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

BMS

Well-known member
Lawmakers make the law, of course. Do you really not know that?
So which ones? The ones who make laws that abortion is legal or the ones that make laws that abortion is illegal? Did you not know they differ? Oh no of course you didnt otherwise you wouldnt be posting what you are
 

Temujin

Well-known member
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.
Does it matter whether the perpetrator is trans or not? A man pretending to be a woman in order to have sex with a man would be using clear deception and could be guilty of rape or sexual assault, (depending on what sexual activity actually took place) I believe there have been one or two cases where this has happened. A post op trans woman who has sex with a man could claim that there was no deception on her part as she considers herself to be legally, morally and physically, female. It would be up to the court to decide in any particular case how much if any deception there was and whether it met the threshold of criminal deceit.

The underlying question you are asking is should a trans woman be treated in law as a man or as a woman. Ceteris paribus I think that has been answered in most jurisdictions. You may not like the answer, but then most court judgements leave somebody unhappy.
 

Thistle

Well-known member
Blatantly and completely false. Consult any dictionary.
My friend you live in a complete fantasy land. This post unduly and unnecessarily long. I gave you the English definition of murder above from the dictionary with the link. That really is the end of the discussion.

"The killing of another person without justification or excuse, especially the crime of killing a person with malice aforethought or with recklessness manifesting extremeindifference to the value of human life." [link]

Note that the unqualified requirement for murder is "The killing of another person without justification or excuse."
 

Thistle

Well-known member
If they believe that the body they have now is a true reflection of who they are then they wouldn't see it as being dishonest?
I would call that a reflection of sociopathic lack of empathy, and inability to see reality from anyone's perspective, but their own. These people can remember the steps that they took to change the appearance of their body. They also are aware that people who've never met them before don't enjoy that same information advantage. Furthermore, they are well aware of what is downstream from a heterosexual's reason for dating. You can't look at all that together and excuse them for the lack of forthrightness.
 

Bob Carabbio

Well-known member
That's your choice if you believe adulteresses never ever become pregnant, but why weren't male adulterers also commanded to drink a "bitter water" abortifacient and say "so be it, so be it" too?
Or are you just in denial about what the bible actually says and means?
If the "Adultress" was pregnant, then WHY would a test for adultery be needed?
 

john james

Well-known member
Does it matter whether the perpetrator is trans or not? A man pretending to be a woman in order to have sex with a man would be using clear deception and could be guilty of rape or sexual assault, (depending on what sexual activity actually took place) I believe there have been one or two cases where this has happened. A post op trans woman who has sex with a man could claim that there was no deception on her part as she considers herself to be legally, morally and physically, female. It would be up to the court to decide in any particular case how much if any deception there was and whether it met the threshold of criminal deceit.

The underlying question you are asking is should a trans woman be treated in law as a man or as a woman. Ceteris paribus I think that has been answered in most jurisdictions. You may not like the answer, but then most court judgements leave somebody unhappy.

Many trans people know that most biological men and women and many same sex attracted people don't want to have sex with them. But some try to get them to do it anyway by getting their consent under the assumption that they think they are what they look like. Whether the trans person believes they are what they look like or not, the person probably wouldn't have given their consent if they knew they were trans. That is the issue. To the people who don't want to have sex with trans people this is not in the same category of lying to get sex like some people do. It is extremely serious to some men if they are heterosexual for them to put their private in to the private of another man. Some are willing to kill over it because of how serious it is to them. Just because it isn't serious to those who accept trans people as being the sex they feel they are is besides the point.

So hopefully there is a way to try keep this from happening and punish people who do it.

Now if a person is told by the person that they are trans and they still consent to it then that is different.

I think many years ago I heard of a person who was trans get married to someone who didn't know they were trans. The trans person tricked them. That was horrible. Wanting to be accepted doesn't give someone the right to do that but some think they can force acceptance. And that's a problem.
 

Temujin

Well-known member
Many trans people know that most biological men and women and many same sex attracted people don't want to have sex with them.
What are your grounds for saying this?
But some try to get them to do it anyway by getting their consent under the assumption that they think they are what they look like. Whether the trans person believes they are what they look like or not, the person probably wouldn't have given their consent if they knew they were trans. That is the issue.
What is your evidence?
To the people who don't want to have sex with trans people this is not in the same category of lying to get sex like some people do. It is extremely serious to some men if they are heterosexual for them to put their private in to the private of another man. Some are willing to kill over it because of how serious it is to them. Just because it isn't serious to those who accept trans people as being the sex they feel they are is besides the point.

