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.
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.
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.
Shout by nicky2910BlockedParentSpoilers2023-08-30T07:54:28Z
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.