The addressing of people involved in a criminal court case.

political analyst

In a criminal court case, especially a rape trial, and especially in a common-law jurisdiction, is a complainant obliged by a court to refer to the defendant with the defendant's preferred pronouns if the defendant's identity is different from the defendant's sex, especially if the complainant is an alleged victim of rape or of any other sexual offence?

The following article was written by a Canadian lawyer.

https://genderreport.ca/shahdin-farsai-practice-directions-on-preferred-gender-pronouns-in-court-are-problematic/

Peregrinus

There's no hard-and-fast rule about this. Judges are generally in charge of what goes on in their own courtrooms. The judges of a particular court can make a collective decision about this (and from the article you link it seems that the judges of the Supreme Court of BC and the Provincial Court of BC have done this) but I think it's mostly down to the individual judge, and they won't lay down any rule at all about the matter unless and until it becomes an issue, and my guess is that when that happens they will lay down whatever rule seems most likely to stop people pissing about and enable the trial of the matter to proceed without bickering. "Refer to people by their preferred pronouns" looks like a pretty obvious rule to me, but I'm not a judge.

Whatever the rule is, there won't be one rule for defendants and another for everyone else. The defendant enjoys the presumption of innocence and has no greater or lesser right to a gender identity than the plaintiff, the witnesses, the counsel or the judge.

political analyst

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119773430#Comment_119773430

Although the article was withdrawn, after pressure from activists by the Canadian legal professional magazine that had originally published it, I suspect that the prospect of a judge in any jurisdiction forcing a rape complainant to refer to an alleged rapist who is trans with the alleged rapist's preferred pronouns is unlikely, given the public outcry that sexual offences often cause.

Here's a second article from the same author:

https://c2cjournal.ca/2021/05/compelled-speech-comes-to-b-c-s-courts/

In the second article, the author referred to the English case in which Maria Maclachlan, who was physically assaulted by a trans woman, was denied compensation by the judge for not referring to the assailant with the correct pronouns. However, the author also acknowledges that the Canadian context could be different.

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119776403#Comment_119776403

Witnesses appearing for the prosecution are not entitled to refer to the defendant(s) however they wish.

That’s an inaccurate representation of the position of the Judge in the case you’re referring to too -

Wolf was ordered to pay a £150 fine, a £30 surcharge and £250 towards costs.

However, Judge Grant refused to grant Ms Maclachlan any compensation, saying: "Compensation would not be appropriate, particularly due to the unhelpful way in which the victim was present [at the protest] and the way she was filming.

"She was asked at different stages not to film but continued to do so.

"Another factor I have to take in to account is the Twitter post that has been submitted that was posted after the case had been brought to the attention of the police and there were criminal proceedings pending.

"It was foolish of her to post that tweet in the way that she did.

"It was notable that when I asked Ms Maclachlan to refer to Ms Wolf as 'she', she did so with bad grace - having asked her to do so she continued to refer to Ms Wolf as 'he' and 'him'".

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/transgender-activist-tara-wolf-fined-ps150-for-assaulting-exclusionary-radical-feminist-in-hyde-park-a3813856.html?amp

Peregrinus

So, one of the articles by this person gets pulled by the journal editors, and the other - by your account - contains a basic misrepresentation of the facts of the case. I was neutral, but this triggers alarm bells.

I'd be looking for the view of others on this topic. This person may have an ideological axe to grind that makes her possibly not an ideal guide to the subject area.

political analyst

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119778024#Comment_119778024

The first article was pulled because, apparently, some lawyers who see themselves as allies of trans people thought it was transphobic but was republished on a different website.

Let's say for the sake of argument that some people say (and are telling the truth but no verdict has been reached yet) they were sexually abused as children by a person who was born male and identified as male at the time of the crimes but now identifies as a transwoman. The person is charged. If the complainants give evidence at the trial, it would be perverse to require them to address the defendant by the defendant's correct pronouns. If they were, there would be outrage.

Peregrinus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119779617#Comment_119779617

You can't expect the court to design their practice about this on the basis of "lets say for the sake of argument that the defendant is guilty but no verdict has been reached". Obviously, during the trial, no verdict has been reached. And, equally obviously, when no verdict has been reached, the court is not going to accept any position based on saying for the sake of argument that the defendant is guilty. You're on a hiding to nothing here.

