Correction from The Times

[rabbitwoman]

..... 436 women charged with rape in the UK from 2012 to 2018, as reported in the Times last month - I engaged quite a lot with TRAs on twitter at the time who were all adament that these MUST be women charged as accessory to rape etc rather than men claiming to be trans or trans women.

Today the times have printed this correction which I assume can only be as a result of being utterly inundated by complaints from TRAs, and a few have come cback to me to gloat....

...... It just goes to show how very unhelpful it is not recording or reporting the biological sex of these criminals is.

I just don't believe any more than 1 or 2 of these women are biological women charged as accessory to rape. But how do we know that?

The Times should have clarified further and specifically said "rape by joint enterprise" (when referring to a 'rape' women can be charged with). Pretty sure this has been discussed here and that is the legal term. If anyone can confirm...?

Shall we complain right back?

I wonder if you can find a breakdown of this data by year. As the number of people identifying as trans has increased significantly in recent years you might be able to see a clue as to the actual sec split from that.

*sex not sec!

They really shouldn't be quoting stuff if they haven't got the right info.

"Not recorded" - well that's the story right there. Why not? Say Times readers.

In 2001 the Guardian described a “handful” of women ever being convicted of rape - I very much doubt that that handful (ever found guilty) has somehow turned into 72+ per year over 6 years without the vast majority of them being “people with penises”.

Certainly these cases would be frequently reported due to the unique circumstances of a woman being convicted of rape.

www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/uk/2001/mar/17/sarahhall

How many female defendants were ‘male bodied’ ?

Who writes this stuff…makes no sense

It's a very unhelpful amendment from a paper that has usually been great on this subject.

It must be incredibly frustrating rabbit

The amendment doesn’t mean you were/are wrong in the slightest

The damage is two fold because firstly, we are not seeing the harm allowing any man to identify as a woman just upon his say so is doing.

And secondly, allowing people to claim that women are being prosecuted for rape at a really alarming, unprecedented rate when they are not.

Why isn't a news outlet running a story on this!?

According to this report in 2020 16 women have been convicted under joint enterprise since 2016.

www.thejusticegap.com/half-of-women-convicted-under-joint-enterprise-not-even-present-a-scene/

Bloody hell.

That's quite chilling, dolorsit, you can be convicted for joint enterprise if you are not even present at the scene.

However, these are not 16 women convicted of rape by joint enterprise, but murder and manslaughter charges. Chilling and horrifically unfair, but not quite the same.

Apologies of the 109 cases that they looked at, 16 were convicted since 2016.

They were specifically looking at women who has received long or indeterminate sentences. There is a problem that the government is not recording when someone is convicted under joint enterprise (they should be). Freedom of information requests are being made.

Just lost post, apologies it is 16 of the 109 cases they reviewed.

It is shocking.

Joint enterprise, of course, was brilliant when it helped convict the gang guilty of murdering Stephen Lawrence..... But they were all present at the scene..... When being used to imprison people who weren't even there, I have to question it's integrity.....

I still don't believe there are women being prosecuted for rape under joint enterprise in large numbers, though, and its frustrating not being able to show that.

They looked at women serving long or indeterminate sentences. 75 percent murder/manslaughter convictions. Half of the women were not present at the crime and 9/10 had not committed any violence themselves.

There are issues and an ongoing campaign regarding convictions using joint enterprise. The government is not recording convictions as joint enterprise (they should be) so freedom of information requests are being made.

So we don't know how many females are being convicted of rape under joint enterprise. However, I very much doubt it is very many.

Didn't we look at the 6 year period prior to 2012 (i.e . before they started to record men as women) and there was like a single case (or a very low number). So the rise to 436 women committing this crime in the following 6 year period is very suspicious.....

We know what’s happening here.

We do need to get #notourcrimes more traction in the media so I’m going to write to the Times and suggest they do just this. Usually newspapers hate printing corrections so perhaps they would relish the chance to interrogate this.

It’s vital we have clear stats on how many TW are sexually offending or how many sexual offenders are adopting a trans identity to access women’s prisons. Even though it’s obvious what is going on, this lack of clarity is used by TRAs to muddy the waters (hence the gloating).

Despicable.

Off to investigate who is on this and how I can help/donate.

Let me know what you come up with....

@Bellendejour

We know what’s happening here.

We do need to get #notourcrimes more traction in the media so I’m going to write to the Times and suggest they do just this. Usually newspapers hate printing corrections so perhaps they would relish the chance to interrogate this.

It’s vital we have clear stats on how many TW are sexually offending or how many sexual offenders are adopting a trans identity to access women’s prisons. Even though it’s obvious what is going on, this lack of clarity is used by TRAs to muddy the waters (hence the gloating).

Despicable.

Off to investigate who is on this and how I can help/donate.

Or....it could be that the actual stats are minimal incidences, and all this is, is fear mongering designed to sell clicks......

Two Times corrections in one day. Wonders never cease.

Mishy

The stat is that 436 women have been prosecuted for rape in 6 years. No argument there.

The argument comes when trying to ascertain if these are women being prosecuted for rape which can only happen in a very rare set of circumstances. As rape can only be committed with a penis, women can only be prosecuted for rape when a penis is present. Is it theirs or not?

Now we are being accused of saying that these women are trans women and therefore demonising the trans Community? Well, I for one am not suggesting that, I am saying that these are men claiming a female identity so that they can be housed with women in prison. And so that they can inflict further distress on their victims, who have been compelled to refer to them as women in court.

We know this happens, happens often, we have many examples.

But women do not commonly assist rapists, not at a rate of more than one a week for certain, we do not have a wealth of examples of this, we have one, or two known cases.

So we know which is more likely, mishy. What I honestly cannot comprehend is why you would not acknowledge that and try to solve the problem, which surely harmful to the trans Community?

This shows a flaw in self ID. This shows how it is a policy that will be abused.

Oh, actually, phew!! Here is the wonderful Allison bailey who will explain it in a few tweets, @mishyjdi

twitter.com/BluskyeAllison/status/1479420235706945539?t=V8OSSDsxuK4RcyeQJOuCww&s=19

[quote rabbitwoman]Oh, actually, phew!! Here is the wonderful Allison bailey who will explain it in a few tweets, @mishyjdi

twitter.com/BluskyeAllison/status/1479420235706945539?t=V8OSSDsxuK4RcyeQJOuCww&s=19[/quote]
On that Twitter thread someone references this source: www.cps.gov.uk/sites/default/files/documents/publications/CPS_VAW_report_2009.pdf
On page 40 it shows the number of women prosecuted for rape as 35 in 2006-7, 38 in 07-08, and 43 in 08-09. This seems much higher than the ones in Alison's source, which (for rape of a female) shows the number of females prosecuted as 5 in 2006, 12 in 2007, 4 in 2008 and 10 in 2009. There is also 1 prosecution for rape of a male in those years. Her source is a gov. uk link www.gov.uk/government/statistics/an-overview-of-sexual-offending-in-england-and-wales and you can see the relevant table by downloading the Sexual offending overview tables and extracting chapter 4 in Excel (table 4.3). Does anyone know why there is a difference in the figures? Does the CPS link maybe cover all of the UK, not just England and Wales?

Females are adult human women… biological women. Not someone who feels like a woman, not someone who put a dress on that day. Not someone who wore lipstick and said they were a woman. So none of the male bodied offenders were female.

Language matters.

@rabbitwoman

I just don't believe any more than 1 or 2 of these women are biological women charged as accessory to rape. But how do we know that?

I remember one case where this happened and it was a huge case at the time - it's hard to believe it wouldn't even be reported now.