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?

[thebewilderness]

Didn't say in defense of themselves.
TW admitted they punched Maria but said it was in self defense of their friend.
I do not think self defense works that way.

[SusanBunch]

It does. Sorry, you are right, TW was relying on the defence of defence of another. That’s also a defence and very similar to self-defence and again, TW did not admit to the crime in question although admitted the punch. Admitting the punch is obviously fundamental to the defence but it’s really not the same as a guilty plea.

[thebewilderness]

Thanks for clearing that up, Susan.

[ArtemisRhodes]

cromeyellow0

You make three excellent points. Perhaps you should be helping the women who are drafting the letter to the judicial complaints board? If you wish to, pls email [email protected]

[ArtemisRhodes]

cromeyellow0

"Does Tara Wood have a GRC?" DEFINITELY NOT,

"If TW does, we wouldn't be allowed to say so by law, under the EA(2010)"

The question is whether he has a female birth certificate. HOW COULD HE WITHOUT A GRC?

We are dealing with an anarchist who lives his life between squatting, protesting, hating the pigs and taking swipes at women. I can't see him being too interested in legal niceties.

Definitely has not "lived as a woman" for two years, though he claims to have been taking oestrogen for 2 years.

[cromeyellow0]

Thanks @ArtemisRhodes, I've already contacted CATT and signed the letter--which is very nicely drafted!

[HebeMumsnet]

Morning, folks. We've had a couple of reports about preferred pronouns on this thread so just wanted to pop by to ask you to use someone's preferred pronouns where possible - we tend to think it's good manners and best practice to 'go high'.

We do recognise that on discussions like this it can seem a bit tricky or paradoxical, but please do your best. Using initials is often a solution that should allow a discussion like this to continue without causing offence.

[0phelia]

I completely agree that if you really can't bring yourself to use wrong pronouns then just use they or put initials. It makes the same point without misgendering.

Can I just say thanks for such an interesting thread particularly SusanBunch.

[TheUterati]

MNHQ

As I understand it, it is permissible to state that 'transwomen' are not women, ergo they are men.
In the English language, the pronoun we use to refer to men is 'he', not 'she'

To then enforce the requirement that in respect of any one member of the set of 'tranwomen', who it has already been agreed that we can refer to as not women, ergo men, as 'she', when that is their stated wish, is entirely illogical and gaslighting. Language is important and actually means something. Language is not used accurately and meaningfully when its use is dictated on the basis of 'not upsetting people'. Reality is reality. Scientific fact is scientific fact. 'Good manners' is gaslighting.

[TheUterati]

Why is 'misgendering' someone a more egregious insult that the incorrect use of language to refer to a man as a woman merely because he wishes it so? I, and many other women, are grossly insulted every time a man is afforded the 'courtesy' of this lie. A lie which reifies his delusion, states that he is a woman, and which participates in the agreement that there is such a thing as 'trans'.

We are back to where we were a couple of years ago during the first wave of Spartacus, when we were told that to 'misgender' someone was unacceptable and would result in deletions and an eventual ban.

[AssignedPuuurfectAtBirth]

It isn't misgendering anyway. Pronouns are based on sex, not gender. 2 sexes. Gender is bollocks.

And there is NO WAY I am being forced to say all the Ze/Zir crap. Because, that's what's coming next. We will be told it's cruel to non binary people to use he or her.

Fuck that. Define yourself on your own time and stop wasting mine

[ErrolTheDragon]

I try to avoid pronouns on these threads - it's usually possible. However, I realised that on one, without thinking about it, I referred to Debbie H. as 'she' - So...turns out I'm perfectly happy to use pronouns corresponding to 'gender' for transwomen who understand the difference between sex and gender, but not for any who try to conflate the two (or deny the primacy of sex entirely).

I won't use a pronoun which implicitly supports a false assertion.

[HairyBallTheorem]

Hebe, I discussed this point specifically with Justine on the "Spartacus believes in biology" thread I started. I pointed out to her that there were circumstances (such as D. Muscato inviting women to "suck my dick" on International Women's Day) when the personal became the political - in that it was impossible to discuss the political/legal point at issue without using the correct words. Justine conceded that there were such cases (which she also, reasonably IMO, said needed to be considered case-by-case by the mods).

This is exactly such a case. Maria MacLachlan was attacked by an individual who has since been convicted of her assault by a court of law. At the time of the assault, this individual was dressed in gender-neutral clothing (I, like everyone else in this debate, I would imagine, have seen both the stills and video footage of the attack). Maria experienced the attack as being punched in the face by a man. She was then told by the trial judge to refer to her attacker as "she".

This sort of gas-lighting matters. It matters politically and legally because Maria was instructed by a judge to perjure herself. In practical terms, it matters because it adds an extra layer of "language-policing" to the ordeal of giving evidence in court, meaning witnesses are more likely to get confused/make minor errors in telling their story/come across as less convincing, which then gives juries (fortunately this was a magistrate's court) more grounds for reasonable doubt. One of the recurring themes of this section (see discussions of rape cases) is that the criminal justice system is stacked against women, giving far too much weight to men's voices. This is another example of doing just that, another example of weights being added to the supposedly balanced scales of justice, weights which only ever seem to go on the male side of things.

I'll now put my next point in a separate post...

[HairyBallTheorem]

With this in mind, I feel that we (and most importantly Maria) should be able to say:

Maria was attacked by a man. That man may, for all I know, very sincerely wish himself to be a woman. He may even, for all I know, mistakenly believe himself to be a woman. But he is not. And it is important to justice that the woman he punched in the face is not forced to describe him as "her" when giving evidence. It is important that she is not forced to lie, or forced to "beat about the bush" avoiding pronouns in her testimony in such a way that her testimony thus becomes confusing and therefore seems less convincing.

I repeat from the earlier thread - I would not dream of "misgendering" someone in RL who had done me no harm (important caveat) or draw attention to their biology, because that would be unkind. However there are legal and political contexts where one should be allowed to tell the truth, not obfusticate it with made up language to avoid hurting the feelings of someone accused and convicted of a serious crime.

[Ineedacupofteadesperately]

What I don't understand is why are the perpetrator's desires / beliefs / feelings MORE IMPORTANT THAN the victim's belief and experience? It boils down to this. Because Maria experienced a physical assault from a man and believed her attacker to be a man (presumably based on the secondary sexual characteristics they exhibited such as bigger size, myscle mass etc).

The ONLY possible explanation I can come up with us that the perpetrator is a biological male and Maria is a biological female. Which rather makes the attempt to force her to use preferred pronouns against what she thinks is the truth and normal usage of English a nightmare worthy of Orwellian fiction.

[Ineedacupofteadesperately]

They are not being treated equally by the law as I see it.

[TheUterati]

Well said Hairy.

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. It is not the case that they are entitled to this 'courtesy' up to and until their behaviour means that this should be withdrawn. They, individually and collectively, have no right to claim on womanhood full stop. It is not that they do have a right that their beliefs should be respected in some circumstances (where they behave 'well') and not in others (where they behave 'badly').

Cases like Danielle Muscato are merely the reductio ad absurdum. If any of them are entitled to 'she', then all of them are. If some of them are not, then none of them are.

YY Hairy - the personal is political. And language whilst it refers to reality, and we have the reasonable expectation that we can use language to accurately so do, in this case it also shapes our concepts and our thoughts. The drip, drip, drip effect of calling even the 'nice ones' 'she' cannot and should not be underestimated.

Those who wish to do so, for whatever reason, clearly are free to do so. Those of us who strenuously object to this, should be free to use language accurately, without sanction.

[Hypermice]

I have three main issues here. Firstly, it’s lying.

Secondly, it skews the perspective of the court. Imagine in your mind two scenarios: in one, a woman hits another woman. In the other, a man hits a woman. In scenario two your mind is subconsciously evaluating the size and strength differences between the assailant and the fact that this will probably hurt more. by referring to the assailant as she the court is exposed to a bias, which acts in the defendants favour

Thirdly, it disadvantages the witness. Testimony in court is frightening for the average person. To then put them under further cognitive strain by making them change pronouns when this does not come naturally can reduce the fluency of the testimony.

So by using the female pronoun, the judge is actually disadvantging the defendant and biasing the court.

Thoughts?

[Winewinewinegin]

Sounds right to me Hypermice

[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.

[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.

[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'..............

[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.

[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.

[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.