Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions
OP posts:
Thread gallery
9
selffellatingouroborosofhate · 18/01/2026 01:35

SpiritAdder · 17/01/2026 23:56

They do. In the US and other countries this is also legally considered rape. The UK is a bit of an outlier requiring that rape can only be done with a flesh and blood pénis attached to a man.

The relevant legislation is the Sexual Offences Act 2003.

§1 defines rape: A's penis into B's mouth, anus, or vagina; B doesn't consent; A should have reasonably known that B didn't consent.

§2 defines sexual assault by penetration, colloquially known as "serious sexual assault" as that was the name of a similar offence in earlier legislation: A inserts any object or body part other than a penis into B's vagina or anus in a way that a reasonable person would deem sexual; B doesn't consent; A should have reasonably known that B didn't consent.

The sentencing options for the two offences are exactly the same. The law does not treat SABP less seriously than rape.

The advantages of having the two offences separately named and defined:

  • No need for a "reasonable person" test to decide in court whether penile penetration is sexual, because there's a penis involved so of course it is.
  • A "reasonable person" test can be applied for SABP because there are non-sexual reasons for penetrating someone (e.g. medical procedures) and rare circumstances in which such a penetration might be carried out without express consent (e.g. medical emergency of unconscious person). A medic shouldn't fear criminal charges because he checked a patient delerious with septicemia for a forgotten tampon.
  • The law matches British everyday language, in which we understand that rape carries an STI risk, and a pregnancy risk for women, that SABP doesn't carry.
  • Likewise, we have everyday language that matches the law when talking about how SABP comes with an increased risk of internal injury compared to rape.

There's nothing "modern" about eliding the two offences at all. Women don't benefit from eliding the two offences, but men might.

Comtesse · 18/01/2026 11:40

SpiritAdder · 18/01/2026 00:03

Absolutely the hospital is responsible. This crime should result in individual trials against the rapists- sure they might get a hospital order instead of prison- if they were too mentally unwell to be fully criminally responsible. But the hospital staff and management may also be criminally responsible and if not- not sure if your NHS hospitals have some kind of immunity like our State mental hospitals, there is still possibility of civil cases for compensation, having staff getting licenses to practice removed, being fired from their posts, and so on.

I am not a health and safety expert but something went very badly wrong when the victim was admitted to that ward in the hospital. Is this a HSE matter or more CQC?

I can’t even read the whole DM article, it’s horrible.

VerityUnreasonble · 18/01/2026 12:10

I've discussed this on here before. This isn't a new thing. When I was working on secure MH wards 10 years ago we had a transman admitted to an all male ward.

Staff absolutely raised a number of concerns around safety, searches, dignity - worries for both themselves and the patient.

The results were confused policies that referred only to gender, compromises where we could get away with them and high stress levels all round. We couldn't just put the person on 1:1 because that would be restrictive to their liberty, dignity and rights and effectively we were being told to treat them like any other man as that's how they viewed themselves and to do so otherwise would be discrimination. We were allowed to have female staff do pat down searches, so male staff didn't have to touch the person's breasts but mostly because this was the person's preference. If they had insisted on being searched by male staff like others we'd have been really stuck. We made sure they ended up in a room close to the office and not off down a corridor but I don't think we could have justified that if someone had started asking questions.

We were all very aware of the risks and none of us were happy about it but the decision to admit did not sit with ward staff. I also couldn't say if it got mentioned every hand over (so a bank or agency staff member there for 1 shift might not have been told - they would have known when they met them).

This case is sad, but not in any way surprising, I'd be more surprised if this is the only time that something similar has happened.

Hopefully the clarification around the Equality Act will mean this can stop and we can actually have single sex wards for all the very good reasons we are supposed to.

KnottyAuty · 18/01/2026 22:39

AnSolas · 17/01/2026 09:56

Did they make a public statement on that?

I know they were forced to relink any historic rulings to the new name and number which was a basic obvious safeguarding fail and likely a failure of their legal obligations on record keeping.

Problem is that removing someones livelyhood is a high bar.

So bringing the profession into disrepute is a lesser concern to an actual assault.

But his statements under oath raise concerns about his fitness be allowed pratice medicine on the general public on ethical grounds.

However the test would be if a woman (or man) in Fife was forced to accept that male doctor when she asked for a female doctor had made a complaint.

But I agree that activism has won when their legal duties are ignored.

No public statements but those of us who wrote to them at the time got well and truly stone walled/Stonewalled.

A Fitness to Practice process is often about training and education. Someone needn’t be struck off due to a complaint. It’s not meant to be punitive

AnSolas · 18/01/2026 23:17

KnottyAuty · 18/01/2026 22:39

No public statements but those of us who wrote to them at the time got well and truly stone walled/Stonewalled.

A Fitness to Practice process is often about training and education. Someone needn’t be struck off due to a complaint. It’s not meant to be punitive

Ta

Problem is that removing someones livelyhood is a high bar. 👀
Very poor wording 🤪

I know they dont have to be struck off but in general any publication of the notice of findings by a Reg body is normally seen as a restraint of livehood and open to challange via a court injunction.

KnottyAuty · 19/01/2026 00:21

AnSolas · 18/01/2026 23:17

Ta

Problem is that removing someones livelyhood is a high bar. 👀
Very poor wording 🤪

I know they dont have to be struck off but in general any publication of the notice of findings by a Reg body is normally seen as a restraint of livehood and open to challange via a court injunction.

Tell me more.... a relative is going through the process now. Hopefully they will have no case to answer but what is involved in stopping publication by a regulator? Sounds a bit fishy to me?!

AnSolas · 19/01/2026 00:35

KnottyAuty · 19/01/2026 00:21

Tell me more.... a relative is going through the process now. Hopefully they will have no case to answer but what is involved in stopping publication by a regulator? Sounds a bit fishy to me?!

Its just a way to force a extra review via the courts. If your relative has a solicitor involved they could explore if there are grounds (fair provess etc) plus if the decision has to be ratified by the courts as some professions require that but Im not sure on the GMC rules

New posts on this thread. Refresh page