How trans activists erase homophobia and male violence

There are consequences to pretending that biological sex doesn’t exist—it leads to also pretending that sexual orientation doesn’t exist and it leads to ignoring who usually commits violent crimes and why.

An article written by a trans woman called “No, I Don’t Have To Tell You I’m Trans Before Dating You” demonstrates perfectly what trans activists get wrong.

He starts off by not understanding biological sex differences between humans.

“The gender binary forms the basis of European societies. It establishes that there are men and there are women, and each has a specific role. For the gender binary to have power, it has to be rigid and inflexible. Thus, from the day we are born, we are taught to believe in a very static and strict form of gender. We learn that if you have a penis, you are a man, and if you have a vagina, you are a woman. Trans people are walking refutations of this concept of gender. Our very existence threatens to undermine the gender binary itself.”

There are several issues with this paragraph, of course, but mostly the problem is that he is imagining that a cultural belief in “gender” coming from Europe is the reason why people believe that human beings come in types called “men” and “women.” In reality, all humans, from all continents, not just Europe, do come in two types: male and female, and we refer to adult human males as “men” and adult human females as “women,” regardless of what country we’re in. For the zillionth time, the existence of a rare few people born with atypical sex characteristics doesn’t change the fact that most people are unambiguously male or female and that this is how humans reproduce. Neither do men and women who make body modifications negate the facts of human reproduction. Regardless of what body modifications people make or what outfits they wear, only females can gestate babies and only males can fertilize ova.

Our culture does indeed place firm roles onto men and women, however, the way to change that culture is to constantly assert and men and women can be any kind of man or woman they want to be, and that they don’t have to follow cultural stereotypes about who men and women are. Denying the factual and observable sex differences between humans doesn’t achieve the goal of eliminating sex-based stereotypes.

Because Berruti is in denial about sex differences between humans, he is also in denial about sexual orientation, which is based on attraction to a specific sex. Almost everyone is attracted to one sex only—heterosexuals are attracted to the opposite sex and homosexuals are attracted to the same sex. Only bisexuals are attracted to both sexes. Sexual orientation is not about attraction to a “gender.” If anyone wants to claim to be attracted to a “gender” they’re welcome to, but for most people, we do care about the sex of the person we are with.

Berruti discusses the tragic case of Jennifer Laude, a young transwoman who was murdered by Joseph Scott Pemberton. Pemberton murdered Laude after the two had sex and then Pemberton realized that Laude was male. The reason for Pemberton’s violent rage was a combination of violent masculinity and homophobia. Men are taught from a young age that they must only have sexual relations with women, (not just any humans with dresses on, but people of the female sex), and this rule is enforced so violently that men do things like beat and murder men who are homosexual and also beat and murder men who trick them into sex. An important part of the masculine gender role is domination over women and exclusively heterosexual behavior. Men who involve themselves in homosexual behavior, whether deliberately or by accident, or who play a “feminine” receptive role in sex, lose masculinity points in this system. When men who are invested in preserving their masculinity are forced to lose some of their masculinity points, they react with violence to restore it. This culture is a part of the system of patriarchy and women know it all too well, which is why there is a whole movement of women fighting against it.

The author of this article, Berruti, tries to explain this phenomenon without naming any of the relevant elements: not sexual orientation nor violent masculinity.

“As a trans person, I run into this attitude all the time. I constantly hear cis people raging about how a trans person is “lying” if they don’t come out to a potential partner before dating them. Pemberton himself claimed that he felt like he was “raped” because Laude did not come out to him. Even cis people that fashion themselves as “allies” tend to feel similar.

Their argument is that they aren’t not attracted to trans people, so they should have a right to know if a potential partner is trans before dating them. These people view transness as a mere physical quality that they just aren’t attracted to.

The issue with this logic is that the person in question is obviously attracted to trans people, or else they wouldn’t be worried about accidentally going out with one. So these people aren’t attracted to trans people because of some physical quality, they aren’t attracted to trans people because they are disgusted by the very idea of transness.”

Berruti, like most other trans activists, imagines that straight men and lesbian women can be attracted to men who wear dresses and makeup because they imagine that we are attracted to a feminine gender role. However, both of these groups are attracted to people who are biologically female. Since he doesn’t understand this, he attributes our not wanting male sex partners as evidence of being “disgusted by the very idea of transness.”

