Is it a form of rape if a transgendered individual does not disclose they are transgendered prior to sexual activity? (ethical, laws)

[FinsterRufus]

Originally Posted by whogo

The fact is his story he didn't know his victim was a man is both good for his defense of criminal charges and his street rep. We're taking the word of the accused as gospel. Let him off and it's open season on trannies which may be what some on here want.

I'd like to see what "Angie" looked like.

Angie wasn't transgender, Angie was an alter ego of a gay man who liked drag, as I think we've both figured out. There are "straight" men who like encounters with gay men in drag. The kid knew exactly what he was doing.

I know several gay men who have drag alter egos. They are not transgendered in the slightest.

This guy did not live as a transgender woman, in any fashion.

So the dude that murdered him was well aware he was a man, even went back for a second go, in broad daylight, and his excuse for his rage is where the deception lies. As you've quite rightly pointed out.

[ClaraC]

Originally Posted by Spartacus713

It does not matter. They are masquerading as something they are not either way. The "Trans" part is irrelevant.

So the reason this was apparently a problem is because this person was masquerading as a woman when in fact, he is a man. In the context of sexual intimacy, mating and pairing, the offense becomes magnified both morally and socially, to serious criminal proportions.

All things considered, the man who killed him should be given a suspended sentence with no jail time.

I don't know that. We only know what the murderer said happened.

Doesn't seem likely to me, that he masqueraded so well the murderer couldn't tell what was going on.

[whogo]

Originally Posted by FinsterRufus

Angie wasn't transgender, Angie was an alter ego of a gay man who liked drag, as I think we've both figured out. There are "straight" men who like encounters with gay men in drag. The kid knew exactly what he was doing.

I know several gay men who have drag alter egos. They are not transgendered in the slightest.

This guy did not live as a transgender woman, in any fashion.

So the dude that murdered him was well aware he was a man, even went back for a second go, in broad daylight, and his excuse for his rage is where the deception lies. As you've quite rightly pointed out.

Thanks, for the corrections.

[Clintone]

Originally Posted by Joe90

Maybe a good idea - let people deal with those who sexually assault them, in their own way.

A bullet to the head of the of the transgender who didn't give a **** about your sexuality, even though he probably demands his/her sexuality is enforced by law.

I think the fact that this issue is so controversial means your solution would obviously be highly inappropriate.

If I have a penis, but I look like a woman, I could easily make the assumption that not many people are going to care if they don't find out.

I should not be killed for making that assumption.

Rape is different than that.

Maybe there could be a minor penalty for it...but we need to accept that, because this is an area in which so many people will have different reactions, we can't have those extremes forms of punishment.

That's my reason for preferring it to not being illegal either.

Cheating may well cause a lot more harm. When your wife sleeps with other people, you're potentially getting any STD of the person they slept with. That's not illegal either though, for good reason.

Can people experience very valid emotional pain from sleeping with someone with male genitalia? Yes. It can hurt their pride and all sorts of issues. So can cheating.

But it's not as clear-cut as rape.

I don't view this as a one-sided issue though. Someone's anger at having sexual contact with someone with male genitalia will quite possibly often feel similar to the anger of someone who'd been roofied and woke up with missing memories.

But we're talking about lying though...not forced actions...and the lying we're talking about doesn't involve physical damage.

I think we're best off placing this in the same category we do "cheating on one's wife or husband." I think we should view it that way...wrong...but not to be deemed illegal.

[Clintone]

Originally Posted by Oldhag1

As the OP let me clarify that for you. It’s whether people think they SHOULD have an obligation to disclose their status. It’s whether people think failure to disclose might be considered a form of rape. It’s whether such a failure to disclose might be considered as a mitigating circumstance in determining the appropriate charges in a death - as in 1st degree murder/hate crime versus 2nd degree murder/manslaughter.

Historically, it would have been considered justification. The demand for it to no longer be considered mitigating circumstances is what is new.

So where would we stop? What elements define "male" or "female?"

What if they used to have a penis, but no longer do? That'll be uncomfortable for many people too.

What if they don't have a penis, but have ugly surgery scars? That could also make people deeply uncomfortable.

We're talking about something that I think is too hazy to legally define it as rape, and there are too many other subjective elements related to lying that people could find equally, or more, mentally damaging that are also illegal.

Lying about one's relationship status or physical attributes, unless it involves not telling someone one has an STD, should not be illegal.

Rape is illegal because rape involves such a massive removal of one's own control over one's body.
Statutory rape is illegal, despite it not doing that so as much, because it's a way to protect children - the most vulnerable members of society.

I don't see transgenders lying about their biology as being any different than hitting on the women at a bar and trying to sleep with them without mentioning you're married.

