Ban urged on rape suspects ‘claiming they are women’

[MiladyBerserko]

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/b2a2960e-0e91-11ec-868a-b68487b876a6?shareToken=14b31139347d31fa0c999b8269b8fb42

Apparently the Scottish government have no influence on Police Scotland in this matter yet as both organisations support the principle of Self ID, it is a fine example of the how regulatory capture overcomes the concept of 'separation of powers'.

Once they are identified as 'women', next step is of course women's prison.

This is concerning.

“Documented instances of females being charged with rape as an accomplice are rare. Yet, between 2012 and 2018, the proportion of rape defendants classified as women varied between 1.2 per cent and 1.8 per cent.

“During this seven-year period, 436 individuals prosecuted for rape were recorded as women.”

"Police Scotland said it had yet to encounter a case where the perpetrator of a rape had self-identified as a woman."

Well, in at least one case that's because they just let repeat sex offenders into the community with no prison time: www.thecourier.co.uk/fp/news/fife/832849/warning-as-transgender-sex-offender-placed-in-womens-hostel/

The prison service said of the 17 trans prisoners in Scotland, some are there for sex offenses. Have they all been recorded as male then?

And we are told there is nothing to fear in allowing males who identify as women access to single sex spaces. Here is 436 and that is just to 2018 if it has continued at same rate that is around 650 rapists up to 2021. 650 reasons to be concerned.

Police Scotland said it had yet to encounter a case where the perpetrator of a rape had self-identified as a woman.

Presumably they’re only counting the minuscule percentage of men they actually managed to take to court and convict. I bet they’ve actually encountered quite a number, some of whom perhaps were given lesser sentences precisely because they lied and said they weren’t men.

Would it be too draconian to say the moment you’re convicted of raping someone, you forego the right to legally identify as anything other than a male rapist? Ten years ago this wouldn’t have seemed controversial.

Surely raping a woman is one of the least "feminine" and most "masculine" thing that can be done. How is that not "triggering" for the suspect if simply being referred to as "he" can be so triggering as to require judges to demand the female pronoun be used.

Police Scotland said it had yet to encounter a case where the perpetrator of a rape had self-identified as a woman.
and
During this seven-year period, 436 individuals prosecuted for rape were recorded as women.

I don't understand how both of these statements can be true. Were the 436 individuals all in England and Wales?

Do they record the natal gender as well as the self id'd gender in order to analyse the incidence accurately.... just a thought

Well police Scotland are liers as I can think of atleast 1 trans women from Dundee who was convicted of molesting children and it was recorded and reported as a "woman ".

“All rapists are male, regardless of gender.”

But they are only recording gender

@InvisibleDragon

Police Scotland said it had yet to encounter a case where the perpetrator of a rape had self-identified as a woman. and During this seven-year period, 436 individuals prosecuted for rape were recorded as women.

I don't understand how both of these statements can be true. Were the 436 individuals all in England and Wales?

I don't see how Police Scotland could possibly know this. As far as they are concerned a person who self-identifies as a woman is a woman. How, precisely, would they go back in their records to check this?

In Julian Barnes's novel 'Arthur and George' set around 100 years ago in England, he states that prisoners were not allowed to change their religion once convicted. This was because Jewish prisoners (men) were sent to Parkhurst which was viewed as an easier option.

Something similar could be enacted now surely? Obvs in a proper way up world it'd be sex that would be recorded but Rhona Hotchkiss talks of one prisoner she had in her jail who flip-flopped between man/woman/man. They should not wield such power.

I was wondering if anyone could tell me - when did the police stop recording the sex of sex offenders? What was the year?

I don't understand how both of these statements can be true. Were the 436 individuals all in England and Wales?

My first thought is that police scotland are lying

Seems more logical than this only happens south of the border

Would it be too draconian to say the moment you’re convicted of raping someone, you forego the right to legally identify as anything other than a male rapist? Ten years ago this wouldn’t have seemed controversial.

One of the conditions of getting a GRC is a commitment to "live as the opposite sex".

Now, okay, that's a woolly hard-to-define statement, but if raping a woman doesn't fall outside it for a man, then it must be totally meaningless.

One of the conditions of getting a GRC is a commitment to "live as the opposite sex".

I too fail to understand how someone using their penis to rape a woman counts as 'living as a woman'.

I also fail to understand how undergoing IVF treatment in order to carry and give birth to a child is 'living as a man' (see Freddy Seahorse).

It's almost as if the law wasn't properly thought through.

No record of anyone self identifying as a women might mean " male rapist with GRC" have not been counted. Also "no record" of any "rapist " self identifying as a women will, I presume, exclude any sex offender, self identifying as a woman ,who was charged with another sexual offence, which I presume would also include attempted rape.
So it is possible that Police statement is technically "correct".

I don't see how Police Scotland could possibly know this. As far as they are concerned a person who self-identifies as a woman is a woman. How, precisely, would they go back in their records to check this?

This is definitely a situation where we need more clarity. It's possible that the 436 women prosecuted for rape were natal women, and that they had been put on trial for rape because they abetted a rapist. (I think this is possible in law, not completely sure, though.)

Or it's possible that the 436 women were natal men identifying as women, but because the police recorded them as women, they have no record to show that they were actually men.

Or the police are simply lying.

Another thought, they must have a record of their natal gender because while in their custody they are responsible for healthcare needs, so would need to make sure things like prostate exams, smears, etc etc are completed regardless of the gender they identify as. So it must be possible to analyse how many convicted sexual offenders identify as female but are male

@Cabinfever10

Well police Scotland are liers as I can think of atleast 1 trans women from Dundee who was convicted of molesting children and it was recorded and reported as a "woman ".

Their statement comes very much under the heading “weasel words”.

They carefully limit their statement to “perpetrators of rape”. I’d take bets on the fact that the only cases they considered were those taken to court and found guilty, though that fact is skimmed over.

So their statement won’t cover any lesser or alternative convictions for different sex offences.

It won’t cover any rapists who carried out rape, but were not convicted.

Given the incredibly low rate of prosecution for rape, it is quite possible they have not carried out any successful prosecutions for that specific crime in the timeframe they examined.

Indeed the absence, from their records, of any convicted rapists who self-identified as women might be more of a reflection on the appalling rates of prosecution and conviction of that crime in Scotland and have very little to do with the number of rapists in Scotland who claim they are women. And even that figure will also exclude any such men who have a GRC, as a PP mentioned.

I am convinced the police in Scotland must be using a looser application of the GRC to be able to make the statement they did. Maybe they interpreted it as from first declaration or maybe all the males involved simply have declared they are well into the process of getting a certificate.

Police Scotland doesn't go by GRCs, they go by self ID

Doesn't scottland house one if the most dangerous prisoners?

I dont think they were charged with sexual assult or rape but many an assault charge including against a female nurse.

Have police forgotten about sokwone so violent they ripped a drip out their arm to spit the blood and bust out of rip proof clothing?

Fhs

They haven’t forgotten. I’d be very confident in suggesting the evasion is deliberate