Whether or not someone is actually disgusted by the idea of transness very much depends on your definition of trans. Since trans is an umbrella term that can mean a whole bunch of very different things, it’s impossible for this accusation to be meaningful. Using me as an example, there are some people under the trans umbrella that I am attracted to and some that I am not. I am attracted to female cross-dressers and masculine women, but I’m not attracted to anyone with a penis, so I am both attracted to and indifferent to different people under the trans umbrella, in accordance with my sexual orientation. It would not be accurate to say I’m “disgusted by the very idea of transness” since my long-term partner actually falls under the trans umbrella and I am not necessarily disgusted by male humans, just generally indifferent to them. (I am disgusted by male humans who behave in misogynist and abusive ways, but that’s not on the basis of their being male, it’s on the basis of their being abusive misogynists. Sadly, there are too many men who fit this description.)

Joseph Scott Pemberton wasn’t necessarily “disgusted by the very idea of transness” (although he may have been), but he definitely was disgusted by the idea of having sex with a man. This is due to homophobia. In the absence of violent masculinity and homophobia, he would have just said “no thanks” and walked Laude out. Although the primary cause of violence against transwomen is this exact combination of masculine rage and homophobia, transwomen almost universally refuse to name the problem or fight against it. They prefer to focus their energy on bullying women, even though women never kill transwomen.

“So when a cis person argues that a trans person has an obligation to come out to someone before dating them, they are saying trans people have an obligation to accommodate their transphobia. Plus, claiming that trans people are obligated to come out reinforces the idea that not being attracted to trans people is reasonable. But as I’ve pointed out, not being attracted to trans people supports the idea that transness is disgusting which is the basis for transphobic oppression.”

There truly is no dichotomy between “cis” and “trans” people because all of us have a unique personality with a unique relationship to the concepts of masculinity and femininity, and the concept of “trans” is so broad and all-encompassing that anyone can claim it at any time. What’s actually happening here is that people (almost all people, in fact) need to know whether someone is male or female before entering a romantic or sexual relationship. Everyone who is heterosexual or homosexual, which is a lot of people, are only interested in one sex. This isn’t to say that bisexual people will always date a trans person either—not everyone is interested in dating someone who has made major, drastic body modifications so that they appear to be the opposite sex.

When trans activists claim that it doesn’t matter what sex someone is and that they aren’t obligated to disclose their sex, they are disrespecting people’s sexual orientation and demonstrating a lack of caring for their potential partner’s needs. This is abusive behavior.

It never “supports the idea that someone is disgusting” when someone declines a romantic relationship with someone. No one owes anyone a romantic or sexual relationship, and we can be as exclusive as we want when it comes to who we date. I wouldn’t date an extrovert, and that’s not because there’s anything wrong with extroverts and my not dating them doesn’t imply that they are “disgusting.” I just know that the relationship wouldn’t work out because I would find it too draining and she would get bored with me since I never want to go out. People are also allowed to decline to date people who have made drastic body modifications or who believe in nonsensical ideology because that is not something they are into. This doesn’t mean that anyone is “disgusting.”

Berruti’s conclusion, like the rest of his post, misses the primary problem entirely.

“It is easy to look at the story of Jennifer Laude and claim that her death was due to the actions of one bigot. But it’s more complicated than that. Pemberton was the product of a society that told him that disgust towards trans people was reasonable and natural. So when he found out that he accidentally slept with a trans woman, he killed her.

Every single cis person that says that trans people have to come out because they aren’t attracted to trans people feeds into the system that caused Jennifer Laude’s death. And until those cis people acknowledge their complicity in that system, there will only be more like Jennifer Laude.”

Indeed, Jennifer Laude’s death was not an isolated incident. There are countless murders and other assaults committed by men due to violent masculinity, perpetrated against both men and women. Pemberton was a product of a society that taught him that preserving his masculinity was of utmost importance, more important even than other people’s lives, and that sexual relations between two men are so horrifically disgusting that it’s worth killing someone over. So when he found out he slept with a man, he killed him. When people assert their sexual orientations by declining to sleep with someone they are not attracted to in a normal, non-murderous way, that does not contribute to violent masculinity or the culture that condones male violence. People are allowed to set appropriate boundaries and choose sex partners they are attracted to, and this isn’t a problem. In Pemberton’s case, he should have simply said “no thanks” to Laude, and he was absolutely not justified in murdering him. Laude’s murder was a terrible crime.

