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.

@ErrolTheDragon

I don't think I'd be fired for discussing peculiar and worrying statistics.

I might have my competence questioned if I couldn't understand quite simple logic though.

Oh and I’d definitely be fired for making such narrowly focussed egregious data errors as Robin thinks happens.

I try not to hate anyone, but the subject of this thread is specifically people prosecuted for rape.

Feminists tend not to be keen on rapists. And if the reason for there apparently being this number of 'women rapists' turns out to be because some men are pretending to be transwomen ... then I would think supporters of trans people would find that despicable too.

Robin, you haven't replied to the many many women exclaiming why both your scenarios utterly miss the point and completely misrepresent the gender critical view point.

Or which posts were so extreme that they're probably illegal.

However what I really want to ask you is: when you say transwomen are women, what do you mean?

In what way are they women?

What does the word woman mean?

It feels to me that by definition this can only be true by redefining the word Woman.

Who agreed this was ok, was there a referendum on it I missed?

And have you considered the ramifications of redefining a word which appears in lots of laws? Do they need to be rewritten? If not then they cease to have any meaning. Again, who agreed this was OK?

And my final point. Woman are not generally terrified that transwomen are all rapists desperate for entry to the loo to do some raping.
They are terrified that rapists will exploit this legal minefield / loophole and claim to be trans in order to gain access to the loo in order to rape

It's a subtle but absolutely crucial difference.

It's a subtle but absolutely crucial difference.

I think Robin was enjoying the righteous indignation too much to actually read properly. Which is probably why their error rate is so high!

As other posters have said it's a free pass to insult women whilst sitting up on the highest horse.

Please do show us the posts that are "so extreme that they likely cross the threshold into criminal offense". You can do so without being modded provided you just copy the posts.

Did I miss it? Damn.

Nope, never answered that one.

@Cailleach1

This is why the data should always record sex. The biological reality bit should not be lost. This doesn't change and is independent of any 'gender identity'.

How can women's prisons even provide or plan for women's needs if they don't record this?

Quite. By the same measure if the correct place for trans women really is in the female estate, which I struggle with, then for exactly the same reason- we need the data. The sexes have different medical needs and requirements. For example only males are routinely offered a place on the national aortic aneurysm screening programme. If we're blindly recording and conflating gender and sex as the same thing then those trans women in the female estate over the age of 65 will be deprived of the opportunity for important medical screening because the screening programme won't know they're there...

I find it puzzling how twaw essentially erases trans as well as the meaning of women. It makes it all irrelevant, just one homogenous soup that we can't talk about, and in that case surely no one, including those proponents of twaw, benefits.

But, in this scenario, women aren't the opresssed - they're the oppressors. They're not the black people in this scenario, they're the whites. In this case, the power rests entirely with them. That's why the parallel works.
@robinr66 if women hold so much power, how come the likes of "Karen" White were able to abuse them with impunity?

Guys? Dude?

Woah!!! Misgendering is not allowed on this forum

Frankly, I think I've been pretty gentle with you - far more gentle than you have any right to expect, given your views.

Try saying some of this stuff to people in real life. You'll quickly learn a) what value society places on people like you and b) what real consequences are.

Soooo…. You doubled down. I am not surprised.

You really are enraged that your fat finger theory didn’t work out aren’t you? You’ve been gentle? Awww! That’s nice dear.

I do say this in real life. Because despite your own adventure out of your very safe and supportive echo chamber, this foray onto MN, I exist solely in the real world. So, I say everything that I have said here on this forum in real life.

I know!!!! Amazing isn’t it? That I can do so and will continue. Because robin you seem to think that women should not discuss this and other issues that concern them in real life, in real life! Or is it only when we don’t believe that gender identity prioritises sex that we cannot say that out loud?

what value society places on people like you

Nice one. You really cannot see the extreme prejudice you are literally spewing onto this board. You are so righteous.

I expect that you will struggle to operate outside your carefully curated space you are so blinded by your sense of righteousness.

what real consequences are

As far as I have been concerned, the real consequences of this increase in numbers for female defendants of rape is of great concern. Considering these stats are already 3 years old.

