(NOT a Hate Crime? - continues)

If the law declares that "rape" is a hate crime against women, then the law has the power to determine who is a woman. If a non-op MtF is "sexually assaulted", is it rape? How about an Intersexed person? An FtM? How about just a guy in a wig?

What if a woman "sexually assaults" another woman? Does that count as contributing to the oppression? Maybe she was acting under the influence of men. What if a pre or non-op MtF does? Is she suddenly back to being considered a "he" because of her parts?

All of a sudden, only men are capable of raping someone?

What was the definition of "man" again?

It just makes more sense to me, when dealing with issues involving law, to apply all things to all people. Maybe that's because I view myself as "Intersexed", maybe it's because I'm an idealist, and maybe it's just because I'm just plain wrong. I don't know. I do know though, that if all rapes were counted in the "Hate Crime" statistics, the statistics would be more off than they already are, and that if the law says that only women are raped, it may well be time for me to completely re-immerse myself in the Gender Minority community in order to work to get people/the government to wake the fuck up.


It's difficult for me to know where I stand on things a lot of the time. I do tend to be an idealist... and because I'm a bit different from the norm, I tend to think more about me and people like me than I do the majority.

"If a man rapes a man in prison, was his motive hatred of men as a class, or violence directed exclusively toward an individual?"

My opinion - Does it really matter? To me, it doesn't. Rape is rape, no matter what the motive.

"Members of the oppressed class have a higher probability of encountering violence than members of the dominant class. So how as a society do we compensate for that increased risk?"

Education, and laws which reinforce that education... but the laws should punish oppressors aside from their other violent crimes, not alter the definition of the crime itself. If it were illegal to violently oppress women, and it was determined that raping a woman was considered a form of oppression along with being a violent act if the victim is a woman, then that person could be charged with both rape and the oppression of women. (Good luck proving either one in a court of law, but that's a whole 'nother can of worms.)

"Murdering police officers generally warrants a more extreme penalty than murdering a civilian. What is the motivation for this law? Higher risk, higher penalty to balance that risk?"

I disagree with the penalty being more extreme for crimes committed against policemen. The fact that this is the case actually infuriates me.

"Does hate crime legislation over time facilitate a reversal in class oppression?"

I really don't know.