when gender blinds us to sex

I wouldnt get your Hope's up the conviction rate in America is dire from what I can see.

I wonder at your trust in judges Doodledog most of them are men. Most rape charges will have a woman as victim and sexual assault may well be treated as a different offence in the mind of a judge with traditional values. Depending on his attitude the rape may be regarded as a lesser offence. I think as well there is an element involved of this being sexual because of the history of the word. Changing the wording of the law to something like the American model would remove all the historic and sexual connections, and make it a much easier offence to prosecute accurately and with less preconceptions.

To me, that makes sense. The judge can decide on the seriousness of the assault, and sentence accordingly, regardless of the sex or gender of the victim or the assailant.

At least the maximum sentence for rape and for sexual assault by penetration (i.e. using an implement other than a penis) is the same - life.

Smileless2012

I would have thought that for any child who learns their conception was due to sex without consent, the impact is likely to be a negative one.

Exactly

I would have thought that for any child who learns their conception was due to sex without consent, the impact is likely to be a negative one.

Smileless2012

Well it's unlikely that he'd take any responsibility for a child if conception took place. There are plenty of men who abdicate all responsibility both emotional and financial, of the children they were happy to conceive.

Yes he could of course if that is what he chose but that also negatively impacts the resulting child

Well it's unlikely that he'd take any responsibility for a child if conception took place. There are plenty of men who abdicate all responsibility both emotional and financial, of the children they were happy to conceive.

Molly how am I doing that exactly?

You won’t change hearts and minds if you put people against you either.

The man would also be at risk of std and of a pregnancy and child he didn't consent to.

Yes, I agree its my perogative to do so and explain why I feel so strongly about it. I won't change hearts and minds sitting on my hands

Yes if course FarNorth but the post I was referring too was about a woman being at the risk of pregnancy and STD if she forces sex on a man.

They can already say what happened to them, but if you want to campaign for changes, it's your prerogative, and there's no need to explain your reasoning to us.

It's not good enough that it happens. It's not good enough that people aren't educated on its seriousness. It's not good enough that some people will feel more at liberty to get away with what should be a serious crime because it's not taken as seriously in law.

FarNorth but we don't have either of those things.

Please let's not confuse my stance on trans issues with that meaning I am defending serious criminals because I am not doing that at all.

I fully agree with the FBI on their definition of rape and I want mainly women, and in some cases men, to be able to say that is what happened to them.

That's not in any way anti women

Smileless there would still be a risk of infection to the man, if the attacking woman chose not to use protection.

the right punishment for their attacker and the right support to deal with it.

Absolutely women should have that VS, and so should men who are sexually assaulted.
If sexual assaults are treated as being less serious than rape, that is wrong and should be changed.
I believe rape should remain as a specific crime to make clear exactly what the man has done.

Violettham

I agree completely with you Doodlebug. ps Iam a very old lady

You will have seen a lot of nonsense in your time, in that case, but I bet there hasn't been much to compete with this?

I've just posted the same Doodledog. TBH when I look at some of the things we feel the need to post to state the obvious I wonder which planet I'm on!!!

I agree completely with you Doodlebug. ps Iam a very old lady

Sorry, I think all of that has already been said - I somehow missed a page.

Molly No.

I clearly said from the beginning that rapists have no right to preferred pronouns as far as I'm concerned.

I've only suggested work around for the way things stand at present

I wasn't going to get involved in this, as it is too idiotic, but if a woman somehow forced sex on a man and became pregnant, the pregnancy would presumably be 'wanted'. The point being that if she were able to manage to rape him she would presumably have control over whether to make him wear a condom, or if that stretches credulity even by the standards of this bit of the conversation she could take precautions of her own.

VS you still don’t get it do you. If I’d been raped by a thing with a penis I’d want the right to call it he rather than being further traumatised by accusations of hurting the rapists feelings.
Falling rape convictions is not something to be proud of unless the rapes are also decreasing.
Once again you are obfuscating the issue of rape of females by males-in whatever form they feel on the day, by dragging in other attacks. I have already agreed that no assault by anyone is acceptable, but it seems, as in the title, that gender blinds you to sex.

"they" would probably not be allowed because that is not the pronoun the person wants.
The victim could say a person / the person / someone etc.
They would have to take their time giving evidence, to make sure they chose the right words but that should be okay with the court.
Victims & witnesses shouldn't be hustled to get on with it, I don't think.