Perverted man claims to be a woman - may be housed in a women's prison

I'm glad that you managed the long read trisher but could you give your views on the stats provided @ 21.26 yesterday? Do you accept them as accurate or do you dismiss them too?

Speaking from a purely personal point of view, whilst I acknowledge that "implements" can be used by women, on women, to assault and violate; I can think of no good reason why adding a penis to the list of implements can be considered a good idea. Or is it your reasoning that, if women prisoners are violating each other anyway, allowing a man with penis as well isn't any worse?

They could call it "rape with an implement" and have the same penalties for that and plain old-fashioned penis phallus rape - though of course using an implement is just as oldfashioned. If they lack their natural implement, frustrated rapists have always used whatever substitute is at hand.

Well, I agree that the twisting, mangling and plundering of the language is something that is extremely important. I disagree that 'woman' means 'anyone who acts like a woman and says she is a woman and agrees with trisher's politics', which is how it has been defined on here before. That is clearly nonsense, as it can't be possible to 'act like' something that has not been defined in the first place, politics has nothing to do with it, and the word 'woman' has been used to mean 'adult human female' for centuries.

Old English used 'wifmon' (wife of a man) in the days when girls were married as soon as they became technically adult (ie at start of menses). Hijacking language is something that is often done by dictators, and we really need to resist it at all costs. (NB, I shall resist all temptation to get involved in a diversionary discussion of etymology on this thread. Happy to do so on a different one, though.)

I would argue that the notion that 'woman' is being used by some to refer to a 'cultural norm-gender' (?) is deliberately done to make 'the problem not so simple'. Muddying the waters.

I most certainly agree that penetration with an implement is horrific, and I'm absolutely not getting on board with a 'which is worse' competition - frankly, I think that shows gross disrespect to victims of sexual assaults of any kind. My point is that there is nothing wrong with having different charges, with rape remaining as a male crime, and penetration with an object being gender-neutral. There is also nothing wrong with having all crimes recorded in sex-based statistics, and all cases reported in terms of sex, rather than gender. That way, it would be immediately clear who was committing what (ie no women committing rape, and a tiny number committing sexual assault with an object) and no confusion in tabloid reporting of court cases, or in court records.

Criminals lose many of the rights that the rest of us take for granted. IMO, the right to be called by a female name, or to choose a female pronoun should be one of them.

trisher: It isn’t just transwomen who want the rape definition expanded , it is many legal experts (evidence please; names places and numbers?) *and women campaigners*” -well I know at least one who prattles on about it and there may be others.

I accept that a female having a bottle stuck up her, may regard it as as dreadful as being raped, but it isn’t a purely male crime; sexual assault can be done by a woman e.g in the case of Sybil.
It doesn’t need the close physical contact and the inability to get out from under the rapist, which is sometimes the memory that lingers as long as the rape itself that means assault with a bottle is different from rape with a phallus. (Thanks Elegran).
Woman = Adult Human Female.

The only people who really don’t want that to be true are the toxic TW and those females, like some on here who can’t even support the rights of their own sex and defend them against the incursion of men and those TW who want those rights for themselves at the expense of females.

trisher

Rosie51

It's a crime of violence and more damage can be done with an implement than with a penis. and that's another reason to keep it as a separate offence. If you must have the word rape in the title then rape with an implement would suffice, but keep it apart from the purely male crime of rape with a penis.

So someone who has a bottle stuck up her by a man isn't worthy of the same crime as someone who has a penis stuck in her? How do you think that person feels? And why do you think rape centres accept this being called rape?

Well that's a leap and a half! I'd imagine having a bottle or any other implement forcibly inserted into you would be horrendous. How odd that you just think in terms of So someone who has a bottle stuck up her by a man isn't worthy of the same crime as someone who has a penis stuck in her? what's with the word worthy? They're separate crimes, and of course said implement could be used by a woman, transman or transwoman. A penis is only to be found on a man, a male so only someone so equipped can commit rape.
Separating crimes doesn't mean one is necessarily considered worse than another. The sentencing range for object penetration is absolutely equivalent to rape. Rape with a penis carries different risks to penetration with an object starting with sexually transmitted disease and pregnancy. As you rightly pointed out penetration by an object can result in far worse physical damage.

. . . if women prisoners are violating each other anyway, allowing a man with penis as well isn't any worse?
This is the same logic that says that prostitutes can't be raped, and by extension the rape of a sexually experienced woman is less important than that of a virgin or 'good wife'. If they are having sex anyway, one more time isn't any worse. Warped, misogynist thinking. We need to keep rape as a separate crime, IMO.

Oh, for clarification, I know that you weren't supporting that point of view, Chewbacca!

The origins of the terms "male" and "female" and "man" and "woman" are interesting but confusing. I had to read this twice before it became clear. Italic text in brackets is my comments - this is a reversal of the usual convention, but it makes it easier to see what is the original quote (plain text) and what is my contribution (brackets and italics).

"Female has its origin in Latin and comes from the Latin word “femella”, or “femina”, which of course means “woman”. Male, on the other hand, come from Old French “masle”, or as we know it in modern French “mâle”, that itself comes from the Latin word “masculus”, both of which mean “male human”. Over time “masle” became Male and, around 14th century, after a long use side by side with Male, “femella” morphed into Female, bringing both words in line with the modern usage. There is no prefix Fe in the word Female, Female stands on its own, and only after centuries of misspelling did the words Female and Male acquire their similarities."

"Man is derived from Old English “mann”, or the earlier Proto-Indo-European word “mon” ( Hoots. mon! )
In Old English the word for Man (male) was “wer” or “wǣpmann”, but it disappeared around 13th century and the word “man” took over, although it still could be used in gender neutral sense and did so all the way to the twentieth century." ( "Man cannot live by bread alone" includes woman)

"Old English word for woman was “wif” or “wīfmann”. “Wif” obviously turned into modern “wife” and “wīfmann” became the modern word “woman” "
(In Scotland a woman is still a "wife" or the diminutive "wee wifie" if she is unmarried. Scots is nearer to Old English than present-day English is. It isn't ignorant mispronunciation of the Queen's English, but a survival of the language of the past)

(A woman is not a "man with a womb" - she is a person ,ie , the term "man" used in a genderless way, who is female ,derived from femme, and a man is a person, ie, the term "man" used in a genderless way, who is male, derived from masculus.)

(So a male man is not a female woman.)

medium.com/interesting-histories/interesting-histories-female-male-woman-man-fd8f436a554c

So you haven't answered the important question "Why do rape centres allow victims to name the crime rape?" Could it be because sexual assault (which is what it is termed now) covers such a wide variety of things from a quick grope to penetration with an object and is genrally not regarded therefore as as damaging whereas rape carries with it a certain level of physical violation?
And why would you deny those victims the right to call the crime rape?

Isn’t it fun when you don’t get your question answered?

Trisher, Rosie51 was not saying rape with an implement was a lesser horror than rape by penis nor was she implying that the suffering of victims of implemental rape were of lesser worth in any way.
Both are violent assaults, both are crimes of equal horror and deserve maximum penalties and maximum support.
The penis used in a savage invasion of another human's orifice is no less a weapon because it's an attached bodily part.

I wouldn't deny them the right to call it whatever they wish.

The law, however, is different, and in law, rape is penetration with a penis. I repeat - rape can only be committed by a man. Most penetrative sexual assault is also committed by men, and it is important that this is visible in the reporting and recording of sex crimes.

Nannee49

Trisher, Rosie51 was not saying rape with an implement was a lesser horror than rape by penis nor was she implying that the suffering of victims of implemental rape were of lesser worth in any way.
Both are violent assaults, both are crimes of equal horror and deserve maximum penalties and maximum support.
The penis used in a savage invasion of another human's orifice is no less a weapon because it's an attached bodily part.

Well said, Nannee49.

