I don’t know how many times I have to state this, but if she goes and reports that then an investigation should be opened. This is what I have stated since first questioned on this. Is that not the due process for any reporting of a crime?
Belief is the assumption that something is true. Belief is
completely different to opening an investigation. In fact, opening an investigation is the opposite to belief. If you already "know" something is true, why would you investigate whether or not it's true? That makes no sense.
You wouldn’t convict somebody if there wasn’t any evidence that they had abused anyone. My wife would not be able to get me convinced on a lack of evidence.
She might, if a jury believed her. Believe women, remember? That's the slogan. "believe women". Not "conduct a fair investigation regardless of the sexes of the people involved". So if you're a man and she's a woman, under that idea you should be convicted. Anything else is going directly against the idea that all women should always be believed.
If not, she could certainly cause you other harm if she wanted to. You would, for example, have a record that would show up on background checks done by a potential employer or potential partner. You might lose your job. You'd definitely suffer some degree of harm from being widely presumed guilty solely for being the "wrong" sex. Could you prove your innocence? Could you afford to hire lawyers for a civil case? Would it make any difference if you did? The whole point of the idea is that all evidence should be ignored. Look at this case - what difference has it actually made other than lots of media articles speaking against the idea that a man should be allowed a chance to defend himself and show evidence that he's not guilty?
It's one of the things that usually follows belief in unchosen group identity (which is irrational prejudice in itself as well as being the foundation of all other irrational prejudice). Prejudice and discrimination based solely on unchosen group identity (sex, "race" or whatever) is often claimed to be "justified" by claiming that everyone you assign to your target group identities is "privileged" (and thus deserves to be discriminated against)
regardless of individual circumstances, but that is just a pretence. Calling it "equity" is just another way of phrasing the same "justification". It's normal and fashionable nowadays and in sadly many other times and places. The group identities that it's fashionable to consider legitimate targets change, but the idea remains the same - that the victims deserve it because they're "privileged". Regardless of whether or not they actually are privileged, of course. So, for example, there was a period of time in medieval England in which prejudice and discrimination against jews was "justified" by the idea that jews were "privileged". It didn't matter if a particular jewish person was living in abject poverty in a hut with a couple of shillings in total assets and the constant threat of starvation and a particular gentile person was living in the highest luxury possible at the time in a mansion with thousands of pounds in total assets and the finest food money could buy - belief in unchosen group identity requires ignoring individual circumstances and instead pretending that whatever stereotypes are attached to each group identity apply to everyone assigned that group identity.
I normally don’t partake in forum conversations because I don’t have the time for it a lot of others do. This subject rankles me slightly but must admit I’m not on a mission about it. These are just my views and I appreciate a forum is never a place to change any bodies mind. I have my views and I feel good about them 
