Gender Identity in Modern Ireland (Mod warnings and Threadbanned Users in OP)

JustAThought

[Deleted User] wrote: »

The Bench Book guidelines I linked to earlier compel all persons in UK courts, including the victim, to refer to the accused using their preferred pronouns. Thus will unfold unjust and immoral situations. Full stop.

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

And according to the same article this ‘guidance’ and ‘advise’ is being hotly contested by both LGT and Womens groups in the UK.

JustAThought

JustAThought wrote: »

And according to the same article this ‘guidance’ and ‘advise’ is being hotly contested by both LGT and Womens groups in the UK.

Yes, in spite of what it looks like on boards in terms of call outs etc, there are thousands and thousands and thousands of good people who are not laying down for this type of stuff. It is a huge movement from Iceland to Brazil to Australia to Ireland.
And most people are very happy to call people their preferred pronouns and many of the people fighting this stuff are transgender themselves - but all recognise there are vast incoherencies in this ideology and how it impacts the real world when applied without consideration for the rights and victimisation of others.

km991148

km991148 wrote: »

There is the person who abused me. She is accused of "<insert crime>". She was the victims step dad at the time (Historic). Again.. its probably not the most important detail in all of this and not particularly hard (especially for people on a forum commenting on the case..). I accept the victim has had a traumatic experience to deal with and I would assume the appropriate care is available to them. This would (in my mind) include minimising these courtroom debates.

For people who believe that woman means "adult human female" and man means "adult human male", and do not believe that male mammals can become female mammals and vice versa, the use of personalised pronouns is a courtesy. It may be a courtesy they would have no qualms extending to anyone under normal circumstances. But people will (obviously) take exception to being forced to show courtesy to a person who has raped or otherwise abused them.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

For people who believe that woman means "adult human female" and man means "adult human male", and do not believe that male mammals can become female mammals and vice versa, the use of personalised pronouns is a courtesy. It may be a courtesy they would have no qualms extending to anyone under normal circumstances. But people will (obviously) take exception to being forced to show courtesy to a person who has raped or otherwise abused them.

Very well put.

jam_mac_jam

I would imagine it adds to the trauma for the victim of they are corrected on their use of pronouns when describing their rapist.

Especially when they are not likely to think of the person as a woman if there was a penis involved in the abuse. Something that a lot of people would still think of as male.

It's all a bit Kafkaesque. Forcing people to use terms they don't believe in when they are under oath.

But maybe the rape victim should be kind too.

suicide_circus

There are four lights.

km991148

Deleted User wrote: »

For people who believe that woman means "adult human female" and man means "adult human male", and do not believe that male mammals can become female mammals and vice versa, the use of personalised pronouns is a courtesy. It may be a courtesy they would have no qualms extending to anyone under normal circumstances. But people will (obviously) take exception to being forced to show courtesy to a person who has raped or otherwise abused them.

Sticking a pin in the preamble with regards to sex vs gender, mammals, humans etc, (which I am not sure I (or the science for that matter) agrees with) - My main point was that under the current legislation it is not simply a courtesy. There has been a serious crime committed. I would prefer my legal system to provide justice for the victim and rehabilitation for the attacker. Not adding more misery to all those concerned over names and pronouns.

If you want to campaign for removing rights from those accused of crime, then that's a whole other topic. I think you would probably get a lot of support for it as well. Lets just number the worst offenders and be done with it?

km991148

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

I would imagine it adds to the trauma for the victim of they are corrected on their use of pronouns when describing their rapist.

Especially when they are not likely to think of the person as a woman if there was a penis involved in the abuse. Something that a lot of people would still think of as male.

I tend to think that filling the court cases with more noise over the name of the attacker than the absolute minimum would be more traumatic. Rather than getting to the more serious business of the crime itself.

But as is obvious, none of us are legal experts or (hopefully) haven't been involved or had to experience such a trauma. Its a truly terrible affair.

I am now curious how such testimonies are handled. Would the victim even face the attacker in open court? Would leeway be made if they accidentally used the wrong terminology (I would guess the authorities would have to be unbelievably cruel to hold someone in contempt in such a traumatic case).

This is what I mean about assumptions earlier by the way - there are a lot of details about court proceedings missing.

km991148

km991148 wrote: »

I tend to think that filling the court cases with more noise over the name of the attacker than the absolute minimum would be more traumatic. Rather than getting to the more serious business of the crime itself.

But as is obvious, none of us are legal experts or (hopefully) haven't been involved or had to experience such a trauma. Its a truly terrible affair.

I am now curious how such testimonies are handled. Would the victim even face the attacker in open court? Would leeway be made if they accidentally used the wrong terminology (I would guess the authorities would have to be unbelievably cruel to hold someone in contempt in such a traumatic case).

This is what I mean about assumptions earlier by the way - there are a lot of details about court proceedings missing.

Every single newspaper in Ireland recorded this case as sexual abuse of a child by a woman. She and her and woman were used throughout. That boy can see those newspapers. He can see the online reports. This is his life they are talking about. It is not just what happens in court, where the abuser was not only always referred to as a woman, she and her, but was also sent to the female prison.

km991148

km991148 wrote: »

Sticking a pin in the preamble with regards to sex vs gender, mammals, humans etc, (which I am not sure I (or the science for that matter) agrees with)

That's a lot to squish into the beginning of your post. Whew. But hey, if you have an example of a mammal that displays sequential hermaphroditism I'm all ears.

km991148 wrote: »

There has been a serious crime committed. I would prefer my legal system to provide justice for the victim and rehabilitation for the attacker. Not adding more misery to all those concerned over names and pronouns.

Sure, I feel the same. But the pronoun "thing" is a consideration because none of this is mere hypothetical. It's stuff that could and will happen in Irish courtrooms.

km991148 wrote: »

If you want to campaign for removing rights from those accused of crime, then that's a whole other topic.

Eh. I don't. I just tried to explain to you why someone might be retraumatised by, or take issue with, having to use the preferred pronouns of their formerly other-gender rapist in court.

GreeBo

It's a bizarre beyond belief situation.
When the victim is describing what actually happened, do they now have to substitute she for he? It would seem only logical that they use the pronoun that was relevant during the incidents?

km991148

Deleted User wrote: »

That's a lot to squish into the beginning of your post. Whew. But hey, if you have an example of a mammal that displays sequential hermaphroditism I'm all ears.

Doesn't matter how you phrase it, it just another long branch of already discussed to death "debate" that I can't really be arsed going over again and tangental to the the specifics of the court case that we are on about.

Deleted User wrote: »

Sure, I feel the same. But the pronoun "thing" is a consideration because none of this is mere hypothetical. It's stuff that could and will happen in Irish courtrooms.

Eh. I don't. I just tried to explain to you why someone might be retraumatised by, or take issue with, having to use the preferred pronouns of their formerly other-gender rapist in court.

yeah sure - but under the current system, which is there for the majority, the name of the person is the name of the person. I am not disagreeing that there could be further trauma - the whole things is absolutely awful for all those concerned. I just think (for the reason I explained several times now) that the system would be as well focusing on delivering justice ans to debate the current law in any given court case would cause even more trauma.

The only way to currently change this would be to change the law (i.e. to one which would make exceptions and to deny existing rights, whether you agree with these rights or not).

km991148

GreeBo wrote: »

It's a bizarre beyond belief situation.
When the victim is describing what actually happened, do they now have to substitute she for he? It would seem only logical that they use the pronoun that was relevant during the incidents?

One would like to assume there would be some discretion afforded when the victim of a serious crime is giving witness statement (mistakenly uses the wrong terminology) I asked this before but no one can really say for sure as its pretty obvious there are no legal experts around.

Probes

isha wrote: »

Every single newspaper in Ireland recorded this case as sexual abuse of a child by a woman. She and her and woman were used throughout. That boy can see those newspapers. He can see the online reports. This is his life they are talking about. It is not just what happens in court, where the abuser was not only always referred to as a woman, she and her, but was also sent to the female prison.

Why did you link to the only article which describes her as a transgender woman then?

Annasopra

fvp4 wrote: »

I think that a fairly high percentage of male sexual offenders in the U.K. identified as trans and were moved to a female prison. Also why do you assume that concern about this is faux?

I think it perfectly fair to highlight faux concern. I have highlighted at length in this thread how the concern for cis women prisoners rarely appears anywhere until trans issues get discussed.

One eyed Jack

volchitsa wrote: »

It’s also troubling that the court would choose to participate in a fiction that may increase the victim’s trauma and create a false impression in the jury’s mind. Because a woman did not rape the child, a man did. So the person should stand trial as a man. Seeing as he was a man at the time

The Courts are obligated to uphold the rights of those people accused of a criminal offence - due process, innocent until proven guilty and all that, and the reason why the accused must be referred to as their preferred gender is simply because it would otherwise prejudice the jury against the accused and may lead to a conviction being overturned on appeal. The second reason is that the alleged victim(s) in any case, appear as witnesses for the prosecution in their case against the defendant.

Court procedures have long established that a witness cannot refer to the accused however they wish. They may wish to refer to the accused as a complete scumbag in any case as that may be how they perceive the accused, but they cannot, or they may find themselves in contempt of court. As far as the Courts are concerned, the administration of justice means upholding the law and maintaining an objective approach to each and every case, as opposed to the idea of just seeking justice for the victims of crime. Otherwise, there would be no need for a trial if it could simply be determined that the accused is automatically guilty merely on the basis of an accusation.

The person stands trial as the defendant, whether they are a man or a woman is neither here nor there, the whole point of a trial is to determine whether they are guilty, as they maintain the presumption of innocence throughout a trial and therefore maintain the right to be referred to as their preferred gender. It’s not simply the notion that the Courts have no regard for the alleged victims of criminal offences committed by the accused in any case. It’s the job of the prosecution to prove the accused is guilty, the accused is never presumed guilty.

Annasopra

JustAThought wrote: »

And according to the same article this ‘guidance’ and ‘advise’ is being hotly contested by both LGT and Womens groups in the UK.

The LGB Alliance which is a transphobic hate group

Annasopra

Annasopra wrote: »

The LGB Alliance which is a transphobic hate group

No. It is not.

jam_mac_jam

Annasopra wrote: »

The LGB Alliance which is a transphobic hate group

Did they not just get approval to be listed as a charity in the UK. Seems strange if they are a hate group. Whatever a hate group means.

ingalway

GreeBo wrote: »

It's a bizarre beyond belief situation.
When the victim is describing what actually happened, do they now have to substitute she for he? It would seem only logical that they use the pronoun that was relevant during the incidents?

I thought you were supposed to tell the truth, the whole truth, in court?
When a male rapes/abuses someone, usually a female or a child, it is a complete lie to call that person a female in a court of law just because they tell you they 'feel' they are a woman.
Other than the actual abuse itself, going through a court trail is probably one of the most traumatic things a person will go through. It is an absolute abomination to add to that trauma to protect someone's feelings. This madness needs to stop.

Annasopra

isha wrote: »

No. It is not.

Its entire raison d'etre is about trans hate - nothing else at all.

Here we see the cofounder throwing all LGBT youth under a bus
https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/5207235/lgb-alliance-lgbt-clubs-schools-teachers/

Here we see the LGB Alliance hate group make ridiculously stupid claims that trans existence will make lesbians extinct
https://www.gscene.com/news/lesbians-denounce-lgb-alliance/

Here we can see all of the main reasons for their existence are about nothing other than opposing trans existence
https://medium.com/@mxfoxfox/yes-the-lgb-alliance-is-a-hate-group-4d0ea268f590

Here we can see a lot of their lies and transphobia debunked
https://gcn.ie/debunking-misinformation-lgb-alliance-ireland

Here and here we can clearly see that they ally themselves with many many people who are not only transphobic, homophobic and biphobic as well as linked to extreme religious conservatives
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/LGB_Alliance
https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2020/04/03/lgb-alliance-neo-nazi-homophobia-spinster-death-head-charity-commission/

_Kaiser_

This is why this identity politics stuff is so dangerous. The notion that you can muddy historical facts or genetic realities with potentially disastrous consequences for those around you because someone's feelings might be hurt is beyond ridiculous.

You can call yourself whatever you want, and believe yourself to be whatever you want to be, but it doesn't change biology or your past, nor should it be a case that everyone else must accept your perceptions beyond basic courtesy and a "live and let live" attitude.

It was bad enough when the US was consuming itself with this stuff and all the other social problems it has, but now it's spread to other Western nations where it (in the main) has no place at all.

Potential-Monke

Shouldn't come into a court case, which is about the facts at the time of the incident, not afterwards.

km991148

Potential-Monke wrote: »

Shouldn't come into a court case, which is about the facts at the time of the incident, not afterwards.

