Rape is an act of violence. It is a violation of consent, not an act of sex. Nowhere in the account that you cite of the murder of Gwen Araujo does it mention that her murderers said “no” to having sex with her. I’ll concede that they probably did have sex, though that point was only alleged in the article and by the authorities. Though it surprises me that two different people could have sex with someone and NOT notice genital irregularities. One maybe, but two?

To say that if someone “tricked” someone into having sex by deceptive means is rape, then, by your standards, every man who fails to mention that he is married, or woman for that matter, is a rapist. Evey person who misrepresents themselves by pretending to be other than what they are, just to get someone in the sack, is a rapist. How’s your track record, Mr. Calef?

You said: “If a woman is raped and kills her assailant, would she be charged with murder? No.”

In that case, you would not consider it murder if someone found out that the person that they had sex with was married and killed him/her. I don’t think that would hold up in court, Mr Calef. But the key word in you statement is “assailant.” Gwen was not an assailant.

But this is not about rape, it is about hate. They found out that they were attracted to what they considered to be a man pretending to be a woman. This is what brought about the murder. I can imagine what they felt. They were attracted to a man. They had sex with a man. But they were not gay! Neither of them. They felt anger and hatred at the idea that they had done something queer. They blamed Gwen. They took that anger and hatred of themselves out on her.

But Gwen was not a man and she was not gay. She was transgendered. She felt, thought and behaved like the teenage girl that she was. She just got in over her head. That is no reason to be murdered.

Agatha Chamberlain

University of New Mexico