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?

The whole thing is wrong. As a victim or witness of a crime you have to describe what you see and if you see a male you need to able to describe what you saw in those terms - because that is what you witnessed/experienced. The perpetrator might have presented in a typical masculine way. One of the things the court has to establish is that the person in the dock is the perpetrator - this is not a given. If not, then who knows what the ‘preferred pronouns’ are? If they didn’t transition until after the crime then you are using the correct pronouns for the time? If the judge directs you to use ‘she’ instead of ‘he’ could the accused appeal on the basis that the judge was pre-judging that the accused was the perpetrator before hearing the evidence? What about the jury trying to make sense of this, not knowing the sex or gender of the perpetrator or accused?

Can't you refer to the complainant or the witness and just keep using those words?

I think in writing one should add the acronym (WMBO) (who must be obeyed) after every preferred pronoun.
Especially on Mumsnet discussions.

What if a rape victim just said she'd taken her oath to tell the truth and she feared perjuring herself by using she, her and hers when talking about the man who raped her?

Would any judge really encourage or insist on perjury from a plaintiff?

I suspect most judges - most people - experience the same cognitive dissonance the rest of us feel looking at some of the police mugshots out there and trying to think 'she' about them.

It's one thing politely and considerately agreeing to use everyone's preferred pronouns at work and in social contexts; it would be rude not to. But your rapist? It shouldn't be asked.

Holy moly this is all a bit complicated isn’t it. I’m glad I don’t have to directly deal with any of this.

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

You could also just keep saying ‘the defendant’ or ’the complainant’ etc

Sorry didn’t see Fannys post that wasn’t there when I started writing that.

Would it be contempt to say, for example, “I was approached by a person I perceived to be male, wearing a flowery dress”, for example, and thereon refer to ‘he’ when referring to ‘the person who approached you’. If the judge then directed you to use ‘she’ - I think you’re correct that the judge is therefore implicitly accepting that ‘the person that approached you’ is the same person requesting pronoun compliance in court. However - that fact may not be in dispute - the person in court may admit to being ‘the person who approached you’, but dispute the events themselves.

At some point we are going to have to have a huge debate on this alone, because what they are asking, predominantly, women to do is lie about material reality in court.

It's predominantly women, of course, because it is predominantly men that commit crimes worthy of court.

In Maria MacLachlan's case she was told to refer to her attacker as 'the defendant' as an alternative to using his preferred female pronouns. She slipped up a few times due to the stress of giving evidence in court and the judge criticised her for occasionally referring to her male attacker as 'he'.

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

If this is the case, then we have reached "Peak 1984" where a judge can put you under oath and force you to perjure yourself.
We all know that this tipping point has now been reached.

Perjure - wilfully tell an untruth or make a misrepresentation under oath; commit perjury.

This:

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.

Could you use the preferred name and pronouns but with heavy incredulous/sarcastic inflection?
'I met "Olivia" [do air quote marks] and "she" asked me'.....etc etc.
Can tone of voice be a crime?

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.

That’s a very good point. I wonder what the judge would say if you pointed that as a Christian who has sworn on the bible, you would find it extremely distressing to be expected to then, as fair as your faith goes, lie about what you have witnessed. how would he/she answer that.

I believe a judge in America has compelled a father to call his young trans-identified daughter 'he'.

I couldn't and wouldn't be forced to say my daughter was my son.

Of course I don't want to hurt my child so I use their new name and 'they' when communicating with them.
I can just about cope with the cognitive dissonance by doing this.

However, if ordered to say my son, or use 'he, his or him' - absolutely not. No matter what the consequences.

I conceived, gestated and gave birth to a human of the female sex and that is my lived, physical experience. It can't be changed. And I would suffer extreme mental anguish if I was being compelled to lie about this reality.

Reality cannot be ignored, no matter how 'kind' we're told to be. Respect for each other's reality and feelings has to go both ways.

Wasn’t that Canada - and he was threatened with something like GBH if he called his child by the correct sex? The US case is a messy divorce where the mum (a doctor or psychologist?) demanding that the child is a girl but dad demanding the child is a boy.

Thanks Frontpaw

No parent should be pitted by the state against their child in this way. It's beyond cruel for both parties.

On both cases it reads like Kafka novel.

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

Can a judge direct you to perjure yourself by saying something you know is not true?

These days? Probably a flogging and three days in the stocks. Honestly, it's been one long ride down a slippery slope ever since they made it illegal to hurt someone else's feelings.

How awful about that child in America. I can't even imagine how terrible their dad must feel.

Can tone of voice be a crime?

I expect so. File it under 'funny looks', another one of the non-crime hate incident type of things. (I believe the perception of the Victim of the non-crime is the thing, as in - if the Victim feels that hate was a factor, that is what makes it a hate crime. Or - non-crime, but subject to police visits, etc. Hope that's cleared that up!).

Presumably, as PP’s have said, if someone refuses after being ordered by a judge they could be held in contempt of court. Interesting to know what would happen next, and whether the judge’s instruction could be legally challenged.

I've just watched Posie's latest video, and she discusses Scottow's case.

I know no offence was intended here, but I’d like to suggest those of us supporting her call her Kate. Or Kate Scottow if needing to specify the case. She’s a fellow MNer and friend to many on here; it’s fine to be on first name terms like we are with Posie et al

'What is a Hate Incident?

A Hate Incident is any non-crime incident which is perceived by the victim or any other person to be motivated by hostility or prejudice based on a person's disability, race, religion, sexual orientation or gender identity or perceived disability, race, religion, sexual orientation or gender identity. [unless it's motivated by hatred of women, of course, they don't count!]

Examples include:

Verbal or online abuse, insults or harassment, such as taunting, offensive leaflets and posters, abusive gestures, dumping of rubbish outside homes or through letterboxes, and bullying at school or in the workplace.

A hate incident doesn't mean that we won't take it seriously if someone reports it.'

www.westyorkshire.police.uk/advice/abuse-anti-social-behaviour/hate-crime/hate-crime-hate-incidents

So really absolutely anything at all could be classed as a hate incident if anyone perceives it as such.

I've said this on another thread and another autistic poster said a similar thing, and I think that for many autistic people generally we can find it difficult to knowingly say things that we believe to be false. I cannot envisage a situation where I'd be able to call a person by the pronouns associated with a particular sex if I knew that they were not of that sex. The only way I can see myself doing it is with using air quotes or something that would be bound to get me in trouble, so I suppose I'd side step it as much as I could.

I guess if the court ordered you to say "she" and you kept saying "he", you could be done for contempt of court? But I don't think they could do anything if you used "the defendant" etc to get around it.