Mick Hartley

Perhaps we should drop this business of referring to trans male rapists as "she" in court? Someone up there has noticed, finally, that it is a bit strange:

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.

It follows what the Judicial Office described as the “increasingly common” number of cases of violent or sexual offences where recognising a trans offender’s biological sex affects the outcome of the case.

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.

It's not only "biased", it's also a massive insult to the women who've been raped. They know it's a man. Hell, everyone knows it's a man. So why this pussy-footing deference to the risible "trans identity" of the offender? 

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.

Fiona McAnena, the director of campaigns for the charity Sex Matters, said at the time: “This person is a man. Why don’t the police say so? Do they think they have to pretend, because he now says he’s a woman, even though he has committed the ultimate male crime of rape?

“It is very concerning to see the police pandering to the feelings of trans-identifying males. It does not give confidence that they are policing without fear or favour.”

It suggests that they, and the court, have more concern for the feelings of the rapist than for the feelings of his victims.