Skip the pps
Judges have been warned against using preferred pronouns for transgender offenders who commit violent or sex crimes.
Inappropriate use of preferred pronouns in such cases raises the risk of appearing “biased” or having “predetermined” the outcome, the Judicial Office warned in an alert to all judges and magistrates.
Well yes but surely it also risks confusing the people who decide the outcome. That’s the whole point of the luxury pronouns – to condition people to think the person with the luxury pronouns really is the Other Gender.
Campaigners have expressed concern that transgender defendants who are biologically male and have committed sex attacks against women are being referred to as “she” in court.
For a slew of reasons. Top reason is because it’s misleading in a way that benefits the guy who committed the sex attack, but another reason is because it’s such a shameless sadistic insult to the victim and to women.
Last September, Lexi Secker, a trans rapist who was sentenced to
Let me stop you right there. Secker is not a “trans rapist”; you must mean he’s a man who claims to be a woman, aka a trans woman.
Last September, Lexi Secker, a trans rapist who was sentenced to more than six years in a male prison, was referred to as “she” by police, a judge and barristers throughout a trial in Swindon.
Can you imagine how torturing that must have been to the victim?
The alert to judges and magistrates said that “typically” it should be unproblematic to refer to those who appear in court however they wish. However, it pointed to updated guidance in the Equal Treatment Bench Book, an official guide to how individuals should be treated in court.
It said: “[This] makes clear that in some cases, however, it may not be appropriate, or may even be extremely inappropriate, for the judge to use a defendant’s preferred pronouns, for example, in cases of violent or sex crimes by a transgender perpetrator.
“In these exceptional, but increasingly common judgments, where one side’s case hinges on the recognition of the biological sex of the trans person as crucial, and the other side on the recognition of their chosen identification, judges need to be careful not to let the choice of gendered pronouns give an appearance of bias, or that there is predetermined conclusion.
“If possible, using the individual’s name instead of a pronoun where these pronouns are contested, or alternatively, the gender-neutral pronoun of ‘they’, may help minimise offence towards or the undermining of an individual’s personal identification, while also not giving it undue weight over the perceptions of others.”
No. To hell with that “they” crap. It’s a courtroom, not a pub. Fuzzy confusing language is not an asset in court.
The alert follows a ruling in Scotland on pronoun use in an employment tribunal in Scotland where Sandie Peggie, a nurse, was suspended after complaining about changing alongside Beth Upton, a male-born transgender doctor. Ms Peggie claimed she had been subject to harassment under the Equality Act.
Judge Sandy Kemp, overseeing the case, ruled last month that Ms Peggie was allowed to refer to Dr Upton as a man throughout the tribunal as long as it was not done “offensively” or “gratuitously”.
Still bad and stupid. Upton is a man; there shouldn’t be any “as long as it was not” about it. The trans lobby has done an amazing job of browbeating people into being terrified of saying that man there is a man.
The important thing to remember is that we are talking about pronouns here, which are by their nature not strictly necessary. If there is some dispute about proper choice of pronouns, then the antecedent nouns can just be used. There is never a need to refer to Lexi Seckler as “her.” The police can just say “Lexi Seckler.” Lexi Seckler is just as female as I am, and that’s obvious to anyone who sees Lexi Seckler.
As regards Dr. Upton(ogood), what precisely would be an offensive or gratuitous use of pronouns? I find calling him “she” offensive; it’s an insult to women.
Sure, but lawyers live and die on fuzzy confusing language; they do what they can to confuse the jury on many things, including DNA and ballistics. Pronouns may just be another welcome tool for them. No, it’s not an asset to the court, but it is an asset to the attorney.
Papito, what would be even better is just saying “Seckler”. It’s more concise, common usage, and doesn’t involve using a name recognized as female.
That’s the art of politics: do whatever is necessary to gain maximum influence as a minority. Maximum noise generation sure helps.