TERFs crash London Pride

[pharphis]

Not if there aren't any men there, no.

Are women not able to rape other women?
Are they able to rape men?

Do they just never choose to? I'm wondering how you're willing to make such an extreme statement.

 

[pharphis]

The case in question was in England. The Pride march being discussed was in England. The law in England defines rape as penetration by a penis. If someone does not have a penis then they cannot, by definition, be guilty of rape. Women may well be assault other women in different ways, but under the jurisdiction under discussion, they cannot possibly rape them.

ah I was ninja'd.

So it's just a legal statement, then. What is the legal definition for rape there? Penetration? (presumably not just with a penis - I don't know)

 

[pharphis]

God save us all from men who have studied feminism.

What does this mean? What about the women who have studied feminism?

 

[tyr_13]

The case in question was in England. The Pride march being discussed was in England. The law in England defines rape as penetration by a penis. If someone does not have a penis then they cannot, by definition, be guilty of rape. Women may well assault other women in different ways, but under the jurisdiction under discussion, they cannot possibly rape them.

Well that's horrifying.

Which is why cases need to be carefully and sensitively discussed and decided on their individual merits. That's a lot different from transferring every violent man from Ian Huntley down to a women's prison just on his say-so.

Or it's a good reason to not try to extrapolate the behavior of people already in prison to any non-self selecting group outside of prison.

 

[tyr_13]

ah I was ninja'd.

So it's just a legal statement, then. What is the legal definition for rape there? Penetration? (presumably not just with a penis - I don't know)

Google says it's 'assault by penetration'.

What does this mean? What about the women who have studied feminism?

It means that if you disagree with Rolfe, your characteristics as a human can be used as a way to dismiss your argument.

I'm a cis man. This means that I can't even know of the concerns of cis women, let alone have opinions on them. Even if that's to simply quote cis woman feminists.

Yes, it is persistently one of the worst arguments in feminism that many have been trying to fight against, and is one of the reasons for the 'Radical' part of 'TERF'.

Sorry, I know my input in these threads consistently becomes the target of the anti-trans acceptance crowd. Probably best to step out again. You know, because I'm a straight cis man who actually cares and thus is a super acceptable target.

 

[Rolfe]

ah I was ninja'd.

So it's just a legal statement, then. What is the legal definition for rape there? Penetration? (presumably not just with a penis - I don't know)

As I said, the legal definition of rape is (non-consensual) penetration by a penis. The penis only has to go in a very small distance. In Scotland and England that's what rape means. So yes, a woman in prison cannot possibly be raped if there are no men there.

 

[pharphis]

Well that's horrifying.



Or it's a good reason to not try to extrapolate the behavior of people already in prison to any non-self selecting group outside of prison.

Although it's maybe not relevant to the discussion, I do wonder if Rolfe thinks the definition should be expanded to include female perpetrators of men via forced envelopment OR penetration.

It seems that lots of people in general minimize male rape (by female perpetrators) and you can see this every week there is a rape of a male student by a female teacher. You'd think feminists would be better at sympathizing but I'm not sure they're better (or worse) than average, considering the lens they use for violence in general (males are violent, females are victims - the end)

 

[Rolfe]

Google says it's 'assault by penetration'.

I don't see the word "rape" anywhere on that page.

It means that if you disagree with Rolfe, your characteristics as a human can be used as a way to dismiss your argument.

I'm a cis man. This means that I can't even know of the concerns of cis women, let alone have opinions on them. Even if that's to simply quote cis woman feminists.

Yes, it is persistently one of the worst arguments in feminism that many have been trying to fight against, and is one of the reasons for the 'Radical' part of 'TERF'.

Sorry, I know my input in these threads consistently becomes the target of the anti-trans acceptance crowd. Probably best to step out again. You know, because I'm a straight cis man who actually cares and thus is a super acceptable target.

Where is that gif of the extremely tiny violin when you need it?

 

[pharphis]

Google says it's 'assault by penetration'.



It means that if you disagree with Rolfe, your characteristics as a human can be used as a way to dismiss your argument.

I'm a cis man. This means that I can't even know of the concerns of cis women, let alone have opinions on them. Even if that's to simply quote cis woman feminists.

Yes, it is persistently one of the worst arguments in feminism that many have been trying to fight against, and is one of the reasons for the 'Radical' part of 'TERF'.

Sorry, I know my input in these threads consistently becomes the target of the anti-trans acceptance crowd. Probably best to step out again. You know, because I'm a straight cis man who actually cares and thus is a super acceptable target.

As I said, the legal definition of rape is (non-consensual) penetration by a penis. The penis only has to go in a very small distance. In Scotland and England that's what rape means. So yes, a woman in prison cannot possibly be raped if there are no men there.

I don't see the word "penis" there...

A person (A) commits an offence if—

(a)he intentionally penetrates the vagina or anus of another person (B) with
a part of his body or anything else,
(b)the penetration is sexual,
(c)B does not consent to the penetration, and
(d)A does not reasonably believe that B consents.

edit: ninja'd. Rolfe, can you link the law you're referring to?

 

[Rolfe]

Although it's maybe not relevant to the discussion, I do wonder if Rolfe thinks the definition should be expanded to include female perpetrators of men via forced envelopment OR penetration.

It seems that lots of people in general minimize male rape (by female perpetrators) and you can see this every week there is a rape of a male student by a female teacher. You'd think feminists would be better at sympathizing but I'm not sure they're better (or worse) than average, considering the lens they use for violence in general (males are violent, females are victims - the end)

Why would you wonder that? The definition is what it is. I think there's enough redefining of words (like "woman" and "lesbian") going on in this thread without adding another one.

