Judges advised to reject rape defendants’ chosen pronouns

[hholiday]

About time! Archive link here from the Times - sorry if this has been posed elsewhere: archive.is/Q1HVg

And The Times link here: www.thetimes.com/uk/crime/article/judges-advised-to-reject-rape-defendants-chosen-pronouns-3n89qr2q2

Bump

About time indeed. Absolutely appalling mess.

Oh dear it seems that non binary identities aren't valid after all 🤭🤭🤣

Thanks for posting.

Ridiculous that this was ever a question. The definition of rape under UK law requires a penis. Anyone with a penis is a man.

Any decent person has been disgusted by rape victims being further abused by the ‘justice’ system, when they are forced to pander to their attackers’ wish to be addressed as a woman.

Thank god the ugly stupidity of forced pronouns has been rectified in the instance.

Can we now expect to see trans prisoners in Scotland transferred to men's prisons now? The article said that they have a softer regime, but in light of the SC case, how can that be legal?

Hopefully the colonies follow suit soon.

Another positive step to celebrate 🥳

I hope there will be redress for the women previously forced to be further traumatised by the justice system in court.

Good point. It can’t be, can it? It discriminates against other biological men in male prisons.

This bit:
It makes clear that trans women must not be sent to female prisons, telling judges: “Presumption that trans women, including those with GRCs, with birth genitalia and/or any sexual-offence history should not be in the general women’s estate.”
is not great, though.

Despite that first sentence, it doesn’t make clear that TiMs must not be sent to female prisons. It seems to be fine with the practice of TiMs being kept in the female estate separately to the general population and it leaves a space for some TiMs who have had surgery to be placed with women. I know there aren’t many, but would have been much happier if it had said something like “Trans women, even those with GRCs who no longer have their birth genitalia must not be placed in the women’s estate.”

Excellent news about time 👏👏👏

I can't see the archived article for some reason.

If I have understood from the comments correctly, a judge should use bio pronouns for a (male) defendant accused of rape? What if they are cleared of the crime? Do they revert to preferred pronouns?

It's not and it's one of the things that sex matters say that they'll take the Scottish government to crt over

Ah, it's working now. Can answer my own q: it looks like it is all 'judge discretion'. Very blurry line between treating someone as innocent until after judgement, whilst suspending their 'right' to preferred pronouns. But IANAL; maybe there are other areas in which the 'rights' (or perhaps social norms is a better term) are suspended for defendants?

It is up to the judge’s discretion whether to use a trans defendant’s preferred name, pronoun or gender and it must be based on ensuring a witness can best give evidence. It says: “A female rape victim may find it incomprehensible if the judge and others refer to her biologically-male attacker as ‘she’.”
Non-binary pronouns are “not a legally recognised social category” and judges “should exercise their discretion whether to use these non-standard pronouns”.

Wonder whether this would stretch to non-criminal, non-rape cases e.g. Beth Upton? Certainly very confusing to witnesses to refer to BU as she, given the premise of the tribunal.

"The section on trans people was rewritten following the landmark Supreme Court ruling in April that the legal definition of a woman is based on biological sex and that the concept of sex is binary."

Thank you again For Women Scotland!

(I thought there was a Mumsnet User Name ForWomenScotland that I could tag but apparently not).

Another slap across the face with a wet kipper for TRAs claiming that the Supreme Court judgement was only about very, very few teeny-weeny things - and totally genocidal at the same time, of course.

Yes, that seems slightly concerning to me - it suggests that legal people don't see the SC judgment as meaning absolutely no TIM in single sex spaces.

About bloody time. I hope the crappy gaslighting BBC update their guidance too.

Finally common sense and truth returns to the law courts. I will forever be bewildered as to how this situation ever arose.

Is there a link to the actual guidance?

There was a high court ruling several years ago (so pre the recent SC case) that found having TiMs in women’s prisons was bad for women but a proportionate means for a legitimate aim. Don’t know if that still stands in the light of the SC case.

That's amusing. Oz and NZ and Canada are totally captured. Canada has MAID too - which we are now taking on here. That won't end well, either.