Dominic Lawson on reporting males' crimes as women's

[Abitofalark]

"Why do police and the NHS insist that some male-bodied rapists are 'women'?"

A lengthy column in the Mail with a round-up of the notorious cases in prisons and hospitals; campaigning by women; citing Bernard Jenkin (noting Baroness Jenkin as a longtime campaigner for women), Baroness Nicholson, JK Rowling and Kathleen Stock.

"[References the American case] But the same thing is happening in the UK (though not yet with such a grotesque crime) — and in a way that exasperates many campaigners for women's rights.

What especially concerns them is how sexual assaults on women — including rape — by male-bodied people self-identifying as female are officially registered as crimes 'by women'.

This was raised during the recent Parliamentary debate on International Women's Day by the Conservative MP Sir Bernard Jenkin (whose wife, Anne, is a longstanding campaigner for greater involvement of women in politics, founding the group Women2Win).

Sir Bernard told MPs: 'Nearly all violence against women is committed by men, but there is a new and growing category of violence against women committed by people who call themselves women but are biologically male."

www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-10634127/DOMINIC-LAWSON-police-NHS-insist-male-bodied-rapists-women.html

I'm glad to see this in such a widely read newspaper. More recognition that statistics on 'women's crime' are becoming meaningless. More acknowledgement that self-ID allows every male predator access to female victims. More sunlight.

I believe that the Mail Online has a fairly substantial readership not only in the UK but also in the US.

If 'misgendering' is not allowed in court, could that be a defence to rape?

Sexual Offences Act 2003 defines rape as when a person 'intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person … with his penis without consent

So if it's HER penis, thank you very much, does that mean they haven't committed rape?

@similarminimer

If 'misgendering' is not allowed in court, could that be a defence to rape?

Sexual Offences Act 2003 defines rape as when a person 'intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person … with his penis without consent

So if it's HER penis, thank you very much, does that mean they haven't committed rape?

No, that is still rape.

@similarminimer

If 'misgendering' is not allowed in court, could that be a defence to rape?

Sexual Offences Act 2003 defines rape as when a person 'intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person … with his penis without consent

So if it's HER penis, thank you very much, does that mean they haven't committed rape?

No, in most legislation unless specifically clarified the use of one gender implies all genders, and often singular implies plural. There's a lot of laws still written in terms of the 'default male' he. Of course in the case of rape, which in U.K. law requires a penis, 'he' is entirely appropriate regardless of a persons claim to a feminine gender identity. If you want people to 'respect your pronouns', bloody well respect their most basic human rights.

For what it's worth, I have a compromise solution for hospitals and prisons. Post-operative transgender women — that is, minus the dangly bits — should be allocated to female wards/prisons; but those who are still in possession of a penis should be restricted to male facilities

I’m grateful to the Daily Mail for covering this issue amd all, but No Thank You Dominic, my rights aren’t yours to give away and I don’t want males in femae sex-segregated spaces, dangly bits or not. A male minus his dangly bits is still not a female.

@similarminimer

If 'misgendering' is not allowed in court, could that be a defence to rape?

Sexual Offences Act 2003 defines rape as when a person 'intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person … with his penis without consent

So if it's HER penis, thank you very much, does that mean they haven't committed rape?

Most of the older legislation is written as if all humans are male.

There will be legislation which covers the use of single sex words to transpose female/her on to male/his (which google tells me is Language used in Acts of Parliament for 1850).

In the UK the distinction in the recognition of biological sex and the ability to change legal sex remain. It combines 2 PC, and effectively creates 4 legal classifications female, GRC female, male GRC male.
This split is fundemental as the exclusion of males (or female) who have government issued GRC is still lawful, but would not be of only 2 classifications (female, male) existed.

Ireland which has no separation between gender identity and gender (sexed bodies). So the governmemt had to include a specific section in the Gender Recognition Act 2015 which depending on the sexual offence recognises a "legally" female penis and "legally" male vagina etc

One other problem with Irelands model is sexed healthcare is for women or men eg. legal males with female cervix are excluded from cervical cancer screening. Since 2018 "legally male" & "pregnant people" are excluded from access to otherwise legal abortions and HCP involved committing a criminal offence. And "pregnant not a woman" can be sacked from their jobs etc etc.

The male child sex abuser's conviction was recorded as a female crime, and the appeal to reduce the sentence argued for a reduction due to being remanded to the female prison.

I expect the upcomming trial if reported at all, will be reported on as a woman being charged and if a conviction happens it would be recorded as female crime too.

@ZaraSizeMedium

For what it's worth, I have a compromise solution for hospitals and prisons. Post-operative transgender women — that is, minus the dangly bits — should be allocated to female wards/prisons; but those who are still in possession of a penis should be restricted to male facilities

I’m grateful to the Daily Mail for covering this issue amd all, but No Thank You Dominic, my rights aren’t yours to give away and I don’t want males in femae sex-segregated spaces, dangly bits or not. A male minus his dangly bits is still not a female.

