Trans Women are not Women

Status
Not open for further replies.
Rolfe said:
So if she knows that rape requires a penis (and a woman being charged as an accessory to something done with someone else's penis isn't exactly common), then where is the 10% number coming from? Who are these women and what exactly are they doing?
Click to expand...

This is not actually true depending on where you live
 
Rolfe said:
So if she knows that rape requires a penis (and a woman being charged as an accessory to something done with someone else's penis isn't exactly common), then where is the 10% number coming from? Who are these women and what exactly are they doing?
Click to expand...

She knows that being CHARGED with rape requires a penis. But if a woman comes to her rape crisis organisation and says she has been raped by a woman she probably doesn't say 'no you weren't, rape requires a penis' because that would be a horrible thing to say to a victim.

If you want to argue with her over the definition of rape then that's something between the two of you. If you insist on calling it sexual assault all well and good but I don't think that makes it any better.
 
But if the solution to the present contretemps is that we come to an understanding that the proper place for people with penises is the men's room, and it doesn't matter whether these people are wearing a dress or not, we are asking the men to welcome their transwoman brothers into their space. They are expanding the definition of what it is to be male, not encroaching on the definition of female.

In the context of this solution then absolutely if a transman wants to use the ladies', if for some reason the "kind fiction" in the gents' isn't working out for him, he absolutely has that right. He is female. And we'll work it out.
Click to expand...

Precisely.
 
Archie Gemmill Goal said:
She knows that being CHARGED with rape requires a penis. But if a woman comes to her rape crisis organisation and says she has been raped by a woman she probably doesn't say 'no you weren't, rape requires a penis' because that would be a horrible thing to say to a victim.

If you want to argue with her over the definition of rape then that's something between the two of you. If you insist on calling it sexual assault all well and good but I don't think that makes it any better.
Click to expand...


I agree there are things a woman can do to another woman that should absolutely be considered rape.

But, in the context of this thread, I'm really curious how many of these female-on-female rapes are actually transwoman-on-female or transwoman-on-transwoman?


Not, of course, that it makes rape even the slightest bit better. It should go without saying, but my years of experience on this forum says it probably doesn't.
 
Rolfe said:
In English law rape must involve penetration by a penis. It is actually impossible for a woman to commit rape.
Click to expand...


Your sentences do not follow. Unless your first sentence is missing some qualifier that you thought was implied.

In other words, when a woman rapes a man there is penetration by a penis. The woman forces the man to unwillingly have an erection, then she forces it in by herself.

"In English law rape must involve penetration by a penis."

That is without a doubt "involving penetration by a penis".

Did you mean to say that English law states or implies: "In English law rape must involve penetration by a penis that must be physically attached to the person charged and the victim must be the one being penetrated."

(And the discussion was about women raping women, but your statement seemed to include women raping men as well.)
 
Last edited:
This is The End said:
Did you mean to say that English law states or implies...
Click to expand...

If an Englishwoman managed to snooker an Englishman into sexual intercourse by passing herself off as his wife, when in fact she is his sister-in-law, would that particular form of nonconsenual sex have a name under English law?
 
This is The End said:
(And the discussion was about women raping women, but your statement seemed to include women raping men as well.)
Click to expand...

Your nitpick is correct, but given that it has no bearing on women raping women it seems like a complete tangent.

That said, Archie's response, that the 10% figure isn't crime statistics and thus isn't based on that particular definition of rape seems entirely valid.

Not having read his link I have no comment on how accurate that 10% figure is, only on the arguments made so far in this thread.
 
Rolfe said:
Are you actually female? I've lost track of this. Women don't have a huge problem with other women seeing them in a state of undress. It's not about the sexuality of the person, it's about the sex of their body. They do have a problem with men seeing them undressed and it's entirely irrelevant whether the man is straight, gay or bi, and even if he's heroically looking away. And it's absolutely irrelevant if he's wearing a dress and makeup and calling himself Susan, he still has a male body.

This is an article that may go some way to explaining this fairly visceral reaction. A Girl's Place In The World
Click to expand...

Is there a why in any of that?

my swimming pool changing rooms around 1987'ish were unisex, girls n guys sharing cubicles if they wanted.

You seem to be ok with females ogling your body, but any male, regardless of ogling potential is a no no.
Why?
 
Last edited:
DragonLady said:
Okay; so a reasonable argument toward her being able to choose for herself where she's comfortable.

But not a word about why she should not be welcomed in the women's, by the other women.
Click to expand...

I'd be fine with trans women being welcomed in women's bathrooms, but if women want to deny them that, I'll just stay well out of the way.

I wouldn't want to be guilty of trying to mansplain why women should let them.

IsThisTheLife said:
'No.2's' present exactly the same challenge for either sex.
Click to expand...

