Should rape by deception be legal for trans people? To have sex without telling they are trans.

[Thistle]

Rape is not a capital crime anywhere in the US, and the Supreme Court has explicitly said that while they are both serious, they are not "similarly serious".

Unless you count the 18 states in which it's a capital crime.

 

[J regia]

Some trans people want the right to trick people into having sex with them and there not be any consequences. This is all horrible!!

What are the horrible consequences of having sex with a trans person?
And are there horrible consequences if you have sex with a bloke who has Swyer syndrome too?

 

[Electric Skeptic]

Unless you count the 18 states in which it's a capital crime.

You're really not having a good day, are you? That document is dated 1955; the SCOTUS ruled it unconstitutional in 1977, at which time Georgia was the only state in which it was still a capital crime. Now it's not a capital crime there, either.

If you'd bothered to actually read your citation (I've no idea why I thought you'd do so) you'd notice it also lists as capital crimes in some states such offences as kidnapping, robbery, (some cases of) perjury, train wrecking, arson and burglary. Are they all "similarly serious" to murder, too?

 

[Backup]

Unless you count the 18 states in which it's a capital crime.

That’s from 1955

interesting you used to get the death penalty for “train wrecking“

also surprised almost all states used to have the death penalty for kidnapping

 

[J regia]

Should rape by deception be legal for trans people? To have sex without telling they are trans.

My friend is a victim of this. The person didn't share they were trans until after wards. My friend stopped all communication with the trans person. And is trying to cope with traumatic experience. They dealing with a high level of anxiety now. They are afraid to have any social interactions with anyone male or female they don't already know because they are scared they can't tell the difference.

So what's the difference between a woman's vagina and the vagina of a bloke with Swyer syndrome or the vagina of a trans person?

 

[Backup]

You're really not having a good day, are you? That document is dated 1955; the SCOTUS ruled it unconstitutional in 1977, at which time Georgia was the only state in which it was still a capital crime. Now it's not a capital crime there, either.

If you'd bothered to actually read your citation (I've no idea why I thought you'd do so) you'd notice it also lists as capital crimes in some states such offences as kidnapping, robbery, (some cases of) perjury, train wrecking, arson and burglary. Are they all "similarly serious" to murder, too?

How do you go about train wrecking? Doesn’t seem to be the problem it once was.

 

[Electric Skeptic]

That’s from 1955

interesting you used to get the death penalty for “train wrecking“

also surprised almost all states used to have the death penalty for kidnapping

The page or so above that table notes that several states had conditions on kidnapping being a capital crime - in some it had to be for ransom, in some it was capital if it was with the "intent to defile her, or ... a girl under sixteen years of age for the purposes of prostitution". Similar discussion of the other offenses is on the page after the table.

 

[Whateverman]

So you would class none of the following as rape (assuming otherwise consensual sex):
- she says she's on the pill; she's not
- he says he's AIDS-free; he's not
- he says he'll pull out; he doesn't
- he says he'll wear a condom; he puts a nick in it so that it tears
- she says she's his girlfriend; she's not, she's her identical twin

I'm not disagreeing - just asking.

I'm torn about the 3rd scenario; the others I would say are decidedly NOT rape.

 

[Electric Skeptic]

How do you go about train wrecking? Doesn’t seem to be the problem it once was.

"The heading "Trainwrecking" is an accurate description of the crime that is madea capital offense in the states listed in the table, that is to say that there is no additional requirement that a person be killed as a result of the wreck. In many states,train wrecking is a capital crime if a person die thereby.3 In still other states, thetrain wrecking plus the death of a person is defined as "murder" in the statutes, butthe crime of murder in those states is divided into degrees. In other words, if thetrain wrecking and the death of a human are proved, it is not automatically murderin the first degree (and thus capital). These states are not listed, but West Virginiaand Virginia are examples of states that have this type of statute."

When I was a kid it was claimed (among all the knowledgable 'older' kids) that putting a penny on the tracks would do it (plus you'd get a squished penny out of it).

 

[Electric Skeptic]

I'm torn about the 3rd scenario; the others I would say are decidedly NOT rape.

I'm curious as to how the third scenario is worse than the fourth. I'm also curious how the last - where the 'victim' is actually having sex with a different person - is not more serious.

 

[Thistle]

yeah, but not disclosing to be trans is hardly rape or murder.

How some state chooses to define crimes like rape, is hard for me to figure out, on the ground there is quite a bit of variability. It would be nice to think that somebody made a very compelling case for the definition that each state adopts.

fundamental principle of sexual complementarianism

whatever dude

you can’t just make up some random concept and claim it to be the be all and end all of sexuality

I'm flattered that you think I'm capable of making that up, but lest I be struck by lightning, I better properly attribute that to the Creator, don't you think?

Maybe I’m not into redheads and a ginger girl doesn’t tell me she dies her hair. She disrupted the fundamental principle of sexual complementarianism!!!!

