More than one “woman” a week prosecuted for rape?!?!

[Cwenthryth]

I just saw this on Twitter

twitter.com/profalices/status/1442415750497509380?s=21

Between 2012 and 2018, 436 individuals prosecuted for rape in England and Wales were recorded as women.
www.parliament.scot/chamber-and-committees/committees/current-and-previous-committees/session-6-citizen-participation-and-public-petitions-committee/correspondence/2021/pe1876_h-professor-alice-sullivan-submission-of-27-august-2021

I’m shocked at this statistic. Yes, a small proportion of these may be women charged with rape by joint enterprise. Prof Sullivan posted on Twitter she has requested to separate out those cases. But, as under the law in England and Wales, rape is a crime committed with a penis….. so these (alleged) rapists are “bodies with penises” being recorded as women in crime stats. So transwomen, right? So what does this mean….436 (alleged) transwomen rapists in 6 years? That is more than one a week. In England & Wales.

Have I misunderstood that? I’m really shocked.

Because now (as that poster outlined) the normal misogyny is frowned upon and the socially acceptable way to do misogyny has mutated to be able to say that males (if they say it) are more oppressed than women. And bad, prejudiced, transphobic oppressive women if they even think (never mind state) otherwise.

See, men (and acolytes) can now acceptably pour hate on women and women themselves can be blamed for it.

I think people in the 60s were racist when they expressed concerns that the end of segregation would lead to a rise in sexual offences against women.

You are conflating race segregation with sex segregation. I abhor race segregation in toilets, prisons and refuges (unless woman of colour want their own spaces which I am fine with) because there is absolutely no evidence that a woman would be physically less capable to fighting off an attack by a woman of another race.

However, this is not so for males vs females. Shall I start posting not only the male sex offence statistics, but also the latest studies that show transitioned males are still very much on average stronger and would overpower females?

happy to do so.

Your assertion is pretty much still a personal attack and is not something that I actually believe at all.

Even if you think that sex segregation is like racial segregation and women have the power so occupy the position in the former that white people do in the latter…(it’s a real stretch and makes no sense, but let’s let that go for a moment)

We still have sex segregation for completely different reasons than racial segregation ever was for. Sex segregation provides privacy around nudity, fairness in sport, opportunities for women where they have previously been restricted (all women selection lists). Racial segregation was only ever about keeping populations separate because of unfounded beliefs about race and operated only to oppress- it didn’t offer fairness or privacy of opportunities or anything positive at all.

They’re not in any way comparable. And the UK, which is the relevant country in this thread about how statistics are collected in England and Wales never had formal race segregation. It doesn’t matter at l, what happened in the US or South Africa- it’s irrelevant for this thread. It’s just a distraction.

Because of the parallel. Prejudice follows the same patterns. Always has

Nope! Blatantly not so. Nobody has said that black people do not exist... Given that this is the major outcry from TRAs I think we can safely say that 'transphobia' has found a new pattern!

And it's useful to take someone's position on one controversial issue and extrapolate that to another that is much more black and white - tends to focus the mind when people realise that their arguments against transgender rights are exactly the same arguments that racists make against racial equality...

Do you mean that if I don't like cats I must also hate lesbians, transwomen and small children?

And again, as per the previous paragraph, we have now ascertained the fact that the comparitor is false!

>Sometimes segregation IS important, to right historic inequalities or protect the vulnerable for instance.

And erm, women compared to men?

Interesting point. I'm struggling to think of a legit example where that could be justified as a long term policy position to maintain segregation though.

Erm, women compared to men?

>A parallel analogy would need to be when the segregation is of benefit to the more vulnerable class. Women are not the whites in a racial analogy.

No, we already agreed that!

A parallel analogy would be closer to white people identifying as black in order to claim a scholarship only open to people of colour.

Or men identifying as women to claim a business award open only to women!

The point you're making here is about pretence though. You're talking about white people pretending to be black to get a benefit (although Chris Rock does an excellent routine on why this doesn't happen).

