Hmm, I'm not so sure. This was a case study @Shadowfax did and she said there were 3 groups - an all female group, an all male group, and a mixed group. The all female group convicted, the all male group acquitted, and the mixed group convicted based on Shadowfax's final vote which I assume was the one that tipped the balance. Of course you can't draw many conclusions from just one such case, but I gotta ask - why did the all female group convict while the all male acquit? And why did those results not surprise me? I do believe it is an indication of attitudes towards rape - granted it might not reflect how severe you see the issue - but it does reflect some attitudes, perhaps a simple inclination to believe one way or another, presumptions you might make about the respective parties etc. There're certain cases where you're simply more inclined one way or another based not on evidence, but on your personal beliefs on the issue or the people involved. If I told you that the Dalai Lama stole a loaf of bread (to give a horribly inadequate example), you'd be immediately more inclined to believe he didn't do it, simply because he's the Dalai Lama. If there's enough evidence you might still convict him, Dalai Lama or no, but you'd start off inclined to acquit him, presuming innocence. From there on, it would be easier to sway you into thinking he's innocent rather than the opposite, especially considering evidence is always up for interpretation. But if I told you a known and previously convicted thief stole a loaf of bread, you'd be immediately more inclined to believe he did do it. I guess I'm just saying people's prejudices come through in whether they convict or acquit, and that does show, to some extent, those people's attitude on the subject matter and people involved.
To clarify, we were studying an actual case, seeing a selection of evidence (I have to assume that it was presented fairly) and "trying" the case as if we were actual jurors. Afterwards, we were told of what happened in real life.
Yeah, it definitely could give insight into, say, different perspectives on the credibility of female witnesses/rape victims, or that sort of thing. But I can see somehow thinking that rape is a horrible, horrible crime and still believing that there isn't enough proof to establish guilt in a specific case.
I agree with this. I think most people understand that rape is an horrific crime; it is just that on many occasions it is one person's word against anothers, which must make it incredibly hard to establish guilt.
This sounds to me like just one more element that will largely be dependent on the author's talents. Getting people "right" and or making them "work," is (presumably) a skill. Not everyone is going to be able to engender masculine traits successfully in a female or feminine traits successfully in a male. Regardless of who gets what attribute, there are certain realities only applicable to a female and only certain realities applicable to a male. These may or may not (but I think more likely may) play some role in your character's development as a person.
Who cares what's between a person's legs or what gender they are? The only time any of that should enter the equation is (a) if you're describing how they look (b) if you're putting them into relationships (c) if your novel specifically deals with gender stereotypes and/or (d) if the character happens to be on a different place in the gender binary than cisgendered people.
