Saturday, April 25, 2009

The Tragedy of Angie Zapata

Well, it is pretty much official...Angie Zapata has become the latest martyr for the transgender activist crowd. Her murder was horrible. It is good that the man who killed her has been brought to justice. But some of what is being written about her is becoming downright silly.

Marti Abernathy, who I would normally disagree with did a surprisingly good piece on how some bloggers, well one in particular, have tried to use this sad event to puff themselves up. Angie's death was an outrage. It was clearly not, as claimed by the defendant, a crime of passion. And, contrary to what some want to claim, this was not really a test of the "trans panic" defense. The facts showed that the murderer had plenty of time to think about what he was doing.

But as I say, some of what has been said in this case has reached the point of being absurd. In a recent post, Autumn Sandeen has gone to a ridiculous extreme in an effort to portray Angie as some sort of bastion of purity.

Sandeen objects to a statement on the Huffington Post that explains that "Angie and Allen Ray Andrade first met on the Internet, and that they had arranged a sexual encounter." Now, Sandeen is just outraged at the very suggestion that Angie had actually made a date to have sex. I mean, give me a break! What does Sandeen think...that she was planning on going to church with him?

The sad fact is, Angie did what a lot of pre-ops have done, and made arrangements to meet someone for sex. Unfortunately, like a lot of pre-ops, it is also possible that she did not consider what might happen.

Now, it is never, never, NEVER okay for someone to be harmed or murdered because someone suddenly discovers that they are not what they appear to be. The only correct thing in such a case is to leave. But, it is also extremely foolish to put oneself in such a situation to begin with. I was once a pre-op, and I dated a few men, and yes, I took some chances. In almost every case, I made sure we were in a relatively public place before I told them my situation. I can remember a couple of exceptions, and in both of those cases, I was probably more lucky than anything else.

No, the murder was no Angie's fault, but it is criminal for some of the more idiotic of transgender activists to not only fail to point out that taking chances is stupid, but to also even go so far as to actually attack those who do point this out.

I can understand why someone would want to date a man who is not an "admirer." The ones I have met tend to see us as sex objects rather than people. I suppose there may be exceptions, but they are rare. Oh, they may say the right things, and even fool one for a short period, but in the end, the object of their desire is interchangable. Simply put, the relationship is not going to go anywhere, no matter how badly one wants to believe it will.

The bottom line is, Angie did nothing other than meet the wrong man. Making her into some sort of virginal saint is silly. Her death should serve as a warning to those who would take chances. And her murderer's conviction should serve as a warning to those who would treat human life as worth so little. Unfortunately, I doubt either is really paying any attention.


Anonymous said...

Sandeen's brand of journalism is sophomoric at best and exploitive at worst.

Sandeen even had his face plastered all over Court TV two days after the verdict was reached. San Diego has a history of turning out spotlight hijackers going back to Murry Rameraz a homosexual man who nearly forty years ago jumped the gurney at the last minute on the day he was scheduled to have GRS.
Good for him in that regard now he thinks he is the leading transgender spoksMan.

Back to Sandeen he is always looking for something to exploit it's no suprise to see him picking at the bones of a dead woman looking for something to capitalize on.

The transgenders feed on themselves even on the dead if they can profit from it.

Just Jennifer said...

Sandeen posted yet another nasty attack on those with HBS, based in part on an email that someone sent him. I rather strongly suspect I know who sent the email.

I behaved, made some rather strong arguments, and, of course, got banned. Sandeen's original excuse was remarks I made here. When confronted by several who disagreed with me about the unfairness of banning me, Sandeen then claimed I was guilty of "threadjacking," even though Sandeen is the one who brought up the subject to begin with. As I said in a comment on the latest thread, Sandeen's post was an attack on HBS as much as anything.

Anonymous said...

What was the title of the post he made?
I am cerious to find out what got his panties in a wad.