Court and enforced use of 'preferred' pronouns

[AssignedPuuurfectAtBirth]

I am still aghast that Maria McLachlan was repeatedly instructed by a judge to use female pronouns for Tara Wood, who had assualted her at Speakers' Corner.

Tara Wood is scientifically male.

Maria McLachlan was instructed to do this, by a Judge, while under oath to tell the truth, in a Court of Law.

What would have happened if Maria had refused to do it on account of it not being the truth?

Anyone know the legal position on this?

[YouStacey]

So if a woman is raped and the man who raped her with his penis then decides to identify as a woman it is expected that the raped woman will refer to her rapist as she when giving evidence? Nice.

[FredNerk]

Ungraceful.

A woman referring to the man who beat her as the male he is, is called ungraceful.

Women are, as always, expected to smile and nod and not hurt the feelings of the men who abuse us. Be nice, women. Better yet, be silent, be compliant. Never disobey your masters.

Between this and handing out a fine, this judge has his misogynist colours nailed to the mast, doesn’t he?

[MsBeaujangles]

susan, when I use pronouns my default is to base them of sex. With trans people, I override this (through conscious effort) so I acknowledge there gender identity.
However, if I am talking about their sex, my speech would sound ludicrously incongruent if I used female pronouns. Hence the need to switch.

[JiminyBillyBob]

A victim does not owe her male attacker a courtesy, least of all one which goes against her beliefs and the truth


This.

[kesstrel]

All or nothing isn't how human psychology works. With reference to the issue of cognitive load referred to above, the more cues there are that point to an individual being female (appearance, manner, actions - eg not punching someone) the lower the cognitive load of using a female pronoun becomes, and the less likely it is to create a high burden of distraction to mental processing. ("cognitive load" is the term for a psychological concept that has had a lot of research).

[SusanBunch]

I do get what you are saying Beau but I still find it inconsistent to say that you will call someone a woman until they start displaying male behaviour. I think it has to be all or nothing. It’s also hard to define male behaviour. Violence is not an exclusively male trait and nor is entitlement. If people are saying that it’s deeplt damaging to their sense of truth to use female pronouns then that has to go for so called ‘trans allies’ too. Except many won’t do so because that would upset said trans allies and be a sign of disrespect.

That means that we are in a situation where it’s clear that the pronouns he and she are not neutral- they have some meaning behind them and misgendering has some impact. And then you can’t argue that you are being totally inoffensive by ‘calling a spade a spade’. Because if that was what you truly believed, you would call Miranda Yardley ‘he’ too, but nearly everyone here is prepared to call her ‘she’.

It’s difficult to discuss this in the context of a victim and defendant. Obviously emotions will run high and a victim won’t be wanting to bend over backwards to please her attacker. But in the broader scheme of things, this discussion shows that you can’t on one hand claim that you will always stick to biological truth when you don’t do that for the small group of trans people who happen to have the same view as you. It has to be all or nothing.

[MsBeaujangles]

Once again, it seems as if a distinction needs to be drawn between sex and gender. Where sex is important to a given situation, people want to be able to discuss this. In the case of male patterned behaviour or inequality between the sexes, people will feel unable to communicate this if they cannot describe the sex of someone.

I don't have an issue with preferred pronouns in day to day situations and I have never knowingly misgendered someone?

I do have an issue with how equality is monitored and catered for. To do this, we need to disaggregate data in relation to sex and gender in order to ensure we monitor and act upon inequalities for females, males and trans people (crime stats, longevity of life, involvement etc).

If I were talking about (or believed I was experiencing) male pattern violence and inequality of power as a result of being female in relation to an individual, being forced to call the male 'he' would further increase my experience of power inequality.

A previous poster brought up people's willingness to use preferred pronouns for a well liked transwomen on this board. If this transwomen started to demonstrate male pattern behaviours that serve to undermine females, or used their strength and size to intimidate a female or was violent towards a female, that would probably change. Especially if people made connections with the behaviour and the person's sex.

[RedToothBrush]

I can not use preferred pronouns. Not because I am being disrespectful or wish to cause distress, but because its for my own psychological well being. I use they, because it is neither giving power to someone nor taking away from me.

The way we relate to other people is important. Pronouns represent more than just being polite.

The question, do you have any brothers or sisters represents this well to me. I find it hard to answer. The politically correct answer is I have a sister. But if I say it, people start to talk about their relationship between them and their sister or how their children interact together. I can not relate to that. If I say the biological answer that I have a brother, people do the same but my experience isn't like that either. Its not a question about how many siblings you have, its a question about how do I relate to this person. My childhood and how I was raised with a brother does not change. Using the 'correct' pronouns based on either sex or political correctness is insufficient to convey my reality of experience and the nature of the relationship. You can not switch it off nor change it. Even if you want to.

Saying my sibling is trans allows me to relate properly and for others to understand me. If my sibling finds that disrespectful, thats tough.