Also, this is a side issue. The question the court is interested in is not whether the defendant is a man or a woman; it's whether the defendant is guilty of the sexual abuse of a child. The answer to that question does not depend at all, to the slightest degree, on the defendant's gender identity or on how other people feel about the defendant's gender identity.

So, if anybody is inclined to make an issue of this and the court has to adopt a rule, they will adopt a simple, one-size-fits-all rule that makes no assumptions about anybody's guilt and offers minimal opportunity for anyone to express their views about the wholly irrelevant question of anyone else's gender identity.

political analyst

Then I'll leave it at that.

political analyst

In the light of a controversial case in Britain this week, I think it's justified to resume this discussion.

The following recording of the Today programme (This episode was broadcast on 26 January 2023) on BBC Radio 4 is available for 4 weeks as of the time of this post.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m001hfp2

Nick Robinson asked Lord Ken Macdonald, the former DPP of England & Wales (2 hours, 51 minutes and 12 seconds into the recording) whether it's right for the criminal justice system to refer to a rapist as 'she' if that's what the rapist wants.

Macdonald thinks that shouldn't automatically be the case but that it's difficult to see how one could have a full assessment of the situation to come to a final conclusion about that in the context of a criminal trial. He suspects that what is happening is "the line of least resistance".

Macdonald also said that he's aware of one case in which the victim was required to refer to the rapist as 'she' in court - something that Macdonald said he found remarkably offensive.

AndrewJRenko

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119779617#Comment_119779617

The complainants wouldn't be addressing the defendants. They would be giving their evidence, not talking to the defendants.

o1s1n

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120166150#Comment_120166150

'referring to the defendant as..' rather than addressing directly.

Marcusm

I think it would simply be easier to continually refer to them as the perpetrator or defendant.

hullaballoo

This is really a social issue more so than a legal one but it is very exceptionally awkward when giving evidence of the nature required to prove a charge of rape (i.e. describing the act) while at all times trying to refer to the accused as "the accused" or "the defendant".

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120166129#Comment_120166129

In the light of a controversial case in Britain this week, I think it's justified to resume this discussion.

Nothings changed in terms of anyone’s right to be recognised as their preferred gender, but in terms of the provisions for anyone’s incarceration in England and Wales, I can see issues of human rights breaches which may arise out of the application of the new policy -

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/update-on-changes-to-transgender-prisoner-policy-framework

They will of course be fully aware of this case -

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-47334760.amp

political analyst

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120166161#Comment_120166161

In hindsight, I should have put the title as "reference to people involved ....".

But my point still stands.

political analyst

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120166650#Comment_120166650

It's a legal one in the context of a trial. To compel a complainant in a rape trial to refer to a defendant who allegedly committed the rape as 'she' if the defendant self-identifies as a trans woman is worthy of comparison to compelling Lindsay Armstrong to hold-up the underwear she was wearing when she was raped during cross-examination by the defence in the trial - and then she took her own life before the rapist was sentenced.

political analyst

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120166752#Comment_120166752

It's still connected to the controversial case that I referred to. In a case in which biological male commits rape and self-identifies as a trans woman, to require to the victim to refer to the rapist as 'she' is like compelling Lindsay Armstrong to hold-up the underwear she was wearing when she was raped during cross-examination by the defence in the trial.

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120166795#Comment_120166795

It is I suppose, I mean I do see where you’re coming from - from the witnesses perspective really. The key thing to remember though in a criminal trial is that the witness is never on trial, and the person who is on trial accused of committing a criminal offence maintains the presumption of innocence, which means they also maintain the right to be referred to as their preferred gender as part of recognition of an obligation to be treated with dignity and respect on the basis that regardless of their gender or sex, they are a human being,

TooTired123

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120166150#Comment_120166150

But the complainant being forced to refer to the defendant as “she” is simply disgusting and totally wrong. You agree, I’m sure?

TooTired123

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120166936#Comment_120166936

Would there ever be a situation One Eyed Jack where you would find it in your heart to have compassion for a biological woman instead of persistently doggedly giving the advantage to the biological male?