Sexual assault of any kind is bad, m'kay? It doesn't have to have a particular label in order to be bad.

 

[Rolfe]

I don't see the word "penis" there...

edit: ninja'd. Rolfe, can you link the law you're referring to?

You don't see the word "penis" and I don't see the word "rape".

 

[pharphis]

Why would you wonder that? The definition is what it is. I think there's enough redefining of words (like "woman" and "lesbian") going on in this thread without adding another one.

Sexual assault of any kind is bad, m'kay? It doesn't have to have a particular label in order to be bad.

Do you think non-consensual envelopment should have a different specialized name?

and why specifically "with a penis"?
Why not "penetration with _something_" if you're going to use such a definition? You don't think it should be called rape when a man uses some other object to penetrate a woman without her consent?

 

[pharphis]

Apparently it was the previous one:

http://legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/section/1/2009-11-12

1)A person (A) commits an offence if—
(a)he intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person (B) with his penis,
(b)B does not consent to the penetration, and
(c)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 is liable, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for life.

 

[Rolfe]

Do you think non-consensual envelopment should have a different specialized name?

and why specifically "with a penis"?
Why not "penetration with _something_" if you're going to use such a definition? You don't think it should be called rape when a man uses some other object to penetrate a woman without her consent?

I don't think anything. It's the law. Whether you or I think the semantics should be different is neither here nor there.

Different jurisdictions have different names for some offences. In England libel is written defamation and slander is verbal defamation while in Scotland there's no distinction and whether written or verbal it's just defamation. Libel means something completely different in Scots law. Killing someone without the necessary mens rea for it to be murder is manslaughter in England and culpable homicide in Scotland. It's the same actual offence.

Do you want to lobby for libel to include slander as well? I mean, don't you think it should be libel just because it's not written down? Do you object to the offence being called manslaughter in England because that doesn't sound as bad as culpable homicide to you, and you know it's bad?

See how ridiculous this is?

Obviously it's against the law to penetrate someone non-consensually with anything. You're not going to get off just because the word on the charge sheet (or "libel" in Scotland) isn't "rape".

It may be that the legal definitions of various sexual offences are different where you are. But we were talking about an incident in England, and the thread is about another incident in England. It's entirely true that a woman in a women's prison in England cannot by definition be raped if there isn't a man in the prison. Why does this outrage you so much?

 

[pharphis]

Well, there's your "rape culture". Male victims are completely erased by law.

The CDC is bad for this iirc as well.

 

[tyr_13]

Although it's maybe not relevant to the discussion, I do wonder if Rolfe thinks the definition should be expanded to include female perpetrators of men via forced envelopment OR penetration.

It seems that lots of people in general minimize male rape (by female perpetrators) and you can see this every week there is a rape of a male student by a female teacher. You'd think feminists would be better at sympathizing but I'm not sure they're better (or worse) than average, considering the lens they use for violence in general (males are violent, females are victims - the end)

Anecdotally, feminists in general are more supportive than the general population, but those who are not are very unsupportive (such as accusing you existing stealing the concern that should be going to true women victims and thus endangering them more).

I don't see the word "rape" anywhere on that page.

I was answering what they call rape that doesn't fall under their definition of rape. Which, of course, they wouldn't call rape.

Where is that gif of the extremely tiny violin when you need it?

That's not a denial, it's just crass mockery of my concern or distress (which you couldn't possibly know about).

 

[Rolfe]

Well, there's your "rape culture". Male victims are completely erased by law.

The CDC is bad for this iirc as well.

They totally are not erased. You penetrate the anus of a male, non-consensually, with your penis, and R-A-P-E is going to be right there on the charge sheet.

 

[pharphis]

I don't think anything. It's the law. Whether you or I think the semantics should be different is neither here nor there.

Different jurisdictions have different names for some offences. In England libel is written defamation and slander is verbal defamation while in Scotland there's no distinction and whether written or verbal it's just defamation. Libel means something completely different in Scots law. Killing someone without the necessary mens rea for it to be murder is manslaughter in England and culpable homicide in Scotland. It's the same actual offence.

Do you want to lobby for libel to include slander as well? I mean, don't you think it should be libel just because it's not written down? Do you object to the offence being called manslaughter in England because that doesn't sound as bad as culpable homicide to you, and you know it's bad?

See how ridiculous this is?

Obviously it's against the law to penetrate someone non-consensually with anything. You're not going to get off just because the word on the charge sheet (or "libel" in Scotland) isn't "rape".

But we were talking about an incident in England, and the thread is about another incident in England. It's entirely true that a woman in a women's prison in England cannot by definition be raped if there isn't a man in the prison. Why does this outrage you so much?

Fine, I get your point under that specific set of restrictions.

So, your concern originally was that having a trans women would lead to a risk of rape. Is that really such a concern (relative to adding a woman), since the "label doesn't matter" and since all sexual violence is bad (agreed).


Does adding a trans woman increase the risk of rape so much more that it overcomes the risk of non-penis sexual violence from an arbitrary female criminal that would have been in their place??

 

[tyr_13]

Well, there's your "rape culture". Male victims are completely erased by law.

The CDC is bad for this iirc as well.

The CDC calls both 'forced penetration' and 'made to penetrate' as 'sexual violence', and iirc call both 'rape'. I don't know that there are any states that don't do basically the same; both are 'rape'.

 

[Rolfe]

I was answering what they call rape that doesn't fall under their definition of rape. Which, of course, they wouldn't call rape.

It isn't rape. It's sexual assault.

I don't know what your problem is with this. I noted, correctly, that a woman in prison in England could not be raped if there wasn't a man in the prison. That's it. Of course she could be assaulted in some other way, including sexually, by another woman. But she couldn't be raped.