What pronoun would you use?

[Learningtobehappier]

Heres the back story.

I was with my EXH for 5 years, left because of DV over 5 years ago with our child, theres zero contact, doesn't know where we live, we've been in refuge previously.

EXH is currently being investigated for Child Sex offences and i should find out soon if he will be charged (theres pretty good evidence).

I am a witness, have provided a statement and would go to court.

EXH now identifies as a female.

I'll obviously ask if the time comes, but in court which pronoun would you use? At the time when everything happened they were male, so it would come naturally to say "he then did this" but I wouldn't want to look bad for using him/he. But at the same time, it would feel really wrong for me to say "then she did this" when at the time they were male.

I thought about using they/their but then I need to be specific that there was only EXH there and that no one else was there, or that there was someone else there but only EXH did something etc.

So what would you use? What would I be expected to use?

absolutely not a transgender bashing thread

I’m so sorry you are having to go through this . I was a witness in a child abuse trial, it’s so nerve racking without having to remember what bloody pronoun to use.
Good luck Op x

following reassignment

What “reassignment”?

It doesn’t say anywhere in the OP that there has been any legal, medical or surgical reassignment?

Refer to him as my ex husband.

@Floppywin

ex husband absolutely you can't re-write history that is who this person was to you and that's the person who is being investigated for child abuse.

Thats what I feel, and after everything he's put us, through, the CPTSD and mental side of things.

I think I'll get really confused if I have to say "she then did this" And how can I describe sexual assaults including a penis whilst saying she. Its going to be really difficult remembering and going through everything as it is, let alone constantly reminding myself to use the correct pronouns.

I think stating that I will refer to him/he in my evidence and statement and they in general might be the best way but I will definitely ask once I know if he's been charged.

@KaptainKaveman

I'd suggest that calling a DV victim " vindictive and biased" simply for not getting the pronouns right is a bit 'dimwitted' Balhammom.

Yup. I’d call it a lot more too but it’ll just get deleted!

@SmileEachDay

following reassignment

What “reassignment”?

It doesn’t say anywhere in the OP that there has been any legal, medical or surgical reassignment?

No surgical reassignment, they have been taking female hormones, and living as a female.

I fully expect they will try to make out that the witnesses and victims are making it up because he's trans

No surgical reassignment, they have been taking female hormones, and living as a female

I fully expect they will try to make out that the witnesses and victims are making it up because he's trans

Your ex husband sounds like a right piece of work. If the “reassignment” has got as far as hormones then definitely take the advice of the prosecution legal team, but make them aware of how you feel, and what you are comfortable with - then agree with them what you will say.

Your ex husband’s feelings are not more important than yours.

Not a trans bashing post? Surrrre. Just a chance for all the bigots to come out to play AND approved by MN to emphasize that 'they' are probably perverts.

You were not sexually assaulted by a woman. That would be utterly misleading.

@toconclude

Not a trans bashing post? Surrrre. Just a chance for all the bigots to come out to play AND approved by MN to emphasize that 'they' are probably perverts.

Genuinely puzzled that it is bigoted to think that the victims feelings should be the priority in a rape case.

Also rape can ONLY be committed by a male.

It hurts my head that it is somehow bigoted to centre the rapists feelings over the victims in this scenario.

@toconclude
Nothing to say about a transwoman, with a penis, who’s being investigated for sexual offences against children?

toconclude

If you think the OP is trolling, report it to MN.

If you don’t, your lack of compassion for an abused woman is shameful.

You could try explaining up front that it is very hard for you to describe events accurately that involved a man when you have to then change all the hims to hers before answering the question so would the mind if you used the gender he used back then to describe events back then. The tide is turning. If you express it like this and ask rather than demand and have it aimed at giving your evidence to the court as accurately as possible, then you may well be told it is OK to use male pronouns for the time when he was still identifying as a man. A written request in advance may be a good idea.

@SnowFields

I agree with above to use their name on every single occasion. Then there is no doubt. If you don’t want to repeat the name twice in a sentence use they and them thereafter but go back to their name in the next sentence.

There wouldn’t be anything wrong with you having an opening sentence saying “To clarify; since separating from XXXX they identify as female. Unless specifically stated otherwise all reference to they/them refer solely to XXXX and are used due to the change in pronouns and not because anybody else was a witness.”

Wholly agree.