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120167776#Comment_120167776

I’m not sure what way you’re reading my posts but anyone, regardless of their sex or gender, regardless of my personal feelings on the matter, has the right to a fair trial. I’d rather a trial weren’t necessary in the first place because it’s an ordeal for the victims who have to give evidence as witnesses in Court, but if there has to be a trial, I’d rather it was a sound conviction which reduced the risk of an appeal on the basis that the accused did not receive a fair trial.

It’s not giving an advantage to the accused, regardless of their sex or gender, to uphold their right to a fair trial. I don’t think it’s quite as straightforward as you’d like it to be either. Consider for example the case of Gayle Newland who was convicted of three counts of sexual assault. Using I suppose the same line of logic that you’re suggesting, would mean that Gayle Newland should be accommodated with sex offenders in the male estate on the basis that she is a danger to women?

https://amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jun/29/gayle-newland-found-guilty-at-retrial-of-tricking-female-friend-into-sex

Compassion for the victims of sexual violence has its place, but it’s misplaced in terms of suggesting that sex offenders should be accommodated in the estate which is the opposite of their victims sex or gender. If that were to be enacted, far more female sex offenders would be housed in the male estate. I think you’d agree it wouldn’t be in women’s best interests to argue in favour of such an arrangement -

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-32085076.amp

Marcusm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120166650#Comment_120166650

I do understand that perspective. However, I suspect a woman who has had an organic object (ie a penis) unwillingly inserted in her would find it difficult to refer to the inserted as she/her!

Marcusm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120166936#Comment_120166936

There must remain a balancing of the human rights of both the accused and the complainant. I cannot see an issue with insisting that counsel and witnesses generally use the preferred pronouns but I think some additioanl consideration needs to provide to the complainant within respectful grounds.

TooTired123

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120167942#Comment_120167942

How about we just place biologically male offenders in the men’s prison and biologically female offenders in the women’s prison?

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120167964#Comment_120167964

Guidance from the CPS is fairly straightforward -

In accordance with the CPS Trans Equality Statement 2019 prosecutors should address trans victims, witnesses, suspects and defendants according to their affirmed gender and name, using that gender and related pronouns in all documentation and in the courtroom. However, as recognised in chapter 12 of the Equal Treatment Bench Book 2021, there may be occasions where it is necessary and relevant to the particular legal proceedings for a person’s gender at birth or their transgender history to be disclosed. In cases where deception as to gender is a live issue such disclosure will clearly be necessary. Prosecutors reviewing sexual offence cases involving trans people need to be aware of, and sensitive to, all the relevant circumstances. Prosecutors should avoid making assumptions and should ensure the police supply as much information as possible to properly inform their decision making and ensure that correct terminology is used for each individual.

https://www.cps.gov.uk/publication/deception-gender-proposed-revision-cps-legal-guidance-rape-and-serious-sexual-offences

I wouldn’t be advocating that the defence are obligated to extend the courtesy of agreeing with the complainants position who is accusing their client of a criminal offence. It’s an even worse idea than hoping to influence a jury by having the complainant explain their choice of underwear. That sort of behaviour could just as easily have the opposite of the intended effect.

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120167977#Comment_120167977

Knowing that rates of sexual violence are higher in the female estate than in the male estate, that’s not a good idea if you’re suggesting that compassion for their victims should dictate where sexual offenders are accommodated. I’d suggest that individual assessments which is the way it’s done now is a far better approach.

TooTired123

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120168049#Comment_120168049

A prisoner with a working penis and scrotum, a man, doesn’t belong in a prison cell/bathroom/dining area/recreation area with a biologically female prisoner.

In particular a prisoner with a penis who used that penis to attack a woman should only ever again be allowed in the company of biologically women or any children while supervised.

Im afraid you’ll have to…flesh out…a little bit more the argument you apparently have about this opinion, as so far you’ve failed to give any explanation as to why vulnerable women should have to accommodate the feelings of a man.

Where trans women ARE imprisoned is not and should not ever be the concern of biological women. If you think it should be, please explain how or why.

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120168252#Comment_120168252

That’s a third and entirely different argument you’re presenting now. First it was you asking me do I have any compassion for women. I pointed out that I have compassion for the victims of sexual violence regardless of their sex or gender.

Then you suggest it would be best to place female sex offenders in the female estate, and male sex offenders in the male estate, and I pointed out that knowing the rates of sex offences committed among women in the female estate are higher than in the men’s estate, that’s not a good idea if the determining factor is the sex or gender of the sex offenders victims - far more women would occupy the male estate, and probably 90% of the female estate would be men, given that the majority of their victims are young boys, males. That’s not to discount the possibility they are a danger to women, it’s just far less likely, and more likely that they would want to form relationships with women in prison in order to gain access to their children.

As to why vulnerable women accommodate the feelings of men, I’m still perplexed by that one myself having worked with many vulnerable women who weren’t too sure themselves why they formed relationships with men who treated them like they weren’t even human. One case that immediately comes to mind by way of example is this one -

https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-30957282.html

I don’t imagine women are a hive mind so there’s little hope you’ll have any greater insight than these women themselves could offer. When political analyst reminded me of the case of Lindsay Armstrong, I looked it up to refresh myself on the details, and it turns out his sister is quite a piece of work -

https://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/north-east-news/she-deserved-to-die-1559731

I couldn’t be sure if it’s because he’s her brother, or because he’s a man, or because she may bear animosity towards the victim for accusing her brother of rape is the motivation behind her actions. Then there was this case, and again, quite frankly, I can’t offer you any explanation for his daughter’s actions -

https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/daughter-asks-for-leniency-for-father-who-abused-her-29698987.html

I don’t think where anyone is accommodated, regardless of their sex or gender, need be ordinary people’s concern. It’s entirely the responsibility of the prison service to determine where prisoners are or should be accommodated, not just based upon their gender or sex, or the nature of their offence, but considering a whole range of factors, including religious affiliation, intellectual capacity, disability and so on. The idea of anyone being transgender applies only to a vanishingly small minority of sex offenders, and I can assure you that where they are accommodated is of no concern to me whatsoever. I do recognise however that prisoners are entitled to be treated in accordance with human rights laws, much as that may offend some people’s ideological sensitivities who imagine they should be able to treat other human beings however they wish. There are laws which prohibit that sort of behaviour.

political analyst

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120166150#Comment_120166150

What I had in mind was how the complainant refers to the defendant in the trial. In hindsight, I acknowledge that the title I created for this thread was inaccurate.

TooTired123

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120168421#Comment_120168421

In short, you find it nigh on impossible to bring yourself to face what everyone else, even the odious N Sturgeon, is accepting (thank goodness) right now.

That a person with a penis posing as an woman, especially a person who has raped a woman/women with that penis, doesn’t belong in a woman’s prison or anywhere else where vulnerable women and children are.

Undaunted you intend to stick to your theory that if a man says he’s a woman then women just have to sit down and be quiet.

And you’ll continue to spend hours on end typing long wordy paragraphs which say nothing really in order to avoid admitting that you were wrong.

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120168495#Comment_120168495

I’m somewhat relieved that at least it’s only words you intend to put in my mouth.

AndrewJRenko

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120168023#Comment_120168023

The OPs question was about the witness referring to the accused, not the prosecutor.

political analyst

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120168421#Comment_120168421

Having read the article about the Lindsay Armstrong case, I think it's reasonable to assume that the rapist's sister has the same point of view as the mother. The apple doesn't fall far from the tree.

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120168509#Comment_120168509

I understand that, and Marcusm’s point was about balancing the rights of the accused and the rights of the complaining witness. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to expect that the prosecution would be hoping their own witnesses wouldn’t tank their case against the accused by deliberately misgendering the accused at every opportunity.

TooTired123

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120168504#Comment_120168504

There’s many trans activists and allies on twitter, some of them for 8 hours a day but with all due respect, you are by far the most indoctrinated and delusional I’ve ever come across.

It’s going to be difficult for you all from here on in as more and more people wake up to the scandal of double rapists in cheap nylon wigs with their Crown Jewels bulging out of their Pennys leggings try to force their way into the women’s prisons, and any where else they can access vulnerable women, aided and abetted by politicians and journalists who are afraid of being labelled bigots.