The real consequences about many aspects of prioritising gender identity above sex is of immediate and very high concern for me. I wouldn’t be out of line saying that it is for many posters on this very thread.

But you do seem to be wedded in attacking the posters on this thread instead of addressing the issue at hand.

I understand that you might be very embarrassed though, that your condescending and patronising fat finger administrative error minimising theory fell flat. It is no reason to be so abusive to people pointing out its flaws.

The point I was trying to make to the person I said that you (someone who has repeatedly made transphobic comments and then repeatedly whined about how unfair and horrible it is that I called her a transphobe) is that if you met me in real life, I'd say exactly the same thing to you, in the same way. I have done and will do.

Oh…I ‘whined’. I think we have established that you are misogynistic, haven’t we? Because that really does show your true intention on this particular thread.

You really cannot see it can you, that people can have a different opinion to yours and you should not monster them in the way you have monstered and demonised the people posting on this board.

But someone like that OP hides their prejudices and only exposes them when doing so is free of consequence. They're cowards. They'd never dare to say these views out loud. That's my point. I wasn't being "menacing" or "threatening" . FFS...

Are you talking about me or the OP? I don’t reckon that Cwenthryth has done much to deserve the beam of your ire.

Again, the only person I have noticed with extreme prejudice on this thread is you.

And as I posted before, I do discuss my view in real life. And it might surprise you, I know of not one person who thinks humans can change sex. I know of not one person who believes that males should be housed in the shared female prison estate for any reason (except infant and children in specific mother and child facilities).

I know that may shock you. I speak to a wide range of people from teenagers to elderly people. No one disagrees with the above.

So, I doubt many people would also disagree with my repeated attempts to clarify your fat finger data processing argument here either.

Calling someone transphobic when they are not is actually threatening. Telling people that if they spoke in real life about their opinions they’d face ‘real consequences’ and the implication that something said would be criminal is by its very nature ‘menacing’ and ‘threatening’. Do you understand this?

Is this like the ‘I don’t understand what I said that was prejudiced’ moment back up thread that I then laid out for you, twice, and you didn’t acknowledge that you were indeed making rash negative generalisations about a group of people, and about individual posters?

That said, the general tone here and the responses are shameful. This is a discussion about prejudice and hatred and yet the responses have (with some exceptions) been on the lines of "ha ha ha, clap for unicorns, isn't this funny, squirrels, trans women aren't women and they only pretend to be to rape women, ha ha ha, clap for some more unicorns, this is hilarious".

Yes some of us were facetious. I generally am facetious when I see people minimise such an important issue as you have done. And use distraction and deflection to avoid providing evidence to support their assertions.

I was pointing out that you were doing just that. Deflecting and distracting away from having to support your very peculiar theory as to why the numbers are increasing.

Facetious, in the face of a bully too.

This seems like such a joke to you all. You all seem to find this so funny.

Is this like a ‘I like jokes’ protest moment? Should I repent motherfucker?

I can assure you, I do not find the subject of this thread funny at all.

Which, I suppose, isn't unexpected. Anyone who frequents a hate filled echo chamber like this generally stops seeing others as people. They dehumanise them.

There you go again. Making negative generalisations about people who disagree with you.

But you're doing nothing but shaming and embarrassing yourselves. The fact that you all pat each other on the back whenever someone opens up about their hatred of trans people doesn't change that.

And you continued.

Perhaps if you took off whatever lens you perceive MN with, and actually read this thread you would see why your posts have not received the support that you could have.

No one on this thread hates trans people. Some people have suggested that ONE reason out of any number, may be due to males being registered as females in crime statistics. Something known to happen. And when it comes to rape with the clear definition, this is being questioned.

Again, do you think Priti Patel would stand up and say this should stop if it wasn’t already happening?

Has any department head come out and said ‘Priti, you are speaking bollocks and this just is not happening?’ If someone has, please link it up.

Otherwise, it IS happening and HAS happened and therefore it is far more likely to be one factor than your attempt to minimise it all by fat fingers.

