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

It depends on the jurisdiction. In the UK rape is described as penetration by a penis, and then penetration by other things (fingers, objects etc) are a separate sexual offence.

In other places, rape is unlawful sexual penetration, without the requirement for it to involve a penis.

This was UK though.

The case we are referring to was an assault, not a rape.

Or is that 'splitting hairs' as well?

This is one of those threads where you can really see the benefit of the polling feature.

I did realise at some point that there was cross over in terms of which case we were talking about but I continued as the general principle still stood.

Or are you now saying you don’t think it’s correct that victims should be forced to lie and state their rapists are women?

Just that Margaret Millar was wrong to refer to her assailant, 6ft 4 ‘Tara Wolf’ as a man?

Aiding and abetting a rape I could understand, but how can a woman be convicted of rape?

Your link just pointed back to this thread, so I can't see what you're referring to. But it would have been a joint enterprise conviction, or whatever it's called. She's convicted of the primary offence, despite not being the primary assailant.

@DuesToTheDirt Women convicted of rape under the principle of joint enterprise.

@NecessaryScene X-post!

@YouSetTheTone

I don't know how many more times I can explain that she didn't need to lie or say anything she didn't agree with. People seem determined to believe this regardless of reality.

Also if you would like to talk about the general principle then you need to look at the entirety of the reasons why the decision was made in the assault case. The victim continually undermined the court process, the decision was made in respect of the totality of her behaviour.

It's not a decision that can or will be applied to every victim in every circumstance where pronouns are an issue. It's just not.

That's not what's happening but keep attacking that straw man (straw woman?) if that's what you're all determined to do.

I don't think a victim should have to dance through language hoops to avoid stating a truth.

Women should know by now you have to watch your tongue to avoid the words that might trigger your abuser. Even if the abuser is His Majesty's Court.

@StarsSand the general principle I’m talking about is coercing a victim in court to refer to her rapist or assailant in ways that are either a direct lie ‘her/she’ instead of ‘him/ he’ or an obfuscation of the truth (dancing around the language in order to benefit the accused).

Whether or not it is the case you are referring to, Millar vs Wolf, or the case linked to in the op - both have the same issue that people are objecting to on this thread don’t they?

No she couldn't, I was a juror in a trial where a witness had to be asked to name who he was talking about, "him in the dock" and pointing not being good enough.

Absolutely disgusting, obscene and very very disturbing. Someone said up thread they'd sooner be jailed than to call her rapist a woman. Me too and also do without the criminal injuries payment.

This rapist will probably also be sent to a women's prison. Unbelievable. I fear for all women.

Respect for the court, Richard 'Barrister'.

What you you mean? Respect for the court that had just ordered her to belie the evidence of her own eyes and experience and call her male attacker ‘she’?

Why are you trying to minimise and dismiss this? Why can you not see the problem?

Please don't tell me what I know.

She was not prevented from telling the truth.

She was prevented from using commonplace, natural language. You do know this, which is why you are giving examples of alternative, unnecessarily clunky wording.

The truth is, she was assaulted by a man and she was not allowed to say that in court, under oath.

The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

I was holding an electronic device and the defendant's person friend made the electronic device fall to the ground by the defendant's person friend's upper body limb connecting with the electronic device. I thought the electronic device might have been rendered faulty so moved my own upper body limb towards the electronic device at which point the defendant used both the defendant's own upper body limbs to connect with my torso.

Oh yes, changing a few words is simple, we should all do it more. Very natural.

Why can’t we say biological male? Just state the facts and truth. What's wrong with this?

Rather than some construction of gender the rapist wants to be known as.

I prefer to call people by their name wherever possible. Mainly because of consideration for married women who do not want to be known as Mrs (husband surname).

I would say 'the accused' or their name.

Nicely put!

Not read the whole thread but I am so so happy to see posts like this so often and on this board in particular. Are people starting to wake up? This is happening again and again and in so many different ways - as a sex women are being gaslit into double speak. It’s about time this went mainstream.

This has been an excellent thread for letting the “pro rapists’ feelings” brigade dig themselves an ever deeper hole.
We hardly need to say anything, they are condemning themselves out of their own mouths, and turning more people gender critical with every post.
I am still amazed though, that anyone thinks it’s fine to gaslight and abuse traumatised rape victims.
Really not a good look, fellas. Or persons. Or whatever you are identifying as this week.

Me too.

she didn't need to lie

Even if you believe that, would you at least concede that she's being asked to not "tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth"?

(Is that not the oath?)

She would be being required to omit some of the whole truth, contrary to the oath.

Damn, I just scrolled up and saw DdraigGoch ahead of me, but it's worth restating.