Transgender rapist - with anatomy of a man- jailed for 15 years - local newspaper grapples with how to report news when words have lost their meaning

This person is a rapist, they should not be housed with female prisoners for very obvious reasons. If a TW prisoner is at risk by being housed in a male correctional facility, then they need to sort out some third spaces. So sick of seeing women put at risk because some male-bodied people are dangerous to other male-bodied people.

Male padophiles and narks are at risk from other male prisoners in male prisons. Those risks are dealt with by addressing the issue within the prison, not by putting the at risk male prisoner into the female prison and dumping the problem onto them.

But as mentioned earlier in the thread, it could mean that this is not the first rape this individual has committed.

The Metro is a ridiculous paper.

The page title (the "metadata", not the headline) still has not changed and continues to read:

Trans woman jailed for 15 years for raping another woman

It is the name of the tab in your web browser, and thus appears AS IF it is the headline if the story is linked to from social media posts.

Call me a conspiracy theorist, but I reckon woke guys in IT (not the reporter) did that quite deliberately.

there was an article on BBC news this morning about the stigma of victims of female sexual abusers, and the low rates of prosecution etc, and my immediate thought when they gave the statistics of its prevalence was 'how many of those recorded crimes were actually committed by women?'. It might well be that it is all of them; I have no idea, and no evidence to suspect that they weren't. But the fact that it even came up in my mind as a question shows that the confusing language around it all and the confusing way that crimes are reported means that people don't always then trust what they read, which is a shame. If the responses by victims to female or male abuse might need different treatment/therapy, and/or if the causes of female or male abuse might need different policies to prevent the abuse, then keeping the statistics straightforward and clear would surely be a good thing to help those who need to provide those services and policies.

This person is a rapist, they should not be housed with female prisoners for very obvious reasons. If a TW prisoner is at risk by being housed in a male correctional facility, then they need to sort out some third spaces. So sick of seeing women put at risk because some male-bodied people are dangerous to other male-bodied people.

Please tell me he won’t go to women’s prison?

Though the unthinkable keeps never happening. Fewer and fewer are telling Kassandra to shut up any more.

So angry about this.

FFS.

I think that's covered by a general understanding that there's so much "archaic" law on the statute books that for "he" read "he/she" throughout! (Of course, this is probably the one law on the statute books where "he" really does mean "he" and not "he/she" but...) Again, I don't think a defence lawyer would manage to pull that one off either.

*(1)A person (A) commits an offence if—

(a)he intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person (B) with his penis,*

The Act refers to a 'person', but uses the pronouns 'he' and 'his'.

If the court considers the defendant's choice of gender so true and binding that they compel everyone to refer to the defendant as she and her, then surely they must be saying "she penetrated X with her penis". Which is not what the Act describes as rape.

Oh, just seen Cara's update, that clears it up.

How long until the defence that the male accused of rape cannot have committed it because "she is a woman"?

I've wondered if it's possibly creating a loophole too if the rapist later acknowledges they are in fact male but were convicted as a woman. If it's possible they could get out because of 'technicalities'?

I'd love to have faith that this is impossible and everything is solid so they couldn't, but then I thought that rapists being housed in women's prison was impossible too :(

How long until the defence that the male accused of rape cannot have committed it because "she is a woman"?

See the extract from the 2003 Act I quoted above. Unlike the 1956 Act (which talks about a man commiting rape), the 2003 Act uses the word "person" instead. So it doesn't matter how the person possessing the penis identifies, but it does matter that he used a penis.

So no, that defence wouldn't fly.

It puts us out of step with pretty much all other countries (though the offence of "assault by penetration" which can be carried out by either sex carries the same sentencing guidelines), but it is damned useful because if you see someone found guilty of rape you can be damned sure (barring vanishingly rare instances of "common purpose" convictions) that the perpetrator had a penis.

It may become the only unambiguous way of disentangling the stats we have left, as more and more sex crimes get attributed to "women."

There is no ambiguity here - the fact that he was convicted of rape rather than sexual assault by penetration makes this crystal clear.

It also makes it crystal clear that the judicial system considers him to be a man. So why did they try him as a woman? How long until the defence that the male accused of rape cannot have committed it because "she is a woman"?

I am absolutely seething for this poor woman. How fucking DARE they tell her she has been raped by another woman? This is absolutely outrageous. I wish her peace and healing and hope she has very good support. It’s absolutely sickening that she has to deal with officialdom gaslighting her about her rapist, after all she has been through.

1956 Act now superceded by Sexual Offences Act 2003, but the relevant part is this:

(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.

Source: www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/section/1

So this man (NB note to our watchers - a number of years ago I asked about convicted rapists, and Justine herself said it was okay to correctly sex convicted rapists) penetrated a woman with his penis.

There is no ambiguity here - the fact that he was convicted of rape rather than sexual assault by penetration makes this crystal clear.

"Trans woman jailed for 15 years for raping another woman" implies that that he had previously raped at least one other woman.

I thought one newspaper did quite well with it when I saw it this morning; they carefully avoided any pronouns and managed to make it clear that it was a transwoman who had not had any surgery

www.cambridgeindependent.co.uk/news/cambridgeshire-rapist-jailed-for-15-years-after-attack-that-left-victim-with-recurring-nightmares-9148559/

I wonder what the police who deal with cases like this think. I can only imagine (hope!) they are shaking their heads in despair.

I'm glad the Metro headline changed. That was particularly insensitive.

[quote WootMoggie]As if to cause utmost offence, the Metro version has the web page entitled: "Trans woman jailed for 15 years for raping another woman".

It doesn't show up on the page itself, but appears as the caption if you link to the metro story from (e.g.) twitter and is also embedded in the URL:

metro.co.uk/2021/01/18/trans-woman-jailed-for-15-years-for-raping-another-woman-13921362/[/quote]
Weird, Woot.

Disgusting page title. But I was surprised and very heartened to read the comments. Seems that most people are not on board with calling this rapist a woman.