Blog > Thoughts > Sean's Thoughts > Apotemnophilia Making It To Legislation?
Apotemnophilia Making It To Legislation?
Written by Sean on Tuesday, August 11, 2009
I’ve never liked the word ‘apotemnophilia‘. It seems to me too negative, too *ugly*. The very word implies that the condition is something perverted, hence that those who have it are scum of the earth. Not to mention it’s just not accurately describing the vast majority of people who have BIID. Now, it looks like the word is making it into legislation, and not in a good way.
In When Liberals Attack! The Senator Perv Edition, there is discussion about a Bill in front of the US Congress – the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009 (H.R. 1913).
This Bill is about the prevention of *hate crimes*. Cool. This is good. Hate crimes are bad. it’s good that local law enforcement would get funding to do something about it. The article says:
The act provides funding for prosecution of hate crimes, and expands protections for “sexual orientation and gender identity.” While the act was meant to provide more protection for gays, lesbians, and the transgendered, many felt the wording was too general, and could provide protection for pedophiles.
It appears that the bill was not particularly well written in the first place, and as a result an ammendment was offered, listing several "conditions" that would not be covered by the bill (bold added by me):
The term sexual orientation,’ this proposed amendment said, ‘as used in this act, or any amendments made by this act, does not include apotemnophilia, asphyxophilia, autogynephilia, coprophilia, exhibitionism, fetishism, frotteurism, gerontosexuality, incest, kleptophilia, klismaphilia, necrophilia, partialism, pedophilia, sexual masochism, sexual sadism, telephone scatalogia, toucherism, transgenderism, transsexual, transvestite, transvestic fetishism, urophilia, voyeurism, or zoophilia.’
Let’s set aside the apotemnophilia bit for a moment and reflect on the bit about transgenderism, transsexual, transvestite. This bills is aimed to protect people from hate crimes, right? In particular expanding protection for "sexual orientation and gender identity", right? And right there and then, they specifically *exclude* transgendered, transsexual and transvestite individual? What gives? That just makes no fucking sense whatsoever. Right, well, moving right along…
The excluded classes are meant to be sexual fetishes that could violate the right of others. Obviously some political aid that drafted the ammendment has no clue and hasn’t bothered to research these "isms" and "philias" listed. The more cynical part of me thinks it was done on purpose, but let’s assume it is a result of ignorance.
Since when is apotemnophilia at risk of violating other people’s rights? I mean… The definition of it is pretty clear that it is the individual seeking an amputation for themselves. How does that hurt others?
The other thing that concerns me greatly is that if the bill makes it with that ammendment "as is", we’ll have the first (to my knowledge) case of legislation including apotemnophilia in its text. And it’s not a positive inclusion. This sets a precedent *against* efforts to see surgery as a viable treatment option for those of us who have BIID.
I can only urge those of you living in the US to contact your Congress folks and tell them to ammend the ammendment! It makes no sense whatsoever.
Tags: Apotemnophilia, BIID, Congress, Hate, Legislation
This entry appears in Sean's Thoughts. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.
7 Comments
2 On 12 August, 2009, Phil said:
Who has proposed this law? Has it a chance of being passed?
Maybe Michael First could be asked to write to Congress and open their eyes from a scientific and neutral standpoint?
It’s completely illogical that transvestitism and transsexualism are excluded from protection. Autogynephilia is often a part of transsexualism. Etc. The one who has written this list must be quite ill-informed.
Is there really a need for special legislation against “hate crime”? Any crime is bad.
3 On 12 August, 2009, Sean said:
There are several legislations already against hate crimes. Hate crimes are viewed as particularly “hainous”. This legislation is to provide extra funding for local law agencies to better handle those.
I’m not sure of all the details as to who proposed the bill, nor how likely it is to be passed with or without ammendments.
I think that either the person who wrote the list is either ill-informed, or has a hidden agenda.
I don’t read in the wording. It is simply excluding certain things specifically that do not qualify for protection under the definition of hate crime. It is not putting us on some sort of target list.
5 On 13 August, 2009, Sean said:
No, they are not putting “us” on some sort of target list. But there is the concept of legal precedent. The moment apotemnophilia is placed on an exclusion list like that, it creates a precendent to make it easier to exclude it again and again. What’s more is that considering they’ve put transsexual, etc in the list, I don’t think they were thinking straight.
6 On 13 August, 2009, Phil said:
Hate crime is hate crime.
Victim is victim. It is inhumane thinking to distinguish between groups of victims. The ones are the good ones who get help; the others? They have to blame themselves?
When somebody beats me up because I’m gay I’m a good victim and will get help and protection. When somebody beats me up because I’m a BIID sufferer…?
Even a person who is known to be fetishist or a pedophilist has the right to be protected by the state and the community. Even a criminal has to be protected. The state has to keep its monopoly on the use of force.
As soon as we distinguish between good and bad victims, justice is dying.
The silly part about all these laws is they seem to make a weird distinction; If I attack you for no reason at all, I am less guilty than if I attack you because I hate you.
I don’t hate anybody, but assuming I did, would I be a worse criminal for attacking you than somebody I don’t hate?
There is an old adage “To a three year old with a hammer, the whole world looks like a nail.” So it is with legislators, it’s what they do, write laws, and logic has nothing to do with it.
Post your comments
© transabled.org - 1994-2012 - All Rights Reserved.
1 On 12 August, 2009, Chloe said:
The problem with exclusionary lists of this nature is that some people will construe them as being a government sanctioned hate list. While I qualify for protection under this act, it would greatly disturb me if the cost is that somebody else is explicitly deprotected.
A friend of mine was recently asked to be a groomsman at a wedding. She will be dressed appropriately. I find it deeply offensive that some bureaucrat finds this good reason to put her on a hate list.
While my first instinct may be to commit hate crimes against bureaucrats, one should nevertheless feel sorry for such people who apparently acquire their brain cells from an entirely different repository than the rest of us.