when gender blinds us to sex

FarNorth There will always be those sort of people but we should still make changes that are right.

Especially for victims who are violated and should have access to the right punishment for their attacker and the right support to deal with it. That will for the most part be positive for women, well, women like me frankly and many other abuse survivors I have spoken to.

I posted earlier that it could cause issues with regard to intent for example,if anything other than a penis is used, was their intent to rape or sexually abuse? What would the defendant be charged with?

If a woman who forces sex on a man wishes to avoid an unwanted pregnancy and STD she can apply a condom can't she.

I can't see many rapists stopping long enough to put one on because their victim asks them too.

VS I think you're over-optimistic there.
A change in the classification, leading to an increased number of convictions for rape, would just have people saying that those statistics can't be compared to the previous ones because of the change, and that they don't represent real rapes.
It would also obscure the specific crime which is committed with a penis.
Even including the miniscule number of women who commit a sexual assault using their vagina (1 per century, maybe) would allow some people to say "women are included in that figure too" thus disguising the facts.

It's hideous, isn't it? But we can't upset the sensibilities of someone who claims to have a female body.

Yes whilst giving the account of one of the most traumatic events they have to be careful in their language in order not to upset an abusive man.

Galaxy

No probably not doodledog I am just trying to think it through. There is no such thing as compelled speech in law so presumably witnesses could avoid using pronouns. I am not saying they should have to obviously.

Yes, that's probably how it will happen. As if the poor victims don't have enough to worry about without that.

A woman forcing sex on a man also carries the risk of unwanted pregnancy and sexually transmitted disease.

Now let's be clear, I can see no reason a victim should be forced to call a rapist by their chosen pronouns but actually that could also be avoided by using "they" and "them" lawfully.

Rape convictions are falling in the UK. There is no reason to think that broadening the definition would change that, in fact I think it could be argued that it would draw more attention to the issue solely because more people would be fighting for a rape conviction. That gives victims a much louder voice, a larger solidarity, opens up more avenues for support and force authorities and courts to spend more time educating themselves on the matter.

No probably not doodledog I am just trying to think it through. There is no such thing as compelled speech in law so presumably witnesses could avoid using pronouns. I am not saying they should have to obviously.

I don't think anyone is suggesting for a minute that any form of sexual assault isn't serious, or that rape of one sex is worse than rape of the other.

There is, however, an additional trauma (IMO) with an assault that could transmit a life-threatening virus such as HIV, or a pregnancy that would result in either a child of rape or a termination.

And the very idea that someone who has gone through this would have to refer to their rapist as 'she' would be unbelievable if we weren't living in what feels like an alternative reality.

Doodledog

I don't think courts have discretion in matters like this - the law has to apply to all.

I hope that one day we'll look back at all this in disbelief.

Hear, hear!

I fear if you start to broaden the definition of rape, there is a danger it may come to be seen as a lesser crime, as it would encompass such a wide range of acts. What needs to be assured is these other sexual violations are treated in the same way as rape and sentencing is congruent.
My concerns are with the same factors as you Galaxy conviction rates for rape, and victims of sexual or other violence being forced to refer to their male attacker as 'she'.

I don't think courts have discretion in matters like this - the law has to apply to all.

I hope that one day we'll look back at all this in disbelief.

I wonder where we go now in terms of ensuring women arent made to call their rapist or violent assailant 'she', is that up.to the discretion of the individual court I wonder.

Jolly good.

I can fight for that AS WELL Galaxy

eachother.org.uk/does-the-legal-definition-of-rape-need-updating/

Carry on violet. I am busy fighting to get the rape conviction rate over 3 %. We all fight.our own things.

Excellent.

The defininition of rape should and will change here.

I'm going to find the fight and join it.

That is awful, but I don't know what it has to do with trans issues or misogyny, as it is being discussed on this thread, beyond the obvious fact that rape is usually born of a hatred of women.

(and yes, we all know that men are raped too, but in far smaller numbers, and no, that doesn't make it a lesser crime.)

I did

You know women (girls) have lost their virginity (hymen) to an object because their sexual abuser could not maintain an erection.

No, VS. Read the thread.

I'm confused because it was feminists in the US who lobbied to have the definition of rape changed to include objects used for penetration but sugfesting it here is mysogyny?