Making that stuff illegal means we're REALLY getting controlling. Do we want that level of control? Do we want the government to determine that it's rape for a person to lie about being married?

I can imagine some societal benefits of that...but given the huge number of celebrities who do it constantly, it'd be such a massive culture shock that we could never make such a change quickly. We'd need to slowly veer culture towards being more comfortable with that, or else we'll end up just jailing countless people for things they were raised to perceive as not being illegal...and I'd say the most important aspect of laws is that society is aware of what they'll be punished for.

There are reasons why that eastern sort of let-the-government-determine-morality-legally mentality has benefits...along with costs. It may not be a bad route for everyone.

I don't think we can morally make it illegal for transgenders to lie about their sex organs, unless we also make it illegal to lie about being married to people they sleep with. (I'm only considering making it illegal to lie to people oneself is not married to when sleeping with them. I think it always needs to be legal to lie to one's spouse about sleeping with other people...because so many healthy divorces begin with that sort of thing).

That means countless rock stars and celebrities we revere go off to jail.

Our society isn't ready to accept that yet, I think...and we should be consistent about how we apply our morals. We can't just say that transgenders who lie about their biology are to be legally punished, but other people who engage in similar harms are not.

We don't even take it very seriously when celebrities sleep around. We think, "Well...those girls probably liked the experience."
Transgenders lying about their biology will often work exactly the same way.

When we're ready to make both acts illegal...I might be fine with both acts being illegal...but probably not until then. Until then, the most I'd want is resulting assault charges and such being decreased due to the knowledge that he person may have acted on passions/anger.

And when people cheat on their spouses and their spouse physically harms them as a result, that too, I'd see as often a crime of passion and probably worthy of less severe penalties than something more cold-blooded.

[Clintone]

Originally Posted by Spartacus713

It needs to be a felony to misrepresent your genetic sex to someone in the context of an intimate relationship.

If you have a Y chromosome, you are a male. If not, you are a female. Anyone who says otherwise is a depraved lying liar and probably a sicko. The promotion of this sort of odious perversion should not be appeased, enabled or accommodated. Rather, it should be confidently and offensively rejected and repudiated.

That would certainly be simpler in some ways...but that doesn't appear to be how reality works. Rather, it appears that people's brains are messier than that. I doubt that covering up that messiness is going to be a good thing over the long run.

[Oldhag1]

Originally Posted by Clintone

So where would we stop? What elements define "male" or "female?"

What if they used to have a penis, but no longer do? That'll be uncomfortable for many people too.

What if they don't have a penis, but have ugly surgery scars? That could also make people deeply uncomfortable.

We're talking about something that I think is too hazy to legally define it as rape, and there are too many other subjective elements related to lying that people could find equally, or more, mentally damaging that are also illegal.

Lying about one's relationship status or physical attributes, unless it involves not telling someone one has an STD, should not be illegal.

Rape is illegal because rape involves such a massive removal of one's own control over one's body.
Statutory rape is illegal, despite it not doing that so as much, because it's a way to protect children - the most vulnerable members of society.

I don't see transgenders lying about their biology as being any different than hitting on the women at a bar and trying to sleep with them without mentioning you're married.
....

I will say again, biological sex is fundamental to defining the type of sexual activity being undertaken. Things like marital status, income, religion, etc... are important to relationships but are not part of defining the fundamental physical aspect of sexual activity.

So if a biological male dresses like a female, advertises on a dating site as a lesbian female in search of a fellow lesbian soulmate, then uses their fingers to digitally penetrate that female date because they just know they can “cure” her of her lesbianism, and it is only after the date decides to reciprocate that the penis is discovered, you think the date just needs to shrug her shoulders and move on?

The woman in the above example did not consent to having a man insert something in her vagina, she consented to a woman doing it. She might have consented to a man doing it, but she was denied the opportunity to give her consent. And it may very well be that she would have given her consent had it been a trans woman, but again, she was denied the opportunity to give that consent. To me this is just like sexual harassment. Legally, it is not up to you or the person doing the harassing to decide whether something ought to be considered sexually offensive or just good natured kidding around, it is up to the recipient. It should not be up to you, I, or some date to determine what meets the sex-related anatomy criteria of a person’s sexual preferences, including whether or not their sexual partners was born with preferred body parts.

[Loveshiscountry]

Originally Posted by Oldhag1

I will say again, biological sex is fundamental to defining the type of sexual activity being undertaken. Things like marital status, income, religion, etc... are important to relationships but are not part of defining the fundamental physical aspect of sexual activity.

