What can courts legally do if someone refuses to use preferred pronouns?

This:

I would be concerned by the conflict between "I swear by Almighty God that the evidence I shall give shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth" and using a pronoun that the witness believed to be untrue.

"If the judge directed you to use them then it would be contempt of court to continue."

If this is the case, then we have reached "Peak 1984" where a judge can put you under oath and force you to perjure yourself.
We all know that this tipping point has now been reached.

Perjure - wilfully tell an untruth or make a misrepresentation under oath; commit perjury.

In Maria MacLachlan's case she was told to refer to her attacker as 'the defendant' as an alternative to using his preferred female pronouns. She slipped up a few times due to the stress of giving evidence in court and the judge criticised her for occasionally referring to her male attacker as 'he'.

At some point we are going to have to have a huge debate on this alone, because what they are asking, predominantly, women to do is lie about material reality in court.

It's predominantly women, of course, because it is predominantly men that commit crimes worthy of court.

Would it be contempt to say, for example, “I was approached by a person I perceived to be male, wearing a flowery dress”, for example, and thereon refer to ‘he’ when referring to ‘the person who approached you’. If the judge then directed you to use ‘she’ - I think you’re correct that the judge is therefore implicitly accepting that ‘the person that approached you’ is the same person requesting pronoun compliance in court. However - that fact may not be in dispute - the person in court may admit to being ‘the person who approached you’, but dispute the events themselves.

Sorry didn’t see Fannys post that wasn’t there when I started writing that.

Would it be contempt of court to avoid pronouns altogether and refer to the person by name though?

You could also just keep saying ‘the defendant’ or ’the complainant’ etc

Holy moly this is all a bit complicated isn’t it. I’m glad I don’t have to directly deal with any of this.

What if a rape victim just said she'd taken her oath to tell the truth and she feared perjuring herself by using she, her and hers when talking about the man who raped her?

Would any judge really encourage or insist on perjury from a plaintiff?

I suspect most judges - most people - experience the same cognitive dissonance the rest of us feel looking at some of the police mugshots out there and trying to think 'she' about them.

It's one thing politely and considerately agreeing to use everyone's preferred pronouns at work and in social contexts; it would be rude not to. But your rapist? It shouldn't be asked.

Can't you refer to the complainant or the witness and just keep using those words?

I think in writing one should add the acronym (WMBO) (who must be obeyed) after every preferred pronoun.
Especially on Mumsnet discussions.

The whole thing is wrong. As a victim or witness of a crime you have to describe what you see and if you see a male you need to able to describe what you saw in those terms - because that is what you witnessed/experienced. The perpetrator might have presented in a typical masculine way. One of the things the court has to establish is that the person in the dock is the perpetrator - this is not a given. If not, then who knows what the ‘preferred pronouns’ are? If they didn’t transition until after the crime then you are using the correct pronouns for the time? If the judge directs you to use ‘she’ instead of ‘he’ could the accused appeal on the basis that the judge was pre-judging that the accused was the perpetrator before hearing the evidence? What about the jury trying to make sense of this, not knowing the sex or gender of the perpetrator or accused?

Or maybe insist on writing out every answer, and having your lawyer read it through to make sure it wasn't 'inflammatory'?

How can we use malicious compliance against this?

Can you refuse to speak? If they insist on enforced lying, are they allowing you to use lies as part of your evidence? Can it be a two way street?

I couldn't do this. I'd have to speak very carefully and use the person's name every time a pronoun was required.

I think that in the current climate a judge might believe that the use of 'he' was intended to be abusive or inflammatory, even if used in a completely neutral, factual fashion. I can see the grounds they'd use for instructing someone not to say 'he'. I can't see that they could insist on the lie 'she' instead, though, if the speaker is trying to avoid pronouns altogether.

I have no problem with calling a man Stephanie or Lily or Sarah. Change your name to whatever you want. I'm not going to call a man 'she', though, because it makes me complicit in a lie.

I think it's easier that making your voice say she when you are looking across at an obvious he.

It's easy rephrasing to avoid pronouns when you are typing a post online and can take time over it but it would take tremendous presence of mind and self control giving evidence orally in court. I would like to think it's what I would do but I doubt I could reliably manage it.

I think the guidance comes from the Equal Treatment Bench Book. The solution here is to get the guidance amended.

I'd happily call a male 'Tiffany' or whatever he wished and simply avoid pronouns altogether.

Can they just use the persons name? I assume if they have legally changed their name then that’s not an issue but if they haven’t then that could be an irritant I suppose (and not ‘being kind’).

If you read Knowles' full judgement on Harry Miller, you'll see that he declares his intention of using terms and pronouns to match biological sex, just for clarity.

I think that is a very helpful precedent for any well-intentioned person who slips up by misgendering a friend, colleague, defendant or complainant in any context.

I suspect it may also enrage the TRA lobby and become a central plank in any appeal against the JR finding.

I was surprised to see it and I hope it stands unchallenged; we'll have to wait and see.

Would it be contempt of court to avoid pronouns altogether and refer to the person by name though?

If the judge directed you to use them then it would be contempt of court to continue.

If you legally have to use them they are not preferred then are they? As in its no longer 'i'd rather you use this'? It's 'you MUST use this or l'll do what l can to destroy you pronoun'.....

You’d probably be convicted of being in contempt of court.

If you clearly explained the conflict you felt about making a witness statement that did not tally with what you perceived to be reality, it would make an astonishing news story. If you were convicted and punished, I think the public outcry would be huge, especially if it was a case where are violence towards a woman was involved.

It would take ovaries of steel though.

Wouldn't the equality act mean you had to under gender reassignment?

I would just refer to them as ‘that person’ or by their name. By fuck would I be bullied into lying about someone’s sex.