As long as we continue to condone male violence and toxic masculinity by teaching it, glorifying it, and refusing to punish it, there will be more incidents like this one. It’s puzzling why trans activists don’t try to do something about it, since it’s negatively affecting their community. The primary group of people who are concerned about ending male violence is still radical feminists.

32 thoughts on “How trans activists erase homophobia and male violence

  1. “Everyone who is heterosexual or homosexual, which is a lot of people, are only interested in one sex.”

    This kind of contradicts the idea that trans people should have to disclose their status though. If (for example) a heterosexual male is exclusively interested in people of the female sex, he would never become sufficiently interested in a transwoman for it to become an issue in the first place, whereas any male who does display interest in a transwoman is clearly not heterosexual, therefore making disclosure unnecessary. Unless he’s one of those bisexuals who is not interested in people who have made body modifications, but again, in that case he wouldn’t become interested in the transwoman.


      • If someone can’t tell what sex other people are before being attracted to them, though, sex is evidently not an important component of their orientation and therefore they must be bisexual. Particularly if they are going so far as to have intercourse with a trans person whilst claiming to be unaware the person is trans. Being sufficiently attracted to a trans person to have a sexual relationship with one, so long as they do not explicitly tell you they are trans, is a very specific level of attraction, and one I would think had much more to do with internalised homophobia among ostensibly-straight men, rather than being the fault of trans people for not telling them.

        And obviously for the majority of people who can tell, disclosure of trans status isn’t necessary.


        • But we’re talking about dating sites. If you represent yourself as a woman, and take a misleading picture and don’t make it clear you’re a TW, when that comes out, your prospective partner will realize you are dishonest. Because TW are men. And if you can’t even admit to yourself or your prospective partner such a basic thing as your sex on a dating site, who in their right mind would want to date you? Even if they were bisexual.

          Liked by 5 people

        • Most people use appearance as a signal biological sex (which may not be immediately apparent). By which I mean that if someone is passing relatively well and wearing feminine style clothes people will assume they are female, and if they are dressed in a masculine way people assume they are male. I would argue that if a man is attracted to a trans woman without realising it he is assuming that this person was born with a vagina. It is likely that his imagination of that is part of the attraction.

          Liked by 3 people

        • I bet somebody’s got a website somewhere, where you can post people on dating services who are masquerading as members of the opposite sex. Or other predators.

          Liked by 1 person

      • Misrepresenting one’s self on dating sites isn’t all that hard, and that first date must be pretty awkward in some instances. Dating is fraught enough as it is, people have no business misleading other people and wasting their time. If I was using a dating site, I’d say “must like dogs,” and I’d be furious if I wound up on a date with some asshole who obviously didn’t.

        It goes both ways, too; gay men get really annoyed at TIF using their dating sites.

        There are reasons dating sites have evolved complex algorithms to create filters. Lots of things can be dealbreakers. As is so frequently the case with TIM’s, though, everything is ALL about them.

        Liked by 4 people

    • People have reasons to not want to have sex with one particular sex that have nothing to do with attraction.

      A bisexual woman might want to only date women because men are much more likely to be violent and she wants to be safer.

      A bisexual woman might want to start a relationship with a man because she wants to have children with her partner that are genetically related to both of them.

      Or a bisexual or even homosexual man might happen to be homophobic. The fact that his homophobia is wrong doesn’t mean that he doesn’t get to decide who he has sex with. He doesn’t want to have sex with males, he shouldn’t be tricked into it. Regardless of how bad his reasons are.

      And then there’s the fact that most people would, in fact, notice immediately when the clothes come off, and it would be very awkward and embarrassing for everyone involved. That’s the best thing that can happen after not disclosing your sex – awkwardness and embarrassment.

      People who want consensual sex have nothing to gain from lying.

      Liked by 1 person

  2. “It never ‘supports the idea that someone is disgusting’ when someone declines a romantic relationship with someone. No one owes anyone a romantic or sexual relationship, and we can be as exclusive as we want when it comes to who we date.”

    I couldn’t agree more with this statement. And I can’t help thinking that people born with male privilege are more likely to believe the opposite. This is my main issue with “cis privilege.” How can I or any woman be privileged over a person who was born a man? I don’t believe we can. The truth is, you don’t get to opt out of your privilege. Men and boys are born with it and it is invisible. For me, it becomes visible when they use logic like this to shame women or anyone for not wanting to have sex with them. This is such a typically male thing to do! Men have felt entitled to sex and have been guilting/forcing/coercing women into having sex with them for centuries!