So if a biological male dresses like a female, advertises on a dating site as a lesbian female in search of a fellow lesbian soulmate, then uses their fingers to digitally penetrate that female date because they just know they can “cure” her of her lesbianism, and it is only after the date decides to reciprocate that the penis is discovered, you think the date just needs to shrug her shoulders and move on?

The woman in the above example did not consent to having a man insert something in her vagina, she consented to a woman doing it. She might have consented to a man doing it, but she was denied the opportunity to give her consent. And it may very well be that she would have given her consent had it been a trans woman, but again, she was denied the opportunity to give that consent. To me this is just like sexual harassment. Legally, it is not up to you or the person doing the harassing to decide whether something ought to be considered sexually offensive or just good natured kidding around, it is up to the recipient. It should not be up to you, I, or some date to determine what meets the sex-related anatomy criteria of a person’s sexual preferences, including whether or not their sexual partners was born with preferred body parts.

Sounds like a type of fraud. Similar to how Enron misled people.

[Joe90]

Originally Posted by Clintone

Making that stuff illegal means we're REALLY getting controlling. Do we want that level of control? Do we want the government to determine that it's rape for a person to lie about being married?

Not control, but legally enforced restraint - just like the law demands restraint from adults over minors, or brother over sister, so should the law demand restraint from the transgender who seeks to intentionally deceive for their own gratification. And who is being controlled? - only the person who seeks to introduce another person to homosexual acts without that other person's knowledge or consent.

It is very much a deeper issue than breaking marriage views or violating religious beliefs, because it involves a person's sexuality. The right to be transgender is protected under law because ultimately sexual orientation is deemed worthy of protection.

Any Transgender that deliberately seeks to violate the sexual orientation of another through a sex act achieved only through non consent, is a rapist and also trampling on human rights - no loss for society if someone decides that they don't want to be sexually assaulted, and hurts the wannabe rapist.

[Clintone]

Originally Posted by Oldhag1

I will say again, biological sex is fundamental to defining the type of sexual activity being undertaken. Things like marital status, income, religion, etc... are important to relationships but are not part of defining the fundamental physical aspect of sexual activity.

I would not group marital status into the same category as income or religion. If someone lies about their income or religion...that might harm me if I plan on getting into a long term relationship with them, somehow, but that's about the limit of it. If they lie about being married, their husband may attack me, and I may make enemies I don't want to make. There's a lot more potential for unwanted complications too.

So if a biological male dresses like a female, advertises on a dating site as a lesbian female in search of a fellow lesbian soulmate, then uses their fingers to digitally penetrate that female date because they just know they can “cure” her of her lesbianism, and it is only after the date decides to reciprocate that the penis is discovered, you think the date just needs to shrug her shoulders and move on?

The MeToo movement is largely about getting the word out that certain people are asses, even if they can't be legally punished, and I think that's done some good because of that. That would one option. I would hope such a person would be banned from the website...but I don't think they should be legally punished. We're talking about online stuff here. I think it would be needlessly cruel to the person attempting to "convert" the lesbians to legally punish them for that. Anyone online needs to understand that they have no way of knowing the identity of the person on the other end of the screen...and I don't think society can legally protect people who don't take that into account.

Now...I think they should be banned from the website, but the lesbian consented to engaging in that activity with someone they didn't know the identity of...and they knew there was no way to prove it.

The woman in the above example did not consent to having a man insert something in her vagina, she consented to a woman doing it. She might have consented to a man doing it, but she was denied the opportunity to give her consent. And it may very well be that she would have given her consent had it been a trans woman, but again, she was denied the opportunity to give that consent. To me this is just like sexual harassment. Legally, it is not up to you or the person doing the harassing to decide whether something ought to be considered sexually offensive or just good natured kidding around, it is up to the recipient. It should not be up to you, I, or some date to determine what meets the sex-related anatomy criteria of a person’s sexual preferences, including whether or not their sexual partners was born with preferred body parts.

I agree that it's just like sexual harassment. It is sexual harassment. That said, sexual harassment is typically not illegal, so far as I understand, unless the person is in some kind of position of authority, and typically punishments consist of firings and lawsuits and financial rewards rather than jail time.

In these scenarios, the harasser is not in a position of authority. They're not a teacher or an employer or in that sort of position.

__________________________________________________ ________________________


The bottom line is...I think...we punish rape because it's forced. We punish sexual harassment because it involves situations people can't escape from easily. Whether or not someone has a certain kind of genitalia is going to be more iffy than that stuff. To some people, that'll be a very big deal. To other people, it won't be. I don't think people should be legally punished for making the assumption that most people won't care...at least not yet.

Now...if someone wants to punch the person in the face or slash their tires...I'll distract the police with donuts or whatever while that's done.