You're completely trying to obfuscate the argument by trying to change definitions in order to defend the President when he's wrong.
For instance:
In the most restrictive definition, which is also the legal definition in many places and the one used by the FBI in rape statistics, anything that does not involve a penis penetrating a vagina cannot be rape. In this definition a man forcing woman to perform oral sex is not rape, and indeed a woman in this definition cannot rape a man.
No, it is not. The FBI has long revised their definition of rape. In fact, it is (excludes statutory rape):
The carnal knowledge of a person, without the consent of the victim, including instances where the victim is incapable of giving consent because of his/her age or because of his/her temporary or permanent mental or physical incapacity
There is ZERO mention of penis in the vagina as a requirement for rape.
Of course is common usage rape is generally seen more broadly and is often used as a synonym for any sexual assault. There simply is no one universally agreed definition for the word.
Different studies use different definitions for what constitutes "rape" or "sexual assault" or the attempts and thus come up with widely different numbers. And this is only the first issue.
No, there isn't. Anyone mixing "rape" with "sexual assault" has either a very poor understanding of what sexual assault is, or is trying to redefine rape and sexual assault (both clear and defined legally defined terms) in order to make an emotional impact with their numbers by obfuscating the terms.
There is a good review of the "1 in 5" study on Politifact which is somewhat neutral which goes over how difficult this is:
Which is all the more reason why "1 in 5 women are raped" is not a term to be used lightly, especially in light of the fact that "1 in 5" isn't anywhere close to the Bureau of Justice Statistics own study from 1995-2013 which has shown that rape AND sexual assault occurred at a rate of 6.1 per 1,000 for students
On the other topic there is a wage gap between men and women, that's obvious from the bare data. Whether that wage gap is justified (Do women do less valuable work? Do they work less?) is another matter but that requires extensive interpretation.
What are you even saying?
There is ZERO to debate about this. The bare data is misleading because there is no correction for equal work hours.
The wage gap is within statistical error when corrected for hours worked, level of experience, etc.
Again, you're trying to bring in spurious arguments when the flat out analysis shows that when all things are normalized (e.g. same job, similar experience levels, etc.), there is no discrimination in wages by gender, and certainly nothing of the "77 cents on the dollar" stuff.
You can debate this but it's very difficult to nail down universally accepted "facts" in either case. And it is most definitely politicised, Republicans will downplay the rape numbers and the gender pay gap, Democrats the opposite. You can't just wade in and say "my facts are the facts here" as if these facts were obtained through a rigorous and repeatable physics experiment. It's a lot more messy and debatable than that.
Once again, you're trying to play this politically correct.
This is ridiculous - if someone is wrong, they're wrong. Their opinion isn't as valuable because it's not backed by factual data.