Cooper Fleishman is horrified that despite Sweden’s gender-neutral rape laws, a case was thrown out because the victim was a transwoman.
Originally appeared at Hypervocal
Here’s the story: A Swedish man beat attempted-rape charges when it was revealed that his victim was actually not biologically female but a transwoman with male genitalia undergoing hormone therapy. And even though the 61-year-old attacker admitted to following the woman with clear intent to rape, violently assaulting her and tearing off her pants and “grabbing at her crotch,” he will receive a lessened assault charge — because the woman’s penis “invalidates” the rape.
As this “woman” was actually a man, his intentions were impossible to commit as the rape could never be completed.
“We believe that he wanted to rape this woman in particular. But as she turned out to be a man, the crime never was actually committed,” said [judge Dan] Sjöstedt.
Is it possible to rape a man? Yes it is, you fucktards, and not just in prisons and the military and other microcosms where the rules of survival turn upside-down. More than anything, this case highlights the sheer absurdity of the double standard with which we treat male victims of domestic violence and sexual assault. Changing the verdict solely because of the victim’s genitalia is like switching a grand theft auto charge to petty theft because the car happened to be blue when the thief thought it was green.
Moreover, this case and its media coverage reveal how Swedish transgendered people are dismissed. Oddly, only the attempted rapist referred to the woman, who was undergoing treatment to “reach the right identity,” as “she,” but not out of altruistic reasons. The Local’s coverage calls her a “‘woman,’” scare quotes included, and insists that she was “actually a man.”
The U.S. changed its definition of rape to include male victims only this year. In Europe, where 3 percent of men reported experiencing “non-consensual sexual intercourse,” Sweden carries the highest rate of reported rape. Perhaps the nation has avoided expanding the crime’s definition to include male-male and female-male assault because doubling its already-chilling statistics would become disastrous.
But as we’ve learned from the ongoing Julian Assange shitshow, the country’s rape laws are uniquely liberal and women-friendly: Consent violations as subtle as the pulling of an arm can result in charges. Sweden’s penal code doesn’t legally discriminate by gender, stating simply, “a person … forces another person.” Nothing in the Swedish rape law should have altered the judge’s verdict. So what happened?
Rape victimhood isn’t some zero-sum gender game: men’s sexual assault shouldn’t invalidate women’s, and nothing between one’s legs should discredit his or her experience of being stalked and attacked. Men, straight and gay and bi and trans, experience sexual assault just as women do — and are commonly shamed into silence, absorbing cultural cues that their genitalia delegitimizes their trauma. This case, more than any, actually spells out the myth — and all of its destructive consequences.
Read more from Cooper Fleishman, follow him on Twitter @_Cooper
Image of flag on brick wall courtesy of Shutterstock
About Cooper Fleishman
Wow, and I thought times would have changed since my assault in 1991. Guess not. Because I am a man, and a gay man at that, the authorities paid me lipservice while in the ER, and flat out told me that a “man cannot be raped by another man, especially when you like men as much as him.” Word for word what I, and my father, were told by the detective. So, so sad it still is believed to be so.
Oh Jesus H. What total hellish crap. Rape is rape is rape is rape. Good fucking god.
Does that mean you can get off burglary charges if the victims wallet is empty? Pretty fucking weird law…
Well, if the wallet’s empty, technically, you’re not stealing anything…
(Not saying that “the wallet’s empty”, i.e. it was a legimitate dismissal in this particular case.)
However. AFAIK the case wasn’t actually thrown out. He was still convicted for the heavy assault.
The judge was also quoted as saying that according to the case that the attorney presented, there was nothing else he could do. But he fully expects the case to be taken to higher court.
“Is it possible to rape a man? Yes it is, you fucktards, and not just in prisons and the military and other microcosms where the rules of survival turn upside-down. More than anything, this case highlights the sheer absurdity of the double standard with which we treat male victims of domestic violence and sexual assault.”
Was the victim assaulted? Yes, no doubt!
But the case wasn’t dismissed because the victim was a man.
The case of rape was dismissed becuase as the victim having male genitalia, the “sexual” part of the assault never took place.
(Try and bear with me here if I’m not expressing myself 100% correct, cause english is not my native language. Also note that I’m not in any way defending what happened in the court, or to the victim in the first place! I’m just trying to add information to the picture.)
Ahh, The ” SWEDEN ARABIA OF FEMINISM ” reached a new mile, it’s the dream & aspiration of a fair number of the leaders of feminism here in North America to have an identical legal system to that of SWEDEN, As a matter of fact ” Jessica Velanti ” a new third wave feminist is pushing & suggesting that we should strip men or boys of the right of jurisprudence ” innocent until proven guilty ” into what Sweden law stipulate which is any man or boy accused of rape has to prove his innocence first since he is presumed to be guilty once the accusation is leveled against him period.
VAWA, will be the first step, second was the college & university New legal requirement by the federal government when it comes to any male student accused in which the burden of prove is lowered to convict any male period.
I don’t think this article accurately represents the logic followed by the court. The man in question is being charged with the crime he actually comitted (assault), not the crime he was going to comitt but then didn’t (rape). I think it would be reasonable to charge him with attempted rape or sexual assault, but does it really make sense to charge him with rape when he didn’t actually rape someone?
If the woman in question had been raped, but the charge had been ruled out due to her genitalia, that would be different, but that’s not what happened here.
This isn’t to say that transphobia doesn’t exist in Sweden or that there aren’t hugely problematic issues in most countries with recognising male victims of sexual assault, just that this isn’t an example of it.