Correction from The Times

Personally, I think this is good. Because rape in English law has to be with a penis, and because women found guilty of rape as joint enterprise are so rare that when they are convicted it's all over the media, we can be pretty certain that nearly every one of these "women" found guilty of rape are in fact trans-identifying men. Given the crap conviction rape for rape and the small percentage of the population identifying as trans, I think the numbers are pretty shocking. I know there are other figures showing that the percentage of trans-identifying men in prison for sexual offences is higher than that for men.

"Now we are being accused of saying that these women are trans women and therefore demonising the trans Community?"

Like most of us here, I'm pretty comfortable with demonising rapists.

Also, GC feminists have been pointing out for a decade that self-ID is stupid and that "I am who I say I am am" and "Acceptance without exception" allow any nasty piece of work to say he's trans.

But those are the TRA slogans, and therefore they need to own these rapists, because according to them there's no such thing as a man who claims to be trans but isn't. I really want to push this right back at them.

Does anyone know how to find out more about these cases? I was talking to lawyers on Twitter today who said that the info about convictions isn't in the public domain, and a lot of FOI requests have been fobbed off.

This article www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/uk/2001/mar/17/sarahhall1 suggests that it was extremely rare for women to be convicted of rape by joint enterprise in 2001 (and usually if involved in a sex crime (still rare) they would be convicted of aiding and abetting.

The statistics would be a lot clearer if they recorded biological sex. The joint enterprise laws are also problematic. Every single rape has involved a penis

You may also be aware the Times also recently printed a total retraction of their story that certain NHS Trusts were seekingg to ban the use of the words "breastfeeding" and "mother". The claims were simply untrue, and they retracted the story completely.

Interesting that you would bring this point up, @blueberrycheezecake. The Scottish Government, after lobbying from Stonewall, have removed the word mother from their maternity policy.

From an article in the Times -

'Documents released under freedom of information (FoI) legislation confirm that the charity wrote to the Scottish government last year encouraging them to adopt terms featured in their inclusive policy toolkit. The word mother now no longer appears on documents outlining maternity leave.'

That's not a fabrication. Or a lie. Or 'warping reality'. It's happening.

[quote rabbitwoman]dontknowwhattpputhere

She does explain it:

twitter.com/BluskyeAllison/status/1479502438361096195?t=aYH8n5EGt-W7JHGvJ_YgvQ&s=19[/quote]
She's wrong though. The ONS data is based on CPS data and refers to "rape-flagged offences".

www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/datasets/sexualoffendingcrownprosecutionserviceappendixtables

So the dataset Josh posts and the data set showing 436 women prosecuted are the same dataset using the same methods.

The MOJ data which Allison is presenting (somewhat dishonestly because that's data that only covers those prosecuted in the Magistrates Court and ignore those prosecuted in Crown Court) is those specifically charged with rape. Many rape flagged offences will not ultimately result in a charge of rape.

A rape flaged offence means a charge of rape may have been considered, bit may not be the charge pursued. Other offences can always be rape flagged:

The CPS monitoring of cases involving offences of rape involves the application of a rape ‘flag’ to applicable cases that are recorded on the CPS’ electronic Case Management System (CMS). The CPS definition of rape covers any case where the following offences were considered pre-charge or were subsequently charged:

Rape: Section 1 of the Sexual Offences Act 1956
Sexual intercourse with a girl under the age of 13: Section 5 of the Sexual Offences Act 1956
Rape: Section 1 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003
Rape of a child under 13: Section 5 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003
Sexual activity with a person with a mental disorder impeding choice: Section 30(3) of the Sexual Offences Act 2003
An attempt to commit any of the above offences under the Criminal Attempts Act 1981
Incitement or conspiracy to commit any of the above offences.

questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-questions/detail/2017-09-04/8428

@BlueberryCheezecake no one is saying "oh, our mistake- these women rapists were in fact all biologically female". All they're saying is that we can't be certain how many were female and how many were male.

Surely people with concerns from any side of this debate would want this data recorded accurately, so that it can be discussed meaningfully?

Look at the MoJ data here:

www.gov.uk/government/statistics/criminal-justice-system-statistics-quarterly-december-2020

assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/987724/crown-court-2020.xlsx

Filter it by “sex” to ensure only “female” convictions are shown. Select child sex offences: 19D, 19F, 20B.1, 20B.2, 21.1, 21.2, 21.3, 23.1, 23.2, 23.3, 23.4, 23.5, 23.6.

Watch the year 2018 the rows: "total for trial", "found guilty", and "sentenced"

Add in a crime type that can only be committed by males: 19E: rape of a female child under 13 by a male, you will see that the numbers change.

