Male abuser denied help because lover is non-gender, in the Times

[Igneococcus]

In Scotland, I'm not sure I understand it fully:
www.thetimes.co.uk/article/1cdfbfac-f63b-11eb-8f01-2c678acbb979?shareToken=8fa2365793d73c17f8778e876b8fa8ce

I know I'm being incredibly naive, but I'm hoping it's because they want to ensure he goes to prison.

It isn't absolutely clear from the article whether he is going to prison, although that is the logic of the fact that the programme is an alternative to prison.

However, I doubt his victim did this to ensure he went to prison, because if the court was astonished to realise the effects of their actions, the victim may have been equally surprised. (But perhaps this person is unusually sharp or well-connected and did indeed know this would be the outcome.)

@InspiralCoalescenceRingdown

So you can now come out trans, that changes your partner's sexuality without their consent, and that is enshrined in law?

Good grief.

It is a different version of the trans widow effect and at the heart of the misunderstood veto.

So you can now come out trans, that changes your partner's sexuality without their consent, and that is enshrined in law?

I don't know whether the definition of sexuality is enshrined in law or not.
The programme is only available for male-against-female abuse, which it was (stupidly) decided didn't apply in this case. The programme doesn't itself make a judgement about the definition of sexuality (although it's true that according to TRA ideology the man wasn't in a straight relationship). It makes a judgement about the gender identity of the victim, presumably.

Sexuality or sexual orientation is covered under the Equality Act, perhaps the judge needed direction, as they often do in my experience.

www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/12

Sexuality or sexual orientation is covered under the Equality Act, perhaps the judge needed direction, as they often do in my experience.

I am not absolutely clear that the decision was the judge's - I think the decision might have been that of the rehabilitation programme.

Either way, I don't think it was a case of someone illegally saying "you're not heterosexual and therefore can't enter the programme".

I think it was rather a case of someone saying, the programme is for male abusers plus female victims - and your partner no longer identifies as female - therefore you can't enter the programme.

I don't think it is necessarily illegal for the programme to cater solely to a combination of male abusers and female victims? (The problem here isn't that, but rather the fact that the victim was incorrectly judged to be nonfemale.) But if it is illegal then I'm not sure whether the judge could have used this case to make an order against the programme or whether a separate legal case against the programme would need to be brought.

This case of male violence against a woman will also be obfuscated in the data. Scotland gets a reduction in cases of MVAW without any changes in reality. And a man does not get treatment and (non-binary) woman does not get support. Specialist services dealing with male (sex) violence against women (sex) are necessary. The idea this is not a heterosexual couple is nonsense.

So the abuse still happens despite her identity & because of her sex , but she gets no support and he gets no treatment because of her identity and despite her sex ?

And this new data will be used to justify removing sex specific refuge, rehabilitation services

Perhaps they were worried the victim would report them for a hate incident if they said she was a female heterosexual?

But what but what

Headfuckery of the highest

Ahh, it seems like he was wanting to use this to get a sentence reduction. Looks like gender ideology has scored an own goal here. Maybe he'll have to serve that prison sentence for domestic violence after all.

Crap that she doesn't get any support though.

I discussed rehabilitation with someone who runs courses like this for prisoners a year or so ago and she was saying that it’s hard to serve a broad church because things like sexual orientation, gender-identity and kinks can make the content less applicable and less effective (though effectiveness is questionable anyway, I believe).

If the partner’s status as non-binary was a part of what attracted the man to them in the first place (even if they weren’t openly non-binary at the time) maybe the people running the course saw it as less likely to be applicable or saw potential for there to be a negative impact on others in the same cohort. I could also see that non-conformity could provide a loop-hole that could be used to try to escape responsibility and for that to throw the cohort off track as the facilitator tries to deal with it. So I can see how it might not be an appropriate course.

Interesting.

1. This will also mean that gay men and lesbians cannot access this. S much larger group
2. Male abuse against women is way more common and has s specific power dynamic
3. Also if a woman abuses s man can't go either
4. Presumably a decision based on numbers v cost
5. Due to different dynamics experiences etc in ideal world there would be appropriate support for all
6. Note this is only about this initiative not DV support in general
7. Does it work? Couldn't find much. Alternative to prison so it's fairly serious abuse. Is this appropriate? Abusers can be v manipulative.

'The scheme, which has been backed by Edinburgh Women’s Aid, is an alternative to prison, but not to prosecution. If the programme is breached then the perpetrator will find their case returning to court.'

1. Do the rules mean gay men lesbians etc convicted get prison while het men can get this? And so be more likely to keep jobs etc?

So many questions...

Surely "non-binary" is meaningless in law? Or have I missed some Holyrood batshittery?

