> No, if it's one person leveling an accusation and there is no corroborating evidence (either physical or more witnesses), it's not enough.

Whether it is sufficient evidence is a different question than whether it is evidence. It's certainly difficult for nothing other than a victim's testimony contradicted by the accused with no other direct evidence to meet the criminal standard for proof beyond a reasonable doubt, but it's equally certainly less difficult for it to meet the civil standard of preponderance of the evidence that would be applicable in court for sexual harassment claims, and for lots of other human actions, action based on evidence with a lower threshold than preponderance of the evidence for any single offense may be reasonable.

I mean I'm not saying give ultimate judicial authority to any accuser. Just that we should be able to respect our peers' opinions as being worth something more than "not at all". Granted, I should have perhaps made that clearer rather than slipping into rhetoric.

> either physical or more witnesses

This makes rape un-prosecutable.

There’s substantial corroborating evidence for rape. It can be traumatic, but read through some trials of convicted rapists and review the evidence presented.