Again... I can repeat myself all day if neeed

So are you saying that transgender women are pretending to be women?

Yes!

Apologies, it was actually you (and a half a dozen other people now) who finally decided to break cover and admit their issue actually has nothing to do with statistics but is rather predicted on a belief that transgender people don't exist at all.

And you know that is a lie. Nobody has 'broken cover. Many/most of us know transpeople in real life. Why would anyone claim they don't exist? That's the really weird lie that so many TRAs rely on.

You MUST do better than that if you want to persuade anyone that you have a point!

I call it a "belief" because that's what is - like a believing in unicorns, anyone who rejects scientific fact in favour of their own personal option isn't being rationale.

Ah! That thing. Where you take something someone has said and use it yourself, but based on something that isn't actually the same. In this case transwomen are women is substituted for sex is dimorphic, human beings cannot change sex. The former being real and the latter being the unicorn.

Sentence makes perfect sense and some may miss the absurdity it is based on!

And I am so glad that, at this moment in time, your truly daft post stil lstands.

You know full well why you have been told to stop, that post is full of personal slurs and hyperbole. And yet it is still there... eyes wide open!

I have no particular axe to grind on this, but I work with data and social statistics Any time one of my analysts comes to me with something that makes me go “wow!” the first thing I ask them to do is go back and check the data for errors.

So my mind would immediately be going to data input errors here - or “fat fingers” as it has been described.

Ultimately, there’s four potential explanations for these numbers:

1. biological women prosecuted as an accessory to rape
2. trans-identifying biological males prosecuted with rape (or as an accessory), with sex deliberately recorded as female
3. non-trans-identifying biological males prosecuted with rape with sex mistakenly recorded as female (“fat fingers”)
4. Other data recording errors - eg women prosecuted for another crime but mistakenly recorded as rape (more “fat fingers”)

All four of these are almost certainly represented in the data, the problem is there’s no simple way to determine which category makes up the majority.

I still don't get how the tenet of how woman exists (as in immutable and oh so bad), and yet anyone can declare themselves to be a woman (so a fluid identify) works.

Back to the data, and we're none the wiser which form of woman was noted.

I am so confused. Who has stated that transpeople don’t exist? I haven’t seen a single poster do that.

I have seen several posters saying that you cannot change your biological sex. The same posters argue transwomen are biological males who believe they have a female gender identity. This belief is protected in law.

But the problem is that we cannot really say what a transwoman is. Apart from that it is a biological male who claims that they are a woman. So it is very difficult to separate the transwomen from any potential predators who claim to be transwomen.

Now the problem with the statistics is that they confuse sex and gender. We need crime statistics for biological men, biological women and for transpeople- defined as people who stare that their gender is different from their sex.

Based on this data, we will be able to estimate risk profiles.

The data we have so far indicates that transwomen commit crime at rates corresponding to their biological sex. If this is incorrect, the data will show this. And if the data is obstructed by predators claiming trans status, we need to know this as well.

Then we can discuss data samples, data processing and conclusions.

I have never heard about a systematic error which always occur in one direction. If this is the case, the people responsible needs to be replaced.

It was exactly the same with gay people in the military. It was no longer acceptable to be homophobic and claim it was a mental defect so the argument shifted to "unit cohesion".

This is homophobia, and is nothing to do with the collection of statistics relating to the sex of a prosecuted rapist.

Same with women in the military - it's not acceptable any more to say that women are inferior to men. So you make the argument that it's about "strength and personal safety".

Actually, I have quite a number of female friends that are ex-military of all forces. I am pretty up on what is and isn't possible with females in the military and the horrific discrimination, abuse and sexual assault they suffer.

Females ARE not as strong as males. Or do you believe that military women are super heroes in their strength (I think they are super for other reasons!). Because again, I am happy to post those studies for you to consider.

Should they be excluded from the forces because of their body's disadvantages? No, of course not. Should accommodation be made so that they can contribute to their fullest capacity? Yes. Of course. And they are now doing so, or well on their way.

