The legal status of rape is interesting. It's currently defined in terms of parts of the biologically real body - insertion of a penis into vagina, anus or mouth without consent. So transwomen can and have been convicted (even those identifying as women at the time the offence was committed eg Kathy Brannen). At the moment it remains the one unambiguous way of getting a handle on how the statistics of sex offenders are being distorted by trains ideology - because regardless of how the perpetrator is described in press coverage you know that's if the actual offence they're convicted of is rape, they had a penis at the time the offence was committed
Strictly speaking that’s not fully correct.
A none penis owner can be convicted of rape in the uk if they participate and directly assist in a rape.. .
Of the top of my head I believe a conviction occurred in the 90’s of an actual biological women who directly participated in a gang rape in London where a woman was then thrown in the river if I remember correctly the convicted biologically females name started with a m but I could be wrong about that.
The offence of rape requires a penis but a women who participates in the act sufficiently could be convicted