If they say so
If a rapist identifies as a woman that rapist is a woman so SHUT UP TERFS, say the police.
Police have been criticised for saying they will record rapes by offenders with male genitalia as being committed by a woman if the attacker “identifies as a female”.
Rape is a thing men do to women. Women can’t return the favor even if they want to, because women don’t have the right equipment. In other news, crime statistics should be accurate as opposed to fanciful.
Police Scotland said that they would log rapes as being carried out by a woman if the accused person insists, even if they have not legally changed gender.
Oh well if the rapist insists he’s a woman whaddya gonna do?
Kenny MacAskill, the former Scottish justice secretary, asked Police Scotland how it would deal with recording rapes after the new laws take effect. Gary Ritchie, assistant chief constable, set out scenarios where a rapist could be recorded as a woman.
They included “where a person born male obtains a full gender recognition certificate and then commits rape” and “where a person born male but who identifies as a female and does not have a full GRC . . . commits rape”. The Sexual Offences (Scotland) Act 2009 defines rape as nonconsensual penetration with a penis, so it cannot be committed by someone without male genitalia.
…
Detective Superintendent Fil Capaldi said: “The sex/gender identification of individuals who come into contact with the police will be based on how they present or how they self-declare, which is consistent with the values of the organisation. Police Scotland requires no evidence or certification as proof of biological sex or gender identity other than a person’s self-declaration, unless it is pertinent to any investigation with which they are linked.”
Is it not pertinent when the crime is rape?
I almost went into “Well, achtually” mode there, for a moment, then I realized I had to do a double-check. In the US, they broadened the definition to include unwanted penetration with objects or fingers. Though originally done specifically to address rapists like Brock Turner, this does mean that women can, in the US, be accused of “rape”, though of course it’s still an outside fringe of cases. In English law, though, rape still does apparently require the use of a penis, and since this is Scotland, yeah, complete absurdity. Posting this mainly for my fellow Americans who might’ve been unaware of the distinction, since the change in the law here was actually well-lauded in feminist circles at the time.
Yes, I do have to say in this instance US law is better than English law. Still don’t do much about enforcing it properly, though.
So if I should self-declare as the Virgin Mary, or as Jesus Christ himself, that should allow me to get away with anything, particularly if the likes of Detective Superintendent Fil Capaldi are religiously inclined.
iknklast,
I’m not sure about ‘better’. I think there are grounds for classifying sexual assault by penetration with a penis as different to other types of sexual assault, including penetration with objects or fingers. Not always or necessarily worse, but perhaps different.
The computer scientist in me wants to redesign all law from scratch according to sound engineering principles, in which case the laws of both countries would look a lot different, but as things stand, I find the arguments for keeping the UK law as it for now persuasive.
They’re still committing thoughcrime. ‘Born male?’ Everyone knowns that zionist midwives flip a coin and ASSIGN sex to the newborn.
“zionist midwives” – that’s a good one.