-
Posts
-
I am still waiting for Slippery to explain his opening statement. How a ‘transgender woman’ can physically rape another woman? I think slippery has confused a man posing as a transgender woman to fool the namby pamby liberal establishment in order to gain access to women to abuse, a man with a history of violent rape and sexual abuse. My main point however is this, Slippery chooses to use such titillating provocative language in order to elicit a negative response and then demonstrate how liberal and reasonable he claims to be in regards to such issues. Slipery actually does a disservice to the causes he claims to champion, in my opinion he reinforces negative steretypes and religion driven, that any sexuality that differs from the norm is deviancy.
Really?
Oh dear.
The last I heard, rape could be committed by anybody,man or woman.
But in this specific case, what evidence do you have that it was a man posing as a transgender woman???
Not what I read. I must have read wrongly, so I’m looking forward to your explanation.
What is rape?
According to the law, only a man can commit rape (as the penetration has to be
with a penis). However, both women and men can be raped. A rape can occur
within a relationship or within a marriage.
The law says:
‘A’ is guilty of rape if:
he intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of ‘B’ with his penis;
‘B’ does not consent to the penetration, and
‘A’ does not reasonably believe that ‘B’ consents.checked a few sites, law sites, wiki etc …..All are very specific
Both men and women can rape
Rape is defined now as a sexual act without consent and not all sex acts require a penis
1 member liked this post.
The law is quite specific as to what rape is and what sexual assault by penetration is and both involve a penis.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/part/1/crossheading/rape
Oh and actually I misquoted penetration, it does not involve a penis nessessarily but is NOT defined as rape. :)
2Assault by penetration
(1)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.
(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.
What a pair of pedants Gerryandthemooose are.
A discussion of whether transgendered people are women or not becomes a discussion of the legal definition of rape, complete with clauses of an unnamed law informing us that sections 75 and 76 apply to an offence under this section.
JC pedantry gone barmy.
A legal definition of rape is for a court of law, not this sort of discussion.
Paige was absolutely right because she was using the common definition of rape, not the legal definition; penetration without consent.
A woman or a transvestite can rape a man, and savagely, by using a broom, a toilet plunger, a fist etc etc., as well as a penis (in the case of the transvestite). A man or a transvestite can rape a woman likewise, and the above instruments are much more brutal than raping with his penis.
Legally, raping someone with a broom may be sexual assault, but to you and me outside a court of law it’s rape.
let’s get back on track, hey???
I’m just going to ignore Scep as he is very rude….
…and the butter just didn’t melt in her mouth
The story was widely circulated some weeks ago and was seized on by feminists to attack proposed changed to the law on the transgendered . I thought it was an actual transgendered woman, and when I just checked I was right. It wasn’t a man posing as a woman in order to ape women at all.
Why are you right after just checking? The person in question hadn’t had surgery and according to the court case was far from committed to becoming transgender. The Judge said at the end of the trial ” This man will never set foot inside a woman’s prison again”. Now none of us know the in’s and out’s of the case, however they were found guilty of sexual assault on at least 2 occasions, admitted to raping 2 other women previously and already had a record for paedophilia…. But you think they were not devious enough maybe to ‘pretend ‘ to be trans in order to get to vulnerable people ? ok fair enough that’s your opinion…..
The last I heard, rape could be committed by anybody,man or woman.
What is rape?
According to the law, only a man can commit rape (as the penetration has to be
with a penis). However, both women and men can be raped. A rape can occur
within a relationship or within a marriage.
The law says:
‘A’ is guilty of rape if:
he intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of ‘B’ with his penis;
‘B’ does not consent to the penetration, and
‘A’ does not reasonably believe that ‘B’ consents.checked a few sites, law sites, wiki etc …..All are very specific
Actually I’d seen Headlines about Trans Raping Women and heard the term before, also phrases like Raped with ( insert disgusting method of choice, oh no you already did that and it was totally uncalled for, deliberately emotive and intended to shock )…… I wanted clarification on it, so I checked a few sites and that’s what it said Rape was in Law. Obviously different countries differ on the exact definition. I’m wrong in posting it am I ? Had the shoe been on the other foot I doubt you’d have had an issue with it.
Yes as you’ve said yourself many times, discussions on the boards evolve, grow, alter depending obviously on who says what. It’s natural, or is that only a good thing when you feel your argument holds the upper hand and you haven’t got anything wrong or mixed up.
What a pair of pedants Gerryandthemooose are.
A discussion of whether transgendered people are women or not becomes a discussion of the legal definition of rape, complete with clauses of an unnamed law informing us that sections 75 and 76 apply to an offence under this section.
JC pedantry gone barmy.
A legal definition of rape is for a court of law, not this sort of discussion.
Firstly, once again rude. You sound like Mr Q, seeing gangs where there are none and playing a victim. You constantly ask for clarification and evidence from people here and when they are presented you decide the people who check the info and post the results are pedants. Pedants, a tad rich coming from you I must say !
A legal definition of rape is for a court of law, not this sort of discussion.
No, the Court of Law already has a legal definition of Rape and it was stated earlier.
If I was a pedant I’d point out that there is no such word as ‘transgendered ‘
Have a nice day
@ Moose, the Ministry of Justice has apologised for the mistake said it should not have happened and that due process did not happen. In other words they cocked it up.
Also Frances Crook, the chief executive of the Howard League for Penal Reform, (the expert) said “vulnerable women were being put at risk by a small number of violent men whose primary interest was harming women.”
She added: “In my view, any man who has committed a serious sexual or violent offence against women, who then wants to transfer but has not gone through the whole process, still has a penis and still has male hormones, should not be put into a women’s prison. There may be a case for having separate provision; that is a debate to be had.”
Get involved in this discussion! Log in or register now to have your say!