So... again, this is another personal attack and is nothing at all that forms the basis for my beliefs.

I'm seeing lots of posters saying that transwomen haven't changed sex, but I don't think anyone's saying they don't exist.

I mean, I generally don't worry about unicorns getting into the vegetable garden, because I'm fairly sure there aren't any.

Whereas men who identify as transwomen ending up in female prisons, for example, does actually seem to be A Thing.

So I'm not sure how we are simultaneously being Big Meanies to transwomen whilst also not believing that they even exist...

@ArabellaScott

transgender people don't exist, because s/he doesn't believe in them

Quick, everyone, clap if you believe!

👏🏻

Nobody @BatmansBat

It's a supposed Gotcha! that many people who want to be seen as allies use. It is bandied about by many, hardly ever challenged and is based on absolutely fuck all.

What IS said is that human beings cannot change sex and that transwomen are male - though that last has not long been acceptable here on MN. We still have to mangle the language to say the obvious without being naughty!

But nobody here that I can remember, over about 6 years, has ever said that trans people do not exist!

It's just another of the lies told to silence us!

Thanks, Rufus. Hands are getting quite sore here tbh

@robinr66

Apologies, it was actually you (and a half a dozen other people now) who finally decided to break cover and admit their issue actually has nothing to do with statistics but is rather predicted on a belief that transgender people don't exist at all.

I call it a "belief" because that's what is - like a believing in unicorns, anyone who rejects scientific fact in favour of their own personal option isn't being rationale.

Where?

And where are the ‘posts that are "so extreme that they likely cross the threshold into criminal offense’

finally decided to break cover and admit their issue actually has nothing to do with statistics but is rather predicted on a belief that transgender people don't exist at all.

That's 'predicated', robin. I presume. Unless you think we're all fortune tellers on here. I don't have any crystal balls.

Nobody here has suggested that transgender people don't exist - that would be absurd. Even more absurd than the belief that people can change sex.

In your case, you know full well you can't be all "i hate the wierdo trannies!!" because it's not 1994 and you understand that this is unacceptable.

I don't believe this at all. I don't think I have even ever used the term 'tr*nies. I find it repulsive.

So you frame your prejudice another way. You've got no problems with trans women, no siree. It's entirely to do with the "safety of women

It is actually. As a parent, I am also very conscious of what is happening. In fact, as a close family member, a young woman has been imprisoned, I am also directly worried about her safety.

But, please continue your complete character assessment on what you believe I think. Because, after all, you have called me a transphobe a couple of times now.

But, you might say, I genuinely am only concerned with the safety of women!

And I AM.

To which the response would be then why this issue? Why is the issue so important to you?

Many issues are important to me. I am not a single issue person. Why on earth would suppose I am?

Even if you're 100% correct and all trans women are secretly men looking to get unrestricted access to women's prisons, it's a miniscule issue compared with other problems facing women.

I have never said that all transitioned males are 'secretly men looking to get unrestricted access to women's prison'. I have also never said that these statistics are the most important compared with other problems facing women.

That is you lying and attributing hateful beliefs to me.

Even if you're correct that every single one of these 436 cases is as you say, there were 400,000 reported rapes in the same period.

Because, accuracy of data is vitally important. AND some of these males are likely to be included in the numbers of males in the female prison estate.

If you cannot understand the issues behind having reliable and accurate data and be able to enable experts such as Prof Alice Sullivan to draw conclusions, that is your issue. I can understand why it is important and its wider implications.

It is very confusing to try to have a conversation about data collection and data management on this thread.

Suddenly there are discussions about unicorns, we are accused of some weird conspiracy and we are accused of not believing in transpeople - they are part of the data we are discussing fgs.

This is worse than doing 11 + with my 10 year old. At he doesn’t suddenly involve unicorns in his comprehension answers. And he may say that I am mean but he doesn’t accuse me of being part of some weird conspiracy I’ve never heard of.

