These worthless fucks don't even view trans people AS PEOPLE! That is disgusting!
It shouldn't matter one whit what gender they are or not--- you cant just fucking murder people in cold blood wtf.
this post was submitted on 09 Oct 2026
339 points (98.3% liked)
politics
31358 readers
2628 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles. Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing other users of being bots or paid actors.
- No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
- No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have comments or posts removed, weaponize reports, or violate the code of conduct, will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
These worthless fucks don’t even view trans people AS PEOPLE!
The Nazis were the same way. Dehumanizing people makes it easier to justify murder/genocide.
I hope his dick rots off and he gets accused of being trans in the bathroom.
Did he kill someone? Then it doesn’t fucking matter what the victim’s gender or plumbing was.
load more comments
(3 replies)
Well, if people are violently hostile to trans people, I guess trans people need to legally adapt.
Oh, they can't do that?
Huh. Weird. Soooo, what to you expect them to do? Just... Be murdered peacefully?
I don't agree that a murderer can't say their motivation, but when someone has shot someone else six times and we all know that they did it, just stay in prison. You chose to fill the victim full of lead because you're a dangerous weenie, and you're too dangerous to live with the public.
You can't have been too scared of them if you were in a long-term relationship, and you're a murderer. Sit in prison and rot.
So, the law doesn't apply if I don't like something about the victim?
Well yeah. This is America.
I'm sure you know about the white>black exception to most acts of violence, and the white>indigenous one. In addition to those, there is a cis>trans exception too. It gets people off for everything including obviously premeditated murder.
There is a slight difference, in that you can't say the skin color one openly in court as your defense anymore, but the trans one you can still say openly in court. It's called the "trans panic" defense.
One of the most egregious recent ones I remember was a guy who went to a woman's house and had sex. Sitting at home in post-nut he felt shame. So he got his dad and his brother together, and went back over to her house to murder her.
His dad and brother watched the parking lot and the door for him. He went inside and murdered the woman with his bare hands, eventually stomping her head into paste with his boot in anger. This obviously took a little while.
Clearly this was premeditated, cold blooded murder. He thought about it, made a plan, gathered materials and support, used his hands, and took time to see that it was finished. There was no disputing this in court. In fact, I know all these details because he admitted to them in court.
He also says though, that he had no idea she was trans during the sex, but somehow found out afterwards at home. That one fact was enough to let him go free.
Stomping a trans woman to death is a justified reaction to her transness in the eyes of the American courts.
I support trans women and...
This was a defendant who knew the victim well. They were in an ongoing sexual relationship. The trial court made it very difficult for the defendant to discuss their relationship or concerns about being hurt during alleged self-defense. And that was defendant's entire legal defense! And he couldn't talk about it! Even if too many trans women are being killed, this is not an unfair or bad appellate ruling.
Defendants should be able to present defenses to a jury. This is absolutely not transphobia for the court to rule this way. It's entirely possible Defendant chose to not testify because of this ruling. In a self-defense case!
The ruling: https://www.tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/OpinionsPDFVersion/W2025-01186-CCA-R3-CDOPN.pdf
According to the ruling:
At the pretrial hearing on the State’s motion, defense counsel expressed concern that if the trial court excluded evidence of the victim’s biological sex, it would impact Defendant’s ability to present a defense and his right to testify. Defense counsel stated that if Defendant chose to testify, he would be in a position to have to lie to the jury, “either by omission or just a straight-out lie.”
So defendant was allowed to testify, but couldn't mention that the victim was trans at all. It's not right. Defendants should be able to present their side of things.
from the actual ruling:
Logically, courts allow evidence of the physical characteristics of the victim and defendant when evaluating the “reasonableness” and “imminent danger” requirements of a self-defense claim. Here, Defendant argues the “differences in strength and power between a biological man and a woman of the same weight cannot be denied.” In other words, there are physical differences between a biological male who is five-feet-eleven and 262 pounds and a biological female who is five-feet-eleven and 262 pounds. The trial court determined that because the victim was armed, evidence of her biological sex was irrelevant and potentially prejudicial. We disagree.
While a gun might equalize differences in physical strength and size, there are other inherent physiological differences between the sexes that science continues to reveal and that we choose not to ignore. A detailed discussion is not necessary for our analysis; it suffices to acknowledge that these differences exist. However significant or insignificant these differences are, the Tennessee Rules of Evidence set the threshold test for relevance low: evidence is relevant if it has any tendency to prove a consequential fact. See Tenn. R. Evid. 401, Advisory Comm’n Cmt. (“The theoretical test for admissibility is a lenient one . . .”). We decline to hold that the biological sex of the victim is not relevant to a claim of self-defense.
Regarding the danger of unfair prejudice, we recognize that societal biases exist. As counsel for Defendant observed at the pretrial hearing, any prejudices the jury might have against the victim for being transgender could very well be applied to Defendant for being in a sexual relationship with the transgender victim. The trial court was concerned that knowledge of the victim’s biological sex might lead to bias and cause the jury to confuse the issues. The danger of bias, however, ran both ways in this case. Defendant expressed his concern that the jury might be less likely to accept his claim of self-defense based on their understanding of the victim as a woman rather than a biological male. Notably, the victim’s friend, Mr. Hunter, testified the victim called him because the victim thought he could provide some level of intimidation as a male. These societal views on the differences between male and female behaviors only strengthen our belief that a person’s biological sex has relevance to certain issues.
Im still waiting on the evidence that theres a physical difference between cis women and trans women who've been on HRT for an extended time. As a transwoman myself, ive only been on hormones for 2 months and im definitely noticably weaker than i was before, even though ive kept up my routines.
I wont deny that 2 months ago I was definitely stronger by a mile than most women who dont actively work out, and i didnt really do any heavy lifting to earn that other than the occasional house move.
I think it's a fair point, and there's probably not good genuine unbiased studies comparing things like reflex times, aggression levels in confrontations, and other issues.
To me, it seems wrong in a self-defense case (which almost requires a defendant to testify) to not allow a defendant to just talk about what happened. Defendant may have not known if the victim was consistently taking HRT, how long HRT was being used and how often, and more than that, Defendant should just be able to talk about things without his testimony being deemed illegal for saying the wrong thing about an ongoing relationship of a sexual nature. It's also hard to know with a victim (who is dead) if they were taking HRT consistently.
This was a defendant who clearly was sexually drawn to trans women. The jury is probably going to hate him too if they are bigots and he testifies and juries like to convict.
Also, this rings of saying its not murder because transgender people aren't people.
No, it's implicitly saying the murderer was 'right' to kill her because she was 'really a black man.' The jury was 'deceived, by omission, into thinking this was about a woman being murdered.'
[Single quotes indicate their expressed beliefs, not direct quotes.]
Not quite but pretty much. The judge originally said no you can't bring up she was trans as part of your defense, which I think was an okayish decision. But then another court found that this information should have been provided to the jury and as such a retrial is needed.
It does reek on anti trans sentiment masked in procedural bullshit, and I wonder while we're having this conversation it seems like everyone is talking about this guy killing a trans lady because she was trans and wanting that to be his defense, but isn't that just admitting to a hate crime?... I mean I guess that's essentially what you're saying, the court says no no no, this man should be able to use him transphobia as his defense.
Well, I guess I agree. This country is so fucking stupid and hateful.
That's not the actual ruling at all.
https://www.tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/OpinionsPDFVersion/W2025-01186-CCA-R3-CDOPN.pdf
It's a dangerous and scary path to go down to make it illegal for a defendant to present their side of things. This was the correct ruling, and there will possibly be a conviction on retrial.
It might not be the justification used in the ruling but it's what the defense argued.
And, for the record, defendants can't speak about all kinds of things to the jury. "Dangerous precedent" lmao buddy.
It's an attempt to legalize trans panic as a legal defense, no more and no less.
That all said these things are complicated. The initial judge was worried the TN jury would be too bigoted to treat a trans woman as a victim, the defense clearly thought so too, but you could also argue that all the accused would be doing was admitting that it was actually a hate crime to a "reasonable jury."
It's not a trans panic case if defendant was fucking trans woman over and over and over again. This is not a situation where defendant suddenly discovered the victim was trans.
Kayla Gore, executive director of the emergency services nonprofit My Sistah’s House, told Erin in the Morning that Ward had pursued trans women in the past.
This defendant liked fucking trans women. And apparently, he was scary to some of them, allegedly. That means he was creepy and possessive possibly, it does not mean he didn't realize she was trans, found out, and panicked, thereby removing culpability somehow.
Defendants not being able to speak about all kinds of things to a jury is EXACTLY what is wrong with society. A defendant, on the stand, should be able to say whatever the hell they want, especially in cases that carry decades in prison. If the defendant is guilty, the DA should be able to bring that out on cross.
I also already think jurisprudence in the USA has gone down a dangerous path where more and more rights of defendants are systematically being removed. You see this all the time in cases: defendants can't argue this, they aren't allowed to present that, anyone on the jury pool who is black is removed, anyone who knows someone close who has been arrested gets removed, defendants rights are violated over and over and it's "harmless." The only jury left supports police and is a certain kind of jury and the only arguments that can be made to a jury are former-DA-turned-judge approved. It's atrocious. (And please don't tell me removing black jurors is actually illegal; it happens anyway all the time.)
I didn't say we aren't already on the path.
Fucking evil. May this these people die of kidney stones
Ordered a retrial.
Guy could still be found guilty of murder or manslaughter
black people, immigrants, and indigenous people too. atp, to stop the constant social murder and actual murder, we've got to force it on people. I don't want to become radicalized and lose my life or some shit fighting against the state, but if they're just letting people get lynched again, then I have to.
Conservatives will never, ever stop oppressing and killing the normal people on their own. Being polite does not work against conservatism. Showing empathy does not work against conservatism. The law does not work against conservatism. Only physical force works against conservatism.
Organizing physical resistance is not possible on social media. We must each be willing to act alone, altogether.
Act independently. Be discrete. Be prolific. Self-defense is not murder.
Clearly the jury should have the opportunity to victim blame, no? /s
Voluntary Manslaughter to begin with? For shooting someone not threatening you physically 6 times outside your house?
It's Tennessee, and it's now in south america, so nobody gives a shit. I mean, we do, but we are nobody, for now.
preventing the killer from using the victim's trans identity in his defense.
What's the most generous way to read this? Like, is there any way to mean something good but just express yourself very very very badly and come up with this?
The most generous way to interpret it is to say it's restricting his freedom of speech and to make whatever defense he feels is best.
If transphobia wasn't a huge problem at the moment I might even agree, because it would be leaving him rope to hang himself with. "Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, in my defense this wasn't just a crime, it was a hate crime." But with such widespread and virulent transphobia I don't trust a Tennessee jury not to nullify or at least have one person block conviction.
Horrific.
trans rights are human rights
You have been banned from c/Conservatives.
Ha ha ha. You too? They are aggressive about banning anyone that challenges their manipulation of their sheep.
view more: next ›