I don’t revel in that. I think you maybe are coming from a kind place. You’ve just lost all sense of reality on this subject. Good luck finding your way back.

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120169720#Comment_120169720

As much as I appreciate the sentiment TT, I thought we weren’t doing this? Legal Discussion is not the appropriate forum for it in any case, where a certain standard of conduct is expected, and humour such as your caricature above of a person more likely to be found guilty of crimes against fashion bears no relevance to a person who is accused of committing a crime against society. There are far more serious implications for the latter than the former.

When it comes to people accused of sex crimes in particular, I care less about their gender or sex than I do about ensuring they receive a fair trial, as opposed to the idea of witnesses believing they have free reign of the Courts. That kind of behaviour risks not only the prosecution failing to make their case, it’s a distraction which is likely to lead to the Judge getting browned off if they have to keep reminding witnesses to conduct themselves appropriately, and it certainly doesn’t curry favour with a jury who are likely to end up becoming disinterested and failing to examine critical evidence which would ensure a successful prosecution.

We’re both aware of the dismal conviction rates for sexual offences, though I’m not sure if you’re aware of jury bias in terms of how a jury which is made up of a majority of women tends to deliver a favourable verdict for the defence in sex cases where the accused is a man and the complaining witness is a woman. It’s a phenomenon that’s observed across multiple jurisdictions, and while legal academics and researchers and psychologists have multiple theories to explain the nature of the phenomenon, the kind of biological determinism that you’re engaging in, isn’t one of them.

You have to wilfully ignore mountains of evidence in order to come to the conclusions you do about sex offenders and their victims, not the least of which is your caricature of what constitutes a vulnerable woman. One only has to look at a recent case where a woman fought the law, and while the law did win eventually, the officers involved didn’t come away unscathed from the encounter with a male officer being package checked and a female officer being kicked into the chest. It doesn’t mean the woman wasn’t in a vulnerable situation with five officers against one ordinary indecent criminal.

Similarly, in the context of women who are subject to sexual abuse, assault and harassment in the female estate of prisons where prison officers are primarily of the male sex, you appear to wish to ignore the wood for the trees and zero in on transgender sex offenders among the prison population. That you would then question my compassion for women seems a bit, well, dare I say - oblivious to reality.

In spite of that, and by way of returning the compliment, I too wish you well in your advocacy endeavours, in the knowledge that one of the first signs of cult behaviour isn’t that one loses their sense of reality, it’s that they lose their sense of humour, and thankfully at least for society at large, you’re nowhere near that point.

AllForIt

This thread highlights to me the utter lunacy of laws and social distain for 'misgendering', because that's just transphobia don't you know.

I think the law is very much muddled up on this from what I see in the press.

I've seen reports that say something along the lines of 'she raped her as a man' [before they transitioned], as if there is some pivot point that one turns from a man into a woman. But the trans activists say that trans people were trans from the day they were born, so at what point one 'realized' they were trans or at what point they decided to transition whatever form that takes has noting to do with anything because they were trans from the day they were born whether they have a dick or not.

If the state acknowledges one is trans they are saying they were always one gender.

In that case then the courts have to uphold that the victim refer to her rapist as a woman, and by inference say she was raped by a woman, that she was in relationship with woman, all done by use of pronouns. And if anyone thinks that the pronoun thing is all just about 'respect' you gotta be kidding me because it's not, it's about affirming ones gender, verbally acknowledging that you agree what the gender of a person is.

But a rape trial show up the absurdity of all that nonsense. It's not gonna work in the long term so I'm afraid it's back to the drawing board.

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120175726#Comment_120175726

A trial isn’t about the victim, it’s about the accused, who has the right to the presumption of innocence. What you’re doing is presuming the accused is guilty. You’re also assuming that by default the victim will have an issue with referring to the accused in accordance with their preferred gender. A trial isn’t about establishing or affirming anything about the accused’ gender or sex. It’s entirely about establishing whether the accused is guilty or not guilty (or in Scotland - a verdict of not proven exists, for now) of the crimes they have been charged with.

A victim is giving evidence as a witness in the prosecution’s case against the accused. If having to refer to the accused in such a manner as directed by the Court which they find objectionable is something they are unwilling to do, the witness can find themselves in contempt of court. There’s no need to go back to the drawing board, there are already established procedures to address those circumstances if they arise.

A witness who refuses to give evidence or testify, can also find themselves jailed for contempt of court -

https://www.scotsman.com/news/people/insight-forcing-rape-victims-testify-tips-scales-294688

political analyst

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120175993#Comment_120175993

That doesn't mean that the court has to add to the trauma that the complainant has.

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120177752#Comment_120177752

The Courts aren’t adding to anything, it’s also not the function of the courts to fulfil the role of victims support services -

https://www.gov.uk/get-support-as-a-victim-of-crime

AllForIt

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120175993#Comment_120175993

I think my point still stands even in the case the accused is innocent.

And if the accuser has no issue with using preferred pronouns out of respect I have no issue with that, although I'm sure there are a few feminists who would have especially in the case of a rape trial.

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120180218#Comment_120180218

I don’t doubt it A, but more mainstream feminists in the UK at least have much greater concerns than the use of anyone’s preferred pronouns at trial. They’re still reeling from the fallout of Dame Cressida Dick’s oversight of the Met Police and the many scandals involving the conduct of officers under her leadership, as well as her decision to abandon the policy of automatic belief of complainants in sexual assault and rape cases given the disaster that turned out to be -

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/police-ditch-practice-of-believing-all-victims-jsg6qd2ws

Only matched by the litany of disasters among the male police officers and their attitudes to women on display during her time as head of the Met Police -

https://www.newyorker.com/news/letter-from-the-uk/the-misogyny-that-led-to-the-fall-of-londons-police-commissioner

The current feigning outrage over pronoun use serves as nothing more than a political distraction from the fact they aren’t able to deal with a rather grim reality.

AllForIt

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120183221#Comment_120183221

The current feigning outrage over pronoun use serves as nothing more than a political distraction from the fact they aren’t able to deal with a rather grim reality.

I think another grim reality is that trans woman don't behave like women, and the only way they do is on an aesthetic superficial level.

This is why Nicola Sturgeon has had to backtrack on where trans prisoners are imprisoned because of that realization.

The current feigning outrage over pronoun use serves as nothing more than a political distraction from the fact they aren’t able to deal with a rather grim reality.

See this is the thing as above, it's not about the pronouns per se, because that's just superficial. They are just words. But it could be seen in a court of law that the fact a person demands to be deemed a woman that would take away from the statistical fact, indeed fact, that men are more prone to violence and sexual assault. People are often convicted on circumstance evidence and one of those circumstances is whether the accused is a man or a woman.

I'm not sure how the Metropolitan police takes more seriously an accusation that a woman raped a woman vs a man raped a woman.

Regardless I just find all the mind bending hoops you have to go through on this issue completely ridiculous.

If it were up to me I would amend the gender recognition laws and say that if one really has a gender identity (which is what the activists say, that everyone has!) and one clearly has a biological sex then BOTH those should be indicated on one's birth certificate. That would allow anyone to use whatever pronouns they wished as per their prerogative and take away the Left's outrage over this pronoun nonsense.

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120190262#Comment_120190262

Surely you mean men in that case? That men don't behave like women? They most certainly do, some of them anyway, and they have done for quite some time. So much so that what has historically been regarded as the greatest threat to civilised society, in the UK anyway, was the threat of homosexual activity among men. I'm guessing you've never had cause to wonder where the idea of 'mollycoddling' came from? During the 18th century at least, venues like Mother Clap’s Molly House and Miss Muff's Molly House were popular with men. In their enthusiasm to pass laws prohibiting a behaviour which was considered so heinous that it could not be spoken of among Christian men, they kinda overlooked women, for about 200 years -

The Sexual Offences Act 1967 made no change to the law regulating buggery committed between a man and a woman and, as a consequence, left in place the total prohibition of such acts. This was, at the time, regarded by some parliamentarians as an ‘extraordinary state of affairs, and one not less calculated to preserve respect for the law’.102 However, following the act of 1967, legislators consistently overlooked this aspect of buggery law because, as was often the case, buggery was mistakenly understood as a ‘homosexual offence’. This was probably also the case with the general public who, as Baroness Mallalieu argued in 1994, ‘are astonished to learn’ that consensual heterosexual buggery remained a criminal offence attracting a maximum penalty of life imprisonment.