Sorry, Bat.

I also find the use of the slur robin mentioned upthread repulsive and abhorrent. I have never, ever used this word and never would.

I am very happy to stand for trans people's rights to protection and happiness and self determination. They deserve all of that just like all of us do.

You're so bloody wrong about women and what we want, robin. Maybe you should try listening, sometime. You might learn something.

@BatmansBat

I have never heard about a systematic error which always occur in one direction. If this is the case, the people responsible needs to be replaced.

No-one is suggesting it’s a systematic error in one direction, if it’s an error it’s likely to be purely random.

If I was recording the sex of 100 women and 10,000 men and made an error 1% of the time, the recorded data would show 200 women and 9901 men. The data for men would be out by 1% but women out by 100%.

Hoarding; It is just another of the lies told to silence us

Yes. As a poster has revealed previously, and I agree with this.

My point is that prejudice doesn't disappear simply because it becomes socially unacceptable. It mutates into more acceptable forms.

Socially acceptable forms misogyny has now mutated into stating that women are the oppressors of males, or people who declare the gender identity of the opposite sex. If you question it, or don't share this new belief, then the new socially acceptable misogynistic backlash is to taint you as transphobic, prejudiced and privileged compared to males. A pit of invective can be unleashed on women in this way. Maybe even a criminal offence!

Why are you so bothered about these and not the 99.9% of other rapes?

I am.

Tell us though, why are you NOT concerned that there might be early warnings in the pattern of sex crime committed by females?

Why, when I search this forum (a feminist forum, mind) is rape only mentioned in the context of trans women? And mentioned dozens and dozens of times a day?

Because this is the sex and gender board that some posters petitioned to get hived off from the other feminist board?? Not sure what you are not understanding here.

I know it's not nice to be confronted with the fact of your prejudice.

No... I consider this post has been an attack because you have not seemed to understand that these attacks are why you were deleted.

I also think that there's a stance of "I'm a woman, a a member of historically oppressed group of people and so I could never oppress anyone myself". Which is just not how it works.

Saying no to statistics of males being included in the female sex statistics is not any woman oppressing anyone. Saying no males in female prisons is not any woman oppressing a male.

You have resorted to hyperbole.

So, yeah, that's my explanation of why I think you're prejudiced.

I think I have established that you actually personally attacked me instead of attacking my opinion that your theory about the numbers of female rapists being convicted was very flimsy. And particularly when I pointed out that the last period's increase of 19 individual defendants was unlikely to be explained by 'fat fingers'.

Yes! Bat is right.

Apologies, its become quite difficult to keep up with the replies and the thread is a mess because of my inability to quote properly.

So, rather than make it even worse, I thought a little exercise could be illuminating and make my point a little clearer.

Here's two statements. I'd be very grateful if anyone could say:

a) Which of these statements do they agree with?
b) Why?
c) What is the difference between them?

Statement 1

Sexuality is a biological characteristic. Men like women and women like men and that can't be changed. Anyone who says they're gay is lying because homosexuality isn't real. It's a choice. We should make sure that gay people can't join the Scouts because they're only doing so to rape little boys.

Statement 2

Gender is a biological characteristic. Men are men and women are women and that can't be changed. Anyone who says they're transgender is lying because being transgender isn't real. It's a choice. We should make sure that transgender people can't use the women's toilets because they're only doing so to rape women.

Only one person on this thread seems to be looking at these statistics and suggesting that no further analysis is necessary to check whether their theory is correct.

I would call that prejudice.

Of course I believe that trans people exist. I also believe that they have rights, and I fully support them to live their lives as they please.

I just don’t think that they can compel me to share their take on their identity, agree that their interpretation of the world is the only possible correct one, or support the belief that gender identity ought to supplant sex in how we organise civil life in this country.

And I would never and have never used the slur beginning with T.

To have a civilised debate you can’t misrepresent the other side like that, you have to leave room for good faith.