Court and enforced use of 'preferred' pronouns

Sounds right to me Hypermice

I have three main issues here. Firstly, it’s lying.

Secondly, it skews the perspective of the court. Imagine in your mind two scenarios: in one, a woman hits another woman. In the other, a man hits a woman. In scenario two your mind is subconsciously evaluating the size and strength differences between the assailant and the fact that this will probably hurt more. by referring to the assailant as she the court is exposed to a bias, which acts in the defendants favour

Thirdly, it disadvantages the witness. Testimony in court is frightening for the average person. To then put them under further cognitive strain by making them change pronouns when this does not come naturally can reduce the fluency of the testimony.

So by using the female pronoun, the judge is actually disadvantging the defendant and biasing the court.

Thoughts?

Well said Hairy.

Although I disagree that it needs to be considered on a case by case basis. These men are not entitled to force inaccurate use of language on others on the basis of their 'preferences' full stop. It is not the case that they are entitled to this 'courtesy' up to and until their behaviour means that this should be withdrawn. They, individually and collectively, have no right to claim on womanhood full stop. It is not that they do have a right that their beliefs should be respected in some circumstances (where they behave 'well') and not in others (where they behave 'badly').

Cases like Danielle Muscato are merely the reductio ad absurdum. If any of them are entitled to 'she', then all of them are. If some of them are not, then none of them are.

YY Hairy - the personal is political. And language whilst it refers to reality, and we have the reasonable expectation that we can use language to accurately so do, in this case it also shapes our concepts and our thoughts. The drip, drip, drip effect of calling even the 'nice ones' 'she' cannot and should not be underestimated.

Those who wish to do so, for whatever reason, clearly are free to do so. Those of us who strenuously object to this, should be free to use language accurately, without sanction.

They are not being treated equally by the law as I see it.

What I don't understand is why are the perpetrator's desires / beliefs / feelings MORE IMPORTANT THAN the victim's belief and experience? It boils down to this. Because Maria experienced a physical assault from a man and believed her attacker to be a man (presumably based on the secondary sexual characteristics they exhibited such as bigger size, myscle mass etc).

The ONLY possible explanation I can come up with us that the perpetrator is a biological male and Maria is a biological female. Which rather makes the attempt to force her to use preferred pronouns against what she thinks is the truth and normal usage of English a nightmare worthy of Orwellian fiction.

With this in mind, I feel that we (and most importantly Maria) should be able to say:

Maria was attacked by a man. That man may, for all I know, very sincerely wish himself to be a woman. He may even, for all I know, mistakenly believe himself to be a woman. But he is not. And it is important to justice that the woman he punched in the face is not forced to describe him as "her" when giving evidence. It is important that she is not forced to lie, or forced to "beat about the bush" avoiding pronouns in her testimony in such a way that her testimony thus becomes confusing and therefore seems less convincing.

I repeat from the earlier thread - I would not dream of "misgendering" someone in RL who had done me no harm (important caveat) or draw attention to their biology, because that would be unkind. However there are legal and political contexts where one should be allowed to tell the truth, not obfusticate it with made up language to avoid hurting the feelings of someone accused and convicted of a serious crime.

Hebe, I discussed this point specifically with Justine on the "Spartacus believes in biology" thread I started. I pointed out to her that there were circumstances (such as D. Muscato inviting women to "suck my dick" on International Women's Day) when the personal became the political - in that it was impossible to discuss the political/legal point at issue without using the correct words. Justine conceded that there were such cases (which she also, reasonably IMO, said needed to be considered case-by-case by the mods).

This is exactly such a case. Maria MacLachlan was attacked by an individual who has since been convicted of her assault by a court of law. At the time of the assault, this individual was dressed in gender-neutral clothing (I, like everyone else in this debate, I would imagine, have seen both the stills and video footage of the attack). Maria experienced the attack as being punched in the face by a man. She was then told by the trial judge to refer to her attacker as "she".

This sort of gas-lighting matters. It matters politically and legally because Maria was instructed by a judge to perjure herself. In practical terms, it matters because it adds an extra layer of "language-policing" to the ordeal of giving evidence in court, meaning witnesses are more likely to get confused/make minor errors in telling their story/come across as less convincing, which then gives juries (fortunately this was a magistrate's court) more grounds for reasonable doubt. One of the recurring themes of this section (see discussions of rape cases) is that the criminal justice system is stacked against women, giving far too much weight to men's voices. This is another example of doing just that, another example of weights being added to the supposedly balanced scales of justice, weights which only ever seem to go on the male side of things.

