@janefae demonstrates how rape apologism can be presented as feminism.

Jane Fae believes this is legal scholarship. Presenting rape apologism and blaming the victim of an extraordinary crime, the victim of approximately 10 counts of assault by penetration, with aggravating factors including coercion into giving up a job, and deep and serious psychological abuse, as well as public humiliation and calling it feminism. She deserved it for being a bigot apparently. Shall we go through how Jane presents the argument about her right to rape as feminist legal scholarship. At 37 years old with years of working and living with gender inequality, I, like most women recognise rape apology when I see it. So we will do this bit by bit so Jane can get to grips with the difference between legal scholarship and straight up rape apologism.

”Take your bed-partners as you find them and if they turn you on, what’s past history got to do with it?”. If you are going to penetrate someone with an object you need their consent. Otherwise it is assault by penetration. So if they don’t know the object exists, it’s assault by penetration. The law is fairly clear on sentencing for this very serious crime. Which is rape without using a penis. Women’s bodies are not there to be used however you choose, women are in fact people.
”The law is an ass. Or rather, since that view is already axiomatic in some quarters: the law in relation to intimate consent is an ass – an unholy heteronormative, patriarchally-inspired man-protecting mess. So asinine, in fact, that the time may finally have arrived to tear up what we have already and start again. ‘
Legislation treating penetration without consent as assault is not a result of a male dominated law. It has been fought for by women and it is a fairly recent development to treat women as people with autonomy over who can insert things into their vaginas. The history of rape legislation is long.
”Let’s start with the trans side – though don’t, for a moment, imagine this is just about “teh tranz”. An Appeal Court rulinghas this week been published in respect of Justine McNally, sentenced to three years in prison in December 2012 for the crime of deceiving their girlfriend as to their gender.”. No this was assault. As the victim of this serious crime had not consented to being penetrated with the dildo she didn’t know existed. That is actually quite basic and nothing to do with civil rights. Unless trans rights includes the right to penetrate women without their consent, in which case you need to address why you think rape is a civil rights issue. Feminism as equal rights to violate women is an interesting concept but not a debate.
”Justine, who was 17 at the time the alleged offences took place, entered into the relationship as a boy, called Scott: their partner agreed to sexual intimacy but later told police that consent was based on a deception. ”
Rapesplaining. Jane Fae has decided that this woman just changed her mind and decided it was rape later. As a 37 year old woman this is not new or unfamiliar. See also ‘she was asking for it’, ‘she wanted it’, ‘if she didnt want it she wouldn’t have been there’. Its what men do when they want to defend their right to rape women and when they need to minimise rape and sexual assault.
”Whether Scott/Justine explicitly misled his partner remains unclear.”
No it is not unclear. These are the sentencing remarks. In the reams of evidence coming from Scott/Justine and from the time the victim was on the stand reliving this, as all rape victims have to do, it was quite clear. Hence the conviction. THere is a conviction beyond reasonable doubt. This is a deliberate attempt to muddy the waters and minimise serious assault with penetration with aggravating factors. THis is calling the rape victim a liar. Jane Fae needs to be aware the victim was not on trial. This is quite basic stuff. Unless you are arguing for your right to rape with impunity. In which case it wouldn’t really be feminism.
”Equally unclear is whether Justine/Scott is trans or, as newspapers and, at times, the judges have positioned her, some sort of “evil lesbian deceiver”.”
No she hasn’t been positioned as anything. She has been convicted of serious and disturbing sexual offences. These were not a natural part of being a lesbian and the right to violate a woman’s bodily autonomy is not something that lesbianism is about. That’s a disturbing expression of homophobia right there. Right to rape is not actually a civil rights issue. That’s patriarchy and it’s not quite in the past but nearly.
”But then, the judges appear not to understand the distinction between gender identity and sexuality, either.” Regardless of the sexuality or gender of the offender, penetrating someone without their consent repeatedly, emotionally and psychologically abusing them, going to those lengths to deceive them, and getting them to give up their job, is deeply disturbing behaviour. And a serious crime. And nothing to do with gender or sexuality. It’s misogny and homophobia when you suggest that lesbians and women need to do that as part of their gender and sexuality.
” What the appeal judgment makes clear, is this: deceiving an individual as to age, marital status, wealth or even HIV status doesn’t invalidate consent.”
You can’t consent to be penetrated with a dildo if you don’t know it exists. Jane appers to be confused here about the right to violate women. So let me be clear. A womans cunt is a part of her body and noone has the right to access it, insert items into it, without her permission. THis is assault with penetration.
”One could add – though the judges probably didn’t because it would make very poor PR – that deception in respect of past criminal history, including rape, violence and child abuse don’t necessarily invalidate consent.
Not being aware of an objects existence means you cant consent to it being inserted into your vagina. No grey area here. I have had many objects inserted into my vagina,  by doctors and boyfriends. I have always been aware and consented. Because I am an adult woman and that’s my body. It’s not complicated. It’s not a grey area. Unless you don’t see women as people. But that’s not feminism and Jane Fae is a feminist writer.
”Nope. The only thing that really seems to vex this bunch of middle-aged blokes is being misled over gender, which must raise questions as to why such fears. ” Please see sentencing remarks. THere is victim in this crime, who was assaulted many times, abused, and she is a human being. Treating her as such is not actually being a homophobe.
 Is this, as they remark, merely “ a broad commonsense way” to deal with “evidence relating to ‘choice’ and the ‘freedom’ to make any particular choice”.
Women are human beings, and have the right to choose what is inserted into their vagina or it is rape of assault by penetration. This is not complicated. This is not complicated unless you are writing in the New Statesman about how your right to rape women is a civil rights issue. Which is disturbing.
”Or is it delicately muffled – and bewigged – homophobia? Meanwhile, inquiries into the activities of undercover police – and their propensity to have sex with activists as a “necessary” part of maintaining their cover, rumble on.” The need to violate women repeatedly, is not actually inheret in homosexuality or lesbianism. It is homophobia to believe that it is.
”One might inquire, wearily, in what universe “having sex” is required as a means to keep up the appearance of being an ordinary everyday chap. But this is police culture, so perhaps the question is redundant. ”
Inserting objects into people’s vaginas requires permission which includes letting them know what the object is. Because women are people  THis isn’t really complicated and it’s not patriarchy to point it out. Its not feminism to write demanding your right to rape women, it’s disturbing but it’s not feminism.
Or, as Chief Constable Mick Creedon, currently leading an inquiry into these matters puts it, lying about your sexual status is par for the course: “There are many people who say they’re not married when they are married. It happens.” So far, so predictable.
When you insert an object into someones vagina they have a right to know what it is, because they are people. THis isn’t really the same as someone lying about what they do on a date.
I have been asking questions of the Crown Prosecution Service and the police ever since the first milestone case – that of Gemma Barker in 2011. I may not be the world’s trendiest woman: but I am good at scenting the first faint whiff of an issue about to trend!
And yet as a woman you don’t appear to know that woman are human beings and entitled to decide if something is to be inserted into their cunts. Because bodily autonomy. And being a person. Maybe as a woman you don’t think women are people. That isn’t feminism/ That’s your issue.
”The CPS, to their credit, are meeting and talking to myself and members of the trans community this week. As for the Met: it is not just their response, but the way they deliver a response that speaks volumes. Why did the police investigate Justine McNally? ”
Please do let us know how you get on in the civil rights battle of being allowed to rape and violate women without their consent and write a list of the items you expect to be able to insert into women’s vaginas in the New Statesman. So we can all be aware of when you have the right to rape us.
 A debate is long overdue, even if its outcome may not entirely please everyone.
I imagine the debate about when you are entitled to rape and violate woman as a civil rights issue wont’ please everyone. She is right, the debate aboutw hen it is acceptable to treat a woman as an obect and fuck her or insert objects into her without permission is a contested area. Women have fought long and hard for the right to bodily autonomy. Men could rape their wives until quite recently. If she thinks feminism is now about rolling that back and extending that to anyone who feels entitled to rape women she is mistaken.
”Friends with whom I have discussed the matter swing between two extremes. On the one hand, consent should be based on full information, a bit like the insurance industry’s “uberimma fides”. Anything and everything should be revealed – including birth gender. Against that, the counter-view: take your bed-partners as you find them and if they turn you on, what’s past history got to do with it?” Consent is more about the present. Here is a video that explains consent using tea.
Taking this analogy and applying it to this piece of rape apology- if she says she doesn’t want tea, don’t give her the tea. If she says she might have a cup f coffee with someone else but doesn’t want tea with you, don’t give her the tea. If you insist on giving her the tea regardless of her wishes, you are raping her and the sentence is severe.
Jane Fae is a feminist writer who is campaigning for the right to rape women and undo years of struggling so women have the right to decide what enters their vagina.. She tweets as @JaneFae
Jane if you are confused in future, this is the sentencing guidelines for penetrating someone without consent. You will see that 8 years is the minimum. So if you are confused in future remember ‘don’t give her the tea’.
sentencing guidelines

17 thoughts on “@janefae demonstrates how rape apologism can be presented as feminism.

  1. Agree with every word Lisa but the ‘Scott/Justine’ case that Fae writes about was in 2012, her piece was written in 2013. The Gayle Newland case of this year is a completely different case. The summing up you link to for the Newland case is nothing to do with the 2012 ‘Scott/Justine’ case that Fae was writing about.


  2. I can only comment on what I’ve seen on the tv and read in the newspapers, so I might well be missing some facts of the case, so I’ll just briefly list what I’ve heard. The news has referred to Justine McNally as a woman, and said she had penetrative sex with the victim, but not with a penis, with some other item (they didn’t say what). Now, strictly speaking, I wouldn’t call this rape, but it is obtaining sex under deception, which may or may not be covered by rape laws, I don’t know, assuming Justine McNally hasn’t been charged with rape, it looks like it is covered. Yes the victim consented to sexual relations, but she didn’t have all the facts, so she couldn’t make an informed decision. Now here’s the awkward bit. if Justine McNally is ftm trans, then he is still guilty of sex by deception. If she isn’t ftm, then she is still guilty of sex by deception. There’s really no 2 ways about it, Scott / Justine McNally is guilty of something legally, deciding what is is down to the law (I know the author of this piece considers that to be rape, but the authorities know that proving rape is probably the most difficult thing to do, so are trying other avenues to secure a conviction.

    Being trans is not a free pass to break the law, and the law needs to be applied equally and fairly to everyone.


    • Its about the fact that women are people and rape is penetrating their actual body without consent to do so. In this case the person had no knowledge of what they were being penetrated with, Difference between seeing women as an extension of your needs and people with an absolute right toc onsent before objects are placed inside them.

      Liked by 1 person

  3. Perhaps I don’t know all the details of the case here; But I actually don’t see a crime:

    First let me list what I THINK I know, I might be wrong:

    McNally lied about her gender (or if truly “trans” failed to disclose her biological sex)

    The Victim consented to penetrative sex, but, naturally assumed a human penis would be used.

    McNally used an artificial/prosthetic penis instead.

    So, McNally lied and used a prosthetic in place of a human appendage.

    Firstly is it really a crime to illicit sex via a lie/fabrication (I am hesitant to call it fraud, as this is not a contract) If a Man says he’s a doctor to pick up a woman? is that rape? Or that he’s richer than he really is? or that he “loves” her? are these cases of rape too? I don’t necessarily see lying as being equal to rape. There is a line between undue coercion( threats and the like) and plain deception (“I promise I’ll call you in the morning”).

    Secondly: Using an artificial/prosthetic appendage? (assuming one has consent otherwise) is that rape? If a man were to loose his “member” and had some prosthetic unit, would that be rape unless he disclosed that ahead of time? Do I feel violated if I shake a persons’s hand only to find out it’s fake? Does such a man have to inform me first? “Before we shake, I have a fake hand”… What if the appendage is only partially fake, i.e. an implant?


      • I get your point, and legally, it’s not rape, morally it may be. Did she feel violated at the time, or did she feel a whole host of emotions when she discovered the truth. I have to slightly agree with Jonathon on this one ie the man losing his member. We have plenty of soliders that have come back from wars and are fitted with prosthetic limbs, but they’re not liars. Ok, this case is different, but as I’ve previously said, the person charged should have been upfront about something like this from the start. If the woman he / she wanted to be with was the right one for them, then surely they would have understood and be fine, and if they weren’t, would you want to be with that person anyway? I know from my point of view (I’m post op trans), that I would tell any potential partner about myself before we got involved in anything more than kissing / cuddling, and if they understood and we’re fine it, then that’s brilliant, but if they weren’t, then as upsetting as it might be for me, I’d have to walk away from that situation, but everyone is different.


      • Legally its repeated counts of assault by penetration with the aggravating factor of deception, isolating the victim and psychological abuse which carries a minimum of 8 years. I dont think people gets minimum sentenceing

        Liked by 2 people

      • I don’t know the exact legal definition. What I do know is a trans friend of mine was raped, but because she’s trans (I can’t remember if she was pre-op or post-op at the time), then it wasn’t classed as rape but gross assault or similar, which carries a lesser sentence, but, my friend still suffered the same emotional and mental affects regardless of what the law might have called it. I think in this case, the law might see that the victim consented willingly, but was deceived / misled, and without consulting a lawyer, I’ve no idea what that would result in.


      • THis is the problem. Trans women are raped at an extraordinary rate, in fact inequality means that class, race, being trans, run you a very severe risk of being deemed unrapeable. Is why we fought so hard to make clear that penetration of a human body withoutconsent is rape. And why trans identities dont and cant change that.

        Liked by 1 person

    • Sex is not a handshake. That’s the dumbest false equivalency I have ever heard. If a man knows a woman (or another man) would not consent to sex without telling a lie, then the lie is coersion and coersion is rape. If a man promises to pay a prostituted woman for sex but stuffs newspapers in the envelope instead of money, he is a rapist. Since you’ve failed to understand the tea analogy, maybe the money analogy would hit closer to home (as it does for most men).

      Nobody is entitled to sex to someone else, that’s why we have laws against rape in the first place.

      Liked by 2 people

    • Lying to have sex with someone is rape. If they knew the truth they would not have consented to sex with you. End of. Rape rape rape rape rape. If you can’t understand this, stay celibate til you figure it out.

      It’s not quite as much the artificial appendage as just plain not being a guy–this woman is heterosexual, she doesn’t want to have sex with women. (Transmen are women by the way. Just clearing that up.) But even if this were a genuine XY man with working balls and everything who lost his penis, if she doesn’t want to have a sex life with a man missing his penis, that’s her right. Stop moving the goalposts. If you don’t meet a woman’s standards to enter her body, that’s the end of it, even if it doesn’t make sense to you, even if it hurts your feelings. So she’s got silly standards for a sex partner. Give it up and go find someone who is more sensible.

      Liked by 4 people

      • Legally, if this were a transman, then he’d be a man (I know you’re going to say not, so let’s not argue that please, legally in the uk is what we’re talking about here). I still don’t see this as rape though. Rape is quite clearly one participant saying no, and the other(s) carrying on regardless (I’m trying to be as emotive as possible here). Both parties consented, the victim here, may not have had all the facts, but that still doesn’t make it legally rape, but something else, that I don’t know what.


  4. Using “you” and “your” in the generic sense here: I would say that any time you deceive a person to have sex with them, it’s rape. If they don’t want to have sex with married people and you lie and tell them you’re single, you raped them. If they don’t want to have sex with a fertile man and you lie and tell them you had a vasectomy, it’s rape. If they don’t want to have sex with a Christian man and you lie and tell them you’re Jewish, it’s rape. If you are an undercover cop and pretend to care about them and have sex with them, it’s rape because if they knew you were just fishing for people to arrest they wouldn’t have touched you with a ten-foot pole. (Or let you touch them with yours.) If you have sex with them through force or trickery or “the best of a bad set of options” and given their druthers and the full power to choose they would not have had sex with you, it’s rape. I don’t care what the courts say, and Jane Fae stating that a court decision is nonsensical because the court isn’t consistent in other areas of trickery is just another form of rape apology. The court needs to get its collective head out of its collective ass and BE consistent about what it defines as rape. That’s a separate matter though.

    And I wouldn’t call Jane Fae a feminist writer, not by a long shot. He likes to call himself one. That’s nice, Jane dear.

    Liked by 3 people

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s