I Can't Wait To See the Transgender Kooks Try To Spin This One

Ironically, right on the heels of another absurd article by Mr. "Autumn" Sandeen, in which he attacks Roseanne Barr for speaking out against certain behaviors by transgender males (just to be clear, I am talking about males who claim to be women), there comes a story that is going to be a real headache for those who try to claim that transgender males are not potentially a threat to women.  The award for most clueless headline has to go to the San Francisco Chronicle, which had:

S.F. women's rights advocate accused of raping wife

Okay, at first glance, you might assume that some man, who was known for advocating for women's rights, had been accused of raping his wife. But the lead paragraph is very confusing...

While attorneys for a women's rights advocate and prominent Twitter engineer accused of raping her estranged wife say the accuser is "out for revenge," a friend who says she was present after the incident said Friday that the wife just wants to teach her children that criminals must face justice.Now, this is where things start to get very strange...  You see, under California law, a woman cannot commit rape, which is defined on the basis of "sexual intercourse," and which later sections of the law make clear involves penetration by a penis...  The rapist is a transgender male, who has not had surgery (and presumably does not plan to have said surgery, as there should be little doubt that this dude could easily afford any SRS surgeon since he works in a very well paid position, and I would be surprised if Twitter does not cover SRS).  In California, you pretty much have to be a male (i.e. have a penis) to commit a rape (including spousal rape).  Otherwise, it is covered under a different statute. 

So, to be completely clear here, a 31 year-old male who goes by the by the name of Dana McCallum was arrested back on Jan. 26 on suspicion of rape. According to the San Francisco district attorney's office, he was charged with five felonies. Specifically, he has been charged with three counts of spousal rape, one count of false imprisonment and one count of domestic violence. As a curious aside, his legal name is given as "Dana Contreras"  In fact, two years ago, he was featured, under his legal name in an article, in The Advocate entitledThe Ten Most Innovative Companies and the LGBTs Who Got Them to the Top.  Sadly, you would not quite get that from the San Francisco Chronicle article, which goes out of its way to avoid mentioning that Contreas is transgender, or that he is a male.

Oh, and it should be noted that about a year ago, Contreas, in a speech he gave to at his high school, pulled the classic stunt of misleading people into thinking he had surgery.  Clearly, he has not, as if he had, it would impossible for him to be charged with rape.

Now, I will point out, in all fairness, at this point in time, Contreas has been charged, but not convicted.  On the other hand, it does not really look good for him.  His defense is a classic male tactic, of claiming it is all about "money," that his spouse, who he had served with divorce papers the day before, was hoping to cash in on his stock options.  Now, what that would have to do with "rape" is, of course, ignored by the attorneys.  California law would probably grant her a share in them anyway.  So, this so-called "women's rights activist" falls back on a classic dodge in an attempt to claim he didn't commit rape.  Sad...

It will be interesting to see how the likes of Mr. "Cristan" Williams and Mr. "Autumn" Sandeen deal with this embarrassment.  Of course, for the time being, I would not be surprised if they hammer the "not convicted" meme.  But, if this Contreas is convicted, and I would not be at all surprised if that occurs, it will be much harder for them to explain away.

Stay tuned...this could get very interesting.