The rows: "total for trial", "found guilty", and "sentenced" for “females” in 2018 all increase by one. The same happens for the year 2020

The same thing happens for other years. Looks like 2010 is the only year with no change. 2011, 2013, 2014 increases by 1 ("for trial"), 2012, 2015, 2016 all increase by 2 ("for trial").

There is meant to be an assurance mechanism as per p9 here:

"An offence coded 19/16 (“Rape of a female child under 13 by a male” under the Sexual Offences Act 2003) is reporting the sex of the offender as female. This implies that either the offence code is incorrect and needs updating, or the gender has been entered inaccurately. In this case the original court record will be looked up and the statistical record amended"

assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/987319/criminal-justice-statistics-guide-december-2020.pdf

If that happens with that crime type, then how do we know the data is correct? We don't.

You may also be aware the Times also recently printed a total retraction of their story that certain NHS Trusts were seekingg to ban the use of the words "breastfeeding" and "mother". The claims were simply untrue, and they retracted the story completely.

If anyone here is genuinely a critical thinker, perhaps pause to think what else you might have read in the press about trans people could have been lies. If you're reading an article and find yourself thinking "This is absurd! It can't be true!", instead of getting mad at the transes for "warping reality" maybe consider that news media has been warping reality to feed their readers' pet biases for years.

Journalistic integrity out of the window. Female has a definition. And no where does it include anyone who is male or male bodied or has an xy chromosome.

Words have meanings and they need to be used correctly.

I’ve said this time and time again as someone not a native English speaker. It’s absolutely paramount that the correct words are used when we speak about women.

This is utter nonsense.

And we all know that 99% of sexual offenders are men. You can throw a dress on it, paint it up.. but you’re not going to fool me and make me think 436 women raped anyone In a year.

I will know it’s men even before I read the stats! Because history has shown who the majority of rapists are.

But you have to admire them for trying this bullshit!

Time to double down ladies. The mra/tra clan is starting off 2022 spewing nonsense.

Females are adult human women… biological women. Not someone who feels like a woman, not someone who put a dress on that day. Not someone who wore lipstick and said they were a woman. So none of the male bodied offenders were female.

Language matters.

[quote rabbitwoman]Oh, actually, phew!! Here is the wonderful Allison bailey who will explain it in a few tweets, @mishyjdi

twitter.com/BluskyeAllison/status/1479420235706945539?t=V8OSSDsxuK4RcyeQJOuCww&s=19[/quote]
On that Twitter thread someone references this source: www.cps.gov.uk/sites/default/files/documents/publications/CPS_VAW_report_2009.pdf
On page 40 it shows the number of women prosecuted for rape as 35 in 2006-7, 38 in 07-08, and 43 in 08-09. This seems much higher than the ones in Alison's source, which (for rape of a female) shows the number of females prosecuted as 5 in 2006, 12 in 2007, 4 in 2008 and 10 in 2009. There is also 1 prosecution for rape of a male in those years. Her source is a gov. uk link www.gov.uk/government/statistics/an-overview-of-sexual-offending-in-england-and-wales and you can see the relevant table by downloading the Sexual offending overview tables and extracting chapter 4 in Excel (table 4.3). Does anyone know why there is a difference in the figures? Does the CPS link maybe cover all of the UK, not just England and Wales?

Two Times corrections in one day. Wonders never cease.

We know what’s happening here.

We do need to get #notourcrimes more traction in the media so I’m going to write to the Times and suggest they do just this. Usually newspapers hate printing corrections so perhaps they would relish the chance to interrogate this.

It’s vital we have clear stats on how many TW are sexually offending or how many sexual offenders are adopting a trans identity to access women’s prisons. Even though it’s obvious what is going on, this lack of clarity is used by TRAs to muddy the waters (hence the gloating).

Despicable.

Off to investigate who is on this and how I can help/donate.

Didn't we look at the 6 year period prior to 2012 (i.e . before they started to record men as women) and there was like a single case (or a very low number). So the rise to 436 women committing this crime in the following 6 year period is very suspicious.....

They looked at women serving long or indeterminate sentences. 75 percent murder/manslaughter convictions. Half of the women were not present at the crime and 9/10 had not committed any violence themselves.

There are issues and an ongoing campaign regarding convictions using joint enterprise. The government is not recording convictions as joint enterprise (they should be) so freedom of information requests are being made.

So we don't know how many females are being convicted of rape under joint enterprise. However, I very much doubt it is very many.

Just lost post, apologies it is 16 of the 109 cases they reviewed.

Apologies of the 109 cases that they looked at, 16 were convicted since 2016.

They were specifically looking at women who has received long or indeterminate sentences. There is a problem that the government is not recording when someone is convicted under joint enterprise (they should be). Freedom of information requests are being made.