There is a huge difference between treating a rape accusation as credible.
And treating it as true automatically.
Some are advocating for treating rape accusations as automatically true, that to me is asinine and a perversion of the concept of innocent until proven guilty. This is not the standard we hold any accused or accuser to in any other crime. That doesn't mean that we ought to disbelieve an accuser automatically either, in fact the word automatic and the justice mix like oil and fire (automatic minimums comes to mind).
Instead, what we ought to do is treat all allegations as initially CREDIBLE, meaning that they should be investigated fully by an organization capable of making an objective judgment based on the evidence. Rape is a horrific crime and to be raped or be accused of rape is a possibly life destroying situation. For that reason, it can not be exempt from either requirement we have in our legal system to fully investigate every allegation and to hold an accused as innocent until proven guilty. You may have your personal opinions (for instance, there is nothing wrong with thinking that Bill Cosby is a rapist), but if you have any sort of institutional or personal ability to effect the accused it is wrong to act against them until they are proven guilty or at minimum until a credible investigation has released some kind of result. The flip side of this is that often rape allegations are not treated as credible and ignored by authorities, that most certainly does need to change. The solution to that is not starting with automatic belief in the eyes of everyone on the planet, but automatic credibility in the eyes of the law.
