Does it worry you that six WOMEN are convicted of rape?

[loveyouradvice]

Mail today..... about how far more sex crimes are being committed by women....including six rapes.

To commit rape you have to have a penis - that is the definition of rape (intentionally penetrating vagina, anus or mouth with his penis without consent)

So at least six of these crimes committed by women - and probably far more - have been committed by men who identify as women.....

This really worries me

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5465541/Record-number-women-convicted-sex-crimes-Britain.html

[Walkingdeadfangirl]

If a woman forces a man to penetrate her it's sexual assault. He isn't haven't anything put inside him so it's just another form of touching.
I think its very offensive to compare a woman raping a man to just another form of 'touching'. FFS

I think the same would happen if rape became a legal two way thing. The police would investigate and try to find out who is guilty, just like they do now.

[Optimouse]

Whilst to physically rape on this country requires a penis, a woman can be convicted of rape under 'joint enterprise' which means inn basic terms if she was actively involved in the rape of someone (says perhaps by holding them down or drugging them) with a man then she gets convicted of the same offence... and rightly so.

[whoareyou123]

A quick search shows a woman without a penis can actually be convicted of rape.

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1225124.stm

[loveyouradvice]

Okay... so perhaps - just possibly - but very unusually 1 of those 6 was a woman in Joint Enterprise....

But what about the others? I do not believe they are all women....

[Squishysquirmy]

It may be the rise is solely down to more biological, born women being convicted (maybe in Scotland where the law is different). We don't know.

If the definition of woman is expanded further in the future, and the number of crimes committed by women rises, we won't know for sure what's driving that either. If there are signs that biological women are committing more violent/sexual crimes it would be useful to know this. Transparent Stats are important for all kinds of reasons. It's not transphobic to be concerned about the effects of shifting definitions upon statistics.

[loveyouradvice]

I so agree Squishysquirmy....

[Boulshired]

The problem is how do you introduce reforms when the statistics mean little. If the increase is due to testosterone and male rage how can education and rehabilitation be centred around women. If the increase has nothing to do with trans women but it is assumed it is the same problems occur with wasted resources.

[BigChocFrenzy]

We need separate statistics in the UK for transwomen and women for at least a few years, so that we have sufficient information from a large population.

The Swedish study was of the entire post-op trans population in their country,
They found that transwomen retained the pattern of male criminality

Trans activists now dispute those findings, saying that the Swedish population was too small then and it was an old study etc

We need facts from the UK, to settle this
There is no reason the UK can't separately record transwomen and women

[mirialis]

A quick search shows a woman without a penis can actually be convicted of rape

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1225124.stm

Look at the date on the story when the woman was convicted of rape by "joint enterprise" and seems to be the one story people can find and keep referencing.

2001.

The 2003 Act clearly states that rape is a crime that can only be committed by someone with a penis.

[unplugmefromthematrix]

Collecting stats on crime commited by people who have transitioned would be the best way to make things clear one way or the other.

If some people are adamant that transwomen are not given to a higher risk of commiting sexual offences against women than biological women, then the stats will bear that out and they will be vindicated. Therefore they should be pushing for the collection and publishing of detailed and transparent stats that record transition/ natal sex as part of crime statistics ASAP. But are they?

Also, I believe that stats are collected on other groups such as ethinicity and age etc. as well as gender/sex, probably disability too... It would be very strange if trans people were the only demographic/ protected characteristic not to be counted.

[sagamartha]

If some people are adamant that transwomen are not given to a higher risk of commiting sexual offences against women than biological women

That's not what's been said. But compared to the average man, the statistics might well show that a transwoman is less likely to commit sexual offences - and then within the subgroup of transwomen (because definitions are important), there might well be a difference as well.

[Squishysquirmy]

I think that is plausible sagamartha
Do you think that stats should be collected in such a way as to distinguish between men, tranwomen, women and transmen?
Would there be an issue with self id if enough male criminals disingenuously identified as trans to skew the stats for transwomen?
E.g. If transwomen as a group were made to seem more violent/ criminal than they really were by male criminals lying about how they identified?

[acquiesce]

The number of men convincted of rape worries me more.
Yet another trans thread yawn

[sagamartha]

Would there be an issue with self id if enough male criminals disingenuously identified as trans to skew the stats for transwomen

I certainly think there's an issue with some criminals saying they are trans when convicted / in prison to gain access to female spaces or better treatment in prison.

I also think that self ID opens up a whole can of worms.

[anneoneill]

So mumsnet allows a poster to say a man who is forced into non-consensual sex wasn't really raped, and deletes my post for calling out the sick poster who said it? What the fuck?

[unplugmefromthematrix]

If we don't know who has done what to whom, we have no hope of working out why they did it and if there is anything we can do to stop it happening again.

Self-ID is a nightmare.

Trans-status should not be invisible one minute then there the next - if it is to be recorded as a factor eg in a hate crime, then it should be routinely recorded as other charcteristics are routinely recoreded so that we can all drill down and see what is going on.

[blackteasplease]

I'm trying to explain the legal thinking here.

Sexual assault is often described as "sexual touching" (without consent) in court.

Sorry if the Sexual Offences Act 2003 offends any one.

And I genuinely meant I hope it helps

I'm a criminal lawyer with specialist rape training btw.

[mirialis]

blackteas - so glad someone with some professional knowledge turned up. But now I see your previous post was deleted and I don't know what you said.

My questions:

Is it right to say that the 2003 Act means that Rape in England & Wales can only be committed by a male with a penis?

Is information about the 6 women convicted of rape not available to the general public - as so much information about other trials and convictions are reported in MSM - and if not, what reasons would there be for that?

[holycheeseplant]

A fascinating discussion.

I'm very interested to know how statistics will change over the next 25 years, not just due to things like self id but also due to what appears to be increasing levels of violence to women in porn verses the metoo stuff - sadly I fear the former will trump metoo and self id/ trans etc will begin to complicate statistics. I don't want to brush away the fact that women abuse also however.

It strikes me that a few slight changes to the wording of the law would impact statistics hugely aswell.

[Ereshkigal]

Look at the date on the story when the woman was convicted of rape by "joint enterprise" and seems to be the one story people can find and keep referencing.

It's a good point.

[Lostmyunicorn]

Both under the old legislation and the 2003 act a person can commit the offence (and actually almost any other offence too) by joint enterprise or as a secondary party (what is sometimes called aiding and abetting. The date of the previous case is irrelevant. The principles of joint liability and secondary liability are largely established under common law and the enactment of the 2003 act doesn’t change that. There are similar principles in Scotland but they may not be exactly the same. my post relates to the law in England and Wales.

[Ereshkigal]

It seems quite rare though.

[Ereshkigal]

That's the point. Everyone is referencing a case from 17 years ago.