The Gender Equality Checkpoint

[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by traceur

Interesting. Why? Why would a transgression (Non consensual sex) need a special sub category with it's own unique loaded word for female victims?

I'm not saying it needs it. You're saying it has it, and I'm saying I don't necessarily object to that as long as it's consistent.

Originally Posted by traceur

if we redefine rape for women because they might get pregnant should we redefine physical assault on women because they might already be pregnant and abort the baby in the process?

We already do--if you punch a pregnant woman in the stomach, it's physical assault on her but it is also legally the murder of the baby.

Originally Posted by traceur

Would it then not count as rape if the rapists used protection, if the woman was too old to conceive or not count as statutory rape if she was too young?

It's not that it would "not count," it's that it has the potential to be called something else. I'm certainly not suggesting that raping is fine as long as there is a condom involved, I'm just saying nuance is better than lack of nuance, when trying to define involuntary punishments that are to be handed down by the state.

There could just as easily be a new term for women forcing themselves on men for the express purpose of impregnating themselves--seed theft, for example, which might earn a punishment equivalent to those currently given for rape, or not, but the point is that calling everything by one term almost never improves things.

[it]

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

I don't necessarily object to that as long as it's consistent.

If it's simple semantic consistent you are seeking then it already is, even without having the same term for women raping men as that of men raping men, simply by virtue of having a specified weapon instead (Penis).

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

I'm just saying nuance is better than lack of nuance, when trying to define involuntary punishments that are to be handed down by the state.

There could just as easily be a new term for women forcing themselves on men for the express purpose of impregnating themselves--seed theft, for example, which might earn a punishment equivalent to those currently given for rape, or not, but the point is that calling everything by one term almost never improves things.

Narrower and more selective categorization often result in more ignorance then more understanding:

When it comes to social & legal policy it's more often then not used as a means to excuse unequal treatments, such as a corporate alliance lobbying for a nuanced exceptions in the tax code, making a nuanced distinction between how you punish drugs popular in black culture and how you punish drugs popular in white culture, or let's say... Gender treatment [insert pretty much an topic that would be relevant to this thread].

When it comes to day to day ethical decisions it usually involves explaining why the time I pickpocket someones jeans is totally different from the time someone pickpockets my khakis.

Are any of those better because they are treated as more distinct categories?