Return to Answer

The legal definition of rape means it involves a penis penetrating anus, vagina or mouth. It does not refer to 'male' but simply to 'penis'. Therefore a person with a Gender Recognition Certificate as a female can be convicted of rape, if they have a penis. (The Interpretation Act 1978 would, in any case, import the word "she" into a statute referring to "he".) In addition, people who don't have penises can be convicted of rape as accessories or aiders and abettors. For example, 'Geezer girl' joins handful of females convicted of offence.

The legal definition of rape means it involves a penis penetrating anus, vagina or mouth. It does not refer to 'male' but simply to 'penis'. Therefore a person with a Gender Recognition Certificate as a female can be convicted of rape, if they have a penis. (The Interpretation Act 1978 would, in any case, import the word "she" into a statute referring to "he".) In addition, people who don't have penises can be convicted of rape as accessories under the Accessories and Abettors Act 1861 or as joint principals under the common law doctrine of joint enterprise. For example, 'Geezer girl' joins handful of females convicted of offence for joint enterprise rape, and Tracy Choi as an accessory to rape.

The guidance was not made from thin air, but is pursuant to the Equality Act 2010. The Equality Act 2010 states that:

The legal definition of rape means it involves a penis penetrating anus, vagina or mouth. It does not refer to 'male' but simply to 'penis'. Therefore a person with a Gender Recognition Certificate as a female can be convicted of rape, if they have a penis. (The Interpretation Act 1978 would, in any case, import the word "she" into a statute referring to "he".) In addition, people who don't have penises can be convicted of rape as accessories or aiders and abettors. E.g.

The guidance was not made from thin air, but is pursuant to the Equality Act 2010. The Equality Act 2010 states that:

The legal definition of rape means it involves a penis penetrating anus, vagina or mouth. It does not refer to 'male' but simply to 'penis'. Therefore a person with a Gender Recognition Certificate as a female can be convicted of rape, if they have a penis. (The Interpretation Act 1978 would, in any case, import the word "she" into a statute referring to "he".) In addition, people who don't have penises can be convicted of rape as accessories or aiders and abettors. For example, 'Geezer girl' joins handful of females convicted of offence.

This means that essentially someone who has, or is proposing to, change their gender, a process which does not require any surgery, is protected from discrimination on the grounds of gender reassignment. An example of discrimination would be excluding someone from the female ward on the basis that they are transgender, except it is NOT an offence to discriminate if it is a proportionate means of a legitimate aim for the matters of:

The legal definition of rape means it involves a penis penetrating anus, vagina or mouth. It does not refer to 'male' but simply to 'penis'. Therefore a person with a Gender Recognition Certificate as a female can be convicted of rape, if they have a penis. In addition, people who don't have penises can be convicted of rape as accessories or aiders and abettors. E.g.

1. 'many health trusts' 'have instructed' hospitals to deny sex crimes requires evidence, because this is a serious claim that NHS Trusts have blanket instructions to hospitals to cover up sex crimes. She presents no evidence that this is the case.
2. there is no reason for 'evidence-based assault' to be denied based on anything in the Equality Act, Annex B, etc. If an anatomically male person commits a sexual assault/rape in a female ward, then that person should most likely be sent to prison. The fact that a specific transgender sex criminal might have had the opportunity to sexually assault a woman as a result of Annex B doesn't imply that the hospital would systematically perform a cover up.

This means that essentially someone who has, or is proposing to, change their gender, a process which does not require any surgery, is protected from discrimination on the grounds of gender reassignment. An example of discrimination would be excluding someone from the female ward on the basis that they are transgender, except it is NOT unlawful to discriminate if it is a proportionate means of a legitimate aim for the matters of:

The legal definition of rape means it involves a penis penetrating anus, vagina or mouth. It does not refer to 'male' but simply to 'penis'. Therefore a person with a Gender Recognition Certificate as a female can be convicted of rape, if they have a penis. (The Interpretation Act 1978 would, in any case, import the word "she" into a statute referring to "he".) In addition, people who don't have penises can be convicted of rape as accessories or aiders and abettors. E.g.

1. that "'many health trusts' 'have instructed' hospitals to deny sex crimes" requires evidence, because this is a serious claim that NHS Trusts have blanket instructions to hospitals to cover up sex crimes. She presents no evidence that this is the case.
2. there is no reason for 'evidence-based assault' to be denied based on anything in the Equality Act, Annex B, etc. If an anatomically male person commits a sexual assault/rape in a female ward, then that person should most likely be sent to prison. The fact that a specific transgender sex criminal might have had the opportunity to sexually assault a woman as a result of Annex B doesn't imply that the hospital would systematically perform a cover up.