I'll now put my next point in a separate post...

I try to avoid pronouns on these threads - it's usually possible. However, I realised that on one, without thinking about it, I referred to Debbie H. as 'she' - So...turns out I'm perfectly happy to use pronouns corresponding to 'gender' for transwomen who understand the difference between sex and gender, but not for any who try to conflate the two (or deny the primacy of sex entirely).

I won't use a pronoun which implicitly supports a false assertion.

Why is 'misgendering' someone a more egregious insult that the incorrect use of language to refer to a man as a woman merely because he wishes it so? I, and many other women, are grossly insulted every time a man is afforded the 'courtesy' of this lie. A lie which reifies his delusion, states that he is a woman, and which participates in the agreement that there is such a thing as 'trans'.

We are back to where we were a couple of years ago during the first wave of Spartacus, when we were told that to 'misgender' someone was unacceptable and would result in deletions and an eventual ban.

MNHQ

As I understand it, it is permissible to state that 'transwomen' are not women, ergo they are men.

In the English language, the pronoun we use to refer to men is 'he', not 'she'

To then enforce the requirement that in respect of any one member of the set of 'tranwomen', who it has already been agreed that we can refer to as not women, ergo men, as 'she', when that is their stated wish, is entirely illogical and gaslighting. Language is important and actually means something. Language is not used accurately and meaningfully when its use is dictated on the basis of 'not upsetting people'. Reality is reality. Scientific fact is scientific fact. 'Good manners' is gaslighting.

I completely agree that if you really can't bring yourself to use wrong pronouns then just use they or put initials. It makes the same point without misgendering.

Can I just say thanks for such an interesting thread particularly SusanBunch.

Thanks @ArtemisRhodes, I've already contacted CATT and signed the letter--which is very nicely drafted!

cromeyellow0

"Does Tara Wood have a GRC?" DEFINITELY NOT,

"If TW does, we wouldn't be allowed to say so by law, under the EA(2010)"

The question is whether he has a female birth certificate. HOW COULD HE WITHOUT A GRC?

We are dealing with an anarchist who lives his life between squatting, protesting, hating the pigs and taking swipes at women. I can't see him being too interested in legal niceties.

Definitely has not "lived as a woman" for two years, though he claims to have been taking oestrogen for 2 years.

cromeyellow0

You make three excellent points. Perhaps you should be helping the women who are drafting the letter to the judicial complaints board? If you wish to, pls email [email protected]

Thanks for clearing that up, Susan.

It does. Sorry, you are right, TW was relying on the defence of defence of another. That’s also a defence and very similar to self-defence and again, TW did not admit to the crime in question although admitted the punch. Admitting the punch is obviously fundamental to the defence but it’s really not the same as a guilty plea.

Didn't say in defense of themselves.
TW admitted they punched Maria but said it was in self defense of their friend.
I do not think self defense works that way.

thebewilderness that is not an admission of guilt. If I kill someone and say it was self-defence and accept that I caused their death, that is not the same as me admitting to murder. In the case of TW they admitted punching in self-defence but not assaulting MM. If they appealed and there was a retrial, the court would need to consider the self-defence thing afresh.

I am not au fait with the legal aid rules but would TW automatically get legal aid for an appeal or do they at least have to show merits for an appeal (as is the case on the civil side)? If they have to show merit to get funding then a balanced judgment is a good thing- it really is.

Forcing the overturning of objective reality, in law, and in a court of law (i.e. forced lying, really), is never going to end well. Especially when it is women at the sharp end of this. Again.

Was thinking about this, its not perjury because the sex of the defendant was not material in the case but the oath that one swears before testifying isn't "to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth (only if its material)".

As someone who specialises in contracts, all I'm coming up with is misrepresentation and fraudulent inducement. I don't think it would rise to the charge of intimidating a witness.

How on earth would this work in a different case where sex is relevant. Would someone have to say that "woman raped me with her female penis"?

TW admitted guilt during the proceeding by saying TW punched in self defense of their friend.

Ah interesting, Felicicat. I do hope for Maria's sake that she's not dragged through the process again.

Someone said on an earlier thread that the sentence was not unduly lenient for this level of offence, so he might think there's no downside to appealing.

It's open to the Crown Court to increase sentence but it very rarely happens.