To think rapists shouldn't have the right to have their crimes forgotten?

[MipMipMip]

A trial case soon to go to court is whether transwomen (male to females) should have the right to have crimes that can only be commited be a male forgotten so that it doesn't out them as trans. There are a few historical crimes but the only one now is rape (in the UK a penis must be involved -otherwise it is sexual assult).

So if this case is successful it would provide precedence that would enable rapists to claim to be trans, have their rape removed as outing then when they have a criminal record check it would come back as clean!

A transgender offender is seeking to delete from her record two crimes that could only have been committed by a man.

“I do not wish my gender history to be more widely known and do not wish to disclose my trans status to employers,” the woman, who asked to be identified only as Helen, said. She is to launch a judicial review to remove two convictions for “importuning as a man” when she worked at a Soho “clip joint” in the 1970s and 1980s.

A right to removal, if established, could cover rape, another crime that can legally be committed only by a person with a penis.

AIBU to think this is a terrible idea and that it is even being considered a sign that some malignant indivduals are taking advantage of Trans people with body disphoria for their own agenda?

A woman could be convicted of rape if her involvement in the offence was great enough. In fact a woman was convicted of rape in relation to an offence on a canal tow path involving a gang. ( god my memory is shocking - can’t remember the name) however it’s very unusual. I do have some sympathy if the lady the OP is discussing was convicted of an offence which is no longer on the statute books. However, you can’t have serious sexual offences swept under the carpet in some way as a consequence of this. The rights of the tiny minority which are presumably affected by this issue do not take priority over the rights of children and vulnerable people potentially placed at risk if the law were to change.

It does not seem unreasonable to me to ask that “importuning as a man” be replaced by “soliciting” if the individual needs to disclose to a potential employer

I think this is reasonable too.

But women can and have been convicted if rape in England. So although very, very rare - there are cases.

Only as joint enterprise. Rape requires a penis. But yes you're right. I would hope this would mean that any application for non disclosure for GRC "privacy" rights wouldn't stand, so the rape conviction could be disclosed in a DBS check as technically it could be a woman.

But women can have a ladypenis so clearly these crimes can be committed by women too so there is no need for wiping it off their record is there?

YANBU

wtf is going on with the trand movement

No, when it comes to the safety of women and children especially, that should be put first, not that of the criminal.

The charge and conviction is rape. If your involvement is great enough in facilitating that rape, you are - even as a woman, a convicted rapist.

www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/sep/28/norwich-paedophile-ring-marie-black-jailed-life Marie Black convicted of more than one count of rape and conspiracy to rape.

Towpath rape. This includes an explanation of how women can be convicted of rape. www.theguardian.com/uk/2001/mar/17/sarahhall

What if they came out as trans, and they still retained their male genitalia and use it to rape.

What if they came out as trans, and they still retained their male genitalia and use it to rape.

Like Karen White you mean?

Except Karen White "only" committed sexual assault on vulnerable women who were locked in with Karen White, not full-blown rape.

I'm sure there will be a test case along soon enough though, sadly.

This is a very sympathetic case. Deliberately I'm sure - as others say it is strategic.

What SHOULD happen is that
With the alan turing stuff
Crimes like this - committed in the 60s / 70s - this guy was in Soho and bascially might have been nicked for chatting up another bloke - there should be a process / ability for GAY MEN to get them removed from their records. They would not be crimes today and many were arrested due to discriminatory / trapping by homophobic police targetting places where gay men met (in this case Soho).

What should NOT happen is for the ability to remove any and all offences that can only be committed by one sex, for trans people only.

This case shows fuck all camaraderie with the LGB and ??? whatever motivations (I don't like to think) around the T.

While in theory women can be convicted of rape (accessory type role) in practice it is VERY rare and a person could argue convicingly that it's so rare, in practice in society in the UK it will be assumed that anyone convicted of rape at some point had a penis.

There will be a reason this is beign approached from the trans angle and not the gay alan turing angle which would help WAY more poeple.

"Except Karen White "only" committed sexual assault on vulnerable women who were locked in with Karen White, not full-blown rape."

That was reported.

They could have raped a woman in prison who didn't report it.

Helen should not have raped people in that case - their own mess that they should live with forever

Helen didn't. She did “importuning as a man”. The problem is that the wiping this minor offence under the privacy basis would open the door to wipe rape for the same reason. It's all about creating precedence - the courts can't say it would be a valid reason for some people but not others.

There are quite a few crimes that are in theory not sexed but in practice so few women do them, that to have them on your record would certainly raise suspicions that you were not female.

Hold on just one minute

Just looked up indecent exposure (men show what's in their pants to people out and about way more than women)

And it says this

"66Exposure
[F1(1)A person commits an offence if—
(a)he intentionally exposes his genitals, and
(b)he intends that someone will see them and be caused alarm or distress."

So -

Indecent exposure is male only?

So.... Jess Bradley is is being investigated for this (not sure what's happening with that).

Jess Bradley who co founded TELI the trans equality legal initiative...

??????????????????????????????

anyone?

Just having a look

Rape of a child under 13 needs a penis so that's another one.

In fact all of it says "he" so maybe it's just an old fashioned "when we say he we mean he or she" thing.

Stand down lol

The rape of a child stands though as refers to penis

Most sex offences TBH if you had them on your record poeple would assume you were a bloke as women commit all of them very rarely.

If you read that someone had a conviciton of sexual penetration of a corpse, or sexual activity in a public toilet, you wouldn't think woman would you.

I mean it could happen, but... 98% or whatever it is of sex offenses are committed by men.

Voyeurism
Indecent exposure
and so on

This is a terrible idea! Any history of sexual abuse of any kind should follow the individual regardless of gender!

There will be a reason this is beign approached from the trans angle and not the gay alan turing angle which would help WAY more poeple.

Exactly.

Also they are asking for them to be wiped from the record, not to be changed to a different offence.

Quote from the barrister who gave legal advice to the government Trans Inquiry and report and specialises in pro trans cases to set case law:

Helen’s barrister, Claire McCann, said disclosure of offences that revealed Helen’s birth gender in criminal record checks was “severe and discriminatory interference with Helen’s right to respect for her private life”.

f you read that someone had a conviciton of sexual penetration of a corpse, or sexual activity in a public toilet, you wouldn't think woman would you.

YY. And it is this argument that I'm afraid will be made.

There is that bit in the Equality Act about exemptions being made. Maybe it could come under that? Not quite sure how that would work.

Given that this barrister has repeatedly stated that she doesn't believe these exemptions apply at all to males with GRC, I doubt that would be acceptable.

The other issue here, and it's a big one, is that pandering to this claimed need for privacy and making it so that no one can ever ask to see GRC under any circumstances creates an environment where we have to assume that men in women's spaces have a GRC and can't ask any questions. No. We need to push back hard. This makes the exemptions virtually unusable.