I got into my car to drive to work this morning (again, at 7:30) and, again, the Rover show was on. Imagine my surprise to hear them talking smack about me. So, I called them. I think they were as surprised to hear from me as I was to actually get through on the first try. We chatted for 20 minutes while I drove to work.
It was a “spirited” discussion. The thing that’s most frustrating is that they can’t (or won’t) see the damage they do to innocent, vulnerable people with this kind of hateful, disrespectful talk. Rover spent half the time trying to get me to agree that if a transgender person doesn’t automatically self-disclose their situation up front they deserve what they get. I told him that I felt several unfortunate things happened in this particular situation, but fundamentally our disagreement about Angie is that I will not acknowledge that she was anything other than woman – not a “he”, not a “he/she”, not a “thing”, and certainly not an “it”.
Unfortunately, the only story we have about what happened is the story that Angie’s killer is saying. For all anyone knows, he was well aware of her history and that was actually part of what turned him on. At some point, perhaps he got to feeling unsure about it and killed Angie to keep her quiet. Who knows? Angie isn’t here to give her side of the story. And, no matter what her side is there’s no justifaction in any way, shape or form for killing her. Period. End of story.
Rover said that transgender people who have sex with partners without disclosing their situation to them is like “raping” them, so I challened him as to whether he was implying that Angie somehow raped her killer. He said “Yes”. He believes that. Oy. Maybe that’s why it’s easy for him to justify killing her. I dunno. That kind of thinking is so far beyond me I can’t even get myself there.
Where do we draw the line? If Angie hadn’t disclosed that she was partly African-American and this person was a hateful, prejudiced, bigot would that have given him the right to kill her if he discovered that about her? The entire notion that it’s just this one, single, situation that is somehow so horrible that everything else is ok, but to be transgender is to be able to justify being killed is absurd. It all starts with being able to dehumanize a person, and Rover did a good job of trying to to that to Angie. Somehone needs to be able to speak for her, to remind people she she was a living, breathing, feeling person. I’m honored to be that person any time.
The problem with these kinds of discussions is that they often tend to get dragged off the subject at hand – that Angie was murdered, that people like him are looking for ways to justify it, that Rover and his crew were more than disrespectful to Angie, and that crosses the boundary of decency. It’s more than just having an opinion, it’s irresponsible broadcasting.
Imus got fired for saying much less defamatory things about the Rutgers woman’s basketball team than Rover said about Angie, about transgender people, and about justification for murder. Last year a radio show host in Orlando came under fire because he compared a local Country Commissioner to a monkey (details here). As a broadcaster there’s a fine line between pandering to your audience, being provocative, and stating your opinion and being irresponsible. That’s the line that Rover and his “crew” crossed, and they need to be held accountable for it.
More than being my word against his, what I’d like is for Rover to provide the audio of the discussion they had the other morning so I could provide it here. Listen to it for yourself and make up your own mind about what was said, how it was said, and whether or not it was inappropriate. I had the guts to call into the show this morning. Let’s see if Rover is confident in his position enough to put it up for broader scrutiny. I somehow doubt it.
Still, I appreciate that Rover allowed me to talk on his show this morning. I hold no personal animosity towards him and, in fact, may make a trip to Cleveland (it’s just up the Thruway a few hours) specifically to meet him in person to continue our conversation. I’d allow him to buy me lunch, or a drink. As I told him on the phone after we finished this morning, I have no problem with the fact that he’s Chinese (inside joke).
However, Rover reiterated the fact that if he were on the jury for this trial he’d vote to acquit given what he percieves to be the circumstances. That’s basically justifying Angie’s murder, and it empowers others to think and behave similarly. Even if we can’t (or won’t) agree on what pronoun to use or the need to self-disclose, if he won’t admit that only one person broke the law and that person needs to be punished for his crime then as far as I’m concerned he’s condoning murder. Pure and simple.
Rover said he thought I was calling for him to be fired. Not so. I’ve already had one person write to me and chastise me for trying to get him kicked off the air. That’s not my goal, and if anything further happens from this it won’t be my doing. I’m just the messenger and to blame me for anything that happens is the same as blaming Angie for her own murder.
What really needs to happen is an acknowledgement that something inappropriate has happened and an apology for referring to Angie in such disrespectful terms and in advocating criminal behavior. He said he won’t apologize, and I think he really believes that he hasn’t done anything wrong. That, my friends, is the scariest part of this entire thing.
Hi. I heard you on Rover today. No one is saying that Angie DESERVED to be killed. They just don’t think that it should be a hate crime. This man did not kill Angie because he was a transexual, transgender, homosexual, or whatever. It was out of anger for being tricked. Yes. Tricked. This person presented themselves in a dishonest way. And that is very disrespectful. No one deserves to die for being disrespectful. But hate crimes are very serious and it’s not right to minimalize them by calling this one of them. I would expect that some one like you, who seems very intellegent and understands what a personal and important thing sexuality is would understand that what Angie did was wrong. I think most others who chose her course of life are much more honest and understand that. She was young. Her death was a tragedy. He should pay for what he did. A crime of passion. Not a hate crime.
