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?

Yes, I see now -- in UK law, rape requires a penis

I have learnt something, however unsavoury

Women can and do rape men (I don't get which some people are saying its physically impossible?). Obviously its a lot less common than men raping women but it still happens. There have been threads on MN where men have admitted it has happened to them. When people use words they don't speak in legal definitions, they use common sense meanings and the rape of a man is just as horrific as the rape of a woman.

It seems a lot of people are hung up on on the legal definition but that is just a technicality, the law needs updating, plenty of other countries have done this.

Perhaps the case of Katie Brannen in South Shields is going to challenge the law but its clearly reported as being rape by a woman on a man. No mention of trans anywhere.

Katie Brannen is a trans woman, no?

If she's been charged with rape then it will be because she still has her penis and used it to penetrate someone without their consent.

Well if a rape requires penetration by a penis and it seems that a woman can have a penis then i guess a woman can be a rapist. Sounds mad of course but legally it's possibly sound.

Women can and do rape men (I don't get which some people are saying its physically impossible?).

You mean penetrate them with an object (not a penis) I imagine, and yes, that would be horrific.

I do believe that penis as weapon carries an extra level of horror given the uniquely dreadful extra risk of pregnancy this carries for women. But I think we can agree that there's little point grading levels of horror.

More useful though to reflect on the fact that 98% of sex offenders are male, and why that is.

Katie Brannen (formally known as Gavin) has a penis, which is a requirement for rape in UK law. The double speak of charging with a crime that can only be carried out by a male body part whilst reporting that they are a woman is bizarre. Because if they were an actual woman they couldn't be charged with rape. My head wants to explode.

Women can and do rape men (I don't get which some people are saying its physically impossible?)

Because the definition of rape in the UK is penetration with a penis. Women dont have them. I am sorry that the legal term of rape does not cover objects or women but there you have it.

Taking the legal meaning out of it this thread is about a man raping a man with his penis. Nothing at all to do with women!

I think until the stats of biological women rapiists start to match that of male rapists the legal term/meaning will stay as it is.

The legal definition of rape and how the term is used are two different things.

Rape (legal term) carries the risk of further truama due to std/i's and/or pregnancy. So legally it is a seperate term.

As I have said on another if these threads I have been raped by both men and women (as a child) and I would use the term rape for both because it is an emotive word that carries more serious connotations. That's my right to use the term to describe assaults by men and women (to a therapist or online) but I recognise that legally I wasn't raped by my mother, rather sexually assaulted.

Scots law is the same, or atleast it was when I studied it a decade ago (never worked in the field)

I don't think it's impossible for a rapist to be described as vulnerable though. I have worked in secure units for children who rape and sexually abuse others, all would be classed as vulnerable children coming from highly dysfunctional backgrounds, all who I worked with first hand had been sexually abused themselves, many had mental health diagnosis and several had iqs lower than 70.

I wouldn't have personally described them all as 'vulnerable' but several definately were. I'm not arguing that they were 'more' vulnerable than their victims, or that this perpetrator is vulnerable, but the reality is vulnerable rapist can be truth.

The point of this thread is not the rights and wrongs of UK law in defining rape the way it does (I can see both sides - in terms of psychological trauma, penetration with an object seems as bad, but on the other hand, only a penis carries the risk of STDs and pregnancy).

The point of this thread is that because both Hauxwell and Brannen have been convicted/are on trial for rape, we know they have penises - because if they hadn't used a penis to commit the offence in question, it wouldn't be rape according to UK law. So the press and the police press release are systematically and deliberately misleading the public, to the detriment of public safety (who, back when the original police call for help was issued, had the public looking for a woman, when in fact they should have been looking out for a highly dangerous man), and to the psychological detriment of their victims, who are being told their rapes didn't happen the way they experienced them.

OP, YA definitely NBU.

In the old days people would call 'living as a woman' wearing a disguise to evade the police.

'women can and do rape men'. Um, women make up less than 5% of the entire prison population, and most of them are serving time for non violent offences. Sometimes the exception that proves the rule is so statistically insignificant it doesn't really add much to the debate.