Not really, no.

I've met dozens of women who will not use a petrol station or public park toilet.

Never met one bloke who gave a **** about where he does a ****.

If you need to go, there's always somewhere a bloke can go, but it seems that women are a little more fussy.

Ron_Tomkins said:
Can't we all just get along?
Click to expand...

Haha!

In these discussions, I'm always reminded of 5 & 6-year-olds. As swimming is part of the curriculum in NZ, when it's time to change for swimming, the kids all just get changed in the class; boy, girl, intersex, whatever: none of them give a damn and don't take any notice of the other kids' genitalia.

Then parents start teaching them that those bits have rude names and must be hidden at all costs.

Adult humans could learn a lot from kids - they are pretty well colour-blind on skin colour as well, at that age.
 
The Atheist said:
In these discussions, I'm always reminded of 5 & 6-year-olds. As swimming is part of the curriculum in NZ, when it's time to change for swimming, the kids all just get changed in the class; boy, girl, intersex, whatever: none of them give a damn and don't take any notice of the other kids' genitalia.
Click to expand...


Really? And it has been this way for a long time? I would google it, but I'm not sure what terms to google, and I'd be afraid that along the way I might trip some pedophile triggers in the browser observers.


I'm sure that the 5 and 6 year olds indeed don't care, but in America, the parents would not allow it. I think they would justify forbidding it on the grounds that they are teaching them how to behave as adults. I think you would agree that that is exactly what they were doing, but would say they were teaching the wrong way.


In my opinion, as the kids got older, they would gravitate toward "modesty" even without being told by adults that they ought to. However, I have no way of knowing if that is true, or just a hunch, nor would I have any way of proving it either way.
 
DragonLady said:
But not a word about why she should not be welcomed in the women's, by the other women.
Click to expand...

If a beardy bloke walks into the women's loo, are you going to quiz him about his genitals? If so, I guess that's fine. Seems awkward, but whatevs.
 
DragonLady said:
I agree there are things a woman can do to another woman that should absolutely be considered rape.

But, in the context of this thread, I'm really curious how many of these female-on-female rapes are actually transwoman-on-female or transwoman-on-transwoman?
Click to expand...

In the context of the article I would say none, but it isn't made explicit that they are talking only about ciswomen. It is certainly implied though, as I think if tranwomen were a significant part of the 10% they would have mentioned it given the content of the article.
 
This is The End said:
Your sentences do not follow. Unless your first sentence is missing some qualifier that you thought was implied.

In other words, when a woman rapes a man there is penetration by a penis. The woman forces the man to unwillingly have an erection, then she forces it in by herself.

"In English law rape must involve penetration by a penis."

That is without a doubt "involving penetration by a penis".

Did you mean to say that English law states or implies: "In English law rape must involve penetration by a penis that must be physically attached to the person charged and the victim must be the one being penetrated."

(And the discussion was about women raping women, but your statement seemed to include women raping men as well.)
Click to expand...

Rape requires penetration by the rapist in law.

Actually, until not too long ago a man could only rape a woman. Male on male rape was only added later. A woman cannot technically commit rape on a man or a woman according to law. The only way a woman can be charged with rape is by participating in the act while a man penetrates someone

I think if you use another part of your anatomy it's assault by penetration and if there is no penetration then it's sexual assault.

I wasn't aware someone could be charged with rape for participating in the act either but it seems so.
 
Last edited:
d4m10n said:
If an Englishwoman managed to snooker an Englishman into sexual intercourse by passing herself off as his wife, when in fact she is his sister-in-law, would that particular form of nonconsenual sex have a name under English law?
Click to expand...

If you can prove it ......... Good luck with that....

The crime is "Causing a person to engage in sexual activity without consent"
 
Actually even that law says "He" all over it, so you might be a bit screwed (pardon the pun)

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/section/4/2009-11-12

Causing a person to engage in sexual activity without consent
(1)A person (A) commits an offence if—
(a)he intentionally causes another person (B) to engage in an activity,
(b)the activity is sexual,
(c)B does not consent to engaging in the activity, and
(d)A does not reasonably believe that B consents.
(2)Whether a belief is reasonable is to be determined having regard to all the circumstances, including any steps A has taken to ascertain whether B consents.
(3)Sections 75 and 76 apply to an offence under this section.
(4)A person guilty of an offence under this section, if the activity caused involved—
(a)penetration of B’s anus or vagina,
(b)penetration of B’s mouth with a person’s penis,
(c)penetration of a person’s anus or vagina with a part of B’s body or by B with anything else, or
(d)penetration of a person’s mouth with B’s penis,is liable, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for life.
(5)Unless subsection (4) applies, a person guilty of an offence under this section is liable—
(a)on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or both;
(b)on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years.
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom