Protecting Our Children From Predators! (they are not the Trans you are looking for)

So yesterday the “good people” of Houston overwhelmingly rejected a measure that said:

No Houstonian should be discriminated against based on race, age, pregnancy, religion, military status, sexual orientation or gender identity

because of an ad campaign that said:

Apparently, although there are no cases of trans women assaulting anyone in a restroom, people like camohat above (who would never believe in a statistic anyhow because facts are lies) want to preemptively protect them from some dude who, after he raped a woman in a bathroom, claimed he was legally able to be in the bathroom because on that given day, said raper dude claimed protected status as Trans (discounting the fact – darned facts! – that just because you can’t be discriminated against doesn’t mean you can go around raping people).

And yet these same very worried who want to preemptively protect their helpless wimmen from a threat that has yet to occur are still sending their kids to church, where children are being abused on a fairly regular basis.

Like in Alabama:

Al.com reports Mack Charles Andrews was pastor of the First United Pentecostal Church in Thomasville and principal of Faith Christian Academy when the alleged crimes took place.

Andrews is expected to stand trial next month and is charged with multiple counts of rape, sodomy, sexual torture, attempted rape and sexual abuse.

[…]

Jane says she lost her virginity to her pastor on her father’s grave when she was just 9 years old, and explains how Andrews used religious superstition to terrorized her:

He told me if I didn’t say anything, he would come back and put flowers on the grave. If I did, he said demons would come and get me from my bed.

AL.com reports Jane was subjected to sexual torture prior to the rape, noting Andrews allegedly violated her with drumsticks, pens, letter openers, a figurine and even a flashlight, “grooming” her for future sexual abuse.

Jane reports the heinous abuse began when she was only 7-years-old, and was part of the “grooming process”  to prepare her for the rape she would endure two years later.

Oh, but this is just one case. We can’t judge all pastors and ministers on the basis of just one case (even though Trans people are judged based on no cases)

How about this in Georgia:

In Georgia, a high placed Republican political consultant and youth pastor is accused of forcing boys to perform “hundreds” of sex acts while videotaping them doing it at the First Baptist Church of Vidalia.

Jim Collins, currently a political consultant and former youth pastor at the First Baptist Church of Vidalia, is accused of telling boys in his church youth group to perform “individual sexual acts” and videotaping them doing it.

[…]

At the Bible studies at Collins’ home, Stanley says that Collins soon abandoned all pretense of Scripture study:

Under Collins’s direction, the group began to view pornography together at Collins’s home. He encouraged each boy to engage in individual sexual acts, both privately and in a group setting. On at least one occasion, Collins videotaped these sexual acts as well, causing additional harm to Matt Stanley. Collins also engaged in highly inappropriate, sexualized physical contact with many of the boys, including Matt Stanley. 29. In addition, Collins sexually abused Matt Stanley and the other boys in these ways on church-sponsored out-of-town trips during which Collins served as First Baptist Church’s adult chaperone for the boys.

Okay, you say, that’s two (this week!), but these are just a few isolated incidents. We can’t judge all youth pastors based on just a few isolated incidents…oh, wait…

In fact, there are studies that demonstrate that the faith community is even more vulnerable to abuse than secular environments. The Abel and Harlow study revealed that 93% of sex offenders describe themselves as “religious” and that this category of offender may be the most dangerous. Other studies have found that sexual abusers within faith communities have more victims and younger victims. This disturbing truth is perhaps best illustrated by the words of a convicted child molester who told Dr. Salter,

“I considered church people easy to fool…they have a trust that comes from being Christians. They tend to be better folks all around and seem to want to believe in the good that exists in people.”

And then of course, there are all those incidents with Catholic priests that have been well publicized, but we forget all of those because the new pope is so cool.

Now I really don’t believe that we should legislate against children being allowed to spend time with youth pastors or priests. That would be ridiculous because most of these folks are most likely not raping children with drumsticks to prepare them for being sexually assaulted on their parents’ graves. Most ministers are probably mortified by the idea of forcing young men to have sex with them. But statistics regarding the prevalence of sexual abuse of children in religious communities are pretty frightening.

