The crown prosecution service decided it is an act of domestic abuse to deny financial support for your partner’s gender transition.
Amidst a cost of living crisis where many individuals in the UK are finding it difficult to meet their basic needs, the introduction of new guidelines by CPS has sparked widespread outrage.
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has outlined nine categories of behavior that could be considered abusive towards trans or non-binary individuals by their partners or family members. One such behavior mentioned is “withholding financial support for transitioning,” which encompasses a spouse’s refusal to cover expenses related to gender-affirming surgeries, counseling, or other necessary treatments, thus constituting coercive control or abuse.
Additionally, the guidelines highlight other forms of abusive behavior, including “criticizing the victim for not conforming to traditional gender norms by undergoing reassignment surgery,” “threatening or sharing pre-transition images,” and refusing to use the individual’s preferred name or pronouns.
The section regarding pre-transitioning images implies that their partner cannot share any memories of their wedding day or family pictures that depict the person prior to their transition.
However, these guidelines have faced criticism from the Women’s Rights Network (WRN), an organization advocating for women’s sex-based rights. The group has written to Max Hill, the head of the CPS, expressing concerns that the guidance undermines women’s trust and confidence in the service.
Heather Binning, the founder of WRN, questioned the inclusion of reluctance to finance elective and non-essential surgeries as an example of domestic abuse. She argued that labeling the correct sex designation for a family member as abusive disregards the complex emotions and challenges experienced by individuals when a family member identifies as something that does not align with their biological sex.
Jeremiah Igunnubole, a former prosecutor and legal counsel for Alliance Defending Freedom UK, expressed his concerns regarding the new guidelines, stating that they will only add to the confusion among the general public and prosecutors. He pointed out that the guidelines overlook the fact that there is no legal obligation for individuals to use someone’s “preferred pronouns.” Igunnubole emphasized that this development is part of a broader pattern where guidance fails to sufficiently consider essential freedoms of speech, conscience, religion, and other fundamental rights.
