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.

As I've pointed out elsewhere, yes they can - joint enterprise doesn't require you to physically rape anyone or have a penis.

@robinr66

In the nicest possible way, this kind of error is endemic in the finance world also. The fact that accounts add up doesn't mean they're right. Plenty of companies find they've made accounting errors.

In terms of other factors staying the same, where does it say that's the case? Because I see a single standalone stat and none of us have access to the data so you can't possibly support your assertion.

Ah, whatabouttery, which is my favourite kind of logical fallacy. So far we've had DARVO and logical fallacies in the form of: appeal to authority, ad hominem attacks and whatabouttery making a less-than compelling basis for a credible argument.

@robinr66

As I've pointed out elsewhere, yes they can - joint enterprise doesn't require you to physically rape anyone or have a penis.

Yes. And joint enterprise is not rape. As has been pointed out to you elsewhere.

So should these men be put in women's prisons to protect men?

@robinr66

Hardly surprising, given that this place is littered with them. Don't you think it's important to call out prejudice when you see it?

I think it's important to call out idiocy when I see it, which is why I have responded to your posts. (I lack the time and interest to respond to all of them, though.)

@robinr66

Hardly surprising, given that this place is littered with them. Don't you think it's important to call out prejudice when you see it?

The prejudice in this thread, is yours robinr. And it has been called out.

Maybe have a look at the law before posting, eh? Joint enterprise isn't an offence in itself - if you're convicted of rape using joint enterprise, the conviction will show as rape.

However, even after being on mumsnet i’m shocked how quickly people jump to conclusions. The trans population is absolutely tiny. You can’t just identify as female spur of the moment for a criminal case. Get your facts together people, use your common sense and please keep in mind that there are awful people in all walks of life.

Keep seeing this. Yet to see anyone explain what my prejudice is though - would anyone like to explain?

@Itsanewdah

Just an example. www.theguardian.com/uk/2001/mar/17/sarahhall Not every women who commits a crime was born male. The vast majority are born female, identify female.

And no one is denying that women commit sex crimes.

@Helleofabore no, but people are jumping to the conclusion that women committing rape must be transwomen. Which is absolutely, completely untrue. A cis woman is perfectly able to be convicted for rape. In all likelihood the absolute majority of the cases from the original post were women born as women and identifying as women. Just absolute awful humans,

Another thread successfully derailed.

You must be so proud of yourself robin

Your comment makes no sense at all - I've explained (repeatedly) why this is obviously a data error.

Are you just looking at a list of fallacies and chucking them in without understanding what they actually mean?

@timeisnotaline

Entering something correctly 97 times out of 100 is actually a really really high rate of accuracy. 436 errors in ten thousand cases is good, not bad. Imagine if I said that in the finance world I live in. Farewell paid employment! You’d be clutching at straws to argue this one data point has had a significant error increase while others have remained constant. Any data analyst/ statistician would blink that this seemed a likely argument, but if you really wanted to try it would be feasible to do a statistical analysis on the likelihood that a single data error rate increased noticeably from a certain point, with the null hypothesis being something like error rates have increased across the board after this certain point in time.

I don't work in finance, but I do work with big data sets. I came to make this same point. If I entered 3 out of every 100 data points incorrectly, my data would be meaningless. I would be fired. This is why things like manual data entries are reviewed multiple times. Guess the police/MOJ have incredibly low standards??

@robinr66

Your comment makes no sense at all - I've explained (repeatedly) why this is obviously a data error.

Are you just looking at a list of fallacies and chucking them in without understanding what they actually mean?

No, you haven't 'explained' why it 'obviously' is a data error at all. You may think you have, but that's your problem tbh.

Anyway... by all means let's hope this data gets thoroughly scrutinised and corrected, ideally including accurate sex categorisation.

My apologies, we have another robin.

Government data is poor - that's my point. Although, I don't think 97% accuracy is actually that bad in the grand scheme of things.

Gosh, the invective is tiresome.

What do you mean?

@Itsanewdah

However, even after being on mumsnet i’m shocked how quickly people jump to conclusions. The trans population is absolutely tiny. You can’t just identify as female spur of the moment for a criminal case. Get your facts together people, use your common sense and please keep in mind that there are awful people in all walks of life.

You absolutely can identify as a woman at any point in a criminal case.

Which is the point of the analysis by the Professor.

@robinr66

Your comment makes no sense at all - I've explained (repeatedly) why this is obviously a data error.

Are you just looking at a list of fallacies and chucking them in without understanding what they actually mean?

You have expressed an opinion which no one takes seriously. That is not an explanation.

Is your key argument that there isn't any male rapists claiming a female identity as it is entirely a data error?

@robinr66

Maybe have a look at the law before posting, eh? Joint enterprise isn't an offence in itself - if you're convicted of rape using joint enterprise, the conviction will show as rape.

That's semantics. A woman cannot rape. That is biology.