Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Original poster

Correction from The Times

36 replies

rabbitwoman · 06/01/2022 22:36

..... 436 women charged with rape in the UK from 2012 to 2018, as reported in the Times last month - I engaged quite a lot with TRAs on twitter at the time who were all adament that these MUST be women charged as accessory to rape etc rather than men claiming to be trans or trans women.

Today the times have printed this correction which I assume can only be as a result of being utterly inundated by complaints from TRAs, and a few have come cback to me to gloat....

...... It just goes to show how very unhelpful it is not recording or reporting the biological sex of these criminals is.

Correction from The Times
OP posts:
dolorsit · 06/01/2022 23:12

According to this report in 2020 16 women have been convicted under joint enterprise since 2016.

www.thejusticegap.com/half-of-women-convicted-under-joint-enterprise-not-even-present-a-scene/

Original poster
rabbitwoman · 06/01/2022 23:01

The damage is two fold because firstly, we are not seeing the harm allowing any man to identify as a woman just upon his say so is doing.

And secondly, allowing people to claim that women are being prosecuted for rape at a really alarming, unprecedented rate when they are not.

Why isn't a news outlet running a story on this!?

OP posts:
RufustheFloralmissingreindeer · 06/01/2022 22:52

It must be incredibly frustrating rabbit

The amendment doesn’t mean you were/are wrong in the slightest

Original poster
rabbitwoman · 06/01/2022 22:51

It's a very unhelpful amendment from a paper that has usually been great on this subject.

OP posts:
RufustheFloralmissingreindeer · 06/01/2022 22:50

How many female defendants were ‘male bodied’ ?

Who writes this stuff…makes no sense

SlipperyLizard · 06/01/2022 22:49

In 2001 the Guardian described a “handful” of women ever being convicted of rape - I very much doubt that that handful (ever found guilty) has somehow turned into 72+ per year over 6 years without the vast majority of them being “people with penises”.

Certainly these cases would be frequently reported due to the unique circumstances of a woman being convicted of rape.

www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/uk/2001/mar/17/sarahhall

OhHolyJesus · 06/01/2022 22:42

They really shouldn't be quoting stuff if they haven't got the right info.

"Not recorded" - well that's the story right there. Why not? Say Times readers.

EdinburghFeminist · 06/01/2022 22:41

*sex not sec!

EdinburghFeminist · 06/01/2022 22:41

I wonder if you can find a breakdown of this data by year. As the number of people identifying as trans has increased significantly in recent years you might be able to see a clue as to the actual sec split from that.

OhHolyJesus · 06/01/2022 22:40

The Times should have clarified further and specifically said "rape by joint enterprise" (when referring to a 'rape' women can be charged with). Pretty sure this has been discussed here and that is the legal term. If anyone can confirm...?

Shall we complain right back?

Original poster
rabbitwoman · 06/01/2022 22:38

I just don't believe any more than 1 or 2 of these women are biological women charged as accessory to rape. But how do we know that?

OP posts: