What can courts legally do if someone refuses to use preferred pronouns?

[GeordieTerf]

I've just watched Posie's latest video, and she discusses Scottow's case. Posie mentions that Scottow was instructed to use female pronouns for Stephanie Hayden, which she did. However, Posie says that if it was her, she would refuse. I know that other women, such as Maria, had also been told to do this.

I don't think it's come up yet, but what could the courts legally do if someone refused to do this?

Interested to hear this.

Surely they already did it? Kate Scottow was convicted and fined for using male pronouns. That sets a precedent for the penalty that can be expected if you don’t use someone’s preferred pronouns.

I would be concerned by the conflict between "I swear by Almighty God that the evidence I shall give shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth" and using a pronoun that the witness believed to be untrue.

Dont think the court was high enough for precedent to be set.
I think a higher court will take a different stance. Also, while you cant force someone to say something, you can punish a person for saying something iykwim. That's if the law recognises that a crime has been committed, which I dont think they will ultimately.

The other problem is how this would be applied to certain types of people? How would this work with an autistic person? A person with dementia? A small child?

(Please note, I am not meaning to offend anyone here. I realize that most autistic people and those with dementia etc. are able to remember preferred pronouns. I am just trying to think of examples when it wouldn't be 100% practical.)

Kate Scottow was convicted and fined for using male pronouns.

This is not how the GRA was intended to be used.

When the Gender Recognition Bill went through the House of Lords the Minister in charge (Lord Filkin) said:
"The noble Baroness also asked whether people who refuse to call a gender-changed man by the changed gender would be open to action. No, they would not, unless they had information about the person's gender history in an official capacity and they disclosed it otherwise than is allowed for by Clause 21". [Hansard, Lords, 29/01/04 col 411]"
publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200304/ldhansrd/vo040129/text/40129-24.htm

Generally we don’t remember pronouns, we just look for visual cues about gender and apply a grammatical rule. Nowadays it’s a memory feat to recall preferred pronouns for everyone, and it’s particularly difficult if it’s someone I’ve known for a long time who’s recently changed their pronouns. I find it quite worrying as I don’t want to be criminalised for making a mistake.

I imagine we shall soon find out.

Wasn’t Maria threatened with being found in contempt of court?

Down the rabbithole. I would what would happen to a court interpreter if they used the wrong pronouns?

I would just refer to them as ‘that person’ or by their name. By fuck would I be bullied into lying about someone’s sex.

Wouldn't the equality act mean you had to under gender reassignment?

You’d probably be convicted of being in contempt of court.

If you clearly explained the conflict you felt about making a witness statement that did not tally with what you perceived to be reality, it would make an astonishing news story. If you were convicted and punished, I think the public outcry would be huge, especially if it was a case where are violence towards a woman was involved.

It would take ovaries of steel though.

If you legally have to use them they are not preferred then are they? As in its no longer 'i'd rather you use this'? It's 'you MUST use this or l'll do what l can to destroy you pronoun'.....

If the judge directed you to use them then it would be contempt of court to continue.

Would it be contempt of court to avoid pronouns altogether and refer to the person by name though?

If you read Knowles' full judgement on Harry Miller, you'll see that he declares his intention of using terms and pronouns to match biological sex, just for clarity.

I think that is a very helpful precedent for any well-intentioned person who slips up by misgendering a friend, colleague, defendant or complainant in any context.

I suspect it may also enrage the TRA lobby and become a central plank in any appeal against the JR finding.

I was surprised to see it and I hope it stands unchallenged; we'll have to wait and see.

Can they just use the persons name? I assume if they have legally changed their name then that’s not an issue but if they haven’t then that could be an irritant I suppose (and not ‘being kind’).

I think the guidance comes from the Equal Treatment Bench Book. The solution here is to get the guidance amended.

I'd happily call a male 'Tiffany' or whatever he wished and simply avoid pronouns altogether.

It's easy rephrasing to avoid pronouns when you are typing a post online and can take time over it but it would take tremendous presence of mind and self control giving evidence orally in court. I would like to think it's what I would do but I doubt I could reliably manage it.

I think it's easier that making your voice say she when you are looking across at an obvious he.

I couldn't do this. I'd have to speak very carefully and use the person's name every time a pronoun was required.

I think that in the current climate a judge might believe that the use of 'he' was intended to be abusive or inflammatory, even if used in a completely neutral, factual fashion. I can see the grounds they'd use for instructing someone not to say 'he'. I can't see that they could insist on the lie 'she' instead, though, if the speaker is trying to avoid pronouns altogether.

I have no problem with calling a man Stephanie or Lily or Sarah. Change your name to whatever you want. I'm not going to call a man 'she', though, because it makes me complicit in a lie.

Can you refuse to speak? If they insist on enforced lying, are they allowing you to use lies as part of your evidence? Can it be a two way street?

Or maybe insist on writing out every answer, and having your lawyer read it through to make sure it wasn't 'inflammatory'?

How can we use malicious compliance against this?