just to clarify for anyone planning to watch older episodes of svu—no character, at any point, states that a cisgender man automatically wants to rape a woman. no character, at any point, states that the reason they did not rape a woman was because they were transgender.
summarizing that scene, the dialogue and the writing behind it as anything but a defense lawyer antagonizing a witness on the stand and said witness disclosing their gender identity because of said antagonism is irresponsible, ignorant, and just plain ridiculous.
Honestly, what was Rollins' issue in this episode?
Could have done without the trans-twist, though. I mean defense revealed themselves already through questions like "Aren't you a red-blooded man" when they ask why he didn't want to sleep with a raped and beaten woman... sorry, I hope no red-blooded man would even consider doing that. Gender identity or sexual orientation doesn't even come into that equation.
Excellent performance by Marquise Vilson. What a speech by Jim Preston. But see, it shouldn't have to be that. A Speech. A person should just get to be who they are and have that respected.
Shout by Cyn.CBlockedParentSpoilers2018-04-17T06:02:37Z
When asked on the stand if the reason he didn't rape a woman was because he was gay, married or confused. Apparently the answer wasn't (what should be obvious) 'I'm not a rapist'. No, no, no. The answer was, 'I'm transgender'. What moron wrote that line? "Unlike most red blooded men he didn't" want to RAPE "a beautiful woman". My god.