Transgender rapist - with anatomy of a man- jailed for 15 years - local newspaper grapples with how to report news when words have lost their meaning

[stumbledin]

So first off - in no way wanting to say the crime isn't the real story.

But just wanted to highlight how the stupidity of pretending identity is the same as the reality of sex (and so totally part of the crime being reported) is leading to this sort of nonsense.

ie the newspaper should have been able to report that a man was found guilty of raping a woman.

The report says:

A transgender rapist “with a propensity to violence” - who identifies as a woman but is yet to undergo surgery- has been jailed for 15 years.

Michelle Winter, 49, was referred to by female pronouns throughout a trial at Cambridge Crown Court; Winter has the anatomy of a man.

(There is nothing in the report to say where Winter will serve his prison sentence)

As if to cause utmost offence, the Metro version has the web page entitled: "Trans woman jailed for 15 years for raping another woman".

It doesn't show up on the page itself, but appears as the caption if you link to the metro story from (e.g.) twitter and is also embedded in the URL:

metro.co.uk/2021/01/18/trans-woman-jailed-for-15-years-for-raping-another-woman-13921362/

I'm fairly sure his victim doesn't think she was raped by another woman.

Imagine going through that trauma then the courts and media twisting it this way. It's horrendous.

@OvaHere

I'm fairly sure his victim doesn't think she was raped by another woman.

Imagine going through that trauma then the courts and media twisting it this way. It's horrendous.

I would like to know how she gave her evidence in court. Was she allowed to speak the truth describe her experience according to her perceptions, or did the court interfere with her evidence and compel her speech (as has happened to another woman physically assaulted by a TW)?

Yes to all points, and the fact that the court used female pronouns for the rapists. What did that do to the survivor of this crime of male violence?

Well rape as an offence is one that is defined in law as being carried out by men, are they changing the law too? They're surely not suggesting that transwomen aren't women?

"Under the 1956 Act, the statutory definition of rape is any act of non-consensual intercourse by a man with a person, and the victim can be either male or female."

www.cps.gov.uk/publication/cps-policy-prosecuting-cases-rape

The local newspaper reporter probably feels the same as people here. I am one, and most of the reporters I come across are absolutely fed up with having to report cases in this way.

But it’s so incredibly difficult because your hands are tied by IPSO and editors who are usually middle aged men who have no idea of the nuances of the argument. And then if you get it ‘wrong’ according to the trans lobby you risk getting abused and doxxed all over Twitter by the TRAs and, honestly, most of us just don’t have the time or the mental energy to deal with the abuse.

I have reported many cases like this (I make sure I go to court when I see them on the list) and even with the knowledge I have about the subject, and my GC views, I find it so tricky to get to right and then persuade the editor why I am right. I often have to submit in an email a comprehensive list of reasons why I’ve written the work Transgender in the headline in case ipso come calling.

We are so, so busy and so incredibly underpaid that sometimes it’s just not worth the shit.

That said, the Metro’s headline is appalling and wouldn’t have got past a decent editor. I see they’ve changed it after the ‘feedback’

Showing more respect for a piece of shit rapist than they are for the victim of aforementioned piece of shit.

I'd rather go to prison than call a rapist 'she'. Court is supposed to be about facts and evidence. In law, it's impossible for a woman to rape, and no way would I be willing to pretend that they can.

And also, if you’re reporting from court and they use female pronouns then you have a legal duty to report accurately what happened. You’d be in contempt of court if you changed quotes etc. I prefer to go neutral and dance around the subject by calling the defendant by their name throughout rather than ‘he’ or ‘she’. It avoids abuse online and it is easier to slip past an editor.

[quote WootMoggie]As if to cause utmost offence, the Metro version has the web page entitled: "Trans woman jailed for 15 years for raping another woman".

It doesn't show up on the page itself, but appears as the caption if you link to the metro story from (e.g.) twitter and is also embedded in the URL:

metro.co.uk/2021/01/18/trans-woman-jailed-for-15-years-for-raping-another-woman-13921362/[/quote]
Weird, Woot.

Disgusting page title. But I was surprised and very heartened to read the comments. Seems that most people are not on board with calling this rapist a woman.

@JaniceBattersby

The local newspaper reporter probably feels the same as people here. I am one, and most of the reporters I come across are absolutely fed up with having to report cases in this way.

But it’s so incredibly difficult because your hands are tied by IPSO and editors who are usually middle aged men who have no idea of the nuances of the argument. And then if you get it ‘wrong’ according to the trans lobby you risk getting abused and doxxed all over Twitter by the TRAs and, honestly, most of us just don’t have the time or the mental energy to deal with the abuse.

I have reported many cases like this (I make sure I go to court when I see them on the list) and even with the knowledge I have about the subject, and my GC views, I find it so tricky to get to right and then persuade the editor why I am right. I often have to submit in an email a comprehensive list of reasons why I’ve written the work Transgender in the headline in case ipso come calling.

We are so, so busy and so incredibly underpaid that sometimes it’s just not worth the shit.

That said, the Metro’s headline is appalling and wouldn’t have got past a decent editor. I see they’ve changed it after the ‘feedback’

That's a good point. It's probably not fair to lay it at the feet of individual reporters.

I'm glad the Metro headline changed. That was particularly insensitive.

I wonder what the police who deal with cases like this think. I can only imagine (hope!) they are shaking their heads in despair.

I thought one newspaper did quite well with it when I saw it this morning; they carefully avoided any pronouns and managed to make it clear that it was a transwoman who had not had any surgery

www.cambridgeindependent.co.uk/news/cambridgeshire-rapist-jailed-for-15-years-after-attack-that-left-victim-with-recurring-nightmares-9148559/

"Trans woman jailed for 15 years for raping another woman" implies that that he had previously raped at least one other woman.

1956 Act now superceded by Sexual Offences Act 2003, but the relevant part is this:

(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.

Source: www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/section/1

So this man (NB note to our watchers - a number of years ago I asked about convicted rapists, and Justine herself said it was okay to correctly sex convicted rapists) penetrated a woman with his penis.

There is no ambiguity here - the fact that he was convicted of rape rather than sexual assault by penetration makes this crystal clear.

I am absolutely seething for this poor woman. How fucking DARE they tell her she has been raped by another woman? This is absolutely outrageous. I wish her peace and healing and hope she has very good support. It’s absolutely sickening that she has to deal with officialdom gaslighting her about her rapist, after all she has been through.

JaniceBattersby - my original OP wasn't against the reporter, but in fact some admiration in navigating the mine field by spelling out in the lengthy heading the reality. Unlike smart work metropolitan papers who write nonsense and then wonder why they are losing readers.

There is no ambiguity here - the fact that he was convicted of rape rather than sexual assault by penetration makes this crystal clear.

It also makes it crystal clear that the judicial system considers him to be a man. So why did they try him as a woman? How long until the defence that the male accused of rape cannot have committed it because "she is a woman"?

How long until the defence that the male accused of rape cannot have committed it because "she is a woman"?

See the extract from the 2003 Act I quoted above. Unlike the 1956 Act (which talks about a man commiting rape), the 2003 Act uses the word "person" instead. So it doesn't matter how the person possessing the penis identifies, but it does matter that he used a penis.

So no, that defence wouldn't fly.

It puts us out of step with pretty much all other countries (though the offence of "assault by penetration" which can be carried out by either sex carries the same sentencing guidelines), but it is damned useful because if you see someone found guilty of rape you can be damned sure (barring vanishingly rare instances of "common purpose" convictions) that the perpetrator had a penis.

It may become the only unambiguous way of disentangling the stats we have left, as more and more sex crimes get attributed to "women."

How long until the defence that the male accused of rape cannot have committed it because "she is a woman"?

I've wondered if it's possibly creating a loophole too if the rapist later acknowledges they are in fact male but were convicted as a woman. If it's possible they could get out because of 'technicalities'?

I'd love to have faith that this is impossible and everything is solid so they couldn't, but then I thought that rapists being housed in women's prison was impossible too :(

Oh, just seen Cara's update, that clears it up.

*(1)A person (A) commits an offence if—

(a)he intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person (B) with his penis,*

The Act refers to a 'person', but uses the pronouns 'he' and 'his'.

If the court considers the defendant's choice of gender so true and binding that they compel everyone to refer to the defendant as she and her, then surely they must be saying "she penetrated X with her penis". Which is not what the Act describes as rape.

I think that's covered by a general understanding that there's so much "archaic" law on the statute books that for "he" read "he/she" throughout! (Of course, this is probably the one law on the statute books where "he" really does mean "he" and not "he/she" but...) Again, I don't think a defence lawyer would manage to pull that one off either.

FFS.

So angry about this.

@CaraDuneRedux

I think that's covered by a general understanding that there's so much "archaic" law on the statute books that for "he" read "he/she" throughout! (Of course, this is probably the one law on the statute books where "he" really does mean "he" and not "he/she" but...) Again, I don't think a defence lawyer would manage to pull that one off either.

Dear god, I sincerely hope so!

Though the unthinkable keeps never happening. Fewer and fewer are telling Kassandra to shut up any more.