Judges Warned Against Using Preferred Pronouns for Transgender Defendants in Violent Cases
In a significant move to ensure fairness and impartiality in the justice system, the Judicial Office in England and Wales has issued a directive warning judges against using the preferred pronouns of transgender defendants in cases involving violent or sexual crimes. This guidance, updated in the Equal Treatment Bench Book (ETBB), emphasizes that while respecting individuals’ preferred pronouns is generally appropriate, it may be "extremely inappropriate" in certain contexts, particularly when the biological sex of the perpetrator is central to the case. The directive aims to prevent any appearance of bias and ensure that the legal process remains neutral, especially in cases where the recognition of a person’s biological sex is crucial.
The updated ETBB reflects growing concerns about the potential impact of using preferred pronouns in high-stakes cases. For instance, in cases of rape or assault, where the perpetrator’s biological sex is directly relevant to the crime, using gender-affirming pronouns may inadvertently suggest a level of sympathy or bias toward the defendant. Judges have been advised to exercise discretion and avoid using preferred pronouns in such situations to maintain the integrity of the legal process. This guidance is particularly relevant in cases where the defendant identifies as a woman but is biologically male, as such cases have sparked intense debate in recent years.
One notable case that brought this issue to the forefront was that of Lexi Secker, a 35-year-old father of two who was sentenced to six and a half years in a men’s prison for rape. Secker, who began identifying as a woman after the attack, was referred to as "she" during the proceedings. While the judge acknowledged the challenges Secker would face in a male prison, the use of preferred pronouns in the courtroom raised questions about whether such language could undermine the seriousness of the crime or create a perception of leniency. Similar concerns arose in the case of Scarlet Blake, a transgender individual identified by the government as biologically male, who was accused of murder and animal cruelty. Blake was recorded by police as a female perpetrator, highlighting the complexities of balancing gender identity with the legal recognition of biological sex.
The Judicial Office’s directive has also been influenced by an increasing number of Family Court cases involving disputes over children’s gender identity. In such cases, judges have been urged to avoid using preferred pronouns to prevent the appearance of bias toward one party or the other. Instead, the guidance recommends using gender-neutral pronouns like "they" to minimize offense and maintain neutrality. This approach has been met with mixed reactions, as some argue that it undermines the rights of transgender individuals, while others see it as a necessary step to ensure that the legal system does not inadvertently favor one side in highly contentious disputes.
The broader implications of this guidance extend beyond the courtroom. Women’s rights groups have long expressed concerns about the potential erosion of sex-based rights in cases where biological males identify as women. These groups argue that allowing male perpetrators of violence to be referred to as women in court could trivialize the experiences of female victims and perpetuate harmful stereotypes. Campaigners, such as Maya Forstater of Sex Matters, have welcomed the Judicial Office’s directive, stating that it is a much-needed recognition of the importance of biological sex in cases involving violence and sexual assault. Forstater emphasized that such crimes are overwhelmingly committed by men, and referring to male perpetrators as women in court can undermine the gravity of their actions.
However, the directive has also sparked outrage from trans rights campaigners, who argue that it unfairly targets transgender individuals and undermines their right to be respected in legal proceedings. They contend that using preferred pronouns is a matter of basic dignity and that the guidance risks perpetuating discrimination against transgender people. Sarah Phillimore, a family law barrister, has defended the directive, calling it a "welcome step forward" in acknowledging the complexity of gender identity issues. She argued that the judiciary should approach such issues with caution, recognizing that gender identity ideology is highly contested and should not be uncritically embraced in legal settings.
Overall, the Judicial Office’s updated guidance reflects the delicate balance that judges must strike between respecting individuals’ gender identities and ensuring that the legal process remains fair and unbiased. By advising judges to avoid using preferred pronouns in cases where biological sex is central to the crime, the directive aims to prevent any appearance of bias while also addressing concerns about the erosion of sex-based rights. This move underscores the ongoing challenges of navigating gender identity issues within the justice system and highlights the need for clear, consistent guidance to ensure that fairness and impartiality are upheld in all legal proceedings.