    Liked by 1 person

  3. “As long as we continue to condone male violence and toxic masculinity by teaching it, glorifying it, and refusing to punish it, there will be more incidents like this one. It’s puzzling why trans activists don’t try to do something about it, since it’s negatively affecting their community. The primary group of people who are concerned about ending male violence is still radical feminists.”
    The reason that trans activists don’t try to do something about male violence & toxic masculinity is because M to F trans are MEN. They are NOT going to say bad things about themselves, no matter how much they “feel” like women. They attack women, because that’s what they do.

    Liked by 3 people

  4. It gets even more complicated when you are talking about an autogynephilic man who becomes trans during his heterosexual marriage! Such transwomen remains attracted to their heterosexual wives and expect the heterosexual wives to continue to be attracted to them; the autogynephilic transwomen consider themselves acting as lesbians to their wives and expect their wives to be entertain the fiction their husbands are women and, therefore, that they, the wives, are also lesbian. Jennifer Finney Boylan has said that ze (I use gender neutral pronouns only with trans people) is in a lesbian relationship with hir wife, but hir wife sees it differently.

    Liked by 1 person

  5. A few estrogen shots doesn’t erase misogyny among trans activists or trans people. Toxic masculinity is the culprit and the more it’s ignored worse it gets. Excellent article!

    Liked by 1 person

  6. A few estrogen shots doesn’t erase misogyny among trans activists or trans people. Toxic masculinity is the culprit and the more it’s ignored worse it gets. Excellent consensus!


  7. This whole idea that people are sexually attracted to gender identities regardless of sexual biology and their own sexual orientation is such gaslighting. Like anyone needs to be told whether they’re attracted to someone. People, if you have to ask, the answer is no.

    Also I find it hilarious that, considering the elaborate detail some dating sites allow you to go into regarding your dating preferences, he’s saying actual biological sex should be off limits.

    Liked by 4 people

  8. And another thing. If I was using a dating service, I wouldn’t be at all put off by androgynous qualities in men. I like that. I don’t like overly masculine men, especially big ones. I find them a little scary.

    But if he calls himself a woman? First, I won’t see him, because I am hetero and would only be looking at the men. Secondly, I’d think he was an AG, so no way. So if guys like this are really serious about dating women, what they are accomplishing via this strategy is to filter out any woman who might actually find them of interest, which tells us that this is not about dating.

    Liked by 2 people

      • Can’t point out too many times that it’s not a matter of women discriminating against this sort of presentation, it’s that they are actually targeting women (lesbians) who specifically are not attracted to their bodies and refusing to consider women who might be, if these guys were just honest. So who is “being too picky” here? They only want to have sex with women who don’t want it? Gee, I think there’s a name for that.

        The idea that hetero women are only interested in manly men is just another BS stereotype. What we are not interested in is crazy and/or dishonest men. And what these men do not want is an honest sexual relationship with a woman. What they want is violation.

        Liked by 2 people

  9. There we are again with the edict against disgust. As you say, we’re allowed to be attracted to whomever we feel like, and likewise repelled if that happens.

    The only edict is that you’re polite about it and keep it to yourself.

    As a great poster I saw once in a gay pride parade said, “I don’t understand your sexuality either.”

    And that is okay.

    Liked by 2 people

    • This is what the “sexual revolution” got us, the idea that women being fucked by men is always a good thing and physical attraction is not of concern or can be acquired over time.

      I think it comes from the cultural sense of homosexuality as a perversion, this inability to accept it without throwing in all these other sexual behaviors that actually are deviant and toxic. Homosexual activism has long had to deal with this kind of attempted piggybacking. They went through a lot of trouble to kick out the pedos in the 1990’s.

      Liked by 4 people

  10. There we are again with the edict against disgust. As you say, we’re allowed to be attracted to whomever we feel like, and likewise repelled if that happens.

    The only edict is that you’re polite about it and keep it to yourself.

    As a great poster I saw once in a gay pride parade said, “I don’t understand your sexuality either.”

    And that is okay


  11. someone should take the referenced article, change all instances of “gender” to “sex”, and send it to the author.


  12. The problem with all this logic is that it directly feeds into the shameful court decision in the case of Pemberton, the murderer of Jennifer Laude. He got off very lightly because it was accepted that he was acting “in heat of passion”. Somehow, his “orientation” and “defense” of such was seen in court as important – when it should not have been.

