Suella Braverman is wrong to tell the police to describe transgender rapists as men.

[theilltemperedclavecinist]

First, calling a trans woman a man is misgendering, which is transphobic even if unintentionally.

Secondly, it is not accurate and precise enough. A trans woman is not a man, but she is not just any woman, either. Accuracy and precision are important for good record keeping, for research purposes, and for correctly informing the public.

Thus, a transgender rapist should be recorded as such in police and cps records, and should be referred to in press releases as per Stonewall guidelines (transgender woman, then trans woman for subsequent mentions).

If there is any doubt, I suggest a default of assuming a suspect is trans, to avoid giving offence. Stonewall guidelines make it clear that trans is an umbrella covering many things, including men who only very occasionally cross-dress, for whatever purpose.

It would help if all press releases included an explainer box about what a trans woman is, given the surprising number of people who don't seem to know.

This approach may make the use of 'cisgender' (eg for other suspects) unavoidable, which I know some will dislike. But avoiding ambiguity about what is really happening seems more of a priority at the moment.

If the dude has a cock and balls, he’s a dude. It’s simple enough.

@theilltemperedclavecinist there are 2 feminism boards - feminism chat, and feminism sex and gender. Discussions about issues relating to transgender people are corralled into feminism sex and gender.

This approach may make the use of 'cisgender' (eg for other suspects) unavoidable

No, we can just clearly state which people are men, "trans" or otherwise.

Can a woman become a trans woman?

I thought rape was actual penetration and anything else was sexual assault? So for a person to commit rape ie penetration, and therefore be a rapist, surely they have to be a man?

Yes. Women can only be convicted as accomplices.

@theilltemperedclavecinist

Gotta hand it to you. You picked a doozy for your first post on a site aimed at women. You've definitely got balls, I suspect in more ways than one.

I think they should be referred to as men who identity as women. That way its clear that they are male, but if there is a manhunt or something and the public is being warned to watch out for a particular individual, they know to expect that he might be dressed 'as a woman'. As for pronouns, perhaps the media should go with they, as its becoming increasingly common. But as pp said, they are men.

If there is any doubt, I suggest a default of assuming a suspect is trans, to avoid giving offence.

You mistake me for someone who cares about offending rapists.

No one should listen to anything coming from Stonewall - pure evil

I will meet you half way, because as PosteriorPosterity posted we need to keep track of how dangerous transwomen are.

They should be recorded by both sex and gender. It may also do away with the "they are not trans" or "the right kind of trans" by the TRAs.

Y + X = MALE
(But sometimes not in Scotland)

If there is any doubt, I suggest a default of assuming a suspect is trans, to avoid giving offence

Right, because men/women who are not trans cannot possibly be offended by being mistaken for transmen/women. Only trans people get to be offended.

Trans women are men. But I agree they should be referred to as trans woman in the press etc with a clarifying sentence of assigned male at birth. So they can be identified and treated appropriately as a vulnerable individual but still a man.

Makes me think of that trans woman who abducted a child not too long ago, in th initial hours it was being reported as a woman had abducted the child. So basically members of the public could not report sightings as they would be on the lookout for a woman not an obvious man dressed as a woman.- if they didn't change into male clothes to hide

The point I was trying to make (badly, it seems) is that we need to start acting tactically. Stop arguing semantics or trying to win with our logic and reasons. If we say TWANW we get shunned and cancelled. If we say TW are TW we can write headlines like 'TW convicted of rape/voyeurism/exposing her penis in a women's changing room'

Followed on the same page by 'Stonewall campaigning to make it illegal to exclude TW from women's changing rooms' (which they are)

I don’t object to the recoding of such crimes as male or a separate category of Transwoman. However they should NEVER be described as women’s crimes because these people are absolutely NOT women and never will be.

Trans women are men. They cannot become women. Ever. Trans women are and always have been men. They will always be men. Why is the OP using the word "cis". This is a derogatory term made up by the TRA as a slur against real actual women. Its offensive. Women are women. Not "cis" women.

One of the points of fighting these TRAs and stonewall is so that we are not forced to be labelled by these bullies.

A trans women is actually biologically a man.
That is a basic FACT.
They need to be logged as men because they are biological men . They also need to be recorded as trans women to clearly show who in society commit such crime"s.
We can not have rapes recorded as being committed by women when in fact it was a man in a dress. That's still a male crime, just commited by a sub set of male society.
We also can't miss out the trans part as it's vital if rapes are being committed by tras women that this is evidenced to demonstrate why women still need separate safe places for biological women only.
We need to be clear some men can and always have been a danger to women. A dress and a different name and pronouns do not reduce this risk.
All women need to know this and understand when they are vulnerable and why.

I will obviously go and change a user name now.

The point I was trying to make (badly, it seems) is that we need to start acting tactically.

We don't all agree on our tactics.

Whether or not you are trans you are either male or female. No amount of fake testosterone or lipstick from Superdrug will change that for anyone.

The only point of fighting is to win.

Transwomen are men. Who cares about misgendering a rapist!

I think OP is simply saying that their trans status must be recorded and included in newspaper reports, along with a footnote explaining exactly what the definition of a TW is). Which is exactly the right thing to do

A Transwoman is a man, right down to the DNA. It is not transphobic to state a biological fact.

A Transwoman rapist is a man, so Suella Braverman is correct in her advice to Police. Male crimes are not female crimes and should not be recorded as such.

'' A trans woman is not a man, but she is not just any woman ''

A Transwoman is not just any woman, a Transwoman is not a woman at all, a Transwoman is a man. Right down to the DNA.

A woman is a woman, no need for any 'cis' woman malarky.

'It would help if all press releases included an explainer box about what a trans woman is, given the surprising number of people who don't seem to know.'

We know Transwomen are men, the assumption that we are stupid and need it explained to us is highly offensive.

Could just redefine the two sexes as penis-havers and non-penis-havers although in the case of rape that is pretty otiose as only a penis-haver can rape.