When a crime is committed by a trans woman...

[MsMarvellous]

...is that crime committed as being recorded by a woman ONLY if the person has a GRC. Or is it recorded if that person simply declares they are a woman.

And if the latter who don't write to about that? Head of the Met? Local police forces? I'm trying to untangle one issue at a time and this is my current one

it's the latter OP. It's all about self identification and Stonewall law (the mangled inaccurate version) as opposed to the law of the land that the rest of society has to follow.

Their crimes - no matter how heinous or male (ie rape with a penis) will be described as female crimes. Unforgivable.

Thanks. I'm looking at the MoJ and ONS stats now. Fewer than 20 percent Oman were sentenced to immediate custody for rape over the year to 2017 but I've no way of splitting those by women and trans women. It's infuriating

"Fewer than 20 women"

I think in most cases, it is recorded as if the perpetrator is female but I'm not sure. It would be worth getting clarification from the College of Policing about this. If it proves to be a universal rule across all police forces in the country then a complaint should go to the very top.

I'm going to email. Looking up college of policing now!

It's very rare for a woman to be guilty of rape, as women don't have penises. Women can only be found guilty of rape if they assist a man in raping someone I believe.

I think Fair lay for Women is the site to go for about this OP? They have analysed the shit and inaccurate Ministry of Justice crime figures.

fairplayforwomen.com/trans_prison_stats_2018/

fairplayforwomen.com/prison-data-confirmed/

Fair Play for Women !

Not sure how helpful this is but AFAIK rape is only when a penis is used (for want if a better word) (I don’t know anything about females assisting being classed as rape though) so I’d presume that they would all be TW

www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/part/1/crossheading/rape

www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/contents

Thank you. I'm going to go and have a read n

Women can be convicted for rape, under "joint enterprise". Presumably this is exceedingly rare.
www.theguardian.com/uk/2001/mar/17/sarahhall

My pondering is whether rape is being recorded as being committed by "women" (male bodies transwomen" and being recorded as such or if they are actual women who've facilitated rape. I can't find a clear answer yet. I'll keep chipping away.

I'm relatively new to this subject having only taken more of an interest since a post was made regarding the diversity packs and Asda. I'm learning more each day from the various links and websites provided within this forum.

However, the more I have read the more confused I am about the ability of the police to investigate and the CPS to prosecute crimes.

Would anyone be able to confirm whether a witness description of a suspect which states the biological sex rather than that identified means that there would be no case to answer? For example a crime with only one eye witness, witness states suspect is male based on physical appearance, 6ft with a particularly identifiable tattoo on their hand. Said suspect identifies as a woman and would therefore not fit the witness description. What would happen in this scenario?

Rape can also be with an object. Still think the number of women doing this would be near to nil.

'Women can be convicted for rape, under "joint enterprise". Presumably this is exceedingly rare."

It will be relatively common in the context of female sexual offenders, because from what I've seen a lot of the (small minority) of female sexual offences involve women helping their boyfriends rape children.

For example this case

www.grimsbytelegraph.co.uk/news/grimsby-news/rutland-street-child-rapist-rebecca-3975897

Where a man rapes a baby/child with his girlfriend's help then she will be convicted of rape as an 'aider and abettor', which is the same as an offence. (you are convicted of rape, not 'aiding rape')

There are other examples e.g. this grooming gang had 17 men and 1 woman

www.asianimage.co.uk/news/15463736.17-men-and-one-woman-convicted-of-rape-charges-supplying-drugs-and-inciting-prostitution/

Here's an example where a woman conspired to have a man rape her 7 year old daughter after meeting on a dating site

www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jan/23/woman-jailed-plot-paedophile-stuart-bailey-rape-daughter-wales

This woman was part of a paedophile gang and again convicted of rape

www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/sep/28/norwich-paedophile-ring-marie-black-jailed-life

I'm not really sure about the numbers, and it depends when people transition, but it would make sense that some of the 'women' being convicted of rape are transgender in that women being convicted of rape are rare while people with penises being convicted of rape is common, but on the other hand, such cases tended to be reported in the Daily Mail etc. because 'transwoman convicted of rape' does get more news clicks than 'woman convicted of rape after helping boyfriend'

@FemaleAndLearning your screenshots support the opposite of that - rape is only with a penis, with an object it is a different offence (sexual assault by penetration), in English & Welsh law anyway, in other countries the definitions are broader.

Therefore - any record of a woman being convicted of rape in E&W, other than by joint enterprise, must be a transwoman logically.

I’m sure that recorded rates of all sexual assault by women have increased in recent years, btw, don’t have the links to hand but I have read that.

Cwenthryth
Yes, I realised after I posted one definition is rape and the other is sexual assault by penetration.

Secret yes they describe a suspect according to their self declared gender. If I remember correctly there was a non transitioned trans woman (ie physically indistinguishable from every other man) who committed a crime and they put out a description for them which described them as a tall woman who may be dressed as a man (or something similar to that). There was also a case more recently where a man dressed in women's clothing attacked another man at a train station and they refused to describe him accurately at first in case it offended the trans community. The whole system is bat shit crazy and broken from top to bottom.

The system is crazy and based on that information dangerous.

I can’t help but think that in cases which are time sensitive such as abduction that there is such a heavy reliance on good information early on. The issue of self declaring genders clouds the quality of information and could make a huge difference to the outcome of an investigation.

But all the need to do is say "trans woman" and people would get it. And for the man in the street that would equate to "man in a dress" however offensive that is.

It's so infuriating that we are centering men in absolutely everything to the detriment of so many facets of life.

I think there’s something in a press code of conduct/media guidelines that states they cannot mention someone’s trans status unless it is the subject of the story. Hence a lot of articles using the word ‘woman’ etc but printing photos showing a clearly male face etc to get around it.

Bonkers seeing as the same media will continuously randomly refer to women as “mother of X” when their parental/reproductive status is of no consequence to the story, but there you go.

In trans ideology the following sentences are apparently true:

women can have penises
men can have vaginas
men can give birth
women can produce semen.

It seems words no longer have meaning. And I make a distinction between trans ideology and trans rights/trans people wanting to live their life openly.