    Pemberton was attracted to Jennifer Laude and made the decision to have sex with her. His later discovery of anything at all about the person, absent something intentionally malicious such as blackmail. should not have been seen as any mitigating circumstance. Pemberton should have gotten life, not 12 years reduced on appeal to 10.

    Toe doctrine that most people are fixed “heterosexual” or “homosexual” (with “bisexuality” some form of a distinct third class), while it was a progressive tool against extreme homophobia in its own days, is a descendant of the nineteenth-century “inversion” doctrine that pathologized homosexuals. It got obsolete back in the 1940s with the somewhat more detailed Kinsey scale, but clung on as a civil rights tool which was probably necessary… until Obergefell at least, as Obergefell does not rely on the doctrine.

    Human attraction develops with many factors, of which biology is just one. “Gender” is as reductive as “sex” in describing its nature. The assertion of “heterosexuality”, while sometimes useful in practice, is also a harmful construct, which motivated both Pemberton and those who let him off lightly. It is sad to see feminists, of all people, playing into it.

    In a darkly funny way, Laude would have been alive under the oldtime conservative doctrine that existed before “sexual orientation”, where the important distinction was between penetrator and penetrated. As Pemberton was the penetrator anyway, he would have had no cause for violence (unless he saw a threat that Laude would penetrate him in turn, which was very likely not the case). So this specific case is, in a way, the fault of “orientation” specifically.


      • I am not a transwoman, so as you thought I was inappropriately speaking for them, I disengaged. You could in that context maintain a line that the identifying issue is only relevant for trans people (I don’t think so).

        I have a post where I explain why I took up the issue: . I did not mention it here before simply because it is very oppositional towards Communism, which is not how I “do politics” today (since 2013, Syria escalated and Ukraine happened). And you are sympathetic towards Communism. But whatever the current political needs, in principle I still believe in individualism over collectivism, which translates to personal positioning around the gender issue over sex class.

        This “orientation” issue, anyway, is very definitely not just about trans people. THAT bugbear hurts much more than just them. The expectation of “straightness” is harmful; so is, actually, the expectation of “gayness”, but “straightness” is more dominant and so its harm is more pronounced. I know of people who were ostracized for “treason” to “gayness”; I personally know a factual lesbian who refused to call herself lesbian because she did not want the movement policing her personal life; but at least “gayness” is not enforced with violence.

        I have a big post deconstructing “straight”:


        • So you’re a libertarian who thinks that people should be allowed to do whatever they want even if it’s been shown to be harmful to women. Cool! You’re a garden-variety misogynist. I’m just about done letting you troll here, but before you go, you are welcome to answer one more question, if you wish to answer it. What is a woman? If anyone can identify as one, what exactly are they identifying with? Please describe the category ‘woman’ in a way that clearly differentiates it from other types of humans.

          Liked by 2 people

        • Correction: I am not an economic libertarian (you know, the “taxes are theft, those who can’t pay doctor should die” variety). You can use “cultural libertarian” or “social libertarian” but I don’t want to be mistaken for a Randroid, please. In fact, I am debating Eric Raymond, a well-known economic libertarian, on this very issue right now, and his position is closer to yours though for different reasons. Enjoy (look for my comments). At least you’ll have some fun with his argument that beng able to conceal one’s sex allows one to conceal membership of a “protected class” and then, by stealth, ruin one’s life by a false accusation of sexual misconduct.

          I also state that trans identity in itself, or a society that is permissive towards trans identity and expression, is in no legitimate way harmful to any woman (though individual acts of some trans people can, of course, be harmful to some women). To wit:

          * “not being able to define one’s class with the most convenient term” is simply not harm at all. There is no intrinsic right to a defined class. You can use any analysis you want, but don’t pretend that having to use “natal women” or “WBW” is somehow harm.

          * “having to observe legal behaviour in public” is never ever harm (even if the behaviour happens to be sexual). I’ve had enough of claims that observing homosexual behaviour is somehow harm (a big thing in my native Russia, sadly), so I hold to an absolutist “you don’t want to watch, turn your head” position. And if you support Pride marches, you do, too, that’s basically what a strong component of them is about.

          * nor is “presenting an extra option” to a person capable of rational choice ever harmful (this deals with the claim that somehow some lesbians are “tempted” into transition).

