a grayscale of a lady justice figurine Photo by KATRIN BOLOVTSOVA on Pexels.com

First ruling in case about misgendering: It was not a violation to call a trans woman a man

Read Time:1 Minute, 34 Second

Today, the court in Lyngby has ruled in the first Danish legal case regarding misgendering. The case was brought by Nadia Jacobsen against Lotte Ingerslev following an article on the website “transkoen.dk”.

The article, which was published on March 6 last year, addressed the Danish Football Association’s recommendations on the inclusion of more gender identities in football, including arrangements in changing rooms. Nadia Jacobsen was a part of the working group that formulated the recommendations and was mentioned in the article.

The case revolved around Ingerslev consistently referring to Jacobsen as a “man” in the article and using male pronouns, despite Jacobsen identifying as a woman. Jacobsen claimed this constituted a violation – a form of misgendering. The article also contained sexually suggestive images of Jacobsen and claims that she had a particular sexual interest that supposedly motivated the recommendations regarding changing rooms.

The court found that the combination of the images and the content of the article violated Jacobsen’s honor and crossed the line of what is permissible in a public debate. As a result, Jacobsen was awarded 15,000 Danish kroner in compensation for damages. However, the court did not consider the mere use of male terms and pronouns to be an unlawful violation in itself.

Ingerslev was acquitted of criminal charges under section 264 d of the Danish Penal Code, as the images had been publicly shared by Jacobsen herself on publicly accessible websites in 2018 and 2019. The court deemed it foreseeable that they could be disseminated, and that Ingerslev’s sharing of the images did not fall under the criminal provision.

The court also emphasized that the article reflected Ingerslev’s personal opinions and was published as part of her private activities. Furthermore, the images were removed shortly after being published.

Both parties were ordered to pay their own legal costs, as both received partial confirmation of their claims.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *