If you lie about being trans to a pussy attracted only cis man, you're committing rape

I meant latter sorry lol not former

do you think this should apply just when a trans person says 'im cis' when theyre, by some definition, actually not
or should trans people have a permanent obligation to announce the specifics of their gender and medical lives that cis people do not have

i dont think any law should be based on arbitrary immeasurable feelings of disgust

That's literally what all laws are nincompoop. All law derives from morality, and all morality boils down to "This thing makes me feel disgusted/repulsed/offended"

Like 1% of all trannies pass enough to convince a straight man that she's a woman, and then she can only suck his dick and hope he doesn't spot her bulge. Who cares if a man sucks your dick? It's not intimate like intercourse is.

how do I have sex with a trans girl if I don't like anal?

Not all trans women have penises, in fact all trans women want to not have a penis

all trans women want to not have a penis

I don't think that's true

Sorry, to be clear, my position is that none of the scenarios—including OP’s—are rape. But I can at least understand someone who finds them ALL to be rape. The position I don’t understand is how only one or some are rape. Like…

Thank you for taking the time to respond, but I still fail to see any categorical difference. My hypos assumed that the deceit was material (“as a result”), so all of the scenarios involve “behavior that they would never engage in without having been patently lied to.”

Can I ask one more that might help me understand? Imagine X deceives Y as to X’s religion or race, and as a result Y has sex with X. Rape or not? Assume that race or religion of sexual partner is critical to Y. For example, maybe Y believes that they will burn for eternity in hell if they have sex with a member of the wrong religion. Maybe Y’s parents were genocided by a certain ethnic group, or maybe Y’s culture views that group as unclean and inferior. In your words, “they would NEVER have sex with [a person from that religion/group].” What result?

men need to stop acting like they even give a single fuck about rape

women need to stop acting like they even give a single fuck about rape

a tranny doesn't need to have a penis to be clockable

i don't think that's really the whole case
laws are made primarily to maximise economic output, whether the fruits of that are shared widely or kept amongst the rich and powerful, and i think it's often only by extension that this means keeping society functional and the general population happy
moral breakdown can mess with the economic order, if it's causing violence or disruptive protests, and require legislation
but that's a higher threshold than just disgust and morals are always less important than practicalities for a working government
even if the lawmakers feel disgust about something it's still kinda stupid to have any law that's basically 'if you felt disgusted the other person goes to jail' as its only justification

Do you believe it should be legal to fuck animals?

he would fuck a passoid tho

The degree of dishonesty is important. Most (and this is important legally, as the status of a legal jury demonstrates) would not consider it remotely deceptive to tell someone you had brushed your teeth when you hadn't, prior to kissing, as an example. Most would consider it dishonest to say that you had sucked an HIV positive dick, 5 minutes prior to kissing(as an example).

Personally yes, I would say violating someone's religious or philosophical values aught to be considered as similar to rape, even though they probably wouldn't be. Sex is an entirely physical act which is the key differentiator. Religious values are not an actual innate value, they are taught. Having sex with someone in a way which violates your religious beliefs is still egregious and should probably be punished, but is not even remotely comparable because this involves a surrender to these innate desires as opposed to an overall overturning of them. Trannies are objectively still worse but pretending to be a muslim and marrying a muslim woman to fuck her, for example, i definitely agree should be considered as akin to rape

*remotely deceptive in the sense of serious manipulative dishonesty to the degree that should be punished(eg fraud)

deception isn't rape, threat or force is rape

no
if you legalised beastiality, this would be unpopular
it would cause upset and unrest, probably collapsing the government and damaging the economy, and get you literally no benefit
if it weren't already illegal, making it so would be a very popular move and definitely good for the stability of the country

i also don't like it on an emotional level, yeah, but i don't need that to justify banning it
and there are other things i'm disgusted by that i can't justify banning as well (i.e. spitting in the street) or that couldn't be banned in a practically enforceable way (i.e. cheating) and so shouldn't be banned

Is your argument that flat populism is the ultimate determinor of whether something should be law?

most would consider

This is a fine way to draw the line, I suppose. It’s just a little unsatisfying. “What is rape? Whatever most people would consider to be rape.” But I’m wondering WHY people like you consider trans deception to be so and not other deceptions.

Sex is an entirely physical act which is the key differentiator

This part I wholly didn’t understand—sex was present in every hypothetical.

Innate desires

I think this is getting at something insightful, but I still can’t quite follow. Straight and gay might be innate, but is attraction to trans people or not innate? I don’t know, that’s a big claim without the kind of evidence we have on gay/straight (twin studies, etc.). Imagine a straight-identifying guy sees a trans woman and finds her attractive, sees her naked and still finds her attractive, fucks her and enjoys it. Then afterwards he is informed that she is a trans woman, not a cis woman. If he is upset by that, is that because of something INNATE? I would think something innate like that would come up at an earlier point (e.g., he wouldn’t be attracted to her in the first place). That’s how it works for me as a gay man—I’m not attracted to women on sight. I don’t need to be told whether they are in the group I find attractive or not. Does that make sense? Again, I think you’re close to something real.

unrelated
love this artist so much

Legally this isn’t true, I believe. If you disguise yourself as someone’s husband, for example, to have sex with them I’m pretty sure it’s rape.

vanlawfirm.com/faqs/what-is-the-reasonable-person-standard/
It's a means to draw the line that courts have used for a relatively tremendous amount of time.

Deception about gender is deception about something that would in 100% of circumstances stop somebody from wanting to have sex with you.

I forgot to finish my sentence in the second case. Sex is a physical act and preferences people have in reference to it's physical nature are paramount and intrinsically related to sexual pleasure and sexual availability.

Attraction to men or women is innate. You are not changing your status as a man or woman by claiming to be the opposite. Your confusion lies in the seeming idea that you believe the opposite to be true

it's fair to say i think popular opinion matters a lot, but it's definitely not the only thing that does
you can probably find popular support for a lot of completely contradictory things, and it's easily one way one year and another thing the next
people can also want things that wouldn't actually be any good for them, and then in the long run you've just caused economic collapse and even more unrest
like if blowing up healthcare infrastructure got really popular for some reason, it'd be better to focus on changing that, because if you just did what people wanted then it'd just screw both you and them over
but most laws that do pass should probably be popular ones at least

I’m probably just annoying you, but I am genuinely really interested in this and feel like I am getting somewhere. I’m not trying to persuade you, I’m trying to understand—sorry if my autistic writing comes off as hostile or judgmental.

The reasonable person standard doesn’t actually mean “what most people would do,” that’s a common misconception. It’s a hypothetical construct that does different work in different contexts. For example, in tort law on negligence, a reasonable person’s care basically just means “efficient care.” But of course, most people don’t actually calculate expected loss in their heads. Either way, I explicitly said that resort to majority rule is a fine way to proceed as a society, it just doesn’t answer my question of why the majority believes it.

in reference to its physical nature

Okay, but several of my other hypos were physical (race, fake boobs) rather than metaphysical (religion), and yet you found the former to be less egregious than the latter. So I still don’t get this one.

(1/2)

Your confusion

I understand that you don’t believe trans women are “women,” but that doesn’t resolve the question—it’s just semantics that are uninteresting to me. The empirical evidence we have that demonstrates the innateness of homo/hetero sexuality doesn’t distinguish between trans and cis attraction—it’s basically all self-identification. In the twin studies, for example, they basically just ask twins when they group up whether they ID as gay or straight and look for correlation. As a result, some of the men who say “straight” may very well mean “I am attracted to cis and trans women.” And indeed, separate studies confirm that some men who ID as straight claim attraction to cis and trans women alike. As far as I know, there is no study or experiment showing innateness of being only attracted to cis women versus attracted to cis and trans women. Given the enormous cultural variation in acceptance of trans people, I think attraction to them (or not) is highly unlikely to be innate.

(2/2)

Also I need to go to sleep but thank you for engaging and hopefully I get to hear more of your thoughts.
(3/2)

"rape by deception" is trying to establish that any random stranger has an obligation to both know the boundaries of your particular personal sexual orientation AND protect you from yourself when you're about to overstep them. getting lied to about age, occupation, relationship status, affection for you, stds, even biological sex or whatever else are all risks you automatically consent to by fucking a stranger who doesn't give a shit about you. if you can't accept that your sex life is your own responsibility alone you lack the psychological maturity of an adult anyway and should be imprisoned for statutory self-rape. men who kill trannies after sex at the very least never whine about supposedly being rape victims, they only talk about getting tricked into [consensual] gay sex.

rape all men then idk

So you think some homosexual men are attracted to trans men? That they actually do like pussy after all? They have just not seen the right pussy

What if im a pussy attracted tranny?
Is lying to men still rape?

cw sa ok so be fr is sa rp ok if im an xx nb ?? my bf or so or we is an nb yt tw so ik it is up to me to do it if we do do my nc rp bc he is xy so if we do an xy on xx nc rp it mb nc nc ie fr sa. oh ya to me he is my he bc we do bf on gf rp, my 2c is it is ok bc tl dr im nd

As your non-trans schizo tourist, I disagree about it being rape and believe the only people that honestly believe so, are the type of men that, at 30 years old, still ask their mothers if they are allowed out to play.
Where is the accountability on the man's part?
Why should he be encouraged, and defended, if he starts thinking with his dick, looks for a quick hook-up, and it doesn't go his way?