English judges may not refer to trans accused in female in cases of sexual violence

Judges in England and Wales have received a warning about the use of pronouns preferred by accused in cases of sexual aggressions and violent crimes. The Judicial Office, an agency that provides administrative and strategic support to the Judiciary, has issued a directive which emphasizes that referring to those accused by a gender other than their biological sex could be “extremely inappropriate” and skew the trial. The measure responds to the growing concern about high profile cases in which criminals of male biological sex that are identified as women They have been mentioned as “she” in judicial procedures, which has raised criticism from various sectors.

The guide, sent to all judicial officials in January, is included in the updated version of the Equal Treatment Bench Book (ETBB), a Official Equal Treatment Manual that guides people in court. It is established that, although in most cases there is no problem in referring to someone according to their gender identity, there are situations where this could be problematic. In particular, the guideline emphasizes that in cases of sexual or violent crimes Committed by a transgender person, the use of preferred pronouns could affect the perception of impartiality in court.

The debate on this issue has gained relevance due to a series of recent cases. One of the most cited examples is that of Lexi Secker, who after being convicted of rape was sentenced to six and a half years in prison in a male jail. During the trial, however, Secker was treated all the time as “she”, which generated criticism about the way language was handled in court. Another case that has generated controversy is Scarlet Blake, A transgender person identified biologically as a man, who was registered by the police as “female perpetrator” in a case of animal murder and cruelty.

The issue has also had an impact on the courts of Family Law, where a growing number of judicial disputes involves parents who disagree on whether their children must change gender. In these cases, the use of pronouns by the judges can be interpreted as a position taking In the dispute, so they have urged them to avoid terminology that may suggest partiality.

Reactions

The reaction to this new orientation has been varied. Women’s rights organizations have celebrated the decision, noting that the use of female pronouns for biologically male aggressors can Generate confusion and misinformation. Maya Forsater, executive director of the Sex Matters group, said that “it is a relief to see this recognition by the judicial office that sex always matters when it comes to referring to alleged perpetrators of violence and sexual aggression, since these crimes are almost entirely committed by men ».

On the other hand, some activists for the rights of trans people have criticized the measure, arguing that the gender identity of the accused It must be respected regardless of the crime they have committed. From this sector, it is pointed out that denying the favorite pronouns of a trans person in court could be interpreted as a form of institutionalized discrimination and a lack of recognition of gender identity.

To minimize the conflict, the guide suggests that, instead of using the defendant’s favorite pronouns, the judges refer to them By name or use the neutral pronoun In English “They.” This solution seeks to balance the need for respect for gender identity with the importance of maintaining impartiality and clarity in judicial procedures.