Zach Calef, in his column “Double standard in reactions to rape,” argues that in cases where crossdressers do not disclose their sex before engaging in intercourse and are then murdered by their partners, these are crimes of passion in response to a sort of rape.

But if a murder victim dressed and acted in a way that led an assailant to assume that she or he was of another sex, even if the deceit was intentional, that doesn’t later make intercourse nonconsensual. The essence of rape is the lack of consent, not the presence of trickery.

One cannot retract their consent because their partner wasn’t what they expected.

Feeling tricked like this might make one go “temporarily insane” and seek revenge. But is having been tricked as acceptable a reason for leniency as rape is?

Revenge killing in rape cases is driven by the killer’s anger at having been made powerless both wrongfully and by force. Revenge killing in Calef’s cases are driven by the killer’s regret for having acted contrary to his or her own accepted gender role.

Laws that govern the conditions for reduced sentences have implications outside the courtroom; they embody society’s beliefs. We are willing to say that we empathize with victims of rape. Do we empathize with those who would rather kill a legally innocent person in retaliation for tricking them rather than take responsibility for having made a mistake? Legislating the blame of the victim in such cases would not only sanction hate crimes, but would constitute government enforcement of gender norms.

It is unfortunate that some people misrepresent themselves to get others into bed. Moreover, there are more deadly things out there than accidentally sleeping with a crossdresser. For our own safety, we should take responsibility for knowing the people we sleep with and question our assumptions.

Kohne Gitchel

Senior

Psychology and Russian Studies