DoubleShotHelix
New member
If a transgender has sex with a heterosexual person without their knowledge and consent thru deception its rape.
And that's not a reach at all.
The judicial system has already established that a man and a woman can agree to have consensual sex but that consent only apply to the conditions set forth from the outset anything else can retroactively be considered rape. Ex. Stealthing.
If a man and a woman consent to having protected sex and that man intentionally deceives the woman into having unprotected sex. Then that sexual liaison becomes non consensual and therefore rape because that woman consented to sex under the conditions set forth or implied.
That is the precedent;
therefore if a heterosexual man meets a transwoman and that trans knows that man for all intents and purposes is heterosexual and that transperson leads that man down a path of lies, manipulation and deception...of that otherwise heterosexual man. Then any sexual encounter they have should for all intents and purposes be considered rape. Because that heterosexual man did not consent to a homosexual encounter with a transgender he was deceived or "stealthed" by a transgender predator that cares nothing for the agency of other people. That man consented to an deceptively implied heterosexual encounter therefore making the whole affair non consensual ie rape.
The same way its rape for a man to deceive a woman into having sex under conditions she didn't not consent to is rape.
It's rape for a transgender to deceive a man into having sex under conditions he did not consent to.
And who the hell wouldn't be okay with a person defending themselves against a person sexually assaulting them?
At that point it is no longer a hate crime but self defense.
And that's not a reach at all.
The judicial system has already established that a man and a woman can agree to have consensual sex but that consent only apply to the conditions set forth from the outset anything else can retroactively be considered rape. Ex. Stealthing.
If a man and a woman consent to having protected sex and that man intentionally deceives the woman into having unprotected sex. Then that sexual liaison becomes non consensual and therefore rape because that woman consented to sex under the conditions set forth or implied.
That is the precedent;
therefore if a heterosexual man meets a transwoman and that trans knows that man for all intents and purposes is heterosexual and that transperson leads that man down a path of lies, manipulation and deception...of that otherwise heterosexual man. Then any sexual encounter they have should for all intents and purposes be considered rape. Because that heterosexual man did not consent to a homosexual encounter with a transgender he was deceived or "stealthed" by a transgender predator that cares nothing for the agency of other people. That man consented to an deceptively implied heterosexual encounter therefore making the whole affair non consensual ie rape.
The same way its rape for a man to deceive a woman into having sex under conditions she didn't not consent to is rape.
It's rape for a transgender to deceive a man into having sex under conditions he did not consent to.
And who the hell wouldn't be okay with a person defending themselves against a person sexually assaulting them?
At that point it is no longer a hate crime but self defense.
Last edited: