If an abuser is on trial and claims to have transitioned.....

[FloppyHoldsNoTruckWithFrontedA]

What is the position in terms of whether victim has to refer to sais attacker as “she”?
Current position &Uk.

As far as I'm aware yes they do have to refer to them as she

I think I would try to refer to them as e.g. the person who told me they were David.

Actually, fuck that, I would be referring to him as him.

The relevant guidance is here:

www.judiciary.uk/announcements/equal-treatment-bench-book-new-edition/

In particular, the Equal Treatment Bench Book says:

It is important to respect a person’s gender identity by using appropriate terms of address, names and pronouns. Everyone is entitled to respect for their gender identity, private life and personal dignity. In this chapter, where we have needed to use an umbrella term, we have generally used ‘trans’ or ‘transgender’ in its broadest sense.

I do wonder though whether, when the guidance was originally being created, the ETBB was intended to create rules as to how witnesses were to behave in court. Has there been some mission creep there?

I think so. It would be a cold day in hell before I referred to a male who had assaulted me as "she", whatever the bench book says.

Certainly in previous cases it has been expected. But in light of recent events, I'm not sure the victim could or should be compelled to use language that doesn't fit in with their 'belief' (knowledge of facts is more appropriate). Particularly as this adds to the victims trauma. I wonder whether there has been some sort of takeover of language here actually, because it sounds entirely inappropriate to force the victim to do this.

Given that witnesses have to take an oath to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth - I have always wondered what would happen if one pointed out they were being asked to lie.

@teawamutu

Given that witnesses have to take an oath to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth - I have always wondered what would happen if one pointed out they were being asked to lie.

This is exactly what I would do.

It just becomes ridiculous. Is she supposed to say, a male bodied person with a masculine name and a beard approached me. This is the person now named Julie who is standing opposite me in a dress?

I would like to tell the judge that I refuse to perjure myself. I would like to refer to the attacker over and over again “that person sitting right there who assaulted me”. But in truth, I think I would be terrified and intimidated enough already and would do what the judge said, even though I would be furious with myself later.

murrayblackburnmackenzie.org/

It also skews data with Norway having a 300% increase in female sex offenders since self id.
The a above policy analysis group has done work in this and has a way for ordinary women to help with this on their website.
Also in Scotland it is still not clear whether a women victim might not be accused of a hate crime if she refuses to talk about her rapist as 'she'

@teawamutu

Given that witnesses have to take an oath to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth - I have always wondered what would happen if one pointed out they were being asked to lie.

Yes, I have often wondered if you can be found in contempt by being expected to perjure yourself. If I’m ever unfortunate to be in this situation, I will ask this directly of the judge.

I wonder if it would help to start by explaining that when you say "he" you are referring to the attacker's sex, and not their gender ID. That you accept their gender ID may not match their sex, but for the purpose of the trial you believe sex to be important. Especially in the context of a typically male-pattern crime committed by a male against a female where the sex of the victim was not accidental (ie sexual assault & /or because women are less likely to able to fight back). This is where misogyny being a hate crime might have helped.

My assumption has always been that the guidance on pronoun use is for officers of the court and this has become broadened to encompass everyone including witnesses. The fact that this interpretation is being maintained when it will be clear to all concerned that this is wrong is telling.

Thanks nauticant, I will pass this to the person who asked.

trying to find the passage within the bench guide and on my iPad I can’t search.
Would anyone be kind enough to identify the section?

Appreciate this.

Surely calling a male person by a female pronoun and name would subtly influence the jury, especially if the crime was sexual? They might come to think by having to use these terms the defendant was not sexually attracted to women or is somehow softer and more feminine (we are the sex constantly told to 'be kind') and thus less likely to have committed the crime.

Found it.
I’m reading Chapter 12.
It’s concerning: “gender assigned at birth”.
Haven’t spotted “cis” yet.

Has this been supplied by Stonewall? Do we know?

Hhhm I need Rowantrees.
I’m reinventing the wheel here.

Found this.

www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/warning-over-transgender-guidance-to-judges/5103196.article

However, LGBT pressure group Stonewall said: ‘The language we use is hugely significant, especially when it comes to trans communities who face high levels of harassment and abuse in their daily lives. Using a trans person’s correct name and pronoun is as important as it is for anyone else. This helps ensure trans people are respected and accepted for who they are.’

The Judicial College declined to identify the external experts and organisations that assist in training and formulation of policy. ‘It is not necessary or in the public interest to make public the names of all those involved in this work,’ it said.

Looks like another area that requires transparency and challenging.

Hhhm I need Rowantrees.
I’m reinventing the wheel here.

Yes

Neat way for the rapist to play victim in court and turn the victim of the crime into the bad person who is hurting their feelings every time she slips and says "his" penis, not "her" penis.

This has happened. Poor rapist. Never mind, off you go to mix with the already traumatised women in the women's prison, where you belong.

Have fun!

But perhaps the Forstater tribunal judgement has put an end to this nonsense for the victim and witnesses? I sincerely hope so.

Will keep this going as and when I can between work commitments.

It’s very important that the person who asked me gets an accurate and measured reply.