Nicola Sturgeon hasn't backtracked on anything, she had her leash yanked by the UK Government, and with regards to the case in hand, she didn't say what she is reported as having said in certain media outlets - this one being a good example -

“But I don’t think Douglas Ross and I are disagreeing here, because what I think is relevant in this case is not whether the individual is a man or claims to be a woman or is trans, what is relevant is that the individual is a rapist.

“That is how the individual should be described, and it is that that should be the main consideration in deciding how the individual is dealt with – that is why the individual is in a male prison, not in the female prison, these are the issues that matter.”

And the thing is, she's absolutely right - she correctly identifies the individual as a rapist, removing all doubt as to whether or not they were in possession of the requisite appendage at the time when they committed the offences which they had been charged with. Whether they continue to maintain possession of said appendage, or have since disposed of it, is irrelevant, as a charge of rape can only be applied if the individual possesses the requisite appendage. Women can be charged with rape under UK law, but as an accomplice. Otherwise they would stand to be charged with sexual assault, and that's where there may be considerable difficulty if anyone is troubled more by the idea of ambiguity around a person's gender, or statistics regarding same in terms of criminal offences committed. Circumstantial evidence about the prevalence of men who are violent is easily rebutted by the fact that the vast majority of men do not engage in any form of violence, nor do the vast majority of women.

Regardless I just find all the mind bending hoops you have to go through on this issue completely ridiculous.

I take it you're not referring to me personally, because as far as I'm concerned it's not even something worth questioning in the context you're trying to put it in to suggest that someone who the law regards as innocent be deprived of their right to fair procedures, not because you're certain they committed rape or sexual assault (and even then it couldn't be justified), but because in your mind it would somehow assuage the Lefties outrage, when one thing really has nothing to do with the other. Besides, I don't think it would achieve what you're hoping it would, given the UK Supreme Courts recent ruling on a similar issue -

UK Supreme Court rules against gender-neutral passports

I don't have to jump through hoops at all.

AllForIt

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120193415#Comment_120193415

Surely you mean men in that case? That men don't behave like women? They most certainly do, some of them anyway, and they have done for quite some time. So much so that what has historically been regarded as the greatest threat to civilised society, in the UK anyway, was the threat of homosexual activity among men. I'm guessing you've never had cause to wonder where the idea of 'mollycoddling' came from? During the 18th century at least, venues like Mother Clap’s Molly House and Miss Muff's Molly House were popular with men. In their enthusiasm to pass laws prohibiting a behaviour which was considered so heinous that it could not be spoken of among Christian men, they kinda overlooked women, for about 200 years -

The Sexual Offences Act 1967 made no change to the law regulating buggery committed between a man and a woman and, as a consequence, left in place the total prohibition of such acts. This was, at the time, regarded by some parliamentarians as an ‘extraordinary state of affairs, and one not less calculated to preserve respect for the law’.102 However, following the act of 1967, legislators consistently overlooked this aspect of buggery law because, as was often the case, buggery was mistakenly understood as a ‘homosexual offence’. This was probably also the case with the general public who, as Baroness Mallalieu argued in 1994, ‘are astonished to learn’ that consensual heterosexual buggery remained a criminal offence attracting a maximum penalty of life imprisonment.

I take offence that anyone would think homosexual sex is akin to 'behaving like a women'. A gay man said to me once a man having sex with a man is the most masculine thing you can do. In fact part of the internal lgbt trans wars is due to the redefining of homosexuality as 'gender non-conforming'. Is it hell gender non-conforming. Last time I checked heterosexual sex does not standarly involve 'sodomy'.

Anyway you know perfectly well what I meant, and that is that men are more aggressive than women, sexually and in many other ways.

Nicola Sturgeon hasn't backtracked on anything, she had her leash yanked by the UK Government, and with regards to the case in hand, she didn't say what she is reported as having said in certain media outlets - this one being a good example -

“But I don’t think Douglas Ross and I are disagreeing here, because what I think is relevant in this case is not whether the individual is a man or claims to be a woman or is trans, what is relevant is that the individual is a rapist.

