
I agree with you, but I think it’s important to understand when such laws might be relevant, especially when it comes to unconscious/under the influence. I think that the law needs to be a bit over protective of the passive person, it just needs to be very clear that the law is to be upheld by it’s intent and not by it’s literal definition.
For example maybe a couple X and Y has an agreement on sleep sex, but X decides to abuse it. let’s say they had a fight and person X invited Y to have sex, but Y declined, so person X waits for Y to fall asleep, and then has sex with them. If a week ago they agreed on sex while sleeping, it is still obvious that X abused their verbal agreement to rape Y. So if the law doesn’t protect against that situation it is a problem.
Like a lot of laws, the important thing is to follow the intent and not the written definition, but corruption usually finds loopholes.
Being a chaser, as far as I understand, is objectifying. Treating a trans woman as a womans body with a penis and not a woman who happens to have a penis. It’s about caring more about their genitals and body than them being a person.
Just like in the world of hooking up, the line between objectifying and just being direct about the reason you are there can be confusing.
If you respect trans women as women and not as a body type then I think you are okay. If you think of trans women as only applicable for sex, then you are not okay.