There may be situations

If truth doesn’t matter in the courtroom then…?

Judges have been told that they should refer to criminal defendants by the gender they have chosen for themselves.

Just “gender”? What if criminal defendants have chosen to be called Duke? Doctor? Father? Sister? Lord? Admiral? Your honor? Why is “gender” the one category defendants get to force everyone to lie about?

New guidance instructs judges to consider whether alleged victims of sexual offences should be required to describe transgender defendants by the pronouns they self-identify with.

It will give rise to concerns that witnesses and alleged victims of rape, sexual offences and domestic abuse could be forced to refer to defendants as women, even if they view them as male.

The victims (who will be women) don’t “view them” as male, they know fucking well they’re male. It’s not a matter of “viewing as,” it’s a matter of blunt in-your-face fact.

Revisions to the “equal treatment benchbook”, a 540-page guide from the Judicial College, have told judges: “There may be situations where the rights of a witness to refer to a trans person by pronouns matching their gender assigned at birth, or to otherwise reveal a person’s trans status, clash with the trans person’s right to privacy.”

What does a right to privacy have to do with ordering people to call you by the wrong sex? That’s not privacy, it’s public narcissistic coercion.

5 Responses to “There may be situations”