I think people feeling ok to call Debbie Hayton has a lot to do with reference points and DH acknowledgement of the problem and what issues it throws up. Hayton isn't perceived as a threat to the social dynamic of how you relate to others and define yourself. Ultimately Hayton understands the importance of sex to women's identity.

This is why I find the judges position distressing. I think Maria was right to challenge it. Should she have persisted in using he? Thats probably where I differ in opinion and think she should have gone neutral, though I understand the point about wanting to make a point about male violence and power.

I do not believe you can separate pronouns and power as concepts. They are intrinsically linked. I think this needs to be recognised properly rather than the screaming of 'hate speech'. It is important to both the giver and the receiver. It does not always come out of hate nor even a lack of acceptance, but a need to acknowledge the elephant in the room and how there are differences. Differences can be neutral - neither good things nor bad - they just 'are' sometimes.

[womanformallyknownaswoman]

To me, this ideological insistence of being coerced into acknowledging something that is a delusion is the MO of a cult not of a functioning democracy. There has been no national, open discussion about this issue.

Social media is not representative of public opinion nor a safe place to host such a discussion. I note THECULT is trying to confine discussion to SM as they can orchestrate the mind control tactics that dominators thrive on there. Not so easy in real, public life.

[HairyBallTheorem]

That's an entirely spurious analogy, Supermatch

It's the difference between a witness being allowed to use the N word in their testimony (unacceptably racist) versus describing the person they saw fleeing the scene as being black (which presumably would be an entirely factual description useful in context to distinguish them from other people who had been in the vicinity).

Similarly, it would be outrageous if a witness were allowed to refer to a defendant as a T*y (that would indeed be transphobic), but forcing, say, a rape victim to refer to the person with a penis who had forcibly penetrated her as "she" during her testimony would be preventing her from giving a factually accurate account of what had happened.

Or perhaps you're okay with forcing rape victims to refer to their rapists as "she"?

[SupermatchGame]

Give me one other example where people are forced to change their language - apart from meeting the Queen perhaps.

Anne Marie Morris has been forced not to say N** in the woodpile. We would be forced by a court not to say the N word as well.
Tim Farron was forced to say being gay is not a s**, even though he believes it is, because it is totally incompatible with the career he wanted. (OK, not compelled but it had life changing consequences).
You can be arrested for telling a police officer to f off.
You can't call a disabled person a c***e

I guess the world is putting pronouns in the same category now.

[thebewilderness]

The courts systems were designed to enforce the dominance and submission paradigm. They are functioning as designed.

[SusanBunch]

Your honour

That’s the accepted social way of referring to a judge. No cognitive load would be increased and no penalty would be forthcoming for a nervous witness who used any form of polite address like sir/madam in their testimony instead.

To be pedantic, in the lower courts, the correct form of address is Sir/Madam and not Your Honour. The judge in this case was a District Judge, so Sir. Completely off topic, I know.

It's very difficult. For those who object to using preferred pronouns, I think it has to be all or nothing. Surely it's just as much of a lie to use them towards old-school transsexuals like Miranda Yardley as it is in respect of Tara Wolf? Otherwise you would surely be suggesting that having surgery in fact changes a person's sex? So I think whatever position you take, there should be some consistency.

[Hypermice]

Have you ever heard ‘Just a minute’ on the bbc? It’s a comedy panel show where ‘The object of the game is for panellists to talk for sixty seconds on a given subject, "without hesitation, repetition or deviation"‘

So any errr... ummm.... gets beeped and you lose. A very simple thing to do you’d think but contestants rarely get through the minute because the cognitive load of policing your language while trying to talk about something is actually really high.

This is effectively what's happening in court, except it’s not funny.

[Hypermice]

Your honour

That’s the accepted social way of referring to a judge. No cognitive load would be increased and no penalty would be forthcoming for a nervous witness who used any form of polite address like sir/madam in their testimony instead.

The problem comes when the object of the address and the term used to address them are at such odds that the witness must consciously think about how to address them and if there are consequences if they fail to address properly.

It’s more analogous to the judge holding the witness in contempt if they call him sir rather than your honour.

[LouiseCollins28]

@womanformallyknownaswoman
Great username btw!

Just as an example since you asked for one where someone's language must be changed.... obvious one really but , doesn't everyone in court refer to the Judge as "Your honour?"

[womanformallyknownaswoman]

RE pronouns - No one should be compelled to use words they don't want to - it's coercion and that's against the law in the UK. It's against the laws of free speech that been weaponised against women and children. It's a gross violation of our autonomy.

Where else does this apply if not in the effective mind control and hence subjugation of women? Give me one other example where people are forced to change their language - apart from meeting the Queen perhaps. Name me one other example where people are forced by the court to lie in court. This mindf* re gender and pronouns is not only grossly offensive to women, it's mass coercion and Mao-ist. Next they'll be telling us what we have to wear and where we can and can't go - that's happening covertly already. Policy by stealth - like stealthing in rape - it's a gross violation without consent. It's disgusting.

[womanformallyknownaswoman]

This is really not what our court system is for.

Actually I think it's been designed for exactly that and is a useful weapon for abusive men and their enablers to carry on the harassment and male violence, even after the woman has said no/left/ reported him - whatever - it's weaponised effectively and it seems all too well designed for that purpose.

We have been duped very effectively….

[TheUterati]

What bothers me, as well as the stuff below, is the way this allows the perpetrator to use the court to continue control the victim.

Exactly.

And on a wider level, policing our language here on MN such that we are forbidden to accurately use language to refer to someone's sex, allows TRA to continue to set the agenda, set the permissible terms of the debate, to control how women are permitted to talk, and to force us to agree that these individuals are entitled to be referred to in public as women.

This is the case even though MNHQ individually and collectively are not part of TRA. (And I hope it is obvious that I am not trying to imply that!!)

Consenting to 'preferred pronouns' AKA lying comes with a cost.

[RosenbergW]

TheUterati

I, and many other women, are grossly insulted every time a man is afforded the 'courtesy' of this lie

This is exactly how I feel about it, and I don't understand why we have to prioritise not potentiallly offending a public figure who is not even reading here over offending multiple women who are here and have said outright that this insults us.

[TheCountessofFitzdotterel]

What bothers me, as well as the stuff below, is the way this allows the perpetrator to use the court to continue control the victim.
Suppose a woman refuses to call you 'she'? Simple, punch her and then she will go to court and the judge will make her for you - or she will decide not to report for exactly this reason and the judge will make her for you.
This is really not what our court system is for.

[Hypermice]

There is a wealth of scientific work on cognitive load which says that keeping ‘a thing in mind’ like that alters your performance.

You also only have to look at the way woman-woman fights are spoken of rather than a man punching a woman to see how inferring the assailant is a woman could reduce the seriousness of the ‘feel’ of the crime. Punch vs bitchfight. Punch vs slap. Blow vs smack. One conjures up the image of a big bloke hurting a woman and he other is a hair pulling comedy trope. How would that affect a jury (I know there was no jury in this case.)?

Language is important and I expect the courts to be precise in their use of it. I also expect them to treat defendants fairly.

[SomeDyke]

"Although I disagree that it needs to be considered on a case by case basis. These men are not entitled to force inaccurate use of language on others on the basis of their 'preferences' full stop."
As regards courts, I would distinguish between what the officers of the court are required to do, and what those giving evidence etc are required to do are two different things. The officers of the court are the representatives of the state, and there in some sort of official capacity, so I don't have too much problem with them using someones preferred (or legal) individual name if possible. Although obviously issues if the name someone wants to use conflicts with documentation. But names are individual to that individual. But pronouns? Nope. That refers to something outside of yourself, membership of a class of people, so if we decide that pronouns are to be based on sex, OR (as will happen to many people), will refer to gender of your name, or your assumed sex, then I don't have a problem. It's the difference between how you perceive or name yourself with your individual name, as compared to how others perceive you.

And when it comes to someone giving evidence (as I have done, it is really scary! Even with three degrees in science/maths subjects I found someone saying 'I put it to you that....' a confusing form of question.) -- you are trying really hard to state precisely and exactly what happened. So, if I'm wibbling because I want to say 'he punched me' because at the time when the punch occurred I definitely perceived the attacker as being male, then it would be extremely detrimental to my ability to give evidence if the judge kept hassling me to refer to them as 'she'. Indeed, from a psychological point of view, I wouldn't be surprised if saying something you knew to be a lie whilst trying to tell the truth would be damaging, or make you sound less truthful when you actually were, or indeed just make you disbelieve what you were saying yourself even when you knew it was true!

The state should not require us to lie, especially when not lying is an essential, if not totally key part of the process going on! Unless they really want to change the oath to 'the whole truth unless the judge tells me otherwise'..............

[Ineedacupofteadesperately]

Agree Hypermice, agree completely. And as I said before, it assumes that the perpetrator's feelings are more important than the victim's experience and lived reality. Which is a massive, massive inequality and as you say is disadvantaging the witness.

I think asking someone to go against a whole lifetime of using 'he' to address people who present to you as male is a BIG ask. It's like asking someone to randomly use 'an' instead of 'the' - you'd really struggle to do it for any length of time. If it was someone I really liked I'd try but only if they, in turn, realised what a big ask it is and that I'm struggling with problems too ( a non-sleeping 1 year old) and saying ANYTHING coherent is a bloody struggle, so if I get it wrong I don't want to be accused of literal violence thanks... the accommodation needs to be two way and it isn't. In this case it's so off the wall skewed as to be barely believable.

[Winewinewinegin]

Some of this depends on the dynamics of the case.

There will also be cases with transmen and cases where transwomen are the one on the prosecution side.

Number one seems like a universal issue though.