So hopefully there is a way to try keep this from happening and punish people who do it.

Now if a person is told by the person that they are trans and they still consent to it then that is different.

I think many years ago I heard of a person who was trans get married to someone who didn't know they were trans. The trans person tricked them. That was horrible. Wanting to be accepted doesn't give someone the right to do that but some think they can force acceptance. And that's a problem.
The point is that every case is different. First, find an actual case. Second try using existing legislation to see if it is sufficient. Thirdly, depending on the outcome assess whether new legislation is required. Fourthly, design the new legislation so that it fixes any problems of natural justice which have Ben identified, without causing new ones. Fifthly pass the legislation. Finally, test the legislation in the courts to ensure it is fit for purpose.

Whereabouts on this progress chart are you, or are you asking for a solution to a problem that only exists in your mind?
 

john james

Well-known member
What are your grounds for saying this?

What is your evidence?

The point is that every case is different. First, find an actual case. Second try using existing legislation to see if it is sufficient. Thirdly, depending on the outcome assess whether new legislation is required. Fourthly, design the new legislation so that it fixes any problems of natural justice which have Ben identified, without causing new ones. Fifthly pass the legislation. Finally, test the legislation in the courts to ensure it is fit for purpose.

Whereabouts on this progress chart are you, or are you asking for a solution to a problem that only exists in your mind?

Some giving tips on how to trick people into having sex with them.
 

J regia

Well-known member
If the "Adultress" was pregnant, then WHY would a test for adultery be needed?
Because there were no reliable tests for early pregnancies, adulteresses were just commanded to drink a "bitter water" abortifacient and say "so be it, so be it". Which is why male adulterers weren't also commanded to drink a "bitter water" abortifacient and say "so be it, so be it" too, since they don't normally become pregnant, even if you believe that adulteresses never become pregnant either.
 
Last edited:

J regia

Well-known member
It is extremely serious to some men if they are heterosexual for them to put their private in to the private of another man.
So what's the difference between a woman's vagina and the vagina of a man with Swyer syndrome such as Hanne Odiole, and what relevance is it to you anyway?
 

Bob Carabbio

Well-known member
Because there were no reliable tests for early pregnancies, adulteresses were just commanded to drink a "bitter water" abortifacient and say "so be it, so be it". Which is why male adulterers weren't also commanded to drink a "bitter water" abortifacient and say "so be it, so be it" too, since they don't normally become pregnant, even if you believe that adulteresses never become pregnant either.
It only takes a month to find out, y'all!

FACE IT!! there's nothing in the verses that even IMPLIES "Abortion", or that the Bitter water was an Abortificant. It passed through HARMLESSLY if the gal was innocent, but DESTROYED HER INTERNALLY if she wasn't.
 

J regia

Well-known member
It only takes a month to find out, y'all!
And if the adulteress is not pregnant then the "bitter water" abortifacient will have no effect.

Numbers 5:20-28 ERV -
But if you have sinned against your husband—if you had sexual relations with a man who is not your husband—then you are not pure. 21 If that is true, you will have much trouble when you drink this special water. You will not be able to have any children. And if you are pregnant now, your baby will die.[a] And the Lord will cause your people to speak evil of you and curse you.’
“Then the priest must tell the woman to make an oath. She must agree for the Lord to cause these things to happen to her if she lies. 22 The priest must say, ‘You must drink this water that causes trouble. If you have sinned, you will not be able to have children. Any baby you have will die before it is born.’ And the woman should say, ‘I agree to do as you say.’
23 “The priest should write these warnings on a scroll. Then he should wash the words off into the water. 24 Then the woman must drink the water that brings trouble. This water will enter her and, if she is guilty, it will cause her much suffering.
25 “Then the priest will take the grain offering from her (the offering for jealousy) and raise it before the Lord. Then he will carry it to the altar. 26 The priest will fill his hands with some of the grain and put it on the altar and let it burn there. After that he will tell the woman to drink the water. 27 If the woman has sinned against her husband, the water will bring her trouble. The water will go into her body and cause her much suffering. Any baby that is in her will die before it is born, and she will never be able to have children. All the people will turn against her.[b] 28 But if the woman has not sinned against her husband and she is pure, the priest will say that she is not guilty. Then she will be normal and able to have children.
 

Temujin

Well-known member
I have given you the evidence for this. what are your grounds for not taking any notice of what people tell you?
Why are you interrupting? My post was not aimed at you or about anything you have said. Let the man speak for himself.

As for not taking notice of what you say, the main reason is that what you say is frequently palpable nonsense.
 
Top