6 women 'convicted of rape'

[SeaRabbit]

So according to statistics released recently 6 women were convicted of rape in 2016, and sexual offences by women have increased a lot over the last 10 years:

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/more-women-convicted-of-sex-offences-bfdvv2w37?shareToken=87cfa91f45f367ce2bc851f2ce9d505b

I can understand that there is, rightly, more recognition that women can commit sexual offences, and they should be punished for it. But I have difficulty understanding how a woman can 'rape'. It doesn't say 'attempted rape' which I can understand. Does anyone know how we can get behind the statistics to find out more?

How surreal that a male convicted of rape is actually entertained in their insistence that they're a woman; instead of automatically committed to a fucking asylum.
I'll never get my head around this utter circus.

Can a woman be convicted of rape if she pushes someone else's penis into the victim? Or, forces the victim's vagina, anus, or mouth onto another person's penis?

Women commit far less sex offences than men by a very large order of magnitude,

When they do it's often playing second fiddle to a man,

And in law it is quite tricky indeed for them to rape which is why they are rarely convicted of it.

Speculating what a woman might need to do in order to be convicted of rape is pointless. When a person is convicted of rape, the possibility that they don't have a dick is really very very small.

A natal female could not commit rape so they must have had a penis. If they used an object or other part of body eg fist against a female without consent it would be charged as Sexual Assault by Penetration (Really wish I didn’t know that term) which I think would carry a similarish penalty as rape. I would hope anyway tho I never got to find out as CPS dropped the case and is just as distressing as rape. For me the assault by penetration was worse than the rape.

This is why I feel so strongly that refuges must remain single sex - no penis’ allowed.

Sorry probably not making much sense today and going off topic. Not slept much.

Cockapoo

I don't think I've ever been so angry in my life.
Given that these are figures for England and Wales where the law says actual rape is committed with a penis, and as a PP Has said if any of these were on joint enterprise, we'd likely know it through the media, I have no doubt at all these 6 perpetrators at least, are men.

How DARE they? How fucking DARE they try to pass their skeevy sexual crimes off on to women? And how DARE the officials prosecuting them allow this? How DARE the MOJ allow these stats to stand?

I'm shaking with rage. I'm absolutely bloody incandescent. If I had them in front of me I wouldn't be responsible.

Maybe it's because I've been raped and my DD was assaulted and the system let us both down. It's crappy enough as it is, without this.

I peaked some time ago but this is too much for me. I'm breaking cover on SM and to Hell with the consequences. I won't sit down for this.

Fuck the lot of them.

I'm not happy about this, like everyone else, but:
So we will incresingly see that men and women commit sex offences at at similar rates
Similar rates is just never going to happen.
Given that men commit sex offences on a much larger scale than women, it would take half of the men to identify as female to lead to similar rates.
Highly unlikely.

Note that assault-by-penetration is often confused with the explicit rape offence. A section 2 Sexual Offences Act 2003 charge was used by the CPS in the witchcraft allegation against Mark Pearson.

Assault by penetration (section 2)
The elements of assault by penetration are:

A person (A) intentionally penetrates the vagina or anus of another person (B) with a part of their body or anything else:
The penetration is sexual
(B) does not consent to the penetration, and
(A) does not reasonably believe that (B) consents.
The meaning of sexual, consent, reasonable belief and the evidential and conclusive presumptions all apply to this offence.

Key points
There has to be penetration of the vagina or anus but not the mouth.
Penetration is of any part of (A's) body (e.g. finger, tongue, toe) or by anything else (e.g. bottle).
Offence can be committed by either gender
This offence should be charged where there is insufficient evidence to charge rape, for example, if the victim is unsure if penetration was by a penis or something else.
Penalty
The offence is indictable only with maximum penalty of life imprisonment.

Code for Crown Prosecutors - considerations
This offence is in essence similar to rape and a prosecution is almost certainly required in the public interest.

(www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/rape-and-sexual-offences-chapter-2-sexual-offences-act-2003-principal-offences-and)

It would be useful to see which offence codes were used for the 'rape' convictions.

"I'm not happy about this, like everyone else, but:
So we will incresingly see that men and women commit sex offences at at similar rates
Similar rates is just never going to happen.
Given that men commit sex offences on a much larger scale than women, it would take half of the men to identify as female to lead to similar rates.
Highly unlikely."

Less chance of being IDd by friends, family, employer (wrong name, wrong sex, so reports in local papers are less likely to result in identification)
Similar reasons for men who are serial atatckers - less chance of other victims coming forward
Women seen as getingt lighter sentences
Women's prison

So maybe it was hyperbloic - but - there are many positives for men to ID as women in these circs.