Doodledog I wish I could be as measured in my replies as you. You do know the law must be wrong don’t you?

Elegran

The origins of the terms "male" and "female" and "man" and "woman" are interesting but confusing. I had to read this twice before it became clear. Italic text in brackets is my comments - this is a reversal of the usual convention, but it makes it easier to see what is the original quote (plain text) and what is my contribution (brackets and italics).

"Female has its origin in Latin and comes from the Latin word “femella”, or “femina”, which of course means “woman”. Male, on the other hand, come from Old French “masle”, or as we know it in modern French “mâle”, that itself comes from the Latin word “masculus”, both of which mean “male human”. Over time “masle” became Male and, around 14th century, after a long use side by side with Male, “femella” morphed into Female, bringing both words in line with the modern usage. There is no prefix Fe in the word Female, Female stands on its own, and only after centuries of misspelling did the words Female and Male acquire their similarities."

"Man is derived from Old English “mann”, or the earlier Proto-Indo-European word “mon” ( Hoots. mon! )
In Old English the word for Man (male) was “wer” or “wǣpmann”, but it disappeared around 13th century and the word “man” took over, although it still could be used in gender neutral sense and did so all the way to the twentieth century." ( "Man cannot live by bread alone" includes woman)

"Old English word for woman was “wif” or “wīfmann”. “Wif” obviously turned into modern “wife” and “wīfmann” became the modern word “woman” "
(In Scotland a woman is still a "wife" or the diminutive "wee wifie" if she is unmarried. Scots is nearer to Old English than present-day English is. It isn't ignorant mispronunciation of the Queen's English, but a survival of the language of the past)

(A woman is not a "man with a womb" - she is a person ,ie , the term "man" used in a genderless way, who is female ,derived from femme, and a man is a person, ie, the term "man" used in a genderless way, who is male, derived from masculus.)

(So a male man is not a female woman.)

medium.com/interesting-histories/interesting-histories-female-male-woman-man-fd8f436a554c

Interesting as this might be we are none the less left with the cultural norm which is two genders in Western society, slowly changing to three as some become non-binary. Perhaps you could explain why there are historic instances of people who have lived all their lives as women and have been male and people who have lived as men who have been female. It isn't new and just posting the meaning of words doesn't address the realities of how those words have been applied in society or how people have lived their lives. It may be academically interesting but it has little significance in everyday life.

The word "man" is still used in the NE for people of either sex in the term "Howay man". Hinnie thought by most to be a term of affection for females can similarly be used for either sex as in "Away hame hinnie." It's just linguistics
.

It will be a relief to stop having to read your more nonsensical posts on this subject trisher.
Only 9 more to go. Are you poised to try and get the last word in?
Just in case, I must take this opportunity to point out that a real feminist supports women who are adult human females.
Real feminists can support other causes as part of their human nature, causes that do not require the banner headline of ‘I’m a real/intersectional/only true feminist’.

Sex is immutable. Gender now can be what you choose, but using the word which already belongs to group of which you are not a real part is fraudulent and I use that word advisedly.
Using the word woman fraudulently to perpetrate a crime, cheat or harm females-well if you can’t see that’s wrong, that’s a serious problem.
Using gender change to skew crime statistics is a typical example of allowing men to have power over women. Again, if you can’t see that it’s a serious problem.

Because society has tried to impose stereotypes that arent possible to live by. No natal woman 'lives as a woman' all the time because nobody adheres to stereotypes all the time. I am in trousers and no makeup as is DH currently. Am I living as a woman at the moment.

It's just linguistics

So are you now saying that language is unimportant? Earlier, you made the case that using 'woman' in the way it has been used for centuries is too simplistic. Which is it?

(repeats to self ^'I will not be diverted into a discussion of etymology, I will not be diverted into a discussion of etymology'^)

Galaxy

Because society has tried to impose stereotypes that arent possible to live by. No natal woman 'lives as a woman' all the time because nobody adheres to stereotypes all the time. I am in trousers and no makeup as is DH currently. Am I living as a woman at the moment.

I have a dress on today (no male up), but wore trousers yesterday. Have I undergone a gender reassignment overnight?

'Living as' a woman is not being a woman. A woman can wear whatever she likes and still be a woman. A transwoman can wear whatever she likes and will still be a transwoman. No amount of squirming and moving the goalposts can alter that.

Make up!!!

You ask "Perhaps you could explain why there are historic instances of people who have lived all their lives as women and have been male and people who have lived as men who have been female."

You would be better to ask this of psychologist, psychiatrist or an expert in sexual development and/or genetics.

Anomalies of genetics and development probably caused some people to have been mis-labelled at birth and brought up initially as one sex, until at puberty they showed that they were really the other. Social circumstances and early gender conditioning may have done it for others.

Since it is not possible to examine the bodies or the DNA of two of the most famous, the Chevalier D'Eon or of Dr James Barry, we will never know why these people lived their lives as the opposite sex. In Dr Barry's case, it was at least partly so as to get the medical traning that was denied to a woman, and once trained so as to obtain and keep a position as a military surgeon using that training, and to rise to be the second-highest medical office in the British Army. It wasn't until after his death that the woman laying out his body discovered that he was female.

Perhaps both Barry and the Chevalier D'Eon had faulty chromosomes - that would have been impossible to know at that time - but images of Barry show delicate features, and he had borne a child at some time, so had then been totally female. Images of the Chevalier seem to show someone with male bone structure and features, and he had lived and worked as a man for the first part of it. but he had the financial means to get privacy and to choose his own lifestyle. Both of them lived interesting and fairly unusual lives.

Rape is different to sexual assault with an implement , it can and has been used as a weapon of war to deliberately impregnate the women of the opposing side.
I am also not getting into a discussion of which is worse. But they are different.

trisher

So you haven't answered the important question "Why do rape centres allow victims to name the crime rape?" Could it be because sexual assault (which is what it is termed now) covers such a wide variety of things from a quick grope to penetration with an object and is genrally not regarded therefore as as damaging whereas rape carries with it a certain level of physical violation?
And why would you deny those victims the right to call the crime rape?

Oh that was the important question, you should have flagged it as such. I've asked you questions before, most of which aren't answered and if they are it's not the question asked. I wouldn't deny any victim penetrated by an implement the right to refer to their rape. You on the other hand would deny a victim of rape the right to refer to their violator as he in court if it was a transwoman. I imagine rape crisis centres 'allow' (strange choice of word) victims to use the term rape because it is not a legal environment, and how could they prevent someone using whatever terminology they want? Given that one rape crisis centre advertised a position for a woman, quoted the sex exemption exclusion allowed under the equality act and then appointed a transwoman, a male, they demonstrate they're not overly bothered about precise terms.
As I've already said campaign for a crime of rape by implement that will clearly identify the offence, but keep rape in the current definition separate.
While we're on the subject of unanswered questions here's another of mine you avoided addressing. Why are you happy for more and more cheating of natal women to be accepted in women's sports by transwomen? I cited Lia Thomas who beat the competitor who finished second by 38 seconds in a swimming race. Lia Thomas who is smashing female records by huge margins. Your only reply was about the unfairness to Caster Semenya and other black athletes and that needs to be addressed first then these new unfairnesses can be addressed.

Nannee49 thank you for seeing what I'd said, not some strange personal interpretation.

Anomalies of genetics and development probably caused some people to have been mis-labelled at birth and brought up initially as one sex, until at puberty they showed that they were really the other. Social circumstances and early gender conditioning may have done it for others.
Really for all of them?
The first transition surgery was 1906. Transgender people have lived happily in their chosen gender in Western society for a long time.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgender_history
Other societies routinely recognise more than two genders. In some males live as women and females as men.
I agree completely that it would be wonderful to have a genderless society but we live with what we have which is a society that has traditionally only recognised two and which is slowly moving to three. You can't even choose to be the third in the UK. Passports and authority don't recognise non-binary, other countries do.