The manly man's blog Return of Kings argues both that a transsexual who sleeps with a person without disclosing their birth sex is guilty of rape by fraud, and that Yes Means Yes consent laws are evil and/or stupidly insane.
Interesting juxtaposition. Of course, it's unfortunate if you swive someone and then find out you'd've preferred not to've done so, e.g. swiving a transsexual when you'd rather not have, and it's also thoughtcrime/inquisition when an act's criminality is so sacrosanct that the mere accusation is sufficient to prove the case, e.g. the Junior Anti-Sex League's current affirmative consent witchhunt.
The men who produce the manly men stuff (like the women who produce the womanly women stuff) are just trying to get click revenue, but the people who actually read and agree with their drivel need to consider how any kind of "rape by fraud" doctrine is only a variation on "affirmative consent." Affirmative consent is an arbitrary, unprovable standard, which adopts the maxim "guilty until proven innocent," and guarantees to any partner ("any partner" in theory, although in actuality, the right to condemn by accusation alone will be reserved only to straight females or possibly to obvious male homosexual submissives) the right to prove someone committed a felony by making an accusation later on, creating thereby a presumption of guilt which is then legally impossible to counter.
"Rape by fraud" is just another variation on that theme. For example, if the manly man gets a trap blowjob, and is allowed to sue the oral recipient for not actually being a girl, how far do we take the allowance of fraud? Can you have someone jailed after sex for:
1) Not being as attractive as you thought they were?
2) Not making as much money as you thought they were?
3) Not being as young/old/intelligent/interesting as you thought they were?
4) Not really being old high school classmates with [insert name of famous actor or actress here]?
5) Not really being a men's rights advocate?
6) Not really being a feminist?
7) Not really being a good cook?
8) Not really being a skillful lover?
Et cetera. Any kind of rape by fraud doctrine, identically to affirmative consent, is a legal license to treat all sex as rape based on an ad-hoc revisualization of the sexual encounter. A man who sleeps with a transsexual in the heat of passion may, after ejaculation, find his arousal reduced, his shame increased, and decide to destroy someone's life. There is no gray area possible, for without constant security-verified surveillance of everyone, everywhere, for every second of the time, it would be impossible to prove that fraud had not occurred. Not coincidentally, affirmative consent works the same way, by permitting anyone to later decide affirmative consent wasn't given, and leave their partner with the impossible task of proving it was.
If you're already sensible enough to understand those principles, then take this post as an opportunity to note something far more important: namely, the ways in which the theoretically opposite sides of a false dichotomy--race realist, faux-traditionalist men's rights advocates v. theoretically hyper-politically-correct radical feminists--are, much like the Republicrat Party, kindred spirits on identical crusades. Women have a legitimate right to be concerned about rape, and men have a legitimate right to be concerned about rape (which is more formally called "presumptions of guilt under a totalitarian prison state"). In each case, the tyrannical solution to an overblown problem is the same. If men want women to accept that drunkenly inviting someone into their beds is going to result in a situation where ejaculation might be consummated despite indecipherably mumbled objections, then they also have to accept that imposing the same rigorous standards on their own judgment might leave them balls deep in some post-op's freshly-waxed ass.
Ergo unfortunately, if the manly men ever want to get rid of the outlandish State interference in social sexuality, they're going to have to accept that they might fuck a tranny now and then. The retroactive State protections they want are only available under the antilife rubric of comptrolling private sexuality. By the same token, the womanly women--who could as easily end up with ruined lives, felony charges, and jail time, once affirmative consent becomes widespread, and a vindictive boyfriend decides he was too drunk to have understood what happened last night--need to drop their affirmative consent invitation to spread Big Brother's duct tape across their vaginas. Big Brothers, after all, like to invade wombs just as much as they do bedrooms. Fear not, for "abortion rights" will never go away under this empire, but when Big Brother begins sending around government vans to forcibly seize female citizens' DNA for the growth of replacement organs for clones, womanly women might just find that this invasion of their bodies is equally, if not more, offensive. It will be a terribly poetic form of injustice when such things happen, given how eagerly feminists have placed female autonomy in the hands of police departments and courtrooms by asking armed cops and judges to retroactively guard their privates.
This interconnected agenda is being pushed by the pro-test-tube maniacs, so there's no stopping the message itself, anymore than we're going to stop advertising itself. Transsexuals are a popular scare Other for some men, while men are a popular scare Other for some women. Goering's Nuremberg quote serves well here. The doubleplusungood irony of embracing the idea of any kind of crimen exceptum is the expansion of the kangaroo court from Guantanamo, to Chicago, to any given traffic stop or set of genitals. For those who are merely emotionally-charged subscribers to this dreck, take this opportunity to see the similarity between two kinds of totalitarian con-artists, and learn how to withdraw your support from either avenue of insanity.