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

Calling the rapist she makes this sound like a crime by a woman.

We don't want mens crimes.

This is a really important point.

The truth thing is a tricky one. Truth is a rather open-ended concept; it is 'truthful' that this person has asked to be referred to by X name and Y pronouns. Their sex at birth is a reality, which is subtly different. So I'm not sure that it's necessarily a legal closed loop.

The defendant in this case does not meet the legal definition of woman. They meet the legal definition of man. Calling them a woman is a lie.

OK. Then if there's a base legal definition, surely they will be able to refer to the accused as male in a legal setting?

(Finicky point. In Scotland, we don't use the term 'defendant'. That's an English law term.)

Yes, I think there is perception and fact and the two may not always match exactly.

In the case of a witness giving evidence in a court though, they are required to describe the experience they directly went through. Each step or stage has to be based on the facts that they knew at the time therefore a woman being assaulted by a young man should be entitled to refer to him as such. His internal sense of self is not relevant to her experience.

OK. Then if there's a base legal definition, surely they will be able to refer to the accused as male in a legal setting?

sorry previous cross post.

This question is answered in the judges Bench Book which was drafted with the help of an organisation that is being kept secret for an undisclosed reason.

It seems to be a trans lobbying organisation because it is so biased towards every comfort for trans people including everyone in the court being required to use ‘preferred pronouns’ regardless of how long the defendant has been identifying as female (quite a few seem to realise for the first time once they are in custody) and ignores any requirements the victims or witnesses may have for not having their language or evidence coerced.

Several foi requests have been made for the disclosure of the organisation that dictated the rules for judges which border on the ridiculous with their captured language but all have been refused. In the interests of open justice in the UK and transparency if the court process, this is odd.

How far would you take this?

As already explained your understanding, and the judges, ignored a lot more that preceded this case. Choosing to ignore all of Hewitt's previous behaviour and focussing on Maria's perfectly legal actions beforehand as being unwanted because 'hurty male feelings'.

Are women always to be second to this? Or just the ones that get punched?

Whereas he just wanted to punch a terf - and had said so immediately prior to doing just that.

You may think you have a point but it amounts to demanding that women play nice whenever men demand it.

I will admit to some complex and mixed feelings about this.

As I said upthread, my rapist wasn’t even investigated, let alone charged or tried. Hand on heart, I would willingly have referred to him as a fucking animatronic dolphin if it had allowed me even the tiniest chance of my day in court and a potential conviction.

I understand and respect that for a lot of you, this is a hill you would die on. It isn’t the case for me, personally. Maybe my judgement is skewed and I’m so overly desperate for justice in my own circumstances that I’m projecting onto this situation. I don’t know. As I say, mixed feelings. And sad ones.

She was being deliberately provocative and trying to make a wider political point, and the judge was just trying to get through their duty list and see justice done. The court isn't there for people to soap box.

Oh of course not, The court isn't there for the victim to make a political point that she is required to misgender her attacker. It's simply there to further the cause of the attacker, the feelings of the male come first. Gotcha!

The court isn't there for the victim to make a political point that she is required to misgender her attacker.

Sorry that should have said required to lie about her attackers sex in the name of Gender ideology.

What a load of bollocks.

Women mean nothing.

How dare a woman try to highlight the misogyny of the court system?

A further concern in these cases has got to be an element of misleading and confusing the jury.

I can envisage a scenario where a victim is standing in court, recounting her experience. She may be describing a tall, strong man who easily over-powered her and forced her to the ground aggressively, before then going into further details of the attack.

The jury may then be looking over at the defendant and seeing a very gentle and feminine looking lady called Sue.

Where does this sit on psychological and sub-conscious impact to the jury?!

To add to your point lifeturnsonadime if the court isn’t there to be a soapbox then why are people being compelled to speak in ways that adhere to how a certain section of the population wish? It should be a neutral environment without political posturing surely.

It’s very much a ‘ soapbox’ for gender identity politics, yet it’s not allowed to be when women wish to exercise their own beliefs, and observations of the facts in front of them.

Thanks this is entirely what I meant.

I mean how dare the court system penalise a woman for highlighting in public that she was being compelled to lie about her attackers sex?

It matters not a jot that it was not specifically for using the pronouns or whether it was for videoing it. The judge was sending a message to women not to complain about it to an audience.

Fucking outrageous.

This kind of thing makes me so angry, especially the apologists who try to say she was making a political point and this is not allowed. The court was making a political point in the fucking first place!

Agreed! And correctly stating that a person is a man or a woman shouldn't be seen as a 'political point' either!! Babies and children can accurately sex a person from 6 months old. Are they making a political point simply by behaving as humans do as they age?
What if a child is reporting a sexual assault - are they to tiptoe around language too?

What if a child is reporting a sexual assault - are they to tiptoe around language too?

Presumably, they are taught all about preferred pronouns from a very young age.

www.genderbread.org/

Being an example of a resource some schools use.

And that man dressed in a school uniform outside schools that the police has said is harmless that was subject to a thread today , goes to show how far children are expected to either turn a blind eye to, or be complicit in a man's sexual kinks.

www.mumsnet.com/talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/4724126-to-think-that-a-man-standing-outside-a-school-in-girls-uniform-is-not-ok?page=1

This thread filled up quickly but there were plenty of posts on their which were minimising this man's actions.

Seems unlikely. A tall strong man acting as a woman will just look like a tall strong man in women's clothes with make up. He won't suddenly look feminine just because he says he's a woman. Unless you think make up and clothes is what makes someone feminine

Yeah. You’re right. So let’s just hope a jury can see past the disguise.

This thread filled up quickly but there were plenty of posts on their which were minimising this man's actions.
You’re joking? What reach is someone going to when they look to give a completely normal, innocent explanation for a man dressed up in a uniform hanging around a school?

What reach is someone going to when they look to give a completely normal, innocent explanation for a man dressed up in a uniform hanging around a school?

Well the thread is there to see - www.mumsnet.com/talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/4724126-to-think-that-a-man-standing-outside-a-school-in-girls-uniform-is-not-ok?page=1

But, as some posters pointed out, the fact that a man in men's clothing would be moved on but a cross dresser isn't in 2023 isn't that surprising given that cross dressers come under the trans umbrella (Stonewall definition) and therefore have a free pass to wear what they want, where they want with no recourse.

Thank you to everyone who has commented on this thread. It's such an important issue and although this would only have been discussed on the feminist board until recently, this issue has now impacted so many areas of life that it seems that many more women are well informed and prepared to discuss it without the fear of being called phobic.

someone asked if I was a journalist. I'm not. I'm a rape survivor as a teenager and I also worked for Victim Support for 9 years, running the training for their volunteers who would be supporting victims of rape and sexual assault. So it's something that matters very much to me and I really want to raise awareness that yes this is real, it is happening, it is the most appalling secondary victimisation which the criminal justice system is now inflicting on women, as if the system wasn't hugely weighted against women anyway, and although I don't know how the hel l to stop this, to wake women up enough to say, no this is wrong, and we 're not going to accept this!

I’m sure OP objects to rape as well. You’re really missing the point.

I've read the comments made on this and quite frankly some on you should be ashamed of yourselves.

No person giving evidence in court should be forced to do anything other than tell the court what happened from the victims perspective.

If you perceive yourself to be mugged, hit, raped, whatever by a MAN, then go through all the stress of the police the CPS decision, the wait for court.

Honestly when that day arrives trust me, you are struggling to say your own Fucking name, you are terrified this MAN is going to get away with it. You are terrified that you are going to have to face this MAN. You worry how this MAN'S solicitor is going to twist your words. You're sick at the thought of Fucking up, saying the wrong thing.

and some on here would have somone go through all that and then have to change HE raped me, HE a assaulted me to the DEFENDANT did that to me.

Piss off.

Every word of this.