And again, I have yet to read or hear of anything that has anyone confusing the past with the present.

Probes

Has anyone actually got any evidence of the child being forced to call the offender by a female name or female pronouns? Does anyone actually know if the child even addressed the court or had to go to court, I would have thought children wouldn’t’ have to attend the court. There are such huge leaps in the thought process just to try and link transgender people with such a hugely negative situation.

One eyed Jack

ingalway wrote: »

I thought you were supposed to tell the truth, the whole truth, in court?
When a male rapes/abuses someone, usually a female or a child, it is a complete lie to call that person a female in a court of law just because they tell you they 'feel' they are a woman.
Other than the actual abuse itself, going through a court trail is probably one of the most traumatic things a person will go through. It is an absolute abomination to add to that trauma to protect someone's feelings. This madness needs to stop.

You are, that expectation doesn’t change based upon how the alleged victim feels either. It also doesn’t give witnesses the right to ignore the authority of the Courts. If a witness wishes to tank the prosecutions case against the defendant, it would be a poor prosecutor would want them to take the stand and allow them to tank the prosecutions case which is taken against the defendant on behalf of the State (or the CPS in the UK). The charges against an individual are based upon what the prosecution believes it can prove in each and every case, and that’s not limiting the fact that a defendant can appeal against the decisions of the Courts in any case on a number of grounds, such as the idea that they were treated unfairly -


A woman who wore a prosthetic penis and tricked her blindfolded friend into sex has been jailed.

Gayle Newland, 27, of Willaston, Cheshire, created an online persona pretending to be a man and continued the deceit for two years.

A retrial jury found her guilty of committing three sexual assaults, which she denied, using a prosthetic penis without her victim's consent.

She was jailed at Manchester Crown Court for six-and-a-half years.

Sentencing her, Recorder of Manchester, Judge David Stockdale QC, said: "Truth can sometimes be stranger than fiction.

"The truth, the whole truth, here is as surprising as it is profoundly disturbing."

He added: "It is difficult to conceive of a deceit so degrading or so damaging for the victim upon its discovery."

Newland was originally jailed for eight years in November 2015 after she was convicted of the same offences, which happened in 2013.

But the conviction was later quashed on the grounds the trial judge's summing up of the case was not fair and balanced.

During the retrial the victim, who gave evidence behind a curtain, told the court she was persuaded by the defendant to wear a blindfold at all times when they met.

She said she only found out she was having sex with a woman - rather than a man - when she finally took off her mask.

The victim told the court she thought she was having sex with Kye Fortune - a fake Facebook profile Newland originally created when she was 15 years old, using an American man's photographs and videos.

She said: "There was no point until the day I took the blindfold off that I thought for one second that a woman was the person behind this."


Prosthetic penis sex attacker Gayle Newland jailed


In November 2015, British Judge Roger Dutton sentenced a 25-year-old woman, Gayle Newland, to eight years in prison for pretending to be a man as a means of having sex with an unnamed woman of the same age. Newland had made her female victim believe that she was a man by means of deception and used the deception in order to have sex with her on more than 10 occasions, using a dildo. Newland's victim was shocked to discover that her "boyfriend" was in reality female, and testified in Chester Crown Court to a jury that she would have preferred to have been raped by a man.


Rape by deception

Probes

hansblitz wrote: »

Oh wow, I think people are getting stupider and stupider. Only 2 genders folks, male and female. No in betweens. That’s it, can’t pretend a man is a woman just cos he says he is, he’s still a man and always will be.

I think you’re confusing gender with sex and even then you’d be wrong. There are people who are born every day that don’t fall into the typical categorisations you’re giving.

Potential-Monke

hansblitz wrote: »

What in the name of good god is a cis woman?

It's the fancy woke term for biologically born female who is straight.

km991148

Potential-Monke wrote: »

It's the fancy woke term for biologically born female who is straight.

Why has everything got to be declared 'woke'.

Is it belittlement or genuine belief? I don't think it's 'woke', is it?

EddieN75

km991148 wrote: »

Why has everything got to be declared 'woke'.

Is it belittlement or genuine belief? I don't think it's 'woke', is it?

Why do women have to be called cis women?

They were always called women. Leave the name alone.