As a parent, I have to extend a certain amount of trust to the adults I occasionally have my children interact with that they will not molest them. As a teacher, parents have to trust that I will not assault their children. Otherwise, we would never let out kids out of the house.

And strangely, there are laws that prohibit abusing children, or sexually assaulting anyone, in bathrooms or wherever and people get prosecuted for doing these things all the time and there are no incidents of trans women being prosecuted for these crimes and far too many incidents of youth pastors, priests and ministers being prosecuted for these crimes.

And yet camohat and his ilk just voted to keep women and children safe from violence that statistically never happens and do nothing to keep women and children safe from violence that happens far too often.

Fuck them.

Advertisements

14 thoughts on “Protecting Our Children From Predators! (they are not the Trans you are looking for)

  1. Reblogged this on Fairy JerBear's Queer/Trans News, Views & More From The City Different – Santa Fe, NM and commented:
    Predatory pastors a real threat while religious extremists engage in blatant fear mongering against a non-existent threat. They should hang their heads in shame!

  2. Rachel says:

    Right about….. NOW…… is when a “radical feminist” usually chimes in and points out that you’re (conveniently) leaving out the FACT that these priests/pastors share a commonality with (so called) “Transwomen” and that this commonality, actually means the argument you’ve just made justifies the result.

    They’re all born with (and many still have) a penis.

    Personally, I believe that females have the absolute RIGHT to guaranteed safety (just as males do) and that until we as a species develop a method to establish with 100% accuracy what each individual is thinking (IE one better than the current system where it doesn’t matter what they’re thinking, we simply go by a person’s actual capabilities due to their sex organs) then the result was the best possible for right now.

    Trust is earned (and I believe rightly so) not simply granted.

    • Tasha says:

      I’m not entirely sure how you make the connection between the possession of a penis (either in the present or the past) makes one more likely to be a danger to women. You can make arguments from the perspective of a TERF, but they hold no water with me because I don’t buy their definition of feminism. The fact is that there are no incidents of trans women assaulting women in restrooms, and yet we legislate against them, when we do not legislate against people who do commit acts of rape against men and women both.

      You may believe that all people have some kind of absolute right to live without fear. It’s a nice belief. I share it with you that it is a noble goal, but it is unreasonable. There are no guarantees in this life that one will be safe from anything. A cow could fall off a cliff and crush you. It has happened. You are actually more likely to be killed in a cow related incident than raped by a trans woman. More likely to be unsafe in almost every other aspect of this very unsafe world, and yet rights of a group that has done no harm are denied not for any other reason than the fear of the Other, which drives the fearful and ignorant to vote against their better interests.

      Why should anyone trust you or me, Rachel, when it comes to our current surgical status? What is to stop some fearful person from assuming something about us, which may lead to a likely unfortunate end? Did we earn that trust from our surgeons’ scalpels?

      • Rachel says:

        To clarify, I was NOT attempting to make my (or any) argument from the perspective of a “radical feminist” (trans exclusionary or otherwise). I certainly do not subscribe to their version of feminism either.

        I do believe that ALL people should have the right to live without fear, yes.

        Does the fact that it is unlikely that will ever be fully realised, mean that we should resign ourselves and not even attempt to achieve it?

        Should your wife or daughter (or even yourself) just have to accept that it is a fact of their life that they will NEVER be allowed to feel truly “safe”?

        There is nothing to stop anyone fearing me, nor to make anyone trust me, nothing what so ever, and yet it seems…..

        Did I earn that trust from my surgeons scalpel?

        In my case, not intentionally.

        how about you?

      • Tasha says:

        I don’t disagree that we should strive for a safer world for all. I am reasonably noble after all. However, I don’t believe that my spouse or daughter are in any less danger from predators in a public restroom than my son is and I certainly worry more for him in the men’s room than my daughter in the women’s room. And I have no concerns at all about trans people being responsible for any attacks on my family in a restroom. I am far more concerned about the cis population. I’m also not worried that some man will announce he is a woman in the moment just to enter the women’s room. I think it is a paranoid fantasy concocted by a political machine that seeks to exploit potentially divisive issues.

