When a person is raped, it shouldn’t matter what their gender
is, it shouldn’t matter what the gender of the perpetrator is. But it does in Sweden;
it seems that according to the courts that a trans-person cannot be raped.
Care2.comBy Sarah VrbaJuly 7, 2012This week a Swedish judge acquitted a man who attempted to rape a transgender victim. The perpetrator, who attacked a transgender woman outside of her apartment complex, stated that he believed his victim was a woman. After he pulled off her clothes and grabbed her crotch, the attacker discovered male genitalia. The victim and her ex-partner were able to pull the man off of her before police came to arrest him.The legal system in Sweden offered no extra help to the victim in court proceedings. The reasoning behind the acquittal of the attacker? The perpetrator claimed that he believed his victim was a woman with female genitalia. The court sided with this explanation adding, as quoted by Queerty, “We believe that he wanted to rape… this woman. But as she proved to be a man, his plan [would] never have been possible.”[…]The court claims that since the attacker believed he was going to rape a woman with female genitalia his intended crime was basically only possible on an imaginary level, never mind that he forcefully removed clothing and grabbed at the victim’s body with every intention of violating her.The judge concluded that the rape was “invalid” because the victim was anatomically a male. Instead, the rapist was convicted of assault and will pay just over $2,000 in damages to the woman.
This is Sweden! The country that was supposed to be so
progressive, the country that brought us the porn flicks of the 70s.
Does that mean that there can be no rape if the person is
the same sex as the rapist? Or does it just mean that raping a trans-person is
legal?
The article does say that the ruling is being appealed to a
higher court and that they expect the ruling to be overturned, let’s hope so.
Rape involves vaginal penetration, therefore a pre-op transsexual cannot be raped. It isn't discrimination... it is simply the definition of rape.
ReplyDeleteA pre-op can however be a victim of sodomy, deviate sexual conduct, assault, or some other similar crime... and the assailant in this particular case was convicted of assault.
Angel,
ReplyDeleteYour definition of rape is out dated.
"Rape is the use of force or threat of force, and that involved sexual penetration of the victim’s vagina, mouth, or rectum.”
In Connecticut...
According to the Connecticut State Penal Code, Section 53a, a person is guilty of first degree sexual assault when he or she:
• “Compels another person to engage in sexual intercourse by the use of force against such other person or a third person, or by the threat of use of force against such other person or against a third person which reasonably causes such person to fear physical injury to such person or a third person.”
• “Engages in sexual intercourse with another person and such other person is under thirteen years of age and the actor is more than two years older than such person.”
• “Engages in sexual intercourse with another person and such other person is mentally incapacitated to the extent that such other person is unable to consent to such sexual intercourse.”
Ok, granted my understanding of the definition of rape may be outdated. It is what my husband - a retired police officer - told me.
ReplyDeleteStill, there is one small but crucial detail... even by your definition of rape, the victim was not actually raped, only assaulted.