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.

@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.

'People' have got their facts together. We are using common sense. It's not about "awful people in all walks of life" - it is about men.

@robinr66

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

You are prejudiced against women questioning the policy of recording male rape convictions as female.

@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.

Multiple people have spelt this out already, as well as any known incidences of a woman being convicted of rape - it’s difficult to prove and very rare. No one is hiding anything here with regards to the data or to crime definitions.

[quote Itsanewdah]@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,[/quote]
The point is, you don’t know.

You are no less jumping to conclusions than anyone else.

For anyone who hasn't seen the petition relevant to this issue (on accurately recording the sex of criminals) - a reminder to periodically check the Petitions and Activism board. There's all sorts of issues there, not just feminist concerns and well worth an occasional trawl through imo.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/petitions_noticeboard

@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.

How on earth could you think it’s a reasonable conclusion that a stand alone data point suddenly has a significant, stand alone jump in error rate, unique to that data point? These are forms that get entered; the error rate is either fairly consistent across data points ie endemic according to your hypothesis, or it isn’t real.

You accuse people of jumping to conclusions, but don’t seem to support collection of accurate data.

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 the nicest possible way, if they want to keep trading they investigate the error to check that their reporting is accurate.

To be clear for robinr, these are from your posts, yes?

A secret transgender agenda to manipulate crime stats to do....what, exactly?

Personally, I'd be more bothered by the fact that the CPS only prosecute 1 in 50 recorded rapes. You know, actual problems? With real impacts on women?

But then I guess some people are just really really desperate to find a stick to beat someone with.

Then

Also I think you need to put your tin foil hat back on. The CPS will have data policies that are either public or FOI-able. Wildly claiming, with no dviz evidence at all, that this is a secret trans conspiracy to oppress women by...reducing the number of male rapes by 3% a year just make you sound like a loon.

then

You've found something that you think supports your prejudice and are proudly declaring this as evidence of secret trans conspiracies...

Then calling someone a transphobe directly implying that anyone else disagreeing with you is also a transphobe.

Do you mean it spoiled your planned hate party?

I mean, if you cannot see your own very clear prejudice against people, from looking at the user names the majority are regular posters who are women, who are pointing out that your breezy 'fat finger' reason for the stats jumping from a range of 51-65 over 6 periods tracking quite consistently up but in single digit increases, to 83, an increase in 19 defendants in the period to the end of Mar 2018, then you perhaps need to understand the definition of prejudicial behaviour and making quite rash generalisations about a group on MN.

19 forms between 17 -18 were entered with fat fingers.... all of them. Every single one.

Sorry, that is just defendants, that is not the crimes they committed each. I have not checked that to be fair.

It’s amazing how easily

“These statistics look odd - is there something wrong with the data collection?’

Can be confused with a conspiracy theory.

I'm unable to address these points - Mumsnet mods have made clear directly to me that my account will be suspended if I continue do so or say anything further about transphobia.

Sorry, I should be clearer.

The records for 19 defendants of rape prosecutions between 2017 - 2018 were entered with fat fingers.... all of them. Every single one.

Potentially 22.6% of the forms entered that year were entered with fat fingers and were incorrectly entered. It could have been more even, because the numbers may have dropped for that period.

Ok... all good. nothing to see here at all, no issues developing that anyone should be querying at all.

Now.... about full numbers of 436... how many of them were in fact female, male or slips of fat fingers?

I'm unable to address these points - Mumsnet mods have made clear directly to me that my account will be suspended if I continue do so or say anything further about transphobia.

There is a difference between discussing transphobia and doing what you arrears to do which was accusing people of being transphobic with no evidence/basis in order to shut down the conversation.

@robinr66

I'm unable to address these points - Mumsnet mods have made clear directly to me that my account will be suspended if I continue do so or say anything further about transphobia.

So.... you are pretty clear then now about your prejudice that you faux innocently asked about?

All good.

The thread can be enriched by your experience in how these data errors have occurred and how you account for them and the 22%+ increase in the final year's data (unless you truly want us to believe it is erroneous data entry).

What we need is a graph to show the number of women over time (say last 100 years) convicted of this hideous crime to see what is going wrong in society and lessons to be learned going forward. But no one appears able to do that. Because the data hasn’t been properly collected. It is so simple to record sex and gender as separate data columns. It would then show the rate of criminality of trans gender people too. Except I would guess it would be a massive overestimate as men pretend to be transgender in order to gain access to women. How do you really know who is ‘genuinely’ trans? Particularly with the ‘acceptance without exception’. Which brings us back to toilets…..

Because of this, I'm unable to continue this discussion - it's simply impossible to have any kind of open discussion when I can only participate if I limit myself to "approved" views.

I'm unable to respond to this point for the reasons previously given.

if I limit myself to "approved" views.

Or you could try discussing things without name calling people?

irony klaxon! irony klaxon!

irony klaxon! irony klaxon!

I'm unable to respond to this point for the reasons previously given.

So, you cannot engage with posters with any engagement at all apart from denigrating them or with condescension or without casting aspersions on their motivations?

Are you 10?

I haven't called anyone any names. But, as I said, I can't discuss this further because my account will be suspended if I do. It's been made explicitly clear to me that this is a prohibited subject, I'm not allowed to say certain things and I'll be booted if I keep discussing it or challenging what I'm seeing.

Totally fair enough - it's a private forum and so Mumsnet is free to impose whatever party line it wants on any discussion. I, obviously, couldn't care less about whether I keep my account but I'd like to my previous posts on the data issue to stay up for context and so don't want them to be removed under the pretext of my account being suspended for comments elsewhere.

I doubt that MN said that this is a prohibited subject. They would have told you, as they have been telling us for years, that you cannot make negative generalisations about a group of people, including MNers.

And you cannot personally attack someone by name calling and calling them transphobic. Which you did.

But, whatever. Your point is quite obviously based on quite dreadful foundations and cannot be supported.