        Think on this. When I first started to use public women’s spaces, I did not feel safe at all. I felt the gaze of every cis woman on me and worried that I may have been attacked or accosted in some manner. It took me a long time to feel comfortable in that space and even now, some three and a half years after GRS, I still worry from time to time that someone might cause me distress in some manner. I don’t know if I will ever truly feel “safe” in any space. I know I am not alone amongst trans women in this.

        Not trust in and of itself, no. But at the very least a physiological signifier of female which makes me more confident and confidence inspires trust.

      • Rachel says:

        Ok, so Then (according to this vote) the majority of people (and I have to believe at least some of them are women) are saying that, wether this has happened or not (up until this point), even the idea that it might occur (and can you say 100% without question that it never will or that it’s an impossibility?) makes them feel unsafe, and they are not prepared/happy to feel that.

        So, how can you tell them to feel uncomfortable so that other “groups” don’t have too? wouldn’t that be discriminating?

        See! the whole thing contradicts and (hence) defeats itself.

        You can say (if you like) that how these people feel (threatened) is unrealistic, but it seems “transwomen” are unprepared to be told that very same thing themselves.

        Or, why would we even be here? and why would this even be an issue?

        Perhaps “Transwomen” don’t choose who they are or how they were born (IE with a penis) but they’re certainly able to choose (often many times throughout their lives) what they do about those things.

        As for how safe your son is in the men’s room, I don’t know how old he is or his situation as a person, however, I would think that (for the most part at least) if he’s in a position where he’s not typically safe in the men’s room, then that would be a result of decisions his parents have made.

      • Tasha says:

        So “transwomen” in quotes is telling. I get that you don’t want to be grouped with those who do not see surgery as necessary or choose to be genderfluid in some capacity, but it doesn’t do well to be so obviously inclined.

        Do some Googling about the vote. I know you’re in Australia, where there is a different attitude towards voting, but not everyone in the U.S. votes and the trend in non-presidential elections is that most don’t come out to vote. In single-issue elections, turnout is terrible. People just don’t vote and it often results in bad policy or candidates elected by a vocal minority.

        What makes them feel unsafe? It used to be (and still remains in many respects) black people. In some countries it was, and still is, Jews. Many in the U.S. certainly feel afraid of the growing Mexican population. It is discrimination when you say that any one person’s feelings of discomfort supercede another’s freedom. If we legislate according to comfort level, it’s a very slippery slope and a lot of people fall down it.

        Trans women (two words, btw) and trans men (also affected by the law) are told frequently that they have no rights in the U.S. I argue that we are the last great Other that conservative politicians use to make their base fearful. It is shameful, but all too common. I’m sure you’ve seen similar tactics employed in Australia against immigrants from South East Asia.

        I worry for my son only in that there are actually men in the men’s room and men are more likely to commit acts of sexual predation against children. I’m not sure what you mean about parental decisions…such as letting my 10 year old use the restroom?

      • Rachel says:

        P.S that is certainly NOT meant to sound/be “mean”, it’s just that the sad fact of our existance is that very few of us live/d in a vacuum.

      • Tasha says:

        What is mean is irrelevant. Your arguments come from the perspective that the oppressed minorities must bend to the will of the oppressive majority. I have a fundamental disagreement with this position.

      • Rachel says:

        This is your blog, so if this is a debate (or argument) which is not what I seek or sought, you’re guaranteed the “win”, as such, I’ll go no further.

        I do want to clarify my position however, my use of quotations is NOT To suggest I don’t want to be grouped.

        As a person, I do NOT subscribe to gender or “transgender” theory (just as I don’t subscribe to radical feminism, also in quotes you’ll notice)

        What I believe is that one is human first. Male or female second, and that should be all that is truly relavent, the only categories needed. All in those categories are (or should be) considered as equally as possible in order to achieve as much harmony as achievable.

        If one is discontent with the category in which (it seems) they fit, then I’m certainly experienced enough to know that there are provisions in existence for that person to change, and if done so as completely as possible then I believe that should be accepted.

        When I write or voice my opinion anywhere or on anything, it is from that stand point.

  3. Mara says:

    American society, and society in general holds some very odd and sad standards.
    I’m glad people like yourself are saying something. While I’m not from this country I do understand the effect these sorts of things, left unchallenged, will have.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s