I have not read the responses in this thread yet. The news article makes no sense at all. Are the legal minds involved in this case really stupid? Unless this woman has a GRC, it doesn't matter if she identifies as non-binary or a turnip. She has a sex which is female, and her birth certificate will confirm this. The couple are still in a heterosexual relationship irrespective of what one person identifies as.

@334bu

So the Scottish Government is no longer content with redefining what a woman is, now they are redefining our sexualities. No wonder Humza couldn't tell us how many sexes there are! 🤡

The Scottish Hate Crime Bill redefines sexual orientation.

The Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Act 2021, Part 3, Section 14, subsection (6) states

A reference to sexual orientation is a reference to sexual orientation towards -
(a) persons of the same sex,
(b) persons of a different sex, or
(c) both persons of the same sex and persons of a different sex.

Don't forget the woman being beaten by this man, who, by opting out of womanhood, will not be able to access the services provided to women by this scheme.

Gender worshippers will say this is why the programme should be open to all genders (which inevitably means the women in the programme will have to attend alongside males and not just females identifying as something else).

@InspiralCoalescenceRingdown

So you can now come out trans, that changes your partner's sexuality without their consent, and that is enshrined in law?

Good grief.

It's not clear, but I don't think that's the case. The programme is for heterosexual couples, and I suspect the court is following some Stonewall or other trans lobby guideline that says gender identity should be prioritised over the reality of sex. Instead of everyone involved using their brains and saying this is a case of male violence against a female, they are tying themselves in knots pretending this woman isn't a woman.

[quote Chickenyhead]Sexuality or sexual orientation is covered under the Equality Act, perhaps the judge needed direction, as they often do in my experience.

www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/12[/quote]
The Equality Act only applies to civil law.

Criminal law uses a separate set of legislation and definitions, although I'm assuming the definition of sexual orientation is the same at the moment, unless changed by stealth over the years. As far as I'm aware, only the Hate Crime legislation has redefined sexual orientation and it doesn't apply in this case. But I have zero legal expertise.

@TheWeeDonkey

And this new data will be used to justify removing sex specific refuge, rehabilitation services

Yes! This is the most likely scenario.

Rather than have different sets of programmes to cover male/female relationships and male/male relationships, what will happen is that the female side of the programme will have to include males as well. (I can't imagine there would be many instances of male/female relationships where the female was the physical aggressor, but I suppose in theory the programme would have a separate session for that.)

Why have a scheme aimed at heterosexual couples? Why not have a scheme aimed at abusers (of whatever sex/gender) instead?

This statement from his solicitor advocate has to be one of the most ridiculous things I’ve read:

“But it transpired that it only applies to heterosexual relationships. I explained to the sheriff that it seemed bizarre. My point was that domestic abuse is domestic abuse.”

He added: “I argued that he should be eligible to be put on that programme. But the answer came back that it was a no and that was basically it.”

So the man’s legal representive is so cowed by all this nonsense that he can’t even argue using the logical point that this is, by definition, a heterosexual relationship. He has to fall back on arguing the more difficult point that the scheme should apply to all domestic abusers. This is where we are. A Scottish lawyer can’t even state the straightforward truth to help his client.

And of course it’s Edinburgh rape crisis. This is the end point of inserting men who claim they are women into positions that should be filled by women who understand the dynamics of domestic abuse and understand the part played by sex in that system.

I want all this to end. Men are not women. Insanity that there are places in the UK (and other supposedly civilised countries) where it is no longer acceptable to say so.

@NumberTheory

I discussed rehabilitation with someone who runs courses like this for prisoners a year or so ago and she was saying that it’s hard to serve a broad church because things like sexual orientation, gender-identity and kinks can make the content less applicable and less effective (though effectiveness is questionable anyway, I believe).

If the partner’s status as non-binary was a part of what attracted the man to them in the first place (even if they weren’t openly non-binary at the time) maybe the people running the course saw it as less likely to be applicable or saw potential for there to be a negative impact on others in the same cohort. I could also see that non-conformity could provide a loop-hole that could be used to try to escape responsibility and for that to throw the cohort off track as the facilitator tries to deal with it. So I can see how it might not be an appropriate course.

I agree. As ‘non-binary’ isn’t recognised in law, I don’t think this can be about legal definitions.

However, I do think it’s possible that the course may not be designed to accommodate somebody who doesn’t acknowledge that their partner is female.

These kind of courses are - like refuges and DV services in general - are having to fight to be commissioned by authorities. The work they do is based on research into heterosexual couples so they are likely to not have the materials and research base to adapt and to some extent funding is based on results - if people who have done perpetrator courses return to court then it says the courses don’t work. And it is a group process - a group of men who work together to unpick and question their offending behaviour. You can easily imagine how the group could be derailed by one special person popping up at every moment by saying ah but my relationship was NB and then the rest of the group stopping to find out what they means and how its dynamics work. And then no one addresses what is common to whole group.