Moreover, it's not exactly a solution that he has uniquely come up with that none of the women have ever thought about before. Sounds v patronising.

So if surgeons had not managed to reattach John Wayne Bobbitt's severed penis, he should have been treated on a women's ward?

I think not.

A man whose penis has been removed remains a man.

A man whose testicles have been removed remains a man.

It is up to his fellow men to Be Kind and to continue to accept him as one of them.

Is our Dominic so new to this fight, that he thinks that he has, all by his little self, invented this 'solution'?

Why hasn't he done a bit of research?

How is that going to work, Dominic? Genital inspections?

No. Keep them all out. They are males, twice our size and strength and a danger to all of us.

Yes, I disagree with Lawson when he says Post-operative [transwomen] should be allocated to female wards/prisons; but those who are still in possession of a penis should be restricted to male facilities.

I've never heard any evidence that surgery reduces a disturbed male's likelihood of attacking women.

Well, what a surprise that for Dominic, a man, it is all about the 'dangly bits'.

Thank you for expressing that in such nauseatingly coy terms, Dominic, but no. It is not all about actual or feared assault with a penis.

I don't want a post pubertal male with decades of male socialisation in the hospital bed next to mine when I'm ill and vulnerable. His presence is an invasion of my privacy and dignity. A lack of penis doesn't change that.

So no. No, thank you.

'So if surgeons had not managed to reattach John Wayne Bobbitt's severed penis, he should have been treated on a women's ward?'

This is important because it highlights the metaphysical element of gender ideology. Nobody is saying someone accidentally castrated in an accident is a woman. Nobody is saying someone slipped sex change hormones has actually changed sex. It's nothing to do with a physical process anymore. It's about having a female 'identity' which, when we actually dig down to understand it (in the case of a male) is just a desire to be a woman, or the belief that one is a woman.

Or simply the desire to be in all-female spaces...whether for benign or malignant reasons...

There will be legislation which covers the use of single sex words to transpose female/her on to male/his (which google tells me is Language used in Acts of Parliament for 1850).

www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1978/30/section/6

it highlights the metaphysical element of gender ideology

When does an ideology become a neo-religion?

This one has a catechism, a priestly caste, banishment for the non-believers and excommunication for the apostates. And a concept of soul.

No man, irrespective of whether he has his penis should be in women's spaces, thank you Dominic.

You obviously have absolutely zero idea how a man can make a woman feel, irrespective of whether he has a penis. A flick of the eye, a curl of the lip.

Plus, of course, you're not giving the smallest consideration to women who have already suffered at the hands of men and will have PTSD triggered by the presence of a man, irrespective of his genital configuration.

And let's not forget there are plenty of men with AGP for whom the surgery is an ultimate goal. Men who fetishise women's oppression. No thank you.

To you a man without a penis is a non-man.

So may as well be a woman.

Honestly. We are human you know, Dominic.

Fully fledged members of the human race, with shared characteristics which put us in the same category.

The definition of a woman is not a man without a penis.

I realise that Dominic is probably new to the game, and thinking purely in terms of rape.

Hopefully, he'll catch up.

@JellySaurus

So if surgeons had not managed to reattach John Wayne Bobbitt's severed penis, he should have been treated on a women's ward?

I think not.

A man whose penis has been removed remains a man.

A man whose testicles have been removed remains a man.

It is up to his fellow men to Be Kind and to continue to accept him as one of them.

Exactly. My dog is still male even though he has had his bits removed!

For what it's worth, I have a compromise solution for hospitals and prisons. Post-operative transgender women — that is, minus the dangly bits — should be allocated to female wards/prisons; but those who are still in possession of a penis should be restricted to male facilities

Nope. They are still men. Male violence against women is not restricted to rape.

Apart from the other responses to Dominic's naive 'solution', with which I entirely agree, it's surely also not ethical for 'gender confused' males to be any more pressured into irreversible surgery which renders them infertile than they are already.

Blast injuries, eg stepping on a landmine, which lead to severe lower limb injures, often will lead to severe genital injuries. Or sepsis, causing limb ischaemia, in extreme cases can cause necrosis of the nose, or penis and scrotum. None of us surely would suggest that a man injured by a bomb or requiring 4 limb amputation after meningitis, should head to the women's changing room. It seems so offensive to suggest that 'no dangly bits' = female. We are not castrated men.

[quote nauticant]There will be legislation which covers the use of single sex words to transpose female/her on to male/his (which google tells me is Language used in Acts of Parliament for 1850).

www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1978/30/section/6[/quote]
Thank you 🌻
I knew there would be a more up to date act.

@ErrolTheDragon

Apart from the other responses to Dominic's naive 'solution', with which I entirely agree, it's surely also not ethical for 'gender confused' males to be any more pressured into irreversible surgery which renders them infertile than they are already.

Indeed, the ethics of that are unacceptable.

There's also no way to tell, either. What does he suggest, they whip out a laminated card saying 'no penis'?

Totally unworkable!