None of you guys will agree with me or accept I'm right, any more than if I popped over to your sister site Stormfront (you know you're called Prosecco Stormfront, right? That's your nickname) and started banging on about racial equality.

Guys??? Really??

And yet another post telling women who dare to disagree with you that they are also racist. That was a long list you published earlier too.

They'd probably ban me a bit quicker, mind, but I'm sure you'll sort that tomorrow. When someone can literally post "trans women aren't women" over and over again and then outright deny that they've done that, you're clearly not operating in the sphere of sanity.

Transitioned males are not women. Women are adult human females. Like ‘Ewe’ is an adult female sheep and an in cattle, the adult male is called a ‘bull’ (lots of that on this thread too!).

No one is denying that we say this. Why do you persist in lying. Or is it simply you cannot believe the affrontery of people disagreeing with you?

And no doubt many of your posts will be deleted. Which is why I am replying to them all now.

My point is to make clear to any unlucky person who stumbles across this thread that your views are repellent and are not shared nor are they acceptable.

Because any person coming to this thread after your posts are deleted will begin to understand the extreme prejudice that you have against people, many of who are women, saying ‘no, you are wrong.’

I do think there is a very deep gulf between what you believe is happening and what actually is happening.

However, we have seen this so often now that sadly your posts are actually very predictable as we have seen them all before - except the novel fat finger theory. Many thousands of people will read this thread, quietly in the background and will have noticed that all this sparked off because someone pointed out that your theory was ill conceived and offensive.

Minimising rape the way you did is offensive- both the fat finger implication at the rapes were wrongly assigned or did not happen and you were dismissive in the scale. I still have your comparator of the sloppy nature of the drink driving stats which leads me to surmise that you also think that the number is incorrect in that they did not happen.

So readers will see your theory, will see your twists to distract from the fact your have no evidence at all. And then see your increasing hostile and dishonest attacks.

They will make their own judgement about your credibility and therefore whether any of your posts should be considered.

Just as we have.

Our views will be repellent to people very entrenched in their views. But you are infantilising readers by using a well known tactic that of purity. That if one aspect of the point of view is ‘repellent’, the rest should be discredited. A very convenient way to remove any onus of respect for other’s opinions.

That you say they are unacceptable, well that is your own issue. A court recently disagreed with you. And as I mentioned, even the EHRC has stated women are not transphobic to discuss the conflicts between trans and women’s rights.

Such as collation of accurate statistics to describe the nature of female crime.

Hated and prejudice these days isn't burning crosses or wearing swastika shirts. It's posting about how trans women are only pretending to be women so they can rape men. It's exactly the same with white nationalism. It's a big effort to put a socially acceptable veneer on prejudice.

You really really are making this up.

Dude, I don't get this. You do understand that we can all see the thread, right? You can't hide what was said. Just one example, on literally the first page of this thread, taking the roughly four seconds to find. I can't link to it for it some reason but this is the text and its on page 1:

>20Babdoc

>We can expect this to increase, as soon as rapists realise they only have to claim a trans identity in order to be locked up in a women’s prison, with plentiful access to vulnerable and traumatised potential further victims.
>What rapist could resist the opportunity to force women to shower naked with them, or be locked in a cell with them overnight?
>The UK justice system is subjecting women to conditions forbidden under the Geneva Convention for prisoners of war.
>And idiot politicians are cheerleading it

A literal statement that men are pretending to be women so they can get into women's prisons to rape women.

And, before you try and lawyer this by saying "ah ha, it doesn't mention, trans women so it doesn't count! Unicorn claps!!", the thread has made it perfectly clear that you don't regard trans women as women. You regard them as men. So you don't make a distinction.

Actually, yours is the bad faith interpretation of what babdoc said. If you didn’t understand it fully, just ask. Babdoc is very patient.

Again, Cwenthryth is probably not the target for this below.

Do I really have to explain this again? This was not a threat and its ridiculous to pretend that it was.

My point was that if OP walked into work on Monday and said this nonsense, they'd be fired. If they started banging on at a family dinner, they'd be shunned. No one would want anything to do with someone like OP.*

If they tried this they'd quickly learn "the value society places" on this type of thing and they'd quickly learn what real consequences are. But they won't do that because they don't want the consequences

Is it embarrassing to keep having not pointed out that you are mixing up the posters you are denigrating?

