Stop Me If You Think You’ve Heard This One Before: The Stranglehold of the ‘Gender Fraud’ Narrative

Alex Sharpe is Professor of Law at Keele University.

Over the last couple of years, I have written a series of articles addressing the issue of so-called ‘gender fraud,’ and opposing criminal prosecution on this basis. As recently as December of last year, I sought to take this prosecutorial practice to task in the context of the conviction of trans man, Kyran Lee, and before that Gayle Newland, whose eight year sentence shocked the nation.

I concluded the Kyran Lee piece with an ethical call, a plea for cisgender people to protest more vociferously regarding state intrusion into the lives of trans and gender queer people on the basis of a deception claim. I entertained the hope that the next witch hunt waiting to happen might be averted. Sadly, that hope has proved forlorn. Instead, it would seem that we are, much like Bill Murray, caught in a perpetual Groundhog Day – a cis and heteronormative ground zero.

Not ‘revenge porn’, but abuse: let’s call it image-based sexual abuse

Clare McGlynn and Erika Rackley

Over the last few years, we have become very familiar with the term ‘revenge porn’ to describe the growing phenomenon of vengeful ex-partners distributing private, sexual images without the consent of their former partners. In recognition of the humiliation, distress and real pain this practice causes, countries across the world, including England & Wales, have introduced new criminal laws to try to deter and punish such behaviour. And Scotland is currently debating whether to reform its law.

However, while the language of ‘revenge pornography’ has certainly worked to secure the attention of the media and policy-makers, it’s time for new terminology: image-based sexual abuse.

Image-based sexual abuse better captures the nature and harms of the non-consensual creation and distribution of private sexual images. Unlike ‘revenge porn’, it captures both the broad range of practices being challenged and to convey the nature and extent of the harms suffered by victims.

What’s in a name?

Inherently Brief: Volume 41

Snapshots of law, gender and sexuality news from the past couple of weeks.

Civil Partnerships Denied to Opposite Sex Couples

Catherine Ravenscroft, Durham University

The High Court has decided against a couple seeking judicial review to extend civil partnerships to opposite sex couples.A civil partnership is a relationship between two people of the same sex, formed when they register as civil partners of each other. It was originally intended to remedy a perceived gap in the law which denied formal legal protection to same-sex couples in long-term, committed relationships. Yet, since the enactment of the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013, the status has been a contentious issue. Primarily, as identified by the Equal Civil Partnerships Campaign, this is because same-sex couples are now perceived to be granted additional protection beyond that available to heterosexual partnerships. A same-sex couple can choose to either marry or register their civil partnership, yet a heterosexual couple is limited only to marriage.

Inherently Brief: Volume 40

UK Should ‘Degender’ Passports

Aidan Bull, Durham University

Maria Miller, chair of the Commons Women and Equalities committee, is calling on the government to make passports and driving licences gender neutral to end discrimination against transgender people.

The former culture secretary said more needs to be done to recognise the ‘damaging’ impact of gender stereotyping for the 600,000 people in the UK who are ‘gender dysphoric’ and do not identify as either male or female. In a recent interview, Miller claimed that ‘it can cause problems for individuals who have decided to transition, but haven’t necessarily got the right documentation’. This problem becomes all the more apparent given reports of transgender people suffering extra security checks at airports when the gender on their passports does not match with their presented gender (i.e. how they dress/act). One transgender person claimed they suffered added checks due to a body-related ‘anomaly’, which seems highly discriminatory.

Transgender Inquiry Side-Steps Urgent Issue of ‘Gender Fraud’

Alex Sharpe is a professor at Keele University School of Law.

Yesterday, the government’s Women and Equalities Commitee released its long-awaited report on transgender equality^[1] The report is generally very positive in identifying a range of serious problems faced by transgender people and in making some important recommendations (especially in relation to healthcare provision, prison reform, depathologisation, and legal recognition of trans youth (16/17 year olds) and non-binary people). However, the committee side-stepped the important issue of prosecutions for ‘gender fraud,’ despite receiving written submissions on this subject. Accordingly, an important opportunity to address the travesty of such prosecutions has been missed.

Inherently Human: Volume 39

Snapshots of law, gender and sexuality news from the past couple of weeks.

Minister for Women Is Axing Feminism from A-Level Politics

Ella Dodd, Durham University

Nicky Morgan, education secretary and minister for women has drafted a curriculum dropping feminism from the A-level Politics syllabus. What’s more, the proposed new syllabus only features one female political thinker, Mary Wollstonecraft, heightening the ‘insulting and misguided’ actions of the Education department. This move has prompted individuals such as Jacquelyn Guderley to ask if feminism is removed from the syllabus, ‘how can we learn from them and progress? How can we be thankful but hungry for more?’

Perhaps the drafters of the change to the politics syllabus should read Mary Wollstonecraft’s first book, “Thoughts on the Education of Daughters”, which promotes female education and encourages mothers to teach their daughters. The removal of the feminist voice from the syllabus may mean the silencing of lessons passed down from generations before who struggled for equality.

EVENT: Domestic Abuse and the Search for Justice: principles, practices, policies

 

Wednesday 16th March 2016, 2-5pm (lunch from 1pm)
Institute of Advanced Studies, Palace Green, Durham University

Organised by Gender & Law at Durham (GLAD)

 

Using Law in Response to Domestic Abuse: Women’s Experiences

Professor Heather Douglas, University of Queensland, IAS Fellow 2015-2016

This paper reports on early findings from a longitudinal study (over three years) of women’s engagement with law as a response to domestic abuse. The aim of the project is to identify how, when, why and with what effect women from diverse backgrounds use legal processes to help them move towards abuse free lives and how engagement with law varies over time.  So far 62 women have been recruited and interviewed with the assistance of a variety of community organisations and private lawyers in Brisbane Australia.  Issues addressed in this paper include the interviewees’ reasons for their initial engagement with the legal system and the selection of particular legal pathways and their experience of these pathways.

Restorative Approaches and Domestic Abuse: pitfalls and possibilities

Professor Clare McGlynn and Professor Nicole Westmarland, Durham University

At a time when the police are said to be ‘overwhelmed’ by ‘staggering’ levels of domestic abuse, is there a role for restorative justice? Drawing on data we secured from police forces across the UK on their use of restorative justice in cases of domestic abuse, we analyse current practices in this area and consider any lessons to be learned. We also examine the potential risks in using restorative approaches, particularly in cases of intimate partner violence, as well as the possibilities for new ways to challenge domestic abuse and bring a sense of justice to survivors.

Examining ‘medium risk’ amongst female survivors of domestic abuse

Dr Clare Gunby and Dr Rebecca Barnes, Leicester University

Risk assessment is an integral part of police responses to domestic violence. To date, however, police response has prioritised those survivors identified as ‘high risk’ of domestic abuse. This has meant that those classed as ‘medium risk’ often slip through the intervention net, as well as the category remaining largely under-theorised. This paper discusses key findings from a process and outcome evaluation of an innovative support intervention in Nottinghamshire for women experiencing medium risk, repeat domestic abuse. In doing so, we examine what the medium risk category looks like, consider the challenges of working with this diverse group of survivors and consider what counts (and should count) as success when evaluating the intervention.

Respondents:

Karen Ingala Smith, @CountDeadWomen, PhD candidate Durham University

Dr Fiona Vera Gray, Leverhulme Research Fellow, Durham University

 

For further information, contact Clare.McGlynn@durham.ac.uk