Sorry I didn't mean to use the technical language that you were not familiar with.

"And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made [them] at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?" - Matthew 19:4–5 KJV​

This is the principle of sexual complementarianism.

She’s basically a rapist and a murderer!!

Hair color is not a fundamental aspect of sexual design.

 

[Whateverman]

I'm curious as to how the third scenario is worse than the fourth. I'm also curious how the last - where the 'victim' is actually having sex with a different person - is not more serious.

Well, the question was about whether these were rape or not - not the relative levels of seriousness. The third scenario seems to hint at force more than the others, so as I said, I'm unsure about it.

Deceiving people into not recognizing the consequences of having sex with you - is about deception; not rape. Having sex with someone who doesn't want to have sex with you - is about rape.

The third scenario is tricky. If the couple is mid-coitus and the woman suddenly tells the man to stop and he doesn't - that's technically rape. If the woman is receptive right up to the point where the male fails to withdraw, I'd say "rape" would be a difficult charge to make in court.

 

[J regia]

"And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made [them] at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?" - Matthew 19:4–5 KJV

This is the principle of sexual complementarianism.

And should men with Swyer syndrome cleave to a wife too, or cleave to a husband?

And what about men who lie on the breasts of men they love (John 21:20)?

 

[Authentic Nouveau]

what are you rambling about? You are really moving from rape to murder?

More like a woman claiming to be a virgin, when she’s been with 50 guys.

She is a Democrate

 

[Thistle]

You're really not having a good day, are you?

Actually I'm having a spectacular day but thank you for your concern.

That document is dated 1955;

That's right.

the SCOTUS ruled it unconstitutional in 1977,

They also gave us the Dred Scott decision.

at which time Georgia was the only state in which it was still a capital crime. Now it's not a capital crime there, either.

I'm pretty sure that, that decision is ripe for overturning. Criminal law is a matter that the Constitution leaves to the states. The suggestion that a particular crime cannot be designated a capital crime by the state legislatures, does not strike me as well founded in the Constitution.

If you'd bothered to actually read your citation (I've no idea why I thought you'd do so) you'd notice it also lists as capital crimes in some states such offences as kidnapping, robbery, (some cases of) perjury, train wrecking, arson and burglary. Are they all "similarly serious" to murder, too?

From which you draw what inference exactly?

 

[Backup]

"The heading "Trainwrecking" is an accurate description of the crime that is madea capital offense in the states listed in the table, that is to say that there is no additional requirement that a person be killed as a result of the wreck. In many states,train wrecking is a capital crime if a person die thereby.3 In still other states, thetrain wrecking plus the death of a person is defined as "murder" in the statutes, butthe crime of murder in those states is divided into degrees. In other words, if thetrain wrecking and the death of a human are proved, it is not automatically murderin the first degree (and thus capital). These states are not listed, but West Virginiaand Virginia are examples of states that have this type of statute."

When I was a kid it was claimed (among all the knowledgable 'older' kids) that putting a penny on the tracks would do it (plus you'd get a squished penny out of it).

I imagine a lead pole on a track may derail a train.

A penny won’t do it. We used to get flat pennies that way when I was a kid. Harmless fun, if you stay a safe distance from the train. I’d like to try it again.

 

[Electric Skeptic]

Actually I'm having a spectacular day but thank you for your concern.

That's right.

They also gave us the Dred Scott decision.

I'm pretty sure that, that decision is ripe for overturning. Criminal law is a matter that the Constitution leaves to the states. The suggestion that a particular crime cannot be designated a capital crime by the state legislatures, does not strike me as well founded in the Constitution.

From which you draw what inference exactly?

More beating around the bush to avoid yet another error. You claimed that rape is a capital crime in 18 states. It's not. It's not a capital crime anywhere in the US.

You were wrong.

 

[Fenuay]

Should rape by deception be legal for trans people? To have sex without telling they are trans.

My friend is a victim of this. The person didn't share they were trans until after wards. My friend stopped all communication with the trans person. And is trying to cope with traumatic experience. They dealing with a high level of anxiety now. They are afraid to have any social interactions with anyone male or female they don't already know because they are scared they can't tell the difference.

I'm sorry for what your friend experienced. I think it's terrible for someone to hide that fact. Honesty is vital to any relationship.

 

[Fenuay]

This might be a bit too much for this forum, but I'm wondering how a person could have sex with another person who's trans without realising it. Wouldn't there be pretty obvious things in the private region you are or aren't expecting to find there?

Post op m to f is usually pretty easy to tell. But I imagine it is getting much better these days so perhaps it's more and more difficult to tell.

 

[Fenuay]

Rape by deception doesn't exist.

I get what you are saying but I still think it's horrible to lie to someone and not admit your gender. Especially if there is a serious relationship developing. If it's casual sex then you get what you get lol and I don't think the trans person is obligated to share in that case.