Snibble: I agree. Many positives and it's not good.

The letter of the law refers to "his" penis. Could a rapist TIM stand up in court and say, "I'm not a him, I'm a her, you've accepted that I'm officially a woman so you have to use my preferred pronouns, the law only refers to "his penis" not "his or her penis" so I cannot be guilty of rape according to the legal definition of the word rape".

The letter of the law refers to "his" penis.

The letter of the law is sexist: "he" almost always means "he or she" in law, unless it is specified otherwise

Does anyone think it's worth reporting the article to IPSO online for being misleading and prejudiced?

I know it's based on figures from the government (I haven't seen the raw data but I assume it's not possible to distinguish between TIMs and women) but under section 12 of the Editors' Code of Practice, journalists are only supposed to report details of someone's gender identity if it's relevant to the story. Not only is the gender identity of the rapists as female here not relevant, it's actually grossly misleading if their sex is not also mentioned since it implies that women committed rapes, which is impossible under law.

If the article means assault by penetration, it should be corrected for accuracy (which again, can be complained about via an online form on the IPSO website).

Section 12 of the code also prevents prejudice on the grounds of.gender identity or sex, I would assert that the sex of biological women is prejudiced by this article as the picture of the bio woman and the focus on her story, the vague description of her crime as 'an affair' and the focus on bio women having sex with underaged boys all implies that biological women were the perpetrators of the rapes.

Without pointing out that the rapists were 'females with penises' or explaining that rape can only be committed by someone with a penis, the Times is implying that people of one sex (bio female) are responsible for the the crimes committed by another (bio male), which looks like prejudicial reference to a person's sex (and therefore a breach of the rules) if you ask me.

I've just emailed the Times to ask them to clarify - may I suggest everyone else does too? (or email other papers in which it appears).

So let’s put the law aside for a moment, and talk principle.

If a woman were to force a man’s penis into her vagina, would that not be considered rape?

Devils I would be inclined to say that it would be. My personal opinion.

However on this thread that's a massive derail, because the reason we're separating rape from other sexual offences in the discussion on this thread is that in virtue of its legal definition in England and Wales, it's the one sort of sexual offence where we can be 99.9999% sure the perpetrator has a penis.

If you want to debate whether the legal definition of rape should be changed (and it's a perfectly legitimate question to ask, but not on this particular thread) feel free to start a new thread.

It’s pretty obvious. A woman who has transitioned retains her penis and then rapes some poor person and get caught then convicted.

Marie Black is a biological woman. Convicted of rape and conspiracy to rape among other charges.

You can be convicted of rape as a woman. As noted by previous cases such as Claire Marsh and Marie Black. In the absence of evidence that rapes committed by transwomen are being officially documented via the CPS and MOJ as committed by women; what is likely to have happened in these 6 rape convictions by women is that they facilitated or joined in the rape of their own children and they have not been publiscised in the media to protect those children.

There have been 3 rapes during that time carried out by trans men, women identifying as men, and they raped their female victims with dildos. The high offending of the trans community has made the female crime rate appear a lot worse than it actually is. I'm so glad I found this post as I just had someone say " well women rape men" yes I guess they do but they pretend or identify as men to do so.

I think it would be an important step to have trans identifying individual’s crimes recorded as such and not lumped in with either male or female statistics.
It would give a much clearer picture of the offending rates.

Rape requires a penis in English law, so they are all males. I could not care less what they think they are. They are males.

Rape
(1)A person (A) commits an offence if—
(a)he intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person (B) with his penis,
(b)B does not consent to the penetration, and
(c)A does not reasonably believe that B consents.
(2)Whether a belief is reasonable is to be determined having regard to all the circumstances, including any steps A has taken to ascertain whether B consents.
(3)Sections 75 and 76 apply to an offence under this section.
(4)A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for life.

Also this section of the GRA 2004 is relevant:
Gender-specific offences
(1)Where (apart from this subsection) a relevant gender-specific offence could be committed or attempted only if the gender of a person to whom a full gender recognition certificate has been issued were not the acquired gender, the fact that the person’s gender has become the acquired gender does not prevent the offence being committed or attempted.
(2)An offence is a “relevant gender-specific offence” if—
(a)either or both of the conditions in subsection (3) are satisfied, and
(b)the commission of the offence involves the accused engaging in sexual activity.
(3)The conditions are—
(a)that the offence may be committed only by a person of a particular gender, and
(b)that the offence may be committed only on, or in relation to, a person of a particular gender,and the references to a particular gender include a gender identified by reference to the gender of the other person involved.