Question

Hello Rabbi,
I came across an old case of a woman who posed as a man in order to sleep with women. The wording of the law says that it is forbidden to impersonate a living or dead person, but the law makes no reference to someone who impersonates a fictional person. The court said that a broader interpretation of the wording of the law should be adopted: “A purposive interpretation of the law does not require that the impersonation be of a specific person; impersonating a fictional character is enough to establish the elements of the offense.”
Do you think this ruling is correct?
I thought to explain that one could apply here the halakhic rule of “things in his heart and in every person’s heart” with respect to the legislator—meaning that when he enacted a certain law, it is clear that he intended the law to apply to anything sufficiently similar to the language of the law, even if he did not explicitly mention it in the statute.
Best regards,