6 women 'convicted of rape'

That had occurred to me too, user (mind you "user-allthenumbers" usernames are also often trolly ones too ).

She also appears not to have read the thread, otherwise she'd have already seen references to the penis-specific nature of the definition of rape in UK law. Hmm, maybe she'll come back to enlighten us, or maybe it was just a drive-by zombie resurrection.

I don't really see any way a woman could physically rape a man, unless the man was asleep and happened to be erect and the woman just decides to go on top?

I know someone this probably happened to. They had been occasional casual sex partners but on this evening he had turned her down as he'd decided there were problems with the whole relationship, and then later after he was drunk he passed out, and woke up and found they were having sex. It's possible he changed his mind and agreed and didn't remember but it didn't seem all that likely.

traceyracer what part of 'his penis' as specified in English law do you not understand? In your scenario the woman would need to have a penis to commit rape.
You often post on this topic, I thought you'd have a better understanding of the law...

Am I the only one who finds it odd that Leebella's first post on MN is a zombie thread that they've resurrected?

What if a woman blackmails a man (who doesn't want sex) into having sex eg "have sex with me or else I will....". Would that be rape?

I don't really see any way a woman could physically rape a man, unless the man was asleep and happened to be erect and the woman just decides to go on top?

Note the law states his penis.

I wonder if they’ll change the law to state his/her penis?

Alessandra strictly speaking rape requires at least one of the perpetrators to have a penis. There are occasional very rare instances of "common purpose" where a woman (of the old-fashioned cunty variety) is convicted because she, for example, held the victim down while a man raped her. But these cases are very, very rare, and certainly 6 in one year... vanishingly unlikely. I suspect that at least 5 if not all 6 of those "women" had penises.

Also re. the three transmen mentioned by Leebella - in the UK they would have been convicted of sexual assault by penetration, not rape. Both offences are considered equally serious, and both carry the same sentencing guidelines, but in the UK rape is, as Alessandra correctly notes, penetration using a penis.

Also this section of the GRA 2004 is relevant:
Gender-specific offences
(1)Where (apart from this subsection) a relevant gender-specific offence could be committed or attempted only if the gender of a person to whom a full gender recognition certificate has been issued were not the acquired gender, the fact that the person’s gender has become the acquired gender does not prevent the offence being committed or attempted.
(2)An offence is a “relevant gender-specific offence” if—
(a)either or both of the conditions in subsection (3) are satisfied, and
(b)the commission of the offence involves the accused engaging in sexual activity.
(3)The conditions are—
(a)that the offence may be committed only by a person of a particular gender, and
(b)that the offence may be committed only on, or in relation to, a person of a particular gender,and the references to a particular gender include a gender identified by reference to the gender of the other person involved.

Rape
(1)A person (A) commits an offence if—
(a)he intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person (B) with his penis,
(b)B does not consent to the penetration, and
(c)A does not reasonably believe that B consents.
(2)Whether a belief is reasonable is to be determined having regard to all the circumstances, including any steps A has taken to ascertain whether B consents.
(3)Sections 75 and 76 apply to an offence under this section.
(4)A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for life.

Rape requires a penis in English law, so they are all males. I could not care less what they think they are. They are males.

I think it would be an important step to have trans identifying individual’s crimes recorded as such and not lumped in with either male or female statistics.
It would give a much clearer picture of the offending rates.

There have been 3 rapes during that time carried out by trans men, women identifying as men, and they raped their female victims with dildos. The high offending of the trans community has made the female crime rate appear a lot worse than it actually is. I'm so glad I found this post as I just had someone say " well women rape men" yes I guess they do but they pretend or identify as men to do so.

You can be convicted of rape as a woman. As noted by previous cases such as Claire Marsh and Marie Black. In the absence of evidence that rapes committed by transwomen are being officially documented via the CPS and MOJ as committed by women; what is likely to have happened in these 6 rape convictions by women is that they facilitated or joined in the rape of their own children and they have not been publiscised in the media to protect those children.

Marie Black is a biological woman. Convicted of rape and conspiracy to rape among other charges.

It’s pretty obvious. A woman who has transitioned retains her penis and then rapes some poor person and get caught then convicted.

Devils I would be inclined to say that it would be. My personal opinion.

