Kellie Jay Keen and Tucker Carlson of Fox News

[concernedfriend500]

I used to admire Kellie Jay Keen for her staunch defence of women's rights and her refusal to bow down to the bullies. But I'm so over her now. Last night I watched one of her YouTube videos and she praised Tucker Carlson to the skies, saying what what a good guy he is. For those of you who don't know, Carlson is a right wing troll who has been accused of being a white supremacist. He presents an insanely popular talk show on US Fox News, on which KJL has appeared on several times. Carlson also pushes the "great replacement" theory and no-one with progressive principles should have anything to do with him, let alone normalise his racism. My guess is that KJK has swallowed the "my enemy's enemy is my friend" line and is going down a dangerous rabbit hole. But I'm out.

If she's in the UK then she wasn't raped and that's a fact.

I used to know a guy who whenever he was losing the argument would say 'Semantics' and then refuse to further engage. Like some sort of 'you don't understand' thing.

We all understood he had lost the argument and couldn't cope.

So in countries where marital rape isn't considered rape, it's impossible for a woman to be raped by her husband?

@AlisonDonut
When a woman is raped by her husband in a country where marital rape isn't considered rape, does this mean she wasn't raped?

Why wouldn't it be?

This is why we campaigned for it to be recognised in the UK, because it is rape.

I think Seldom has a point here. The law in England, Scotland and Wales requires penetration by a penis. That is a fact. I very much doubt however that posters on here would say a woman penetrated by an object couldn't say she was raped.

That doesn't negate the need for single sex provision in some circumstances.

If it's not legally rape then in those countries she hasn't been raped.

The U.S. FBI now counts forcible penetration w/ an object as rape, so our country has changed that definition.

Despite changing that definition to include more types of sexual assault, the people committing these crimes are 99% males. When women are convicted of rape in the U.S. it's almost always as an accessory to a male.

We also have federal sex crime laws which are considered the most serious of all sex crimes. For example, prostitution would not be a federal sex crime, but child trafficking would.

Again, women are almost never convicted of federal sex crimes and when they are, again, it's often as an accessory to male rape. Ghislaine Maxwell is a famous woman charged w/ a federal sex crime. The most serious charge against Maxwell was sex trafficking a minor, a charge punishable by up to 40 years in prison. She didn't commit rape, she procured girls to be raped.

I think this shows that if men stopped raping, there'd be few if any women charged w/ serious sex crimes.

Because the law doesn't define it that way.

By your definition (“It's only rape if the country's laws define it as such”) marital rape in countries where marital rape isn't defined as rape, isn't rape.

I'm not playing semantics - my statement that "all rapists are men" was called "plainly false" so I simply provided the legal definition to show that it is, in fact, plainly true. Rape is a criminal offence and the legal definition is absolutely relevant. Only one person here is sidestepping the facts and trying to twist the definitions here and it isn't me.

It is plainly false. The legal definition is wrong.

It is rape by my definition in the country that I am registered to vote in.

Just because some countries do not have a view of rape as being a man raping his wife, doesn't mean women can rape. Rape is pretty much legalised in the UK these days, but that doesn't mean that women can rape. It is still men that rape, even if they pretty much get away with it in nearly every case.

Only one person here is sidestepping the facts and trying to twist the definitions here and it isn't me.

No it certainly isn't .
Sexual assault and rape are almost always male crimes and unfortunately the victims are statistically mostly female. This pattern of male offending is seen in all types of males including those who don't identify as men.

So this thread is now discussing the legal definition of rape in an attempt by one poster to prove that women and girls don't require safe single single sex spaces away from men? Do I have that right?

The poster seems to think they’ve found a hot button argument.

Of course, the original argument was that ‘not all rapists are men’. Now the argument becomes about the semantics of the word ‘rape’.

This is all of a piece with their contention that “Language isn't some "absolute truth", it's by its very nature shaped by people. Why can't we shape it to accommodate trans people?” The use of language is not concerned with communication, but with shaping reality.

That’s probably why they’re trying to move the discussion away from reality based points and towards language based points. If we cannot define what a chair is, or what rape is, how can we define what a woman is?

I believe at the last count that males that identify as women and are jailed for it, are around 2.5 times as likely to commit crimes involving a sex related activity men who don't identify as women.

No, you don't.

When you assert things like "all rapists are men", throwing many sexual assault victims under the bus in doing so, you don't really get to complain when that claim is confronted.

I think so @MrsOvertonsWindow I suspect it is to shore up the diktat that men who identify as women and then rape women must be referred to by the pronoun 'she' by their rape victims because to do otherwise would hurt the feelings of the man who identified as a woman, wonderful isn't it?

Single sex spaces have been, in the main, respected for donkeys years and worked in their aims to provide safety, privacy and dignity to females but now for some inexplicable reason they are no longer required and females get no say in this removal of single sex spaces and services because they are not worthy of consideration. Marvellous.

We're very aware that there are an alarming number of men who identify as women committing sex crimes and currently skewing sex based statistics if that's what you're talking about.
If you're trying to suggest that on a feminist board, women centring women and discussing issues relating to women somehow means that we don't care about assaults on men then it'sallthefaultoffeminsts.com is over there >>>>>>>>>>>

No, you don't.

According to the EHRC we do.

FFS! When I first set out the legal definition of rape I also very clearly stated that other penetrative offences are treated as seriously, but that in England and Wales they aren't called rape. As other posters have mentioned, both types of offences are overwhelmingly committed by men against women so I'm not sure how expanding the definition of rape helps your argument in any case, Seldom.

I'm just waiting for the if men want to rape you they will stage of the argument.

It is plainly false. The legal definition is wrong.

It is the legal definition whether or not you think it is wrong, perhaps you should take it up with the people that write the Law.

The fact that some people use "but women do it too" as a reason to get rid of single sex spaces is such a nonsensical argument.

It's really not worth the time to rebut such blatant bullshit when the stats are more than clear that the overwhelming majority of rape (however you define it) and sexual assaults are carried out by men.

The fact that some people use "but women do it too" as a reason to get rid of single sex spaces is such a nonsensical argument.

True, but it is good to see it out there in the open in black and white just how little women matter and that any excuse will be used for men. Illuminating for those who just read rather than post.