Or are all women just interchangeable to you?

My point is to make clear to any unlucky person who stumbles across this thread that your views are repellent and are not shared nor are they acceptable.

So you think the truth is repellent, that belief in the truth is not shared by most, and it is unacceptable to speak the truth.

Oh no!

Is it embarrassing to keep having not pointed out that you are mixing up the posters you are denigrating?

Well that typo was embarrassing to me! Apologies.

Is it embarrassing to keep having it pointed out that you are mixing up the posters you are denigrating?

The poster may not know who mimmy etc. is. I think a lot of the strawmen references were specific to America.

Could be American or American identifying. Or simply saturated in US specific worldview.

@robinr66

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

But that is exactly what you're doing. They aren't trying to define you, they are trying to define themselves in a way they feel comfortable with.

But you are defining them in a way that you feel comfortable with. You're insisting that your beliefs matter more. And you're doing so proudly, openly saying that what they want and what they feel doesn't matter to you. Someone else must define themselves according to your criteria and what makes you comfortable.

The fact that you can't see how insane that is makes me want to bang my head on a table.

Well, what a lot there was added to the thread overnight that I have tried to digest with my smoothie this morning!

I’m addressing this one as it quotes something I typed.

It’s part of a long list of things you haven’t grasped, robin, but I’ll explain further so you don’t have to bang your head off a desk.

I am not “defining” trans people in any way. I leave that to them to do as they see fit, as I do with anyone else’s beliefs about themself. It is not for me to say how people should think of themselves.

My only concern is where those beliefs make their way into public life so that they start having an impact on me that I take notice. If we change the definition of “woman” from the accepted “adult human female” to “anyone with the gender identity of woman”, then it’s not an abstract concept with no impact. I don’t have a gender identity, so I no longer have a category. I’m not someone with a gender identity of woman, I’m an adult human female with no gender identity.

The rights and protections that women have in law are related to our biology- the particular needs that female bodies have, the particular restrictions that female bodies are subject to. Males don’t have these. If you can’t describe the category of people who need these rights, then noone will get to have them.

You can’t run a society like that, pretending that the internal feelings of a minority of people trump material reality. It has to be treated like a religious belief- you are free to believe it, free to live according to its precepts, but society has to be secular because everyone doesn’t share your belief.

I’m assuming that if anyone can be bothered to report your abusive, demeaning posts, they’ll get deleted. I haven’t- I’d rather people saw them.

And I do discuss this in real life. Get off the Internet, my friend- yours is not the mainstream opinion.

I woke up, read the thread and it seems we are threatened that we will be societal outcasts for suggesting that men may pretend to be transwomen.

I absolutely think it is possible that some men may pretend to be transwomen. Predators will pretend anything, some even become priests to access children. If the only thing they need to do is to put on a skirt, why wouldn’t they?

Robin, if you are still here, let’s start easy.

Should a rapist who decides to transition (as in just saying “I am a woman”) during the trial be put in women’s prison?

What about the person in a skirt who sodomised that poor girl in Laudoun and then went on to sexually assault (rape?) another underaged girl? Should they have been allowed in the girls toilets just because they were wearing a skirt? Should they go to a women’s jail?

I am very open to discuss this. I think it appears to be a risk to women and girls from people with penises. I also think that it suddenly seems to be many sex crimes committed by people stating that they are trans and I don’t think all of them are.

Do you think all sex criminals who say that they are trans, really are trans Robin?

So... I have gone away and David Duke doesn't seem to be the long lost brother of Daisy Duke or Beau and Luke Duke, said in a Rosco P Coltrane voice. (Note: NOT Peacoal Train as I thought growing up in a coal mining area)

This is what wikipedia told me

David Ernest Duke (born July 1, 1950) is an American neo-Nazi, antisemitic conspiracy theorist, far-right politician, convicted felon, and former grand wizard of the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan.

Wowsers robin, that is quite the POW moment.... hums the theme tune to Batman from the 60s.