Table of Contents
The pattern here is redirecting scrutiny from the harm to the harmed person’s language, with polite wording making the pressure appear reasonable.
Some of the most disrespectful things women receive arrive in perfectly professional language. Someone uses the proper greeting, chooses a gentle phrase, and signs the letter neatly. Then the woman receiving it has to sit with what they are actually asking of her.
That distinction came to mind while reading this report from Reduxx. According to the article, a lawyer representing a convicted rapist in Germany sent a teenage Survivor a letter questioning her use of male pronouns during her testimony.
The reported letter came from the defense lawyer. That distinction is important: the report does not establish that the judge ordered her to change her language or that she received a legal penalty. We owe this girl accuracy in how we discuss what happened to her.
But accuracy also leaves us with a serious question: Why was a girl who had testified about rape being asked to account for how she referred to the man who raped her?
Politeness does not settle whether a demand is appropriate
Many women know the feeling of reading a message twice because the words sound pleasant, but something about the request makes their stomach tighten. They may even question themselves. Was that disrespectful? They asked so nicely.
A professional tone can make pressure harder to name. The person receiving it starts examining her own reaction while the person making the demand benefits from having sounded reasonable.
With a lawyer’s letter, that imbalance can become especially sharp. An adult professional knows the language and the process. A teenage Survivor may be left wondering whether she has done something wrong and what might happen next.
We cannot measure respect only by how calmly the more powerful person speaks. We have to examine what they are asking, why they are asking it, and whether the request belongs in the first place.
A fact-finding process needs room for plain testimony
Courts must examine evidence, and defense lawyers must be able to challenge an account. Serious scrutiny belongs in a fair trial.
But questioning should serve a relevant purpose. A Survivor describing sexual violence should be able to explain what she experienced, including facts about the perpetrator’s sex and body, especially where those facts are relevant. She should not have to guess which accurate descriptions might bring another demand to her door.
The concern is what that pressure can do to testimony. A witness who starts worrying about the consequences of her wording may become less able to speak plainly.
An institution committed to finding facts should be deeply concerned when a witness feels pressure to edit her account around the person who harmed her.
Respect is something the process must deliver
Imagine preparing to speak about an assault. You have to remember details you would rather never revisit, answer questions, and accept that strangers will examine your account. Then another concern enters: whether the man who assaulted you approves of the language you used to describe him.
That is an additional burden. Calling the inquiry polite does not explain why she should have to carry it.
A respectful process requires judgment from the adults with authority. They must distinguish between testing evidence and placing unnecessary pressure on a witness. They must be willing to ask whether a question helps establish what happened or simply gives the harmed person another thing to fear.
Women and girls should not have to be endlessly accommodating to qualify for dignified treatment. A Survivor can be distressed, angry, or unwilling to protect her attacker’s feelings and still deserve a fair hearing.
When we read that a request was made “politely,” we should keep reading. The greeting tells us very little about whether the demand was justified.
Respect lives in what we ask of someone, too. A girl who has already endured rape should not have to earn it by making her account more comfortable for the man who raped her.
Affirmation
I can hear a gentle tone and still recognize an unreasonable demand. I am allowed to examine what someone is asking of me, even when they ask beautifully.
My words do not have to protect someone from accountability for their actions. I can describe what happened without making the story comfortable for the person who harmed me.
I do not have to abandon the original harm every time someone introduces a complaint about my response. What happened to me still deserves an answer.
Does Naming Ourselves Hurt Anyone? No. Erasing Us Does. – WE Survive Abuse
The Myth of Neutrality: Why Identity Blindness Fails Survivors Every Time – WE Survive Abuse
Malcolm X Wisdom: When Lies Become the Environment, Safety Disappears – WE Survive Abuse
