Can you go to jail for ‘misgendering’? One British journalist is about to find out

a reply to: ScepticScot

Well the premise of your thread has been shown to be nonsense yet you carry on regardless.

Absolutely nothing about my thread has been shown to be nonsense. The authorities have confirmed that she is under investigation, that she has been summoned for a police interview, the pertinent statutes have been cited, and the claimant has confirmed the complaint.

The only nonsense here is the petty and vengeful squandering of law enforcement resources.

Well, and you refusing to acknowledge it as you carry on regardless.

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: ScepticScot

Well the premise of your thread has been shown to be nonsense yet you carry on regardless.

Absolutely nothing about my thread has been shown to be nonsense. The authorities have confirmed that she is under investigation, that she has been summoned for a police interview, the pertinent statutes have been cited, and the claimant has confirmed the complaint.

The only nonsense here is the petty and vengeful squandering of law enforcement resources.

Well, and you refusing to acknowledge it as you carry on regardless.

She is not being investigated for misgendering.

Nor is misgendering a criminal offence.

The person to acknowledge reality is you.

a reply to: ScepticScot

She is not being investigated for misgendering.

Technically, neither of us know that, and there's no reason to make it an either/or situation... it can be both/and. At best, we know that there was more to it than ONLY "misgendering." I may be going out on a limb here, but it seems reasonable to believe that "misgendering" was not specifically excluded from their investigation. Maybe this is just crazy talk on my part, but I have confidence that the police can investigate and examine more than one possible violation within the same investigation.

The additional information became public AFTER the OP, and I thanked you for posting it, and I quoted extensively from the link, making the additional claims from Ms Green very clear. I have also been trying to watch for any new statements from Farrow, which I will also post.

Nor is misgendering a criminal offence.

As noted in the OP, and elsewhere, the relevant statutes do in fact allow for a jail sentence.

Do also note that a Trans Activist has just been charged according to those same statutes for a tweet urging his followers to "throatpunch" women.

It will be quite ironic if we find out via the Trans Activist that one can go to jail for violating the exact same statute.

Now, one can hope that reasonable people would see that "misgendering" does not rise to the same level as inciting violent "throatpunches," therefore it would be reasonable for the former conviction to result in a lesser penalty, such as a fine, and the latter to result in the greater penalty, such as jail... but it doesn't look like we'll find out with Farrow. Perhaps we'll find out from the other woman Ms. Green has filed virtually the same complaint against, not once but twice:

The 44-year-old was first interviewed by West Yorkshire Police last year, on suspicion of malicious communication, following a complaint from Ms Green, who runs the Mermaids charity.

Two officers travelled to Wiltshire where she lives, and questioned her for several hours over six Tweets she had posted.

That case was eventually closed with no further action, despite officers undertaking a victim's review following a request by Ms Green.

But she has revealed that she is now the subject of a second police investigation, this time by the Wiltshire force.

She said she was still waiting to hear from the police whether she would be charged over the remarks.

Second woman is investigated by police over transphobic comments

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: ScepticScot

She is not being investigated for misgendering.

Technically, neither of us know that, and there's no reason to make it an either/or situation... it can be both/and. At best, we know that there was more to it than ONLY "misgendering." I may be going out on a limb here, but it seems reasonable to believe that "misgendering" was not specifically excluded from their investigation. Maybe this is just crazy talk on my part, but I have confidence that the police can investigate and examine more than one possible violation within the same investigation.

The additional information became public AFTER the OP, and I thanked you for posting it, and I quoted extensively from the link, making the additional claims from Ms Green very clear. I have also been trying to watch for any new statements from Farrow, which I will also post.

Nor is misgendering a criminal offence.

As noted in the OP, and elsewhere, the relevant statutes do in fact allow for a jail sentence.

Do also note that a Trans Activist has just been charged according to those same statutes for a tweet urging his followers to "throatpunch" women.

It will be quite ironic if we find out via the Trans Activist that one can go to jail for violating the exact same statute.

Now, one can hope that reasonable people would see that "misgendering" does not rise to the same level as inciting violent "throatpunches," therefore it would be reasonable for the former conviction to result in a lesser penalty, such as a fine, and the latter to result in the greater penalty, such as jail... but it doesn't look like we'll find out with Farrow. Perhaps we'll find out from the other woman Ms. Green has filed virtually the same complaint against, not once but twice:

The 44-year-old was first interviewed by West Yorkshire Police last year, on suspicion of malicious communication, following a complaint from Ms Green, who runs the Mermaids charity.

Two officers travelled to Wiltshire where she lives, and questioned her for several hours over six Tweets she had posted.

That case was eventually closed with no further action, despite officers undertaking a victim's review following a request by Ms Green.

But she has revealed that she is now the subject of a second police investigation, this time by the Wiltshire force.

She said she was still waiting to hear from the police whether she would be charged over the remarks.

Second woman is investigated by police over transphobic comments

Please provide the statute that references misgendering.

a reply to: ScepticScot

Please provide the statute that references misgendering.

Please read the OP again, where the cited statutes are quoted.

Please read the source article, linked in the OP, where the statutes are cited.

Please do your own due diligence and if you find something relevant to add, then please add it.

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: ScepticScot

Please provide the statute that references misgendering.

Please read the OP again, where the cited statutes are quoted.

Please read the source article, linked in the OP, where the statutes are cited.

Please do your own due diligence and if you find something relevant to add, then please add it.

Where do they reference misgendering?

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: ScepticScot

Please provide the statute that references misgendering.

Please read the OP again, where the cited statutes are quoted.

Please read the source article, linked in the OP, where the statutes are cited.

Please do your own due diligence and if you find something relevant to add, then please add it.

Where do they reference misgendering?

The statute has to do with malicious communication:

www.legislation.gov.uk...

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: ScepticScot

Please provide the statute that references misgendering.

Please read the OP again, where the cited statutes are quoted.

Please read the source article, linked in the OP, where the statutes are cited.

Please do your own due diligence and if you find something relevant to add, then please add it.

Where do they reference misgendering?

The statute has to do with malicious communication:

www.legislation.gov.uk...

Can you show where that refences misgendering?

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: ScepticScot

Please provide the statute that references misgendering.

Please read the OP again, where the cited statutes are quoted.

Please read the source article, linked in the OP, where the statutes are cited.

Please do your own due diligence and if you find something relevant to add, then please add it.

Where do they reference misgendering?

The statute has to do with malicious communication:

www.legislation.gov.uk...

Can you show where that refences misgendering?

I don't see a reference specifically to misgendering.

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: ScepticScot

Please provide the statute that references misgendering.

Please read the OP again, where the cited statutes are quoted.

Please read the source article, linked in the OP, where the statutes are cited.

Please do your own due diligence and if you find something relevant to add, then please add it.

Where do they reference misgendering?

The statute has to do with malicious communication:

www.legislation.gov.uk...

Can you show where that refences misgendering?

I don't see a reference specifically to misgendering.

Neither can I.

a reply to: ScepticScot

Where do they reference misgendering?

I am not going to play your semantic games or jump through your silly hoops.

I have explained and sourced the situation as thoroughly and as accurately as possible for exactly what it is and is not.

Make the case that you want to make. Our words will stand on their own merit for all to see and judge. And now I'm done with you.

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: ScepticScot

Where do they reference misgendering?

I am not going to play your semantic games or jump through your silly hoops.

I have explained and sourced the situation as thoroughly and as accurately as possible for exactly what it is and is not.

Make the case that you want to make. Our words will stand on their own merit for all to see and judge. And now I'm done with you.

No semantic games, you made a claim and apparently can't back it up.

Your thread is bunk.

I was curious about how this might relate to the case against Miranda Yardley that was thrown out a few weeks ago by the judge, and I was surprised to find that Yardley was charged under a different statute. In his own words:

On Friday 1 March, ten months of uncertainty and fear for my public reputation came to an end as a District Judge told a CPS prosecutor that the prosecution they were bringing against me for harassment under s2 of the Protection From Harassment Act 1997 was a baseless, politically motivated case and should never have come to court. I was awarded costs from the CPS, and this bizarre farce where a transsexual was being prosecuted for ‘transgender hate crime’ reached an abrupt end. After all this, there was no case to answer.

Apparently Yardley was only charged under the Harassment Act, but she was also apparently investigated under the Malicious Communications Act:

This was a bizarre case where I, a transsexual who transitioned over a decade ago, was charged with a ‘transgender hate crime’ against someone who is not transgender. A spat on Twitter in February 2018 had led to a police complaint, in the April I was visited at my door by two police officers from my local force acting on behalf of West Yorkshire Police. The officers told me I was to attend the police station to be interviewed under caution for ‘hate crime’, harassment and malicious communications.

Yardley was subsequently charged, and the charges were ultimately thrown out by the judge.

When a Transsexual is Prosecuted for ‘Transgender Hate Crime’

In a brand new article from the Telegraph out today, there is some more information about the relevant investigation/charging process:

Hate crime | What prosecutors look for
A hate crime is when a suspect targets someone based on their disability, gender identity, race, sexual orientation, religion or any other perceived difference. It does not always have to include physical violence and can include harassment, posting abusive messages online, threats of violence, bullying, intimidation or verbal abuse. Hate crimes are perceived to be motivated by prejudice or hostility.

A malicious communication is when someone sends a letter or any other form of communication that is indecent or grossly offensive or threatening. It can also contain information that is believed to be false with the express intention of causing distress or anxiety to the recipient. An offence occurs as soon as the communication is sent. It does not have to be received by the intended victim, as it is the very act of sending and intent of the offender which counts as a crime. This offence is covered by the Malicious Communications Act 1988.

First person prosecuted for transgender hate crime says it is a waste of police time

a reply to: Boadicea

Wait... Adult child?... What in the world is an "adult child"?...

These are the stupid things the left wants to jail people for?...

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
a reply to: Boadicea

Wait... Adult child?... What in the world is an "adult child"?...

I know. I don't mean to be confusing, and I'm sure the author of the article didn't either. This is what happens when language is corrupted and co-opted and confused. Can't just say "son" or "daughter" because of the whole misgendering/deadnaming/outing/whatever... so it becomes "adult child" just to try to allow the reader to make some sense of it all.

The story of the Tower of Babel sure takes on a whole new meaning, eh?

These are the stupid things the left wants to jail people for?...

It would seem some would like exactly that. Not all, but definitely some.

a reply to: Boadicea

the journalist could argue speaking in a biological sense that they are still male regardless of the treatments etc
and therefore the statement is true , to argue that it is false would be to deny objective fact , which is pretty much
what the courts use to prove innocence or guilt

not subjective feelings , so for us to acknowledge "misgendering" is basically denying objective fact
its dishonest , and not the truth , identifying as a male and being a biological male are not the same thing

why is someones title now a protected characteristic ?

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
a reply to: Boadicea

Wait... Adult child?... What in the world is an "adult child"?...

These are the stupid things the left wants to jail people for?...

Adult child= snowflake libitards.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: ScepticScot

Where do they reference misgendering?

I am not going to play your semantic games or jump through your silly hoops.

I have explained and sourced the situation as thoroughly and as accurately as possible for exactly what it is and is not.

Make the case that you want to make. Our words will stand on their own merit for all to see and judge. And now I'm done with you.

No semantic games, you made a claim and apparently can't back it up.

Your thread is bunk.

This is the point I am always trying to make with freedom of speech / hate speech / misgendering / verbal assualts
in the UK seem now to be based entirely on subjective states of consciousness
So offense is subjective , how can a subjective state be proven in court when court relies on objective facts and evidence ?


We are now using slipper slope fallacy in our legal system

hate speech : Person A says something , Person B gets offended and reports it , Court states , that if person A said this , the person B is offended and will therefore create X,Y, Z , or will commit , X, Y , Z

Hate speech law is a logical fallacy using subjective states of consciousness

originally posted by: sapien82
a reply to: Boadicea

the journalist could argue speaking in a biological sense that they are still male regardless of the treatments etc
and therefore the statement is true , to argue that it is false would be to deny objective fact , which is pretty much
what the courts use to prove innocence or guilt

She could... but as I read the law, truth doesn't matter. And it would seem that intent really doesn't matter either, as it's all about the perception of the complainant. If the complainant feels wronged, then the party is guilty. If someone can be penalized for saying that a trans woman is not a woman because it upsets someone, then why couldn't someone be penalized for saying water is wet if it upsets someone?

I hope I'm wrong, but that's how I'm reading it.

not subjective feelings , so for us to acknowledge "misgendering" is basically denying objective fact
its dishonest , and not the truth , identifying as a male and being a biological male are not the same thing

It's the Tower of Babel all over again. Words mean what we say they mean... when definitions are arbitrarily changed at the whim of some, so words can mean whatever an individual wants them to mean, the result is confusion and chaos. Like this.

It's also a power play. Especially in terms of (some) men over (all) women, as they co-opt and hijack reality. But also in greater society, as everyone has to watch their words and language to make sure we don't use the "wrong" word or title or pronoun or whatever. It puts everyone on guard and on defense. No one can take a principled stand because in order to do so, one must violate the new rules of language and speech, leaving no words to explain/describe their position.

why is someones title now a protected characteristic ?

Power. That's the ONLY reason for it. Titles are a show of respect and courtesy which are being turned into an act of subservience and submission... You WILL use my preferred pronouns OR ELSE!!!

a reply to: Boadicea

Aye , the law is no longer about justice !

how can we use a subjective conscious state of "offense" to prove someones guilt when words do not cause physical harm
its a fact that no "c-fibres " fire in your brain to create the pain response !

So under corpus delicti , there is no injury , loss or harm in order to convict

laws have been subverted because of identity politics , however it appears they have been subverted , not to protect the individual , but the specific individuals , such as a political party .

You cant even criticise or make satire of a party