Get over it! Rover is a radio personality and gets paid to give his OPINION(key word). I completely agree with Rover and Dieter on this situation. Don’t have much more to say accept get a life and let people think what they want without causing an uproar. I’m sick of people crying because they hear something they don’t like.
innocent, vulnerable people
Ya ok, when did 5-9 year old kids start listening to Rover??? If you find me a innocent, vulnerable 18-36 year old (target audience) I’ll show you a idiot still living in their mothers basement. Go cry to someone who cares.
Your argument this morning was weak. You never gave ground that sexual misrepresentation was wrong. Engaging in sex while having HIV or gonorrhea without disclosure is just as wrong as gender misrepresentation. I don’t condone the killing of Angela. The response was extreme and the killer has been charged. But you still have to admit Angela’s wrongdoing in the situation.
The cornerstone of your argument seemed to revolve around the pronoun used to describe Angela. What are we supposed to call an individual with breasts and a penis? He? She? Do we call them by the gender of birth or the gender of desire? Personally, in my book, if you have a dick, you’re not a chick.
While I know that the guy murdering the man for blowing him was way overblown, no one can blame him for being angry. If you think the guy was wrong for being pissed off after finding out it was a Mutant Freak was sucking him, you are an idiot who no longer is allowed to have an opinion.
Failed.
Well, what can one expect from a dog like Rover? These “morning sickness” types on the air tend to be redneck conservatives. To hell with them.
These fools need to learn that a person not being who you perceive them to be does not give that person the right to murder them in cold blood. It is high time the murderer of a T person is put to death, to set the example and make the point that it, indeed, is murder.
Hello,
I didn’t hear the discussion but a friend sent me a link to your blog. I want to tell you that your method of discussing things will get you far. You are rational and that will make people consider your opinions.
Regardless of someones physical/sexual/gender history, you can’t kill people!!! The whole argument is stupid. You have reason on your side. Also if it makes you feel better, I am a reasonable, intelligent person who listens to Rover, but I do not share his opinion on this or on many other issues. It’s just a way to pass the time, and sometimes they make me laugh. I wish I had heard your discussion with him. It sounds like a good one.
I think Rover and his type like to take the opposing view always, it makes for better radio. Just remember that every day the world becomes more educated and tolerant, it is just a painfully slow process.
Sorry that you lost a friend. I hadn’t heard about this case before. I agree with you that being turned on by Angie is probably what enraged him (some repressed desires?)
Donna,
You sure brought out the strange ones in the world. Where do you work? I will make a note and not go there. I did send an e-mail to the people on the show. They really don’t belong on the air. That kind of show does incite bigotry and hatred. I really think we have enough of bigotry and hatred, without people like that on the air to incite more.
ummmm…you are so insignificant! just kill yourself now and swallow a hand full of broken razor blades! you fucking freak!!!!!!!
Wow. The first five comments here are just…just…wow.
Tricked Eva? Tricked? How was he tricked? Are men so insecure in their sexuality, so homohobic that merely the CONCEPT of someone having a dick (because she never showed it) is enough to make them MURDER someone for it? Good god. Is that the TRICK you’re referring to?
Sexual misrepresentation? What the hell is that? He got a blow job. He got OFF on her. He stuck around. Whats misrepresentative about that? As I said above, are men so homophobic, so insecure that the mere THOUGHT of someone might have a penis brings charges of Misrepresentation”? Is your world so black and white that nothing can exist in between? Are you that limited in intellectual capacity so as to be unable to see variety in this world? Is it mis representative for people to have nose jobs (because thats not “original equipment”? Am I misrepresenting myself because I had a boob job? After all, I didn’t actually GROW them. Am I misrepresenting myself because I color my hair?
How about you…are you misrepresenting yourself in any way? How honest and up front are you with all of your “issues”. Let those without issues (being misrepresented) cast the first stone.
Its a hate crime, because he killed her BECAUSE she was trans. He admitted that. He didn’t kill her because she was a bitch, or that she was cheating on him, or that she gave him an STD, or any other reason.
He killed her BECAUSE she was trans, and thats a hate crime.
Thanks for calling into the show Donna. It’s good that you defended Angie Zapata because she can’t defend herself.
Thank you for standing up for common sense and integrity, Donna. I appreciate your willingness to share yourself and defend that which in a sane world would need no defense. You continually earn my respect and support. Be well.
I’ve not read so much hate in a long time but sadly it doesn’t surprise me. America is full of cretins like the ones attacking you and if they all disappeared from the face of the earth, it would be a great thing. I have no idea who this Rover in the morning person is, nor do I care to, but the fact is, they have an audience and that audience is juvenile at best, deranged at worst. In some ways I feel sorry for them, being this ignorant and angry, but for the most part I just don’t give them much thought. Keep up the good fight Donna.
Part of what anyone who writes about Angie’s murder needs to address is the plain fact that, from what the news stories describe, the ONLY information about the circumstances of the crime are from the suspect, Allen Andrade. While his account may be completely accurate, there is ample room for skepticism given the fact that what he has described is his responsibility for the murder of another human being. If his account weren’t, at an absolute minimum, shaded by a subconscious desire to minimize his guilt, then I would be absolutely astounded.
However, for argument’s sake, if we accept the story as he has told it, then his actions still don’t meet the “Rover standard” for justification. From his account, it was only after having spent time with Angie (including the oral sex she performed on him) and finding himself alone in the apartment the next day (after they spent the night in separate beds) that he “noticed several pictures that led him to question Zapata’s gender”. Andrade then WAITED in the apartment until Angie came back home, confronted her and murdered her. This wasn’t some act committed in “the heat of passion”. If we accept his account uncritically, he had doubts but no definite answer. Why did he stay there knowing how he felt about the possibility that she was a transwoman? Obviously, he accepted the reality of her femaleness up until the point he saw some “pictures” in her apartment. If he knew that his reaction would be anything like one that would lead him to try to cave in her skull with a fire extinguisher then he had an absolute moral duty to leave HER apartment. However, he did not. Then, when he did murder her he tried to conceal evidence of the crime and stole some of her belongings including her vehicle.
As a result, I would forcefully argue that Allen Andrade committed not a “crime of passion” but a calculated assassination. According to his account, his personal sense of worth was jeopardized in some way because there was a POSSIBILITY that the woman he had allowed to perform oral sex on him the day before might have had a penis that he had not seen or touched up to that point. What did he do? He waited so he could decide in person if she needed to die as an offering to his need to not feel bad about his choice of sex partners.
That is the moral standard that Shane “Rover” French would endorse with his vote for acquittal. This is his state of moral bankruptcy.
I know that some will be surprised to hear me say this – but I think Rove & friends may be right. People need to understand how very emotionally fragile men are. They have very delicate sensibilities. They need special care and consideration. I know I’ve never heard of a woman murdering or assaulting someone under similar circumstances.
And, of course – he’s right. People are at least partially responsible the violent actions of others who are so emotionally fragile. You can’t go beyond their limited coping mechanisms and expect them to act like their life isn’t at risk, when it isn’t. It should be expected. They’d be idiots to not understand that in the real world people who feel surprised, threatened or entitled are going to act certain ways and they should adjust their behavior accordingly.
That’s why I have no sympathy for Rove and his accomplices should someone feel threatened by their statements and assault them.
They deserve what happens if they make such provocative statements in front of so many people – many of them are bound to be highly offended and have poor impulse control. Especially if they’re transgender teenagers feeling that such statements put their lives at risk. Even if they’re just going about their business bothering no one.
Rove & friends – They’re just asking for it.
But since it’s radio – We’ll sing a song for you afterwards.
“Well I hope you live long now, I pray the Lord your soul to keep
I think I’ll be going before we fold our arms and start to weep
I never thought for a moment that human life could be so cheap
‘Cos when they finally put you in the ground
They’ll stand there laughing and tramp the dirt down”
Ah – Elvis Costello. Now there’s a man who knew how to tell a joke.
Kathy, I have to applaud your analysis in support of the “Rover Standard”. In fact, Andrade’s emotional fragility would probably have led him to murder Angie even if she had a vagina because she had had a penis IN THE PAST which would have put his own sense of no-way-am-I-gay-ness in extreme peril. By applying the “Rover Standard” to the section of Colorado’s Revised Statutes concerning self-defense we can modify it thusly:
18-1-704. Use of physical force in defense of a person.
(1) Except as provided in subsections (2) and (3) of this section, a person is justified in using physical force upon another person in order to defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force by that other person [OR A PERSON HAS HAD SEXUAL CONTACT WITH ANOTHER PERSON WHO FAILED TO DISCLOSE THEIR CURRENT OR PRIOR POSSESSION OF A PENIS UNDER CIRCUMSTANCES WHEN A PERSON WOULD THINK THE OTHER PERSON POSSESSED A VAGINA], and he may use a degree of force which he reasonably believes to be necessary for that purpose.
That seems much more reasonable now. Perhaps some Colorado reader of Donna’s blog can suggest it to the Colorado General Assembly for implementation.
If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it’s a duck. A penis is not part of the female anatomy, so I more than see the difficulty in calling Angie a she. However, what you seem to be losing track of here is that Rover has just as much right to his opinions as you do. You’re so hung up on the political correctness and his way of thinking that you’ve lost sight of the fact that these are just his opinions. He is entitled to think and believe whatever he wants. Just because he isn’t politically correct doesn’t mean he is wrong, and just because you are doesn’t make you correct either. You’re offended by his opinions and views on the matter, tough cookies. He and any other shock jock should be able to voice their opinions without fear of recourse due to that little thing the first amendment which guarantees the right to free speech. But that is often pushed to the back burner because, “oh he offended me!” His job is to take controversial material and talk about it on air, that’s what he does. I don’t even like what he has to say most of the time, but he’s still entitled to his opinions
Jennifer – if you really believed that – why would you be here trying to quiet people for expressing their “controversial opinions”? The ones you don’t find politically correct.
Free speech doesn’t mean people who disagree with him should shut up – it means they should be free to disagree with him.
If that bothers you – tough cookies, cookie.