“That is how the individual should be described, and it is that that should be the main consideration in deciding how the individual is dealt with – that is why the individual is in a male prison, not in the female prison, these are the issues that matter.”

And the thing is, she's absolutely right - she correctly identifies the individual as a rapist, removing all doubt as to whether or not they were in possession of the requisite appendage at the time when they committed the offences which they had been charged with. Whether they continue to maintain possession of said appendage, or have since disposed of it, is irrelevant, as a charge of rape can only be applied if the individual possesses the requisite appendage. Women can be charged with rape under UK law, but as an accomplice. Otherwise they would stand to be charged with sexual assault, and that's where there may be considerable difficulty if anyone is troubled more by the idea of ambiguity around a person's gender, or statistics regarding same in terms of criminal offences committed. Circumstantial evidence about the prevalence of men who are violent is easily rebutted by the fact that the vast majority of men do not engage in any form of violence, nor do the vast majority of women.

You've made a bit deal between rape and sexual assault. To a woman what is the big difference here, very little in reality. Rape and sexual assault are violent attacks, so they are really the same thing and come from the same place.

Sturgeon has backtracked because now she's see's fit to regard a person a man rather than a woman when it's been proven they are of the same mindset of a male rapists. Lesbian rapists are not segregated away from other women prisoners. She is in trouble because it is only after the fact that a trans woman commits a sexual assault on a woman does she now recognize that a trans woman cannot be held in a woman's estate with women, because women don't want it. But she has legislated that those types of people can frequent all women's spaces before they have committed a sexual assault. Her position doesn't make any logical sense.

"Regardless I just find all the mind bending hoops you have to go through on this issue completely ridiculous" I take it you're not referring to me personally, because as far as I'm concerned it's not even something worth questioning in the context you're trying to put it in to suggest that someone who the law regards as innocent be deprived of their right to fair procedures, not because you're certain they committed rape or sexual assault (and even then it couldn't be justified), but because in your mind it would somehow assuage the Lefties outrage, when one thing really has nothing to do with the other. Besides, I don't think it would achieve what you're hoping it would, given the UK Supreme Courts recent ruling on a similar issue -

Yes apologies, I should have said 'one' not 'you' personally.

Again, I don't think you're angle that the accused may be innocent makes any difference to what I'm saying.

And see we have to go back to your appendages thing here, because if a trans woman raped a woman with an appendage, then had the appendage off, and was on trial 'as a woman' without the appendage, are we going to say the rapist raped the victim as a man or a woman? But I don't think this makes any difference, it's all superficial. It was always a body with a mans brain that raped the woman and should be recorded as such. Not a woman on woman sexual assault, and it would be ludicrous and insulting for the victim to be compelled to refer to the accused as 'she'.

UK Supreme Court rules against gender-neutral passports https://www.euronews.com/2021/12/15/uk-supreme-court-rules-against-gender-neutral-passports

This is a bit of a tangent but I remember the thread in CA about that that I thought was so ludicrous I decided not to participate in it. For those that don't know the complainant claim they had no gender at all and wanted that recognized.

My solution as above would accommodate that person, so they would have to tick a box that indicated their biological sex but they could leave the gender identify box blank, or have an option as neither. I'd leave it blank as well because I don't have a gender identity and if I do it's because of the physical body I have not some kinda zen feeling.

political analyst

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120178240#Comment_120178240

I don't know of any gender ID law that specifically says that a defendant in a criminal case is entitled to be referred to by the desired gender ID at all times. Surely, the judge would have discretion to allow the complainant refer to the defendant in accordance with what the defendant's gender ID was at the time of the alleged crime, just like witnesses are allowed to give evidence behind a screen or by video-link.

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120208680#Comment_120208680

It’s very simple PA - Judges are about as interested in culture wars nonsense as everyone else, that is to say - not a whole lot.

political analyst

It was claimed that parties attending court in South Australia had to refer to defendants by the defendants' preferred pronouns but it turns out that is not the case.

https://www.mondaq.com/australia/court-procedure/1393296/do-courts-have-to-use-preferred-pronouns-for-transgender-defendants-in-criminal-cases