"Women can rape too"

It always feels disingenuous to me when people switch between the casual and legal definitions of rape. Stick with one or the other.

What do female rapists have to do with allowing someone with a penis into a womens prison?
I dont think he is genuinely interested in your opinion or any statistics, he sounds like he just wants a row. 'But women do it too' is the classic MRA comeback and in most contexts its meaningless.

I believe that there are some states in the US where legally a woman can rape a man (I think it's to do with inserting objects and body parts into orifices, rather than forced PIV sex)

One of my male friends was raped, and the papers agreed not to cover the case because it was almost impossible to do so in a way that would have protected his anonymity (very particular set of circumstances). Obviously that was the right thing to do for the victim but it does mean that there is only the court record of the trial in the public domain, which not many of us go and read unless we are looking for something in particular.

... sorry, that was nonsense, of course pregnancy by prison rape is still perfectly preventable by separating the sexes.

It is just not being done anymore.

OP, have you asked this person what he thinks why there are women's prisons and men's prisons? Does he think this was invented just for fun, or what? It massively disadvantages women, as they are imprisoned far away from their hometowns and their relatives can't visit as often because of this, there's not as many work opportunities in women's prisons, etc.
And yet, this is the system we have had for decades, it has worked, and it is considered good by everyone except transwacktivists.

(A transwacktivist might be misogynist enough to just not care, but many try to pretend that transwomen are totes different from other males and that no rapist ever would identify into a women's prison)

Also ask why he thinks women should be subject not only to prison rape (which cannot always be prevented) but also to pregnancy by rape in prisons, which used to be perfectly preventable by separating the sexes.

He can pull lies out of his ass about how much more men rape, but he won't be able to deny that only the bepenised half of the population can impregnate someone, regardless of gender identity.

When I said "widely reported" I meant there are a lot of stories reported in the news, not "most rapes are reported". I'd have said that if I meant it. Everyone (on this board) knows they are under-reported.
I feel it's derailing OPs topic now though.

Practically speaking, any of the boyfriends I've had could have held me down and raped me with very little effort on their part (luckily only one did), and a reasonable chance of success unless I got a lucky kick/hit in.

I couldn't have 'enveloped' them, or shoved anything into an orifice without them being asleep/very, very drunk first, and even then, the moment they'd felt it they would have no problem stopping me.

Any average man claiming that he couldn't stop the average woman physically is talking rubbish. I do understand that women could instead gain mental control through abuse or blackmail, but I don't think that is any more common among women than men.

You would be far more likely to hear about a female perpetrator of sexual violence in the news than a male one because they're so rare. There are male perpetrators of sexual violence constantly attacking but barely reported on. In March, a man followed a 15 year old girl entirely unknown to him in her school uniform off a bus, dragged her into bushes and sexually assaulted her in the middle of the afternoon in Twickenham, but it wasn't reported anywhere beyond their local news site.

Far more action that is.

I said they didn't receive much reporting in the national press. Local newspapers tend to report these things and you can sometimes find them buried in a brief article on the BBC News site.

By widely reported I mean, well, I could open any local or national newspaper, or news website right now and find rape stories immediately probably.

Local yes because this tends to be the only place rapes are reported. National newspapers tend not to cover them - I have read of so many horrendous cases just this year alone which most are completely unaware of. There also seems to be an acceptance this is a risk women face when the scale of sexual violence against women should warrant far more.

NoLove, how did you know about those cases if they weren't reported?

Although the vast majority of victims of rape are female, when the victims are male the attackers also are.

Sorry for the misunderstanding CeeBeeBee.

By widely reported I mean, well, I could open any local or national newspaper, or news website right now and find rape stories immediately probably. I agree many are never reported though, but people read about rapes of female every day, not so much rapes of males (I'm sure we'd hear about them if they happened).

Slightly off topic but I wouldn't say rape is reported widely. The vast majority of rapes, even committed by attackers entirely unknown to the victims, scarcely make any news. For example within a week in January there were two separate attacks by men who'd been previously convicted of rape (of unknown victims), deemed no longer a threat and let out by the parole board who then went on to do the same again. Despite these horrific crimes and the complete failure of the parole board to protect women against these violently misogynist men the reporting wasn't exactly widespread. Then there's the 17 year old boy recently charged with rape and attempted murder on an unknown victim in Leicester, two men still at large who raped and sexually assaulted two women unknown to them who were trying to get home in Manchester and countless others. I suppose these barely get reported in part because they're not considered remarkable.

Going back to the OP, as has been said, the man was clearly trying to derail the conversation and avoid the issue of male violence against women and rape. It says a lot about him that his reaction to your concern for women's safety is to claim "women rape too" as if this is in any way comparable, and completely dismiss your concerns. It shows he's not bothered in the slightest about risks to women and girls.

I can't speak for Deydo, but present evidence for violent crime and all sexual crime (including rape) is massively skewed towards male perpetrators, so including serious sexual assault of types which could be carried out by women as well as men in the definition of rape (e.g. penetration with an object) presumably would shuffle around what categories within the general heading of "sexual offences" women were charged with, not alter the fact that 98% of people incarcerated for sexual offences are male.

Morally, I'd be in favour of this (though I know some people here point out that rape with a penis carries additional risks of STIs and pregnancy which penetration with an object does not, hence should remain a separate offence). On a practical level, it's damn useful to help hack your way through the transwhacktivist jungle of misinformation - if you see a headline which says "Woman rapes man after drunken night out", you know it's a transwoman. And now that police forces are recording statistics by gender rather than sex, over the next decade or so, rape (penis into orifice) stats are going to be the only numbers feminists will have at their disposal to point out that the sudden surge in sexual offences committed by "women" might have a reason other than that women born with vaginas have suddenly started committing more offences - that instead it might be an artefact of the statistics and the way people are being divided into "men" and "women" changing.

Plus, the 98% figure people keep quoting, I have no reason to believe it's not true.

Men. Not me.

CeeBeeBee, just based on current data. If men were concerned about being coerced into sex they didn't want right now, they'd be kicking up a fuss about it.
I'm sure it happens, but is not a large enough problem for them to demand legal change.
Whereas male rape of women is currently extremely common and widely reported.

Under English law rape has to involve a penis and a lack of consent. Otherwise it's sexual assault. This is why it is a nonsense when the BBC report a woman being accused of rape. There's a lie in there one way or another (unsuprisingly, it wasn't a woman, it was a MTT).

Either way, it is a predominantly male crime, something like 98% of violent sex offences are committed by men. Bit like violent crime in general. But hey, let's stick these violent male criminals in women's prisons, where a disproportionate number of the inmates will have suffered violence at the hands of me, just because they've stuck on a frock and said their name is now Mary.

What an interesting op. I actually think.ot is possible for a woman to rape a man or a woman. I dont think a penis has to beinvolved for it to be rape.

However i obviously concede that stats show men are more likely to. I also think its really fucking dangerous that trans women are being reported as women raping. They're not women, a woman can not rape a man with her penis.

Also these two videos.

Although, to be frank OP, if someone thinks that women saying no requires more justification than just that, they will not be the type who cares about violating women's boundaries in the first place.