Seems reasonable. They’re not biologically women – that needs to be recognised in some contexts such as this. The bigger issue though is whether the definition of rape should be changed or not.
winkwinknudge_nudge on
>Scottish sexual offence laws differ somewhat to England’s, with rape being defined as penetration by a penis without consent.
>”You can only commit that crime as a man”, Chief Constable Farrell told Sky News.
It’s literally the same as England’s law on it:
>The legal definition of rape is when someone puts their **penis** in another person’s vagina, anus or mouth, without the person’s permission. ~ Police.UK
—
> (a) he intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person (B) with his **penis**, ~ Sexual Offences Act 2003.
No-Ninja455 on
Sounds a bit like a restriction of criminals human rights that.
Tough one and I’m glad I’m not making the rules
Holly_Till on
What does this actually mean? The UK doesn’t have a self-id system, so what does this affect
Hyperion262 on
That literally makes no sense tho, or am I wrong? You can’t have a self identify system with conditions set by other people, it contradicts the whole idea.
Subbeh on
Makes sense.
‘I couldn’t possibly do any raping as per your legal definition Your Honour, for you see I am a woman!’.
I don’t know for sure, but I get the impression this has been cast as a defense before now.
alwaysright12 on
Huh. I thought a woman was anyone who said they were a woman?
Corny_Snickers on
Is this to avoid male rapists identifying as women in order to be placed in women’s prisons where the possibility to repeat the crime would be high? Or are womens prisons nicer with better conditions, genuine question.
Huge-Celebration5192 on
You can’t ban someone from self identifying.
You can deny a biological male from going to a female prison though.
Talentless67 on
Surely they can identify as ‘Not a rapist’ then as a woman.
schtickshift on
So gender identity can be banned? My mind is blowing at the implications.
dwg-87 on
They can identify as a woman (according to the modern take on the word)… however they should never be able to identify as female – something they are not. “Gender” in the modern sense of the word is a complete irrelevance in a situation like this – only females should be in a female prison.
Martinonfire on
Actually I’m fine with rapists self identifying as women providing, of course, they have their bits cut off as soon as they do.
Kasha2000UK on
Denying someone’s gender isn’t okay, that undermines all trans identities (also everyone else’s in turn) to suggest it’s conditional. I’m all for punishing rapists, but there’s zero reason or sense in doing it this way – and heaven forbid we address the problematic definition of rape.
OwlCaptainCosmic on
Or we could make the legal definition of rape gender neutral…
Bananasonfire on
You’d think it would be easier to just change the definition to “Sexual intercourse without consent” instead of it being all like “No, a penis **must** be involved!”
yokokilledpopmusic on
Suppose it must sound better to them than identifying as rapists. Bold strategy Cotton.
Flegmanuachi on
Internet weirdos have forever ruined politics. Imagine having your whole system cave in because a basement dweller self identifies as a magical unicorn 🤡
OdinForce22 on
> Rapists will be banned from self-identifying as women, Scotland’s top police officer has said amid confusion over the force’s gender policy.
No-one can ban anyone of self-identifying as something.
> Chief Constable Jo Farrell has claimed those who commit serious sex offences while being transgender will be listed as men.
This is either incredibly poor journalism, or CC Farrell has no understanding whatsoever of trans people.
I’m going on the presumption that she means listing trans women as men. This just reads as though all trans people are MtF and mentions nothing of trans men and what they’d be identified as.
> Scottish sexual offence laws differ somewhat to England’s, with rape being defined as penetration by a penis without consent.
Poor from LBC. It’s the same definition in England.
> “You can only commit that crime as a man”, Chief Constable Farrell told Sky News.
The Sexual Offences Act says, *(1)A person (A) commits an offence if—
(a)he intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person (B) with his penis*. Someone can correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t recall ever learning about the act defining “man” or “woman”. (Happy to be corrected).
The problem with this black and white view by the Chief Con, is that I again think she’s forgetting about trans men.
Is this a case of trans women would be listed as a man even if she has a female birth certificate? What about a trans man who commits the offence of rape? Would he be listed as female, or are surgically constructed penis’ not included?
The law is as clear as it needs to be.. rape is committed with a penis. End of.
Geoffstibbons on
I really don’t care about any rapists self identity rights regardless of their gender. In my opinion they’re not even human.
Probably makes me sound awful but I really don’t care.
20 Comments
Seems reasonable. They’re not biologically women – that needs to be recognised in some contexts such as this. The bigger issue though is whether the definition of rape should be changed or not.
>Scottish sexual offence laws differ somewhat to England’s, with rape being defined as penetration by a penis without consent.
>”You can only commit that crime as a man”, Chief Constable Farrell told Sky News.
It’s literally the same as England’s law on it:
>The legal definition of rape is when someone puts their **penis** in another person’s vagina, anus or mouth, without the person’s permission. ~ Police.UK
—
> (a) he intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person (B) with his **penis**, ~ Sexual Offences Act 2003.
Sounds a bit like a restriction of criminals human rights that.
Tough one and I’m glad I’m not making the rules
What does this actually mean? The UK doesn’t have a self-id system, so what does this affect
That literally makes no sense tho, or am I wrong? You can’t have a self identify system with conditions set by other people, it contradicts the whole idea.
Makes sense.
‘I couldn’t possibly do any raping as per your legal definition Your Honour, for you see I am a woman!’.
I don’t know for sure, but I get the impression this has been cast as a defense before now.
Huh. I thought a woman was anyone who said they were a woman?
Is this to avoid male rapists identifying as women in order to be placed in women’s prisons where the possibility to repeat the crime would be high? Or are womens prisons nicer with better conditions, genuine question.
You can’t ban someone from self identifying.
You can deny a biological male from going to a female prison though.
Surely they can identify as ‘Not a rapist’ then as a woman.
So gender identity can be banned? My mind is blowing at the implications.
They can identify as a woman (according to the modern take on the word)… however they should never be able to identify as female – something they are not. “Gender” in the modern sense of the word is a complete irrelevance in a situation like this – only females should be in a female prison.
Actually I’m fine with rapists self identifying as women providing, of course, they have their bits cut off as soon as they do.
Denying someone’s gender isn’t okay, that undermines all trans identities (also everyone else’s in turn) to suggest it’s conditional. I’m all for punishing rapists, but there’s zero reason or sense in doing it this way – and heaven forbid we address the problematic definition of rape.
Or we could make the legal definition of rape gender neutral…
You’d think it would be easier to just change the definition to “Sexual intercourse without consent” instead of it being all like “No, a penis **must** be involved!”
Suppose it must sound better to them than identifying as rapists. Bold strategy Cotton.
Internet weirdos have forever ruined politics. Imagine having your whole system cave in because a basement dweller self identifies as a magical unicorn 🤡
> Rapists will be banned from self-identifying as women, Scotland’s top police officer has said amid confusion over the force’s gender policy.
No-one can ban anyone of self-identifying as something.
> Chief Constable Jo Farrell has claimed those who commit serious sex offences while being transgender will be listed as men.
This is either incredibly poor journalism, or CC Farrell has no understanding whatsoever of trans people.
I’m going on the presumption that she means listing trans women as men. This just reads as though all trans people are MtF and mentions nothing of trans men and what they’d be identified as.
> Scottish sexual offence laws differ somewhat to England’s, with rape being defined as penetration by a penis without consent.
Poor from LBC. It’s the same definition in England.
> “You can only commit that crime as a man”, Chief Constable Farrell told Sky News.
The Sexual Offences Act says, *(1)A person (A) commits an offence if—
(a)he intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person (B) with his penis*. Someone can correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t recall ever learning about the act defining “man” or “woman”. (Happy to be corrected).
The problem with this black and white view by the Chief Con, is that I again think she’s forgetting about trans men.
Is this a case of trans women would be listed as a man even if she has a female birth certificate? What about a trans man who commits the offence of rape? Would he be listed as female, or are surgically constructed penis’ not included?
The law is as clear as it needs to be.. rape is committed with a penis. End of.
I really don’t care about any rapists self identity rights regardless of their gender. In my opinion they’re not even human.
Probably makes me sound awful but I really don’t care.