There were (last time I looked at the UK prison statistics) approximately 98 or 99 men doing time for sexual offences for every 1 or 2 women. The overwhelming majority of sexual offences are committed by men. And all rapes in the UK (by definition - whether or not you personally agree with that definition) are committed by people with penises.

In the old days people would call 'living as a woman' wearing a disguise to evade the police.

But in this case, I think he evaded the police by having been a transvestite before, and then dressing normally while on the run.

Would have been more sensible to describe him as rapist who might disguise as woman and/or wear a dress. (Some of those guys who claim that their penis is female really don't make enough of an effort that someone could describe it as disguise)

It doesn't really matter whether woman can legally rape or not in this instance, does it? That fucker is a man.

Please, if you think this is wrong, write to your MP about the Gender Identity (Protected Characteristics) Bill which is currently going through the House of Commons. Second reading is on 24 March

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/2865893-Gender-Identity-Protected-Characteristics-Bill-rescheduled-for-24-03-2017

This is insane. I don't understand how this whole gender identity thing has got this out of hand. You cannot choose your gender!

Here is a link to s 1 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. It clearly uses the male pronoun 'he' and clearly states that rape must be penetration with the penis.

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

As a pp said, women can be charged with aiding and abetting rape. However, that is a separate offence which is encouraging another person to do something. It is not rape.

Therefore, women cannot be guilty of rape.

As for labelling this sick man as a woman- I have no words. Has the world actually gone insane? People are too scared to say anything for fear of being labelled prejudiced. But it's wrong and dangerous. Rapists should be nowhere near a female prison.

Reminds me of a few months ago. A trans prisoner had committed suicide after being held on remand in a male prison due to being biologically male. Cue outpouring of 'u brave beautiful woman' and 'end the prejudice' and 'what a disgusting system' etc. Said 'brave beautiful woman' had brutally stabbed someone to death. It honestly makes me wonder if I am living in some crazy parallel universe.

The laws regarding rape usually only refer to the act of a penis penetrating another person without legal consent. It does not refer to the perpetrator being a man or a woman. As others have said, either people CAN change their sex, or they CAN'T. Society allows a man to live as a woman, or a woman to live as a man, therefore by definition a rapist could be living as either gender.

I don't think it trivialises rape or (more importantly) the victims to state that someone living as a woman can commit rape. If they have a penis, rape is possible. If they don't, it's not.

Sexual assault can be, indeed is, practised by people of all genders, ages and sexual orientation, and it is an incredibly evil and horrific offence.

Also reminds me of when newspapers labelled Dr James Barry (a 19th c female doctor who had to pretend to be a man and is now to be portrayed by Rachel Weisz) as 'genderfluid'. No, you stupid fucks- she was not genderfluid. She was forced to pretend to be a man because due to her possessing a vagina, she was not allowed to become a doctor and practice medicine. Fucking hell. Talk about rewriting history. I am guessing the Bronte sisters will also be considered genderfluid because they published under male pseudonyms. I really despair.

They haven't said this person is living as a woman. They're claiming he is a woman, just because he says so.

only refer to the act of a penis penetrating another person without legal consent. It does not refer to the perpetrator being a man or a woman

Well, it uses the pronoun 'he', so it does refer to the perpetrator being male.

M0stly the conviction rates are not representative, lots of sexual offenses are not reported let alone convicted. It's estimated offenses where the victim is male are less likely to be reported, and where the victim is either male or female but the perpetrator is female even more less likely to be reported (of that makes sense!)

The credible stats I know of I found through links on the naming daughters safe again, which looks at child abuse cases, and the studies suggest around 10-15% of peadophiles are female (iirc). However there are only a v small handful of credible studies and this lack of research wont be corrected now male perpetrators are included in the stats. Which is seriously fucking offensive and insulting to those of is who are victims of csa by females.

it appears staffordshire police dont agree with you 'Pressurising someone to have sex or take part in sexual activity who doesn't want to or has not consented is rape,' and governments which pass laws do not define words that are used people do

That's not right actually, the law uses 'he' everywhere. It means 'he or she'.

Theft definition:
"A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property "

The law defines rape as 'a person' . It doesn't have (in law) to be a man. Although biology has something to say about it! (in that 'the person' must have a penis)