To object to having to call a man accused of rape 'she' in a criminal court trial?

[Appalonia]

Firstly, the definition of rape is penetration by a penis without consent. Only men have a penis. This case makes a mockery of the law and the criminal justice process and is a gross victimisation of this victim?
www.clydebankpost.co.uk/news/23259685.clydebank-court-hears-woman-raped-clydebank-home/?ref=twtrec

I am legally a woman so I can't rape anyone, under the law.

Yes, as Errol says, that's not correct. You can't rape anyone under the law because you don't have a penis. There's nothing about "sex" in the law, so the GRC can't affect it. It changes your legal "sex", not your legal penis.

It boiled down to "I can't have done it because my special identity proves I don't fancy her" and the judge fell for it.

Yes, that was some sort of sexual assault (groping?) charge.

And there has also been lenient sentencing along the lines of "well, under current rules you'd have to go to a men's prison, and that would be too distressing for you with your special identity, so I won't make you serve time." That's come up a couple of times - at least once for possession of child abuse material, IIRC.

Sorry, being lazy with my lack of link provision today.

I'm still waiting for someone to have their conviction over turned on the grounds of the witness having lied in court because they revert to 'identifying' male and point out that the witnesses say a woman committed the crime.

YANBU

and how will this be recorded in statistics

and of found guilty which he is a very slim chance they will be in prison with vulnerable women

ten years ago we would have scoffed at such a possibility as it’s so ridiculous

“Well didn't someone use their status as having some special identity ( non binary demi sexual or something?) to escape charge recently?”

There are several cases of TW being put in advisory roles despite being convicted of sexual assault and DV. In these cases they blamed their convictions on them being distressed at having to live as men, nicely twisting victimhood successfully back into themselves.

The Maria MacLachlan/Tara Wolf case was reported at the time.

When requested to use feminine pronouns for Tara, Maria told the judge she would try to remember, but she wasn't used to thinking of Tara as a woman.

The judge referred to it when refusing compensation:
"It was notable that when I asked Ms Maclachlan to refer to Ms Wolf as 'she', she did so with bad grace - having asked her to do so she continued to refer to Ms Wolf as 'he' and 'him'".

www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/transgender-activist-tara-wolf-fined-ps150-for-assaulting-exclusionary-radical-feminist-in-hyde-park-a3813856.html

If the GRR in Scotland had been successful, this is what any man would be able to do:

Live as a woman for 3 months - all he needs to do is change his name on a utility bill to a 'female' name. That's it. That's him living as a woman. I kid you not, that's it.

After 3 months, fill out a form online and pay £5

He is then legally a woman in Scotland.

“Because too many men don't really believe rape is rape. They think it's regretted sex and they think the man's motivation is attraction not violence and power.”

this. It’s like it’s all a big eye rolling inconvenience to too many men.

Careful you lot, don't you know this is totes transphobic?

But no OP, you are not being U

And why the hell should a traumatised victim have to walk on eggshells to be careful in this instance?

Why are his feelings more important?

In the case linked in the OP, the victim didn't. The paper quotes her as using he/him and Adam.

If you are concerned about this, please read and sign this petition

Just appalling. Having to go to court and see your rapist must be a living hell but then HAVE to refer to him as 'she' or 'her' is sickening. 'She' or 'Her' can't rape anyone as a 'she' or 'her' has no penis!

As another poster said, it's a hill I'd die on, contempt of court or not. Fucking outrageous! 😡

The judges are tied by the Equal Treatment Bench Book. Guess which organisation supplied the training

https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/warning-over-transgender-guidance-to-judges/5103196.article

'Solicitor Harriet Wistrich, head of the Centre for Women’s Justice, has raised concerns about pronoun use in cases involving violence against women. ‘Here there is a conflict between the right of self-definition and the right of a victim, who may have been violated in the most horrendous way, to describe her material reality as she perceives it,’ she said. ‘Why is the victim’s right less important?’

The Judicial College declined to identify the external experts and organisations that assist in training and formulation of policy. ‘It is not necessary or in the public interest to make public the names of all those involved in this work,’ it said.

and when HE gets off or the case gets chucked out of court, HE will suddenly decide to revert back to being a man? Is this the next wheeze to get out of rape convictions?

