I see that you want to claim that some rapes aren't "really rape". In some countries marital rape is legal. Judges don't want to consider that a husband who rapes his wife is really raping her. Being legal doesn't mean it is not rape.

Take Dominic Pelicot. He drugged his wife. Since she was unconscious, she couldn't consent. It was clearly rape. But since he didn't hit her, legally he could claim there was "no violence". But we don't know it was a form of violence. Judges said there was violence, by the way.

You claim that taking 3 years "doesn't count" as vitiated consent. But if we are talking a 19 year old who claims to be 16 to have sex with a 15 year old, would that change? Probably. And if instead of 3 it were 5? 10?

So why do you say that "The deception must be related to the physical performance of the sexual act, rather than the broad circumstances surrounding it.'" ? Here you are deciding for the woman that the important thing is physical performance of the sexual act. Maybe because that is what is important for you. But you don't know what is important for the woman who has been deceived. For example, if the woman is looking for a long-term partner, then those years might mean that they are at different stages in life. Or that he would change stages early. You don't really know why it is important to her. You are projecting what is important for you and assuming it would be the same for her. But you really don't know.

What we do know is that the man lies because he knows that if he doesn't lie, he would be rejected. If it is of no consequence, why does he lie? Why can't he be honest and go for women who like him and his "physical performance" without lying? After all, if that was the important thing, he could just be honest about his age, right?

So maybe, ask yourself why are you comfortable with deception to get sex when it is men doing the deception.

After all, if impersonating another sex (you specifically say someone who claims to be a woman but is a man) is legally deception despite that maybe that man is perfectly able to provide a "physical performance" of the sexual act by doing oral and anal sex that doesn't feel that different than with a woman. In those specific acts, "physical performance " would be the same so if the sex was restricted to that, then should we don't count it? If the man is blindfolded and he only receives oral sex and penetrated him, performance would be the same and he finds out after the sex. He might have even enjoyed. But after finding, he feels bad. Is it rape? To me it is. According you, if "physical performance" is the same, is not. But you make an exception for lying about impersonating another sex. Not about impersonating someone younger.

At its core, both situations are the same. Someone lies to get sex that would be denied otherwise. What you want to defend is that some lies are "not important". But in doing so, you are imposing your values on others to get some lies and deception a pass. Sorry, but it is not important, you can say the truth, if you need to lie, it was important. As simple as that.