I really didn't want this thread to turn into a trans bashing thread. The problems I have with my EXH are because of what EXH has done to me, my child and the child victims, not because they are trans.

This is shocking!
I haven't rtft but my feeling is that you should refer to her as she was at the time of the crime, because that's the way things were.

Maybe start by recognising that he now identifies as female, something along the lines:

I appreciate that my ex husband now identifies as female under her new identity as Joan.
When Joan was in my life, she was Joe so I will refer to her as I knew her when I give my evidence.

@DanielRicciardosSmile

I think, well-meaning as it undoubtedly is, you should ignore most of the advice here, and ask the prosecution counsel (I'm assuming you're a witness for the prosecution) what you should do.

This is, by some distance, the most useful piece of advice on this thread. Dramatic declarations of ‘It would be a cold day in hell before I referred to this MAN as she!!!’ might make for a lively thread on MN, but offer little in terms of practical help in terms of the OP getting through this without adding to her already considerable trauma, or the Crown getting a conviction.

OP - from what you say, your ex has yet to be formally charged. If this does happen, it means the CPS believes they can get a conviction. It means it’s in their interest for your evidence to be as accurate and effective as possible. They will advise you accordingly, without the well-intentioned, but over-emotive cries of ‘But HE is a MAN! It’s wrong!’ that you’re getting here.

For what it’s worth, I think it’s also very unlikely that you’d be expected, or even permitted, to make an opening speech about how today you will be referring to the defendant as Stephen, as Stephen is who you know the defendant as and is who committed the offence. Barristers give opening statements, not witnesses. But like the mast majority of people posting here, I’m not a lawyer - take the factual, non-emotive advice of the CPS on this.

Good luck.

@stillcoughingandlaughing - by way of example : you think it makes sense to say for OP to be told she MUST refer to events as
"my dc told me that she(ex-husband) had taken her penis out and performed such and such with her penis" etc when describing a sexual assault?

That seems to be to be heaping abuse on top of abuse for victims (DC) in this case, rather than the alleged perpetrator?

There is no way to state the above is trans bashing - presenting as a female gender in no way should protect a male accused of sexual assault.

Only a male sexed person will have a penis to perform certain sexual assaults so it is offensive to victims to compel them to use someone's preferences as a she, her and new feminine name.

Such re-telling of past events would normally be referred to as a lie in a law court where you are meant to recall events to best recollection, not perform mental gymnastics of taking perpetrator's feelings/preferences into account. ... etc

Thank you everyone for the well wishes, it's the first time I've really spoken out about it (other than professionals and one close person who doesn't know all the details) so I was really nervous.

Most people on this thread have really made me feel accepted and more importantly, not to blame. Im terrified of it going to court, but I need to stand up for myself and my child, and the other victims of his crimes.

I will definitely ask the witness support officer and the prosecuting team for their advice, I don't want to do anything to jeopardise a conviction. I will feel like we would be so much safer if he is convicted. Maybe then I can start to put it behind me somewhat.

@stillcoughingandlaughing - by way of example : you think it makes sense to say for OP to be told she MUST refer to events as
"my dc told me that she(ex-husband) had taken her penis out and performed such and such with her penis" etc when describing a sexual assault?

I’ve said nothing of the kind. Not even anything vaguely similar. I said, very clearly, that she should listen to the factual advice of the CPS rather than the personal views of MNers.

Maybe then I can start to put it behind me somewhat

I hope so, OP.

Good luck@Learningtobehappier! I have no time for anyone (regardless of gender identification) who abuses anyone - especially children. That’s inexcusable.

no, asking your opinion if you think it's ok.

We know that courts currently compel witnesses to re-imagine past events.

I was just wondering if you think that is ok? Not criticising you, sorry if that's how it came across, I'm criticising the current system.

I think the OP possibly doesn't think it's ok but had already decided to jump to the piper's tune (current law) to ensure best chance of conviction.

The OP seems to have found some peace from this thread that she isn't alone in believing it is "wrong" to have the responsibility of referring to her ex-husband's new preferences/name etc and at risk of being seen as a malicious witness if fails to remember.

People playing along with a system to refer to the new pronoun she/her to get a conviction means something very wrong with the system; the more that are aware the more chance we have of people looking at whether something needs to change in the law.

@Learningtobehappier I truly hope that you can start to move on in some from this. I know it’s not easy. You deserve only happiness and peace.

The defendant is the correct terminology.