          * finally, there are women who believe they have been harmed by their husbands/male partners transitioning. In some cases, they may have been legitimately harmed by choices of their particular partner (such as use of family savings for surgery). However, if they think they would have been better off if society has not allowed their partners to transition, then they want society to control the partner for them. They are no different from the conservative women of 100 years ago who were against permission of divorce. In reality, marriage or partnership only ever works as a voluntary union, which is why permission of divorce is of paramount importance. Financial issues in marriage and divorce are already regulated, and no additional regulation is needed for one specific case.

          On the other hand, there is a significant area where the political interests of natal women and trans people overlap – the area of freedom of gender expression. For example, there is the (rather hot) issue of strict gendered dress codes being imposed on women. often including things that inconvenience many natal women such as high heels. Legislating freedom of gender expression for every person ensures that such dress codes can not be imposed. (Note my difference from economic libertarians, who will claim that an employer can impose any dress code arbitrarily while the employee is free to leave).

          See particular example: Crushing this decision is a clear common aim, isn’t it?

          So which society would you prefer – one that can force you to wear high heels, or one that would not protect you from seeing a male person in high heels?

          To answer your question. “Woman” is a social category that has historically developed by evolution of the role assigned by the social mechanism to a female person. One can expound upon every word here but this is the short version.


        • I’m just going to address your definition of “woman.”

          “Woman” is a social category that has historically developed by evolution of the role assigned by the social mechanism to a female person. One can expound upon every word here but this is the short version.

          You are clearly defining ‘woman’ by the cultural expectations assigned to women. If a male human identifies with the cultural expectations assigned to women, that doesn’t mean he’s actually a woman, that means the cultural expectations are wrong, and clearly men are capable of identifying with some of the things we expect from women. By saying that anyone who identifies with the cultural expectations placed on women is literally a woman, despite having a male body, that reinforces those expectations. We need to move in the opposite direction—loosening those expectations and allowing men to express femininity without being labeled as not “real men.”

          You’ve used the term “female person” in your definition, which means you probably do understand the difference between gender and sex. I don’t have a problem with people talking about “gender” as a set of cultural expectations, and I would agree that that is what gender is. However, biological sex matters, and the word “man” exists to describe an adult human male, not a person with identifies with the masculine gender role.

          These are all things I’ve explained quite a few times; so have other feminists, and I think you understand this position. I reject your desire to redefine “man” and “woman” as sets of cultural expectations instead of biological categories, because those biological categories are what matter, and many of the cultural expectations placed on men and women need to be abolished rather than enshrined.

          At this point, I have understood your position, and I think you probably understand mine, although you are dismissing women’s concerns about the harms we are seeing being done to us. Now that we’ve understood each other’s positions, and you have shown that you aren’t concerned about women, there’s nothing left for us to discuss. Your misogyny has been noted—time to move along now.

          Liked by 2 people

  13. A couple of sidenotes that might come in useful, no answer needed:

    – Your problem with the Left appears to be that you are looking into harder Left but not understanding the Stalinist-Trotskyist division. It is an important division for your issue; Stalinism gives much more value to Communist social control as a means of class struggle (more or less… I’m not fully up to scratch) so they are far less sympathetic to trans identity. You might want to look into Stalinists. Trotskyism, as far as I understand, is based on “permanent revolution” so they want to upend, not stabilize, society – of course they will support nonstandard identities as a means of creating that instability, at the very least.

    – There is an issue where social libertarians and radfems are actually on the same side – censorship and no-plaforming. I’m fully with Peter Tatchell on that one.


  14. One important thing is missing: Jennifer raped Joseph. Lie deliberately to someone to get sex with someone, that if I knew the truth I would not have sex with you, it’s rape.

    If someone tells you that he is single, when he is married, it is rape. If you hide yourself from having HIV so you have unprotected sex, it is rape. If he tells you that the vasectomy was done, and then he leaves you pregnant, it’s rape. If it makes you believe that she is a woman and has a vagina, when she is really a man and has a surgical wound, it is rape.

    Women are educated to accept rape as an inevitable part of life, like rain, and to blame ourselves when it happens. Men do not. If trans people go around raping men, they will react as they usually do, with violence.

    Liked by 1 person

  15. I hesitate to say this because i do not want to sound like I am sticking up for the killer, but the transperson did rape him. maybe not the legal definition of rape but not consensual sex either. Deceiving someone into having sex is not consensual. I was deceived once and it was traumatic. Of course, I didn’t kill the person, so please don’t take this as a justification for the killer. I just think it is important to note.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s