Pronouns in court
Don’t do that.
Headline:
Child rapist threatened to kill herself when undeclared device found during visit
You already know the punchline. There aren’t a whole lot of female “rapists.” There may be some female sadists who shove things up children, but rape is anatomically impossible for women, as well as being just not something women want to do or feel driven to do. It’s not cute to pin male crimes on women because “pronouns!!!”.
A convicted child rapist who is banned from owning internet devices unless approved threatened to kill herself when one was found at her home.
That is, “to kill himself when one was found at his home.” That’s a man, who committed a peculiarly and particularly male crime.
Alex Smith, who is transitioning from male to female and is formally known as Matthew Burren, was arrested after officers carried out an unannounced visit to
herhome in Beaulieu Close, Toothill, Swindon, yesterday (1 March).…
At Swindon Magistrates’ Court today, the 28-year-old admitted breaching the terms of a sexual harm prevention order (SHPO) – which prevents her from owning internet-enabled devices without seeking permission from probation service officers prior – by failing to declare the device for inspection.
Taking into account four previous breaches of the SHPO and that the sentencing starting point for the offence is 12 months in custody, district judge Joanna Dickens adjourned the case so the defendant can talk through a report with the probation service.
Bailing the defendant without conditions, she said: “Obviously people have concerns about you, but I’m going to take a chance”.
I wonder if the judge decided to take a chance because she’d been nudged into thinking of the defendant as a woman, thanks to all the pronoun palaver.
I guess he’ll need to be put in with women prisoners. Because it’s always a good thing to have convicted rapists in the women’s prison (I suppose if they only raped males, you could argue that but probably not even then). I know this is ‘child rape’ but there is nothing that prevents a child rapist from raping an adult. Now all he needs is to identify as a juvenile to be put in juvvy where all the kids are…
She’s always been a woman. She only raped children because Trans Exclusionary Feminists forced her to deny her true nature, resulting in understandable frustration and lashing out.
It seems like a slam dunk for No True Scotsmanning, but nope, must respect the pronouns of paedophiles. Why pass up the opportunity to say “hey, we’re not like that”?
We can acknowledge the overwhelming percentage of sex criminals who are male, but I think it is going a bit too far to make a blanket statement that even implies female “rape”, or at least sexual assault does not occur. Sexual assault is more than just penetration. Agree with everything else in the post, but let’s be careful.
As I understand it, the definition of rape in British law requires penetration with a penis. American law includes other acts in the definition. Thus only men can commit the crime of rape under British law. Women can commit rape under American law, and a number have been convicted of such a crime.
Men and women can both commit sexual assault, of course.
I’m not sure what is gained or lost by expanding the definition as the US has done, except for the muddying of the statistics regarding what’s recorded under the term “rape”.
Sackbut: I was speaking from the American perspective, so thanks for the clarification. I had no idea British law was so specific.
And it does seem to me that most rape cases I’ve seen with female perps it is consensual sex with a male not old enough to consent. Bad, yes. But I find it hard to find that as awful as non-consensual sex by force or by exploiting someone who is unable to consent due to state of consciousness, whether sick, drunk, or asleep (or drugged). I think calling the crime of sex with a minor statutory rape somewhat differentiates it, but I’m not sure it’s really the same crime…it’s sexual exploitation, it’s bad to do, but is it really rape? I’m willing to concede it is, but only with some differentiation.
@5, 6, and 7
Similarly so in NZ. Rape is specifically penis in genitals. Everything else is sexual assault (where no consent), or unlawful sexual connection (consent, but unlawful for some reason).
The only examples I can think of where women have been charged with sex crimes have been women (often teachers) having sex with teen boys, which is wrong, a gross breach of trust and has been shown to be emotionally harmful to many of the boys involved (not a hur hur at all). Weird considering how many conversations I heard as a youth of lads fantasising about their young female teachers. I guess it’s the contrast between fantasy and reality, plus the basically warped nature of the relationship.
We don’t have a statutory rape crime because there is a view that regardless of the issue of whether a minor can consent, the lack of consent (i.e. use of force, stupefaction or coercion) should be considered aggravating.
@ Blood Knight:
“ It seems like a slam dunk for No True Scotsmanning, but nope, must respect the pronouns of paedophiles. Why pass up the opportunity to say “hey, we’re not like that”?”
For one extremely simple reason: if it is indeed possible to differentiate between trans people and not trans people, then Self ID must be abandoned, and they won’t stand for that. So they’d much rather go with the “we’re not all angels”, “life is complicated”, “there’s criminals in every group – even women/refugees/disabled/trans etc” and so on.
Which of course will not stop them from claiming that there is no evidence of any trans person harming any ‘cis’ woman the next time that argument is needed.