to think it is CRIMINAL to describe male rapists as women

[DickToPhone]

WTF?

www.telegraph.co.uk/women/life/truth-female-sex-offenders/

The article starts:

"Last night, Crimewatch covered the case of Lisa Hauxwell: a sex offender who could be living as a either man or a woman. On the run from a 14-year prison sentence, the offender has not been seen since being convicted of a string of rapes and sexual assaults committed between 2001-2002.

It has become, sadly, typical to hear of appeals for information on male sex offenders - yet when the perpetrator is female, it always seems much more shocking. "

But the perpetrator was not female! Women CANNOT rape. It's a physical and legal impossibility. Therefore - conclusively - the offender was a male.

To compound matters, they couldn't find this evil fucker for a year because the police were more bothered tying themselves up in knots humouring a RAPIST and his silly games then actually trying to catch a dangerous sex criminal.

Last year:

www.itv.com/news/calendar/update/2016-04-14/fresh-appeal-to-trace-missing-leeds-woman/

"Lisa Lacey, aged 47, who also uses the name Lisa Hauxwell and Lisa Hauxley, was last seen at about 9pm on Sunday, April 3, at her home in Holbeck."

"Detectives say she has also been known to use a male identity under the name Craig John Hauxwell. A photograph of Lisa as Craig has also been issued as part of the appeal to trace her."

They then further compounded

www.derbyshiretimes.co.uk/news/missing-woman-dressed-as-man-seen-in-dronfield-1-7873949

"POLICE hunting for a missing woman said she had been spotted in a Derbyshire shop - with the footage appearing to show her dressed as a man."

And:

www.facebook.com/westyorkshirepolice/posts/10154129801369920

They apparently managed to tell 'Gay Star News' that he was genetically male: www.gaystarnews.com/article/police-help-missing-trans-woman/

But not any mainstream source www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-36123487

AIBU to wonder why the police were sharing this apparent 'vulnerable woman goes missing' story when he was in fact a dangerous MALE rapist? And to think that he wasn't a very good example for a story about how shocking female sex offenders are? Man rapes people, police describe him as woman, today found & living as a man (although I'm not sure how you tell? are we saying that you are a woman based on dress, hair cut, what?) www.sunderlandecho.com/news/crime/convicted-sex-offender-who-lives-as-a-man-and-woman-is-traced-after-tv-appeal-1-8427467

Suddenly based, presumably, on his clothes & haircut, the police are happy to say "We understand Hauxwell had been living at the address in Newark for several months, without anyone knowing his true identity." WTF is this shit? How have they determined that his gender identity is now male? Did they ask him whether despite 'presenting as a man' (whatever the fuck that means) he in fact 'identifies as a woman'? Perhaps he was 'dressing as a man' because the stupid police were insisting he was a woman, so this made it easier to evade capture? Who are we to presume that his femaleness is negated by his 'presenting as a man'? If a woman presents as a man for subterfuge does that means she is no longer a woman?

This can't be true, we are constantly told that Transwomen are never violent and pose absolutely no threat at all.

Women can physically rape men? It's awful that the law does not allow for this description of rape. But physically, biologically, absolutely a woman can rape a man. Really surprised people don't know this

HE would have known why the police were looking for him, because he had already been charged with these sex crimes! HE wouldn't have had any doubt in his mind as to whether they were actually concerned about HIS welfare, because HE had already been charged (as man!!) with crimes for which he will serve a very long sentence! So why the actual FUCK did the police describe this dangerous man as a woman whose welfare they were worried about?

100% agree

This is fucking mental and I don't know what I can do about it

"As a woman cannot be charged with rape does this mean that the case will have to be thrown out as the alleged attacker is now saying they are female?"

There have been recent cases where TRanswomen have escaped prison sentences for serious sexual assault cases (sometimes of children) because the Judge felt that a men's prison was inappropriate and the women's prisons weren't set up to provide the therapy for that sexual abusers need to undertake. So being Trans has literally been a "get out of jail" card.

A woman CAN be charged with rape.

A person with a penis can be charged with rape if they penetrate another person without consent.

The law currently appears to be allowing people with penises to call themselves women.

Unicorn rape inovles a penis. Women do not have penises. Therefore a women cannot rape. They can sexually assualt but not rape.

(also a woman - an actual woman- can be convicted of rape if she incited another to commit the rape)

Unicorn, under UK law, rape always involves the perpetrator using a penis to penetrate the victim.

Biologically female people cannot do this.

"oh for christ's sake leave it alone."

No thanks, we rather speak out, especially on a day like today. I am really getting sick and tired of bossy and misogynist trans activism. OP of course YANBU. It's a disgrace. I hope 'Transpeak' is reached on a population wide level soon.

It seems like a mass deception of the public.

How odd! Why do it?

Being specific, the charge of rape in the UK requires the use of a penis. So technically a transwomen with a GRC who is legally defined as a woman can still be charged and convicted of rape if they still have a penis (and use it to rape obviously)

A woman who rapes someone with something other than a penis can only ever be convicted of sexual assault with a foreign object however that holds the same penalties as rape so the charge is equivalent.

Only one natal woman has been convicted of rape in the UK and that was under the joint enterprise law.

Wow I took so long to write that, everyone else got in there first!

How odd! Why do it?

In case of the police, I assume they are confused about how much truth they are allowed under the batshit new legislation.

The TRAs and MRAs have a very clear agenda to invisible male violence and destroy all spaces where women were safe-ish as males had no, or only limited access.

Why female politicians go along with this, I do not know; internalized misogyny, I would assume.

Dodo - I'm interested in the woman you reference, do you have a link? I am certain that more than one woman in national statistics has been convicted of rape because I've seen the figures, but the only way to establish who they are is to trawl the web.

I was referencing this account Japabsharted from 2001 where a woman was convicted in relation to a gang rape.

When joint enterprise was questioned recently there was someone on Radio 4 talking about how the law worked and said that there had been one case where a woman had been convicted of rape due to it.

I may have misinterpreted what they were saying, but I've never found anything other than that one case, although if the defendants were under 18 (which is apparently more likely in joint enterprise cases) then it is possible that the case was never publicised.

Ugh. I hate this.

Actually, completely ignore me - the article I linked states other women have been convicted so they must just have not been publicised cases.

calling a TransWomen "female" displays outstanding ignorance along the lines of thinking dinosaurs and people co-existed.

And yes all the rest is outrageous and stupid too.

"Oh Emperor your clothes are so glorious" etc

Women can be convicted of rape based on the Accessories and Abettors Act 1861. In other words by acting as an accomplice to the principal (who must still be a man), they are also guilty of the same offence.

To be specific, unless someone is penetrated by a penis, no rape can be committed - the offence requires a penis.

This is the same thing as the Claire Marsh case, though for whatever reason they have not gone for the 'woman convicted of rape', as in that case but for the more specific/accurate 'woman convicted of aiding & abetting rape''.

It's possibly a philosophical thing, as 'aiding and abetting' is not a separate offence, although the sentencing would be less.

sorry here: www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lancashire-14381083

Two more female 'aiding and abetting' rape convictions here www.express.co.uk/news/uk/535083/Woman-who-ordered-brother-to-carry-out-revenge-rape-jailed

The essential point in all of these cases is a man or men doing the actual raping.

Disregarding the article, I'm more concerned that you think women can't be rapists. Women CAN rape and DO rape

Screw you need a penis to rape. Winen do not have penises so cannot rape.
Women can sexually assult but not rape as a penis is the required thing.

*women