Proposal to make rape 'agender'- content warning

[ArabellaScott]

This is from last year. Written by law lecturers from Bournemouth University.

Apologies, some of the phrasing and language used is (presumably) unintentionally offensive.

https://www.starsdorset.org/blog/sexual-offences-act-2003

'This blog post argues that the Sexual Offences Act 2003’s[1] penile penetration requirement is not fit for purpose. Whilst the Sexual Offences Act modernised ‘rape’ through the introduction of an agendered victim, it is now time to introduce the agendered perpetrator. Doing this will allow the ‘law of rape’ to move beyond heteronormativity and better capture the diverse sexualities and gender identities present in contemporary society.'
...
'we advocate for a more expansive ‘crime of rape’, which contains more nuance and fragmentation.'

😂🙄
Well yes, all that bullshit can fuck off.

Thankfully some random gender ideology, post-modernist, queer theory, blogger's thoughts about how the law around rape should look from that perspective won't ever properly break through into actual reality because it's simply all utter bullshit.

Rape is rape because for female victims it carries the additional risk of an unwanted pregnancy, and that's my line in the sand.

There's already a robust enough (in terms of the matters covered, actually convicting is another issue) set of laws on sexual assault to cover anything non-rape, this would just cloud the issue and make it harder to convict.

I remember years ago now at uni a girl got raped by her lesbian partner but received a lesser charge of sexual assault as she obvs didn’t have a penis. Not sure if it’s different now.

I remember years ago now at uni a girl got raped by her lesbian partner but received a lesser charge of sexual assault as she obvs didn’t have a penis. Not sure if it’s different now

Lesser charge? What makes you think sexual assault is a lesser charge than rape?

It's not a lesser charge. IIRC the sentencing can be exactly the same. The guidelines allow it.

However, rape with a penis is specific and so should it be. The conviction rates are shit enough without a load of PoMo bollocks around it, confusing everyone.

After everything we've seen, you have such confidence?

That was to @Circumferences

Well, we can't be let have accurate stats on a crime where it's impossible to pretend male perps are women. Like, currently we can tell that there are in fact males raping females in hospital wards. If this change happened it would obscure that and we'd have no proof that the "not a single complaint about a trans person happened" narrative was utter bullshit as the perps were recorded as a bepenised woman. I will fight against this harder than anything. It's the last bit of truth in this whole mess, and it's unique to UK.

Penetration with a penis can also result in pregnancy and can transmit STDs. Nothing agander about that

No, what that lot of pomo burble mostly wants to achieve is to silence horrible people from being able to point out that a rapist has a penis and is a man.

Which is far far more vile than the man having raped some service human. Which of course was definitely not his fault. (See more pomo burble.)

This whole decade can fuck off.

For context, the 2003 Act discussed removing the sexed definition, but that was decided against.
'The last major reform to the United Kingdom’s sexual offences laws occurred with the introduction of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (“SOA”).[2] Within the Act, the definition of ‘rape’ was reformed to create a more modern offence.[3] Reform was necessary as existing law was outdated and did not reflect the reality of sexualities and gender identities in the twenty first century, and thus, could not be applied to most sexual offences outside of the heteronormative context.[4] Moreover, it was acknowledged that limiting the potential victim of sexual offences by gender raised concerns about compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.[5]The government acknowledged that these problems would be best overcome by making the definition of rape gender-neutral, unless ‘there was good reason not to'

The government found good reason. Largely pregnancy risk and STD risk. But clearly people are still trying to change it.

So people were making this argument in 2003.

Yogyakarta written 2006.

All this was being steered and planned for back in 2003, the wheels were in motion.

Their mistake was not getting this through before going so hard on all the rest of this nonsense. It's unlike the trans movement powers that be to not have ensured it was slipped through before most of us knew the craic.

Hmm. I think much if it had and did slip through unnoticed. Only its hard to keep a lid on things once the logical consequences start to play out.

I'm sorry to hear this, but lesbians can't rape people. Sexually assault them, yes, and I'm so sorry your friend was a victim to this

Honestly, with the greatest respect, I wonder what the value is of magnifying this article by posting it here. I can't be the only poster who had a spasm of shock and miserable despair just reading the thread title. And it is only once you click into the thread that it becomes clear that this proposal comes from a very little voice - rather than, say, any public body or political party.

I know we need 'more light', but when does 'more light' shade over into endlessly pulling little extremist actors into the limelight so that online discourse centres more and more on their views and the horrified responses to them?

I see a gulf between talk on here and talk 'out there in the real world', which is characterised mostly by a basic ignorance/misunderstanding of the issues, rather than by the active embrace of absurdity. I think that sometimes we are traumatising and retraumatising ourselves unneccessarily by ruminating on extremism.

There was a period when these extreme voices were uncritically sucked into the mainstream by ill-judged embrace of poor-quality Stonewall (and Stonewallesque) corporate training, so that we had to address them. But I think that tide is now turning and we risk the possibility that it is we ourselves who are amplifying them by our horror.

The best response to much of this bullshit may now be to ignore it and focus on mainstream actors such as govt and political parties.

I thought the 2003 changes meant men could also be raped. The definition being changed to penetration by a penis anally, orally or vaginally.

It’s on the website of a charity that claims to be a sexual trauma and recovery service covering the whole of Dorset. It’s not just some student’s blog.

Indeed.

And Scottish law takes it even further,.

Under the Sexual Offences {Scotland) Act 2009, a transman could be charged with raping a transwoman.

After defining rape
"(1)If a person (“A”), with A's penis—

(a)without another person (“B”) consenting, and

(b)without any reasonable belief that B consents,
penetrates to any extent, either intending to do so or reckless as to whether there is penetration, the vagina, anus or mouth of B then A commits an offence, to be known as the offence of rape"it goes on to say

"(4)In this Act—

• “penis” includes a surgically constructed penis if it forms part of A, having been created in the course of surgical treatment, and
• “vagina” includes—

(a)the vulva, and

(b)a surgically constructed vagina (together with any surgically constructed vulva), if it forms part of B, having been created in the course of such treatment."

EmmaNess, I know what you mean. If it's too much, please do avoid.

For me, I feel a bit ' the price of freedom is eternal vigilance.'

@Chersfrozenface interesting

Thanks, I wasnt aware of that.

Just to be precise, rape in UK law doesn't require vaginal penetration. It covers penetration (by a penis) of anus and mouth as well.