https://www.washingtonexaminer...les-instead-of-males



A federal judge has sparked controversy by ordering Christian lawyers who represent female track all-stars to refer to their transgender opponents as “transgender females.” The biologically male transgender students were racing and winning in the girls' track league due to a local athletics conference policy that allows students to compete in either league based on how they identify.

During a hearing on April 16, District Judge Robert Chatigny ordered Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys representing the three girls “not to refer to the intervenors as ‘males’ but instead as ‘transgender females.’” Chatigny said the attorneys would not “surrender any legitimate interest or position if you refer to them as transgender females” and that his order was merely “consistent with science, common practice, and perhaps human decency.”

Here’s the background on the case.

Selina Soule, Alanna Smith, Ashley Nicoletti, and Chelsea Mitchell sued the Connecticut Interscholastic Athletic Conference in February with the help of Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys. They argue that the sports policy fails to apply Title IX correctly and to ensure sex equality in sports. In March, the Department of Justice filed a statement of interest in support of the high school athletes and their mothers, seeking to protect fair play.

In a statement, Alliance Defending Freedom legal counsel Christiana Holcomb said, “Girls shouldn’t be reduced to spectators in their own sports. Allowing males to compete in the female category isn’t fair and destroys girls’ athletic opportunities. Males will always have inherent physical advantages over comparably talented and trained girls — that’s the reason we have girls’ sports in the first place.”

In response to the judge’s recent antics, ADF lawyers representing the girls filed a motion Friday arguing that the judge should recuse himself. They argue his requirement that the attorneys refer to the biological males as “transgender females” shows his obvious political bias and inability to view the case in a fair manner.

Policing language is nothing new in political discourse, but to see it in the realm of law is troubling.

To require these attorneys to use the term “transgender female” is not only to force them to obfuscate biological reality but to give over deliberately to the ideology of the opposing side’s worldview, one that is fabricated and rooted in political correctness, not science, reality, or facts. This shows incredible bias on the judge’s part and leaves the girls’ attorneys with little ability to present their case in a persuasive manner.

To require the attorneys to use that term in the name of anti-bullying or “human decency” is nonsensical. It is not the court’s job to police niceties and politeness. It is the court’s job to see to it that justice is served, and, on this count, it appears to be failing.

quote:

and that his order was merely “consistent with science, common practice, and perhaps human decency.”

Gee, things must have changed a LOT over the last couple of years. Last I heard and learned in school was that there a ONLY 2 GENDERS, MALE AND FEMALE!

Another idiot activist judge forcing his personal beliefs on the public.

I can't imagine that being enforceable.

Just reinforces that these delusional, wet dream, low IQ, moronic democrats just keep showing their ignorance!

Time to give them what they claim they have wanted. “Equality”

No “men’s sports”, no “women’s sports” - just sports.

Tear down the barriers, stop trying to artificially even the playing field. To do anything less is xenophobic, sexist, misogynist, and/or misandrist.


May the best “person” win.

quote:

Originally posted by 911Boss:
No “men’s sports”, no “women’s sports” - just sports.

Have at it- Enforce the "New" equality in Professional sports like Soccer and Tennis- Have at it.

Now before the next Olympics- It's merely “consistent with science, common practice, and perhaps human decency.”

quote:

Originally posted by PHPaul:
I can't imagine that being enforceable.

When you’re in a Federal courtroom, you do what the judge tells you to do. They reign supreme in their courtroom. If you refuse, they can throw you in jail or fine you.

Sure, they can be reversed on appeal, but in their own courtrooms they are kings. They are not like your local state court judges.

IANAL but I can imagine that this activist that wears a judge's robe and sits on the bench would hold counsel in contempt of court if they refuse his indoctrination and continue to use the correct "biologically male" term.

It this possible/feasible?

quote:

Originally posted by PHPaul:
I can't imagine that being enforceable.

There should be three divisions (is that the correct word?) in this type of sport: male, female, and "whatever."

Sports is perhaps the only area in which I think the trans folks are asking too much, culturally I mean.

Susain Bolt shouldn't be able to run in the women's races, nor should Shaquilla O'Neal play in the WNBA.

The advantage, in competitive physical sports, is simply too much.

I wonder how a motion to mistrial would go over.

How about p#$$ies without p#$$ies? Would that work?

Seems like a 1st amendment violation. Is the BoR suspended in court?

That's some horsehit right there. Taking away counsel's ability to choose their words seems a bit counterproductive to the way our justice system should be functioning.

quote:

Originally posted by 911Boss:
Time to give them what they claim they have wanted. “Equality”

No “men’s sports”, no “women’s sports” - just sports.

Tear down the barriers, stop trying to artificially even the playing field. To do anything less is xenophobic, sexist, misogynist, and/or misandrist.


May the best “person” win.

quote:

District Judge Robert Chatigny

Chatigny received an Artium Baccalaureus degree from Brown University in 1973 and a Juris Doctor from Georgetown University Law Center in 1