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?

You're going to have to explain whether you mean women, or men with penises who call themselves women Screwinthetuna, because people use different definitions as this thread demonstrates

YANBU. Tiptoeing around male rapists so we don't accidentally 'misgender' them and hurt their feelings is outrageous. And a massive fuck you to their victims.

That's before you even begin to look at how it screws up crime statistics and misrepresents the extent of male violence. The only positive is I'm seeing a backlash online against the reporting of Craig 'Lisa' Hauxwell and Gavin 'Katie' Brannen as women. People aren't having it.

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

My point was

(a) he has been convicted (at the time of the original appeals merely charged) with the offence of rape
(b) therefore he ha penis, as the legal definition of rape (as distinct from assault by penetration, sexual assault, etc) requires the use of a penis
(c) as he has a penis he should be described as a man.

If your argument is that the legal definition of rape should be something other than "penetrate with a penis", that's a valid argument, but it wasn't my point - which was that he unequivocally, as proven by a court of law, has a penis and is therefore a man, and not a woman dressing up as one, as the police absurdly said.

Why, surely rape and sexual assault are the same thing? If it's about penetration, couldn't a woman penetrating a man in the anus without his consent be classed as rape?
Not starting an argument, just concerned why women can never be 'rapists' when they can commit foul acts of 'rape.'

a woman SOMETIMES dressing up as a man, was the police's description. No he's a man who sometimes dresses up as a transwoman.

I do agree with what you said, that he should have been described as a man. I'm guessing the person who wrote the article was struggling with defining the person and guessed calling a cross dresser 'she' was the pc thing to do.

Tuna, "rape" in law is the penetration of the mouth, anus or vagina with a penis.

If a woman penetrates a man's anus with a dildo, say, that would be "assault by penetration".

This carries the same maximum sentence as rape - 19 years. It is purely a technical thing - someone convicted of rape is, by definition, having a penis, a man.

Sexual Assault by Penetration covers penetration with anything other than a penis.

A change in the law occurred in 2003 where penetration of the vagina, anus or mouth using a penis constituted rape. Previously it was only penetration of the vagina.

Right ok. Does it have the same classification in the US, I wonder?

I agree - why is this biologically male person being described as a female sex offender? Particularly when police information tells us that he could be dressed as either male or female.

Rape in the United States is defined by the Department of Justice as "Penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim." While definitions and terminology of rape vary by jurisdiction in the United States, the FBI revised its definition to eliminate a requirement that the crime involve an element of force.

It is a copy and paste from Wiki screw

YANBU. This is nothing short of disgusting. I never thought I'd see anything like this happen in a supposedly developed country, its like living in North Korea.

You do have to wonder about the impact on the victim.

These offences occurred in 2001 & 2002. So there is a good chance the victim just came forward after years of suffering.

And then the police lose him for two years and send out idiotic press releases describing him as a 'woman who sometimes dresses up as a man'.

What an insult.

why the hell didn't the police describe him the rapidest as a trans women or man that dresses up as a woman???

He's a woman who sometimes dresses as a man, rather than a man who sometimes dresses as a woman? I despair.

Women CANNOT rape. It's a physical and legal impossibility. Therefore - conclusively - the offender was a male.
not true definition of rape 'unlawful sexual intercourse or any other sexual penetration of the vagina, anus, or mouth of another person, with or without force, by a sex organ, other body part, or foreign object, without the consent of the victim.'

No, the legal definition of rape requires a penis.

You don't need a penis to rape.

There was a sickening case here recently where a policeman raped a male detainee using his truncheon.

Unless that terminology was incorrect, rape can thus be male on male, male on female, female on female, female on male.

Yellow just said it... "or foreign object"

Not always penis

No shock that's serious sexual assault not rape according to British law. However I thought that the crime you are referring to took place in France, no?

perhaps a better description would have been 'a person who sometimes wears trousers and sometimes wears a skirt or dress'

or in short 'a person'.

Shockthemonkey

If it was in the U.K., he didn't rape the detainee. He sexually assaulted him by penetration.

Where was that shockthemonkey?

My understanding is that rape requires a penis in the UK, although as Scots law can be significantly different to E&W law then there may be slightly varieties.

Sorry yes, that was France

But according to yellow's definition, if you can rape using a foreign object then a woman can, in theory, rape another woman?

Anyway, point taken because I know legal definitions vary between France and UK.

Can anyone find the report of the conviction and/or sentencing?

This report

webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:kxaQ_acHsewJ:www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/profiles/vz0g2KwjxYsG1dDFGQGlWx/lisa-hauxwell+&cd=4&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk

implies he was found last year after the first ridiculous appeal, tried and convicted, and then disappeared again before sentencing.

But it's not 100% clear.

Was he convicted as a woman or a man?????