up. Men’s propensity for violence is terrifying and distressing.

Looking at the picture of Lauren, the violence wasn’t because Lauren was trans. It was because Lauren was a male in the women’s toilets - nothing about Lauren’s appearance suggests transgender status. And if that wasn’t obvious, it can’t have been the motivation.

So I’m not sure how an allegation of hate crime would stand up: where is the necessary intention?

How many years now have GC women pointed out that a man would sooner or later beat up a TW they felt threatened the privacy or safety of their wife/daughter/girlfriend/mother/sister in a single sex female space
Indeed, we women are silenced more often than not, but it wont ever be us beating up TW. So really the TRAs should be working on men being nicer and possibly listen to women instead of shouting us down.

This was likely a crime, but not a hate crime. Although there are some state to state self defence laws that might be applicable if the perpetrator truly believed the person he attacked to be a danger to his wife.

Either way it’s completely different to the ‘non-crime hate incidents’ people are being accused of in the UK.

None of us know how Lauren presented on that day. It's arguable either way, and none of us know.

As has been said, what is really significant, after the absolute fact that nobody should ever suffer violence like this, is that the attacker was male. As is normal in violent offending, of course.

Bearded trans woman beaten in Oregon

Presumably Lauren is "bearded" because shaving would be impossible after the reconstructive jaw surgery has healed properly.

We have no idea how she was presenting on the day she was assaulted. The kind of person that beats people up for using the ladies is also the kind of person that beats people up for appearing female in the gents.

Evening, everyone. We've deleted a few posts on this thread that we felt either were victim blaming or simply broke our guidelines.

If we have to zap too many there's a chance the whole thread might have to go at some point, so if you could think carefully about your posts and ensure they stay within guidelines, that would be really helpful.

Thanks!

Of course it's a hate crime. A crime committed because Lauren is trans. It's not even a grey area.
I don't think men should be using women's toilets. But violence isn't the answer.

Lauren should not have been in the women's loo. Probably gave the woman in question a real shock, even if Lauren's behaviour was impeccable
Her partner's response to beat the shit out of Lauren is appalling - but shows why men aren't expected to share THEIR spaces, because they will react with violence, while women will stifle their feelings and generally keep their heads down and scuttle away upon being confronted by a bearded natal msle in their loo..
The man is absolutely wrong to have beaten Lauren.
I would, however, not have an issue if he'd approached him and explained how he'd shocked his partner.
Third spaces for everyone's safety. We will only see more violence until this happens.
Neither women nor trans folk are safe from male violence.

This was a vicious, brutal attack. Perpetrated by a man who was drunk and had a criminal record even before this. He broke several bones in the victim's face, requiring surgery, and even fractured the skull.

This is a kind of attack that's commonplace and has been for thousands of years - violent males attacking other males they perceive to be a danger to their women or believe to have trespassed against them. This is the kind of male violence feminists have sought to highlight and prevent for decades, by teaching boys not to use violence and aggression to resolve their issues. Can't help thinking it also smacks of defending one's woman as one's personal property - the victim hadn't actually done anything and clearly presented no danger to the wife when the attack happened, so this was punishment, not (self)defence. No one deserves this, especially not for using an opposite-sex facility, whether lawfully or not.

As for the hate crime question: The perp's wife had complained to her husband that a man had followed her into the ladies, which had made her feel uncomfortable. The perp then sought out and attacked the victim - afterwards and outside the toilets. That's as much detail as the media reports have given. We don't know what words husband and wife used when discussing this or if they have a relevant history.

We don't know whether the perp shouted specific or general insults during the attack or if he shouted any at all (this is one way to ascertain if hate is an aggravating factor under UK law). We don't know whether the law in Oregon requires specific behaviours to mark a hate crime. I don't think we need any of that to conclude that hate was a factor here given the horrific injuries suffered by the victim.

Deciding whether this is a hate crime motivated by transphobia depends on information we don't have. However, the jury at the trial presumably had that information and decided it met the threshold. That's good enough for me.

The reporting on this isn't sufficiently clear. Some stories say Lauren did not present as a woman, and the attacker did not know Lauren was a woman. In that case, I can't see it's a hate crime, just a common or garden crime.

Men in women's toilets should not be beaten up.
Transwomen in women's toilets should not be beaten up.

Crossed with Charley.

It's a crime.
It isn't a hate crime.
If the assaulter would have assaulted ANY other male person in exactly the same way, for imposing his presence in a female only area, and IF such an assault on any other male person would NOT have been deemed a hate crime, then this one isn't either.
Unless people are arguing that he would NOT have assaulted any other male person in these circumstances, and only assaulted THIS male victim because if how he identified

If the assaulter behaved this way because this was a male person, then this is your common male on male violence. Which I condemn, whilst still focussing more on men's violence against MY sex than against their own.

Although I'm not sure this is the especial responsibility of feminists to make particular condemnations of male violence against other male people.

I rather think men should be taking responsibility for themselves. Feminists seem to still have their hands full with male violence against women.