Which all sounds 'cloud cuckoo' land but quite frankly, the world has gone mad and anything is possible.

If a rapist wants to stand trial as a woman then the first thing that should be said to him is

"Over here, sir, place your cock on the chopping block and then we will proceed."

and when HE gets off or the case gets chucked out of court, HE will suddenly decide to revert back to being a man?

There has been some discussion of prisoners "reverting back to being a man". But there's no real stats on that. Short thread with links here.

Besides, how would you even know? If you can't define how you "become a woman", you can't really define "reverting to being a man". Check their utility bills again, I guess.

Their gender or chosen gender is irrelevant. Her and she are available for use by biological males. Just as he and him can be used by biological females if they so choose.

Being a rapist has nothing to do with being trans. If that person chooses to identify as a woman, it would make me roll my eyes a bit considering the context here. But it’s not a crime.

Gender wars are such bullshit. The point is this human committed a horrific crime. I give no shits whether they are noted as a man or a woman. Or a trans man or trans woman. The law should look at a persons crime and treat accordingly. So even if they go to a woman’s prison, they should be isolated. Because of their crime.

From the Scottish Daily Express from one of the links in the 'rates of de-transitioning' MN thread - "A study, published in the British Journal of Criminology, also revealed that some of these prisoners may only have identified as women in order to have sex with female inmates."

It didn't link the study. So a biological male can decide to be female after he's used his penis to rape a biological woman and if convicted, he gets put in a female prison so he can then go on to rape other women. You just couldn't make this crap up!

I'm from North East England and its the same here. Sounds fine to me.

I'm afraid we are in 1984 Orwell land double speak here.

We need to be vocal and fight back peacefully, marches, get schools up to speed on what's happening.

Purely personal viewpoint here. Not trying to tell anyone else what to think.

For context, I've been raped. It was a long time ago and I have dealt with it. The perpetrator was not investigated, charged, convicted or punished. Which is shit.

Frankly, if my case had ever got to court, I doubt I'd have cared less about the accused's pronouns. I'd have moved heaven and earth simply to stand up in court, point at my rapist and say 'that person raped me'. If that meant referring to the person as she/her, I'd have done it without question.

Honestly, at the time, whether the crime had been recorded as a woman's crime or a man's crime wouldn't even have entered my consciousness. I wanted the person who attacked me inside and out, in my body and in my head, convicted and punished for the crime they committed. Simple as that.

@Stickmansmum well plenty of us do care that a man is correctly referred to in a court of law as a man, for committing the singularly male crime of rape.
There have been plenty of reasons set out for this:

1. mitigating the trauma of the victim. Why should she have to lie or tread on egg shells when recounting her rape?
2. the crime should be accurately recorded as being perpetrated by a man not a woman for the sake of accurate crime statistics. Statistics matter for planning prison services and also for rehabilitation services etc. If more ‘women’ are down as committing crimes the stats become skewed and potentially services for female victims/ safe spaces for women etc come under threat as the need to them is perceived as reduced.
3. so that the rapist does not get to go to a women’s prison. Don’t you care that female prisoners deserve to be kept safe during their sentence? Women in prison tend to be from the vulnerable members of society, there is a lot of trauma behind their life journey. Women tend not to go to prison for violent offences in the same way as men.

Gender ideology is bullshit. Bullshit that damages women.

Well, this is what you get when you go along with the ridiculous notion that men can become women.

@Tanith

You're cherry picking one line out of many. Here's what it said:

However, Judge Grant refused to grant Ms Maclachlan any compensation, saying: "Compensation would not be appropriate, particularly due to the unhelpful way in which the victim was present [at the protest] and the way she was filming.
"She was asked at different stages not to film but continued to do so.
"Another factor I have to take in to account is the Twitter post that has been submitted that was posted after the case had been brought to the attention of the police and there were criminal proceedings pending.
"It was foolish of her to post that tweet in the way that she did.
"It was notable that when I asked Ms Maclachlan to refer to Ms Wolf as 'she', she did so with bad grace - having asked her to do so she continued to refer to Ms Wolf as 'he' and 'him'".

It certainly wasn't a case of losing compensation purely due to pronouns.