“Ruby”
They’ve got to stop doing this. News from CP24:
A woman is facing charges after she allegedly sexually assaulted a child in a Toronto park two months ago and police believe there may be other victims.
What woman? This “woman”:
Just stop.
According to police, a six-year-old boy attended the Walter Saunders Park, near Dufferin Street and Eglinton Avenue West, on May 20. At that time, the boy was sexually assaulted, police said.
How would a woman even go about sexually assaulting a six-year-old boy? What would that even mean? For a man it’s all too obvious how.
In a news release issued on Tuesday, police said investigators believe there may be other victims.
But they will have trouble finding the perp, because they’re looking for a woman.
If they didn’t find “her” already, how do we have the photograph?
They used to talk about gay men going after little boys. But I think the proportion of gay men who are attracted to male children is the same as the proportion of heterosexual men who are attracted to little girls. The common denominator is that they’re men.
Crime statistics – historically – showed a stark difference in criminal behaviour between men and women.
But now we have people like our “Ruby” here, and a post-structuralist/gender studies/non-falsifiable definition of “woman” that’s all set to send everything straight to hell.
Sort of related: According to Wikipedia, 1.4% of US-American women identify as “lesbian.” But now there’s a new cohort of “women” and far greater proportion of them are identifying as “lesbians.” Evidently being a transwoman gives you a much greater chance of being “lesbian.”
With traditional sex crime statistics being what they were, I’m willing to bet that in the old days, the number of cis-lesbians who were serial rapists was vanishingly small. Sadly this doesn’t seem to be the case for the new crop of transbians.
GW – Well sometimes there are photos of suspects who are at large, but that doesn’t seem to be the case here. I lost track of the fact that they said the suspect is facing charges.
What “cis” lesbians? In TrainSpeak, “cis” = “identify as your gender assigned at birth.” These are all nonsense terms. “Gender” is incoherent. “Gender” is not “assigned at birth.” Sex is determined in utero, and observed and recorded at birth. Of course, societies try to impose gender (stereotypes) from the moment a child’s sex is known, but nobody necessarily has to agree or comply. “Identify as” is an empty expression. It appears to be akin to “wishing to be.”. It’s pure wish-thinking with no connection to reality.
I absolutely do not “identify as” any “gender.” I reject gender. I don’t have a gender. I have a sexed body. I have no choice about the matter, and I have no choice about which sex I am. I don’t think of myself in any way with regard to “gender.”. If I ‘identify as” anything, I identify I internally as a human being. I most certainly don’t “identify as” the non-person, the afterthought, the last-class person, the enslaved, the oppressed, the cypher that women are reduced to because of gendered stereotypes imposed on people of my sex.
I also happen to be a lesbian, but I sure as hell am not “cis.”
MD @4 I consider “cis” to be hate speech. It is an unnecessary and redundant label used by the trans cult to indicate those who are not amenable to their twisted agenda. If someone ever calls me “cis” or “cisgender” to my face, I shall be immediately en garde.
What? Not even bothering with a wig? Come on, media! Call it like it is, not like your D&I officer specifies.
maddog1129 #4
Exactly! As I keep saying in “cis woman” in Genderspeak is not another name for “adult human female”. Indeed Genderpeak doesn’t have a name for “adult human female” any more than Newpeak has a name for “political/intellectual freedom”. This is becoming a major pet peeve of mine, and I really wish people on the gender critical side would stop buying into the other side’s language with all its implicit baggage. You can’t just assume that people are talking about the same things just because they use the same words. That’s why I keep making analogies to conflating flying mammals (bats₁) and clubs for hitting baseballs (bats₂), comparing it to “deepities” (cf. Dennett), and saying things like “it’s just a bad pun” (also cf. Dennett).
Also, speaking as someone with a background in linguistics, there is no such thing as what a word “really means”. Words don’t mean anything in themselves but get their meanings from us. The problem with the TRA re-definition of “man”, “woman”, “female”, “misogyny”, “feminism”, “lesbian” etc. is not that it’s different from (what used to be) the standard definition, but that they’re being disingenuous about it, trying to have it both ways, talking and acting as if we’re all still talking about the same things, pretending that everyone else is using these words in the same way etc. As I have previously written, it’s as if we were having a conversation about chiropterology (the study of bats₁), and I suddenly started bringing bats₂ into the conversation, chiding you for saying that clubs for hitting baseballs can fly etc. If people would just learn to detect a bad pun when they hear it, all of gender ideology would collapse like a house of cards.
Bjarte @#7:
This sounds to me like where we came in. My understanding has been to date that Covid-19 started when someone in China ate a bat. But if it was a baseball bat or a cricket bat, and not a flying chiropterowhatitsname, that puts a whole new slant on the whole business.
It was actually a wombat, specifically a trans wombat identified at birth as a duck. Anyway that was all my fault I’m afraid (sorry ’bout that). I went to China in 2019 and had to try out the famous Beijing Roast Duck (or, as it turns out, a mis-speciesed trans bat of the wombat variety), and the rest, as they say, is history… :-/
In all fairness I think it’s pretty clear that “Me” @ 2 was being sarcastic with “cis-lesbians” – note all the scare-quotes in the preceding paragraph.
See also the skyrocketing level of sexual violence in Canada’s women’s prisons. From almost unheard of a generation ago to a chronic problem in one easy step.
The data should be available fairly soon.
But….but….but….the shirt is slightly off the shoulders! Obviously a woman! (But no head tilt?)
Naif: Isn’t the very act of gathering the data “transphobic”? Just like the National Rifle Association and its tools have stymied funding for research into gun violence.
The “wet market” theory for COVID has issues, according to the League of Concerned Atomic Sometimes conspiracy theories are not wrong.
Scientists (the ones who maintain the “Doomsday Clock” so not a right wing group at all) reviewed the evidence to date. Evidence which is limited at least partly due to Chinese foot dragging. The article note the prevalence of research into “enhancing” viruses’ danger at the Wuhan lab…and how sloppy some visitors have found the safety procedures to be. The interesting thing is the United States funded some of this ongoing research, so it is not precisely only a Chinese thing.
Wrong thread?
Responding to Omar #8. But yes semi off topic. Sorry
No need to be sorry, I’m not strict about staying on topic. I like the way topics can expand.
Brian,
The prison service isn’t gathering the data to attribute to transwomen and otherwise, they are just gathering the data period. A generation ago, it was so rare that there is no systematic reporting. The Correctional Service right now simply cannot answer the question: “How many sexual assaults occurred in Canadian womens’ prisons in 2019?”.
Ah. That is rather terrifying, Naif. So many that they don’t even know.
OP: “…How would a woman even go about sexually assaulting a six-year-old boy? What would that even mean? For a man it’s all too obvious how….”
I’ll tell ya!
Coming from a law enforcement background/angle (child crimes specifically), I’ll spare you the graphic details in open forum like this (OP, please email if you can’t imagine).
I don’t like assumptions, but I’ll throw out some qual/disqual. We don’t know if “Ruby” is a biological male or female at this point. I haven’t seen a story with that information yet. Let’s pretend She is a biological/physical female at this point. We don’t know if she is just homeless/transient and looks dirty as photographed. Is she battling substance abuse? Is she suffering a mentally illness other than a dissociative that would cause an action like this?
Some forms of mental retardation (not meant as a disparaging term, but a medical descriptive) can break down the barrier and prevent the violator from understanding the difference between right/wrong and age boundaries. I’ve seen many cases where a child-minded adult living in the house was behaving in a sexually inappropriate manner and it was kept in house because they “didnt know better”. And I’ve seen homes where the first time they caught the MR adult touching a sibling out of curiosity, they discarded him as a deviant and removed them from the home.
All that mentioned above, I can say that by today’s standards, a WIDE array of offenses are deemed “sexual assault”. It doesn’t have to be some penetrative offense to be considered sexual assault. At that age it could have been simulating something sexual with the child. It could have been enticing or forcing the child to touch or even look at ‘her’ genitalia or a lewd action. I’ve seen about 25% of our cases are female-only violators against both male and female children, and ~30% of the other cases involve both the man and woman in a relationship involving abuse of a child.
We can’t assume/presume a person’s gender anymore. So definitely don’t assume that because a statistical majority of sexual predators are men that women aren’t doing it as well. Predatory men typically keep their secrets with fear, predatory women typically keep their secrets with an emotional response. Nobody wants to see mom, sister, aunt, cousin in prison…they play on that response.
I hope we’ll see a follow-up to “Ruby”. It’s a bad day regardless.
Hope it helped and that it was taken in a very positive context (as I intended). I want to teach, not preach.
We do know that Ruby is a man though, because of the photograph.
You GOT me there. I hadn’t zoomed in to see that crusty little beard/mustache. While I personally saw masculine features in the face, I don’t assume because you never know. We’ll all be shocked when we find out it -was- a female though, and the hormone therapy was causing the rest. :) :)
Well women have to assume, for our own safety, and it’s pretty damn rare to be wrong. It’s not really true that you never know – nearly all the time you do know.
I agree
Sexual assault can be defined narrowly or broadly, but even with narrower definitions a woman can sexually assault a boy. Years ago a friend who was reading Helter Skelter, the book about the Manson family, asked me if a passage in it that said one of his followers “began fellating” her infant son a few weeks after he was born meant what they thought (unfortunately, yes). I’d call that sexual assault.
An adult woman in general could certainly groom and do inappropriate things with young boys. We’ve all seen the schoolteacher cases, and while most of them were with boys in their mid or late teens, some were younger, and I think that’s well within the realm of sexual assault.
But, yeah, rare, and I don’t blame women for being displeased when seeing headlines about a woman sexually assaulting someone when the perp is a biological male.
Ahhhh yes the Manson family…from 50 years ago. That’s definitely enough reason to pretend that women routinely sexually assault 6-year-old boys. Thank you SO much for the astute and learned correction.
In fairness, I don’t think Skeletor said anything about it happening routinely.
You said:
and that’s an example of one thing it could mean.
I think I kind of understand what you mean by “What would that even mean?” and I’m finding it uneasily difficult to define sexual assault in such cases; I’m sure I’d be able to recognise it if cases were described, but I’m not 100% certain I’d always be able to explain why.
But it does seem clear to me that a woman could sexually assault a six year old boy, with the caveats that:
a) That hardly ever happens, and
b) That didn’t happen in this case, that is obviously a man.
There are many acts that are considered sexual assault, or even rape, in the US, such as inserting objects or fingers into the vagina or anus of the victim, that do not require the perpetrator to be male. The perpetrator is usually male, of course, as a number of notorious incidents illustrate.
But is it actually sexual in those cases? As opposed to sadistic? My skepticism is about women shoving things into little boys for sexual pleasure. I get that it’s physically possible for women to shove things into little boys, but the jump from that to “sexual”…I have trouble believing it.
Ophelia@29:
That’s what I mean when I say I think I can kind of see your point and that I might have difficulty explaining why some assaults are sexual and others not, where there are borderline cases. I’m not sure that committing an assault for straightforward sexual pleasure – in the physical sense – is the only means by which to determine whether it is sexual in nature. For one thing, sexual pleasure can be vicarious, can be derived from such things as sadism and so on. For another, an assault involving simulated sexual activity (as in Skeletor’s example) which has no aspect of sexual pleasure, might be considered sexual because it has hallmarks of sexual abuse, particularly in the mind and memory of the victim.
I don’t know, I’m finding the idea quite a slippery one to grasp. But that last point is the one I find most compelling. If a child is likely to remember the assault later as a sexual violation, then perhaps it should be considered sexual rather than sadistic assault.
I feel like I’m quibbling though, because the point here is that a man did it in this case, and I think we all know why.
Well I take the point – it’s true that women are physically able to shove things into little boys. But I think there’s a lot of bullshitting going on about women and “kink,” that amounts to saying hey women can be just as sexually sadistic as men and to say otherwise is kink-shaming.
I partially see your question about what makes these incidents sexual. Just to add a couple of points to what latsot already replied:
The charge in the OP is sexual assault, which is a usually well understood legal term that does not refer to the perpetrator deriving pleasure, but merely describes the act.
I think in many cases of bog standard rape the perpetrator sought to humiliate, to dominate, to show power and control, and any sexual pleasure was irrelevant except as a means. So I question any need to consider sexual pleasure in these definitions.
Re the female offenders thing. It’s rare, but it absolutely does happen.
I read of a case just recently where I saw “woman” and assumes probably a transgender male. But I checked out the details and it was indeed an actual woman on this occasion. So I never just assume now.
This one’s a bloke though.
https://www.nbcboston.com/news/local/boston-woman-arrested-on-child-pornography-charges/2366739/