However on this thread that's a massive derail, because the reason we're separating rape from other sexual offences in the discussion on this thread is that in virtue of its legal definition in England and Wales, it's the one sort of sexual offence where we can be 99.9999% sure the perpetrator has a penis.

If you want to debate whether the legal definition of rape should be changed (and it's a perfectly legitimate question to ask, but not on this particular thread) feel free to start a new thread.

So let’s put the law aside for a moment, and talk principle.

If a woman were to force a man’s penis into her vagina, would that not be considered rape?

Does anyone think it's worth reporting the article to IPSO online for being misleading and prejudiced?

I know it's based on figures from the government (I haven't seen the raw data but I assume it's not possible to distinguish between TIMs and women) but under section 12 of the Editors' Code of Practice, journalists are only supposed to report details of someone's gender identity if it's relevant to the story. Not only is the gender identity of the rapists as female here not relevant, it's actually grossly misleading if their sex is not also mentioned since it implies that women committed rapes, which is impossible under law.

If the article means assault by penetration, it should be corrected for accuracy (which again, can be complained about via an online form on the IPSO website).

Section 12 of the code also prevents prejudice on the grounds of.gender identity or sex, I would assert that the sex of biological women is prejudiced by this article as the picture of the bio woman and the focus on her story, the vague description of her crime as 'an affair' and the focus on bio women having sex with underaged boys all implies that biological women were the perpetrators of the rapes.

Without pointing out that the rapists were 'females with penises' or explaining that rape can only be committed by someone with a penis, the Times is implying that people of one sex (bio female) are responsible for the the crimes committed by another (bio male), which looks like prejudicial reference to a person's sex (and therefore a breach of the rules) if you ask me.

The letter of the law refers to "his" penis.

The letter of the law is sexist: "he" almost always means "he or she" in law, unless it is specified otherwise

The letter of the law refers to "his" penis. Could a rapist TIM stand up in court and say, "I'm not a him, I'm a her, you've accepted that I'm officially a woman so you have to use my preferred pronouns, the law only refers to "his penis" not "his or her penis" so I cannot be guilty of rape according to the legal definition of the word rape".

Snibble: I agree. Many positives and it's not good.

"I'm not happy about this, like everyone else, but:
So we will incresingly see that men and women commit sex offences at at similar rates
Similar rates is just never going to happen.
Given that men commit sex offences on a much larger scale than women, it would take half of the men to identify as female to lead to similar rates.
Highly unlikely."

Less chance of being IDd by friends, family, employer (wrong name, wrong sex, so reports in local papers are less likely to result in identification)
Similar reasons for men who are serial atatckers - less chance of other victims coming forward
Women seen as getingt lighter sentences
Women's prison

So maybe it was hyperbloic - but - there are many positives for men to ID as women in these circs.

Note that assault-by-penetration is often confused with the explicit rape offence. A section 2 Sexual Offences Act 2003 charge was used by the CPS in the witchcraft allegation against Mark Pearson.

Assault by penetration (section 2)
The elements of assault by penetration are:

A person (A) intentionally penetrates the vagina or anus of another person (B) with a part of their body or anything else:
The penetration is sexual
(B) does not consent to the penetration, and
(A) does not reasonably believe that (B) consents.
The meaning of sexual, consent, reasonable belief and the evidential and conclusive presumptions all apply to this offence.

Key points
There has to be penetration of the vagina or anus but not the mouth.
Penetration is of any part of (A's) body (e.g. finger, tongue, toe) or by anything else (e.g. bottle).
Offence can be committed by either gender
This offence should be charged where there is insufficient evidence to charge rape, for example, if the victim is unsure if penetration was by a penis or something else.
Penalty
The offence is indictable only with maximum penalty of life imprisonment.

Code for Crown Prosecutors - considerations
This offence is in essence similar to rape and a prosecution is almost certainly required in the public interest.

(www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/rape-and-sexual-offences-chapter-2-sexual-offences-act-2003-principal-offences-and)

It would be useful to see which offence codes were used for the 'rape' convictions.

I'm not happy about this, like everyone else, but:
So we will incresingly see that men and women commit sex offences at at similar rates
Similar rates is just never going to happen.
Given that men commit sex offences on a much larger scale than women, it would take half of the men to identify as female to lead to similar rates.
Highly unlikely.