Interestingly confusing

Woman, 26, appears in court charged with raping man twice.’ I thought this was a traffic-stopper of a news story, too. How did that work, I wondered.

Under English law, which is what applies here, rape is defined as penetration with the penis without consent or a reasonable belief that consent had been given.

Women do not generally have penii so it’s not an offence that women can generally commit.

There can of course be those who are genetically male, or perhaps even genetically female but physically express as male, who thus have a penis but declare that they identify as female.

Which is what is the explanation here. Bloke in a dress, one who hasn’t had the tackle done, allegedly raped someone twice.

At which point I shall reveal myself to be terribly old fashioned. As in with PJ O’Rourke upon this sort of thing, there are times when such differences make no difference at all. If Miss is how you wish to be addressed (or Xe or any other variant) then those who can trouble themselves to be polite to you should do as you wish. When deciding upon other matters, like whether you’ve just raped someone through forcible buggery we’ll have a look at the more basic attributes thank you very much.

At which point the fun question here. So, if convicted, should Xe rapist serve in a women’s or men’s prison? He does self identify as female so therefore in a women’s presumably. But then there’s that penis issue which would seem to militate against that. Or should we, given the evidence that she is more interested in men as a sexual object stick Xe in the women’s anyway?

27 comments on “Interestingly confusing

  1. I’m surprised that the gender thing wasn’t picked up by the local court hack, if you can’t see the story angle in this then it puts others in an awkward spot when you self-identify as a journalist.
    Surprisingly Rachel hints at the attitude that it’s a calumny to accuse any woman of rape. Sure the criminal law requires its only when the sword enters an unconsenting scabbard its rape and off to clink but its very wrong to claim that a scabbard never envelops an unconsenting sword.

  2. He’s a transvestite at present, not a trans-sexual. So off to a male prison.

    PS. ‘Tis bizarre how the lefties favour gender appropriation but condemn cultural appropriation.

    PPS If my schoolboy Latin still serves, it should be ‘penes’, not ‘penii’. Though as ‘penis’ is now a word in English, ‘penises’ would surely do.

  3. PPS If my schoolboy Latin still serves, it should be ‘penes’, not ‘penii’. Though as ‘penis’ is now a word in English, ‘penises’ would surely do.

    Quite. What’s the plural of ‘bus,’ Tim? (Clue: not ‘bi’.)

  4. The word is actually omnibus and yes, for effect, I might well use omnibii. Got to maintain this crusty old timer, even if hopelessly wrong, public persona you know. The collective of which would indeed be public personii

  5. You are either a man or a woman .

    Apart from a very rare few born with mixed/odd equipment that is it.

    How you feel about that is your problem.

    I don’t care if a few troubled souls want to pretend to be whatever, but the nonsense peddled by their scummy Marxist friends must NOT be accepted.

    Why so “hateful” towards these poor sex-cofused souls?

    My hate is reserved for their socialistic CM scum “handlers ” who are trying to use sympathy to give Marxian subjectivist evil a foothold in the world outside of their evil mentality.

    You are not a woman unless you are born as a woman. Declaring that you are a woman does not make you a woman any more than declaring you are the Emperor Napoleon makes you the Emperor Napoleon. What is being attempted is what Orwell warned of: 2+2=5 if the party tells us so.

    As Jordan Peterson says in one of his Youtube appearances: “post modernist” Marxian scum are trying to tell the world that science and logic are invalid and white, male patriarchal oppression. And often do so while flying at 600 mph on a jet while tapping their shite out on a computer keyboard.

    The troubled can pretend all they like. But Marxist subjectivist evil must not come to be accepted as having ANY validity whatsoever.

    We have already had femmi-freaks cawing that the accusation of sex assault =guilty of sex assault. She says you raped her so you did- even if, at the time, you were on live TV 10000 miles away in front of millions of witnesses. Because truth, witnesses and objective evidence are white male patriarchal irrelevances and are as nothing compared to her “feeling” that you raped her.

    Subjectivist shite needs to be absolutely defeated as do its advocates.

    For the above reason the “transgender” wars may be the most important battle against socialism.

    If the cross-dressing male in question is guilty of rape he goes to male prison and–as a deserved-if-guilty part of his punishment– he should not be allowed to drag up.

  6. I thought that the law was moving away from gender specific definitions of rape? What if a man rapes a woman with a milk bottle? What if a woman rapes a woman with a milk bottle? Are neither, both or one a crime?

    Britain has been here before:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormon_sex_in_chains_case

    In this case, I think a humane termination is the best answer. Nothing much can be served by imprisonment and there is no treatment.

  7. “woman rapes a woman with a milk bottle? Are neither, both or one a crime?”

    Sexual assault with an object, not rape.

  8. TW: public persona […] public personii

    Well that’s a bit of gender appropriation right there!

    @Theo – I think we may both have grown up with Kennedy’s Latin Primer. Or Molesworth. Or both.

    Incidentally, weren’t the penii a small and quarellsome tribe of ancient britons in present-day Cambridgeshire?

  9. “As Jordan Peterson says in one of his Youtube appearances: “post modernist” Marxian scum are trying to tell the world that science and logic are invalid and white, male patriarchal oppression.”

    Except for climate science. Then the white, male, patriachal science is settled.

  10. @ TMB: “Incidentally, weren’t the penii a small and quarellsome tribe of ancient britons in present-day Cambridgeshire?”

    Well, there’s one currently living in an unimpressive end-terrace in Ely.

  11. TMB

    I still have my copy of Kennedy’s Latin Primer somewhere.

    “…weren’t the penii a small and quarellsome tribe of ancient britons in present-day Cambridgeshire?”

    Possibly. Certainly, a lot of dicks went to Cambridge.

  12. Talking of P J O’Rourke, Tim, reviews of his latest book suggest that he has succumbed to Trump Derangement Syndrome. He even voted for Hillary Clinton…

  13. Women do not generally have penii

    “Women do not generally possess a penis” reads better, I think, though even then there is the mild ambiguity of whether multiple women are in possession of a single member.

  14. NiV: And men and women both have nipples and an arsehole. That doesn’t make them the opposite sex.

    Sorry.

  15. Rob: …whether multiple women are in possession of a single member.

    That’s an invitation for the boastful and hollow-eyed to let rip!

  16. >i>”NiV: And men and women both have nipples and an arsehole. That doesn’t make them the opposite sex.”

    Non sequitur.

    “Sorry.”

    That’s OK. You’re forgiven.

  17. NiV: Yeah cos micro-sample claims of vaguely-mixed male and female brain characteristics–supposedly identified by reference to male and female brains in the first place–is obvious proof of there being no such thing as male and female.

    And you aren’t any better at identifying non-sequiturs than you are distinguishing the sexes.

  18. @Hallowed Be, March 12, 2017 at 9:39 am

    …but its very wrong to claim that a scabbard never envelops an unconsenting sword.

    +1

    Unfortunately I have experienced that. Woman I was dating would regularly drug me (diazapam) and have unprotected sex whilst I slept. Her ex kindly tipped me off and I avoided the potion and pretended to be asleep. She wanted a baby funded by Gov’t & CSA extortion of father.

  19. Jaisus. Pcar – that sounds both extremely criminal, and pretty unlikely to be signalled virtuously about by a politician.

    re- penii and latin.. My primer’s author was Badcock.

  20. “Yeah cos micro-sample claims of vaguely-mixed male and female brain characteristics–supposedly identified by reference to male and female brains in the first place–is obvious proof of there being no such thing as male and female.”

    Are you saying you didn’t follow the logic? It’s fairly simple, really.

    Anatomical features are defined as ‘male’ or ‘female’ if they occur in one sex more often than the other by a large enough margin to exclude chance. The anatomical feature shares a common cause with all the other sexual characteristics. (Strictly, there are two statistical clusters of anatomical features that tend to occur together that we give arbitrary labels to of ‘male’ and ‘female’.) The shape of the genitals is just one sex-linked anatomical feature of many.

    However, the distributions overlap. A feature that occurs in 95% of men and 5% of women is clearly a “male” characteristic (such a bias doesn’t happen by accident; it’s clearly sex-linked), but 5% of women have it too. And if you look at enough such anatomical features then it’s statistically pretty much certain that *everybody* has at least one or two features more commonly associated with the opposite sex.

    Thus, *everyone* is born with mixed/odd equipment, if you extend ‘equipment’ to include any sex-linked anatomical feature. Simple, right?

    Most of these features are socially neutral. Nobody notices or cares about the minority of women for who the ring finger is significantly longer than the index finger, even though this is a clearly “male” anatomical characteristic. But they do exist, and are just as valid as determiners of sex as the shape of one’s genitals (or of those you were born with). It just depends on your choice of definitions.

    By the way, which would you classify the guevedoce as? They’re not born with mixed/odd equipment – it looks like perfectly normal female equipment. But it changes to the other sort at puberty. It’s caused by 5-alpha reductase deficiency due to a broken gene – they’re genetically male with XY chromosomes and produce testosterone, but the broken link stops this being converted to 5α-androstan-17β-ol-3-one in peripheral tissues, blocking the normal male sexual development. So: boy or girl? Does your definition of “genitals at birth” capture the distinction between the sexes correctly?

  21. @Hallowed Be

    Disclosure from her ex came when I mentioned how sleepy & befuddled I was after spending a night with at her place. I had put it down to her keeping windows closed, so no fresh air.

    It was mid ’90s, so cheapish tiny low-res bare-bones IR cams were available and I bought one hooked to laptop and told her it was the Rugby atomic clock sync….

  22. Micro samples of micro populations with abnormalities proves sod all.

    Do you have a dick or not? Not even you are that confused let alone the great mass of humanity. To paraphrase Frank Zappa –Does your wooden leg make you a table?

  23. “Micro samples of micro populations with abnormalities proves sod all.”

    Sample size for this study was about 1400, (and reports on another related study with a sample size of 5500), which is considered pretty good by statistical standards.

    And the subjects were mostly from the normal background population.

    “Do you have a dick or not?”

    She didn’t up to the age of 14, but he does now. So. Was she a girl? Is he a boy?

    “To paraphrase Frank Zappa –Does your wooden leg make you a table?”

    I think you might have got that the wrong way round. The joke is that the conventional definition of ‘table’ includes ‘wooden legs’, so the simple-minded pedant classifies anything with a wooden leg as a table, and anything without one as not a table, even though the real situation is more complex. Some tables don’t have wooden legs and some things with wooden legs are not tables. If we apply the analogy and substitute “penis” for “wooden leg” and “man” for “table”, the analogous question becomes “does your penis make you a man?” (Or any other individual sex-linked characteristic, like long / short hair, high digit ratio, wearing trousers, being short, or being good at language.) To which Frank Zappa’s answer – by analogy – is “no”.

    Some people prefer simplistic and rigid definitions that put people into binary categories and rigorously enforce complete compliance. In the Zappa interview, the interviewer was applying conventional society’s rule that only women wore their hair long. But the real world is more complicated. Zappa was breaking/changing society’s rules on how men and women were allowed to behave, and that of course caused the older generation to freak out about the way people like Zappa were subverting the traditional gender rules they were used to, in much the same way the older generation today freak out about people bending the rules in new ways.

    Definitions and rules change. The important thing is that nobody should suffer harm from the rest of society because they either stick to the old definitions or switch to the new. The problem with SJWs is not that they’ve changed the definition, but that they enforce adherence to it with violence. It’s exactly the same problem as with the gay-bashers enforcing with violence the old standards and definitions. It’s the same problem with Islam.

    The problem isn’t the specific details of the ever-changing rules, or the fact that they’re suddenly changing what was traditionally thought to be immutable, but that some people feel they have the right and duty to impose their own definitions on everybody else, by force.

  24. By the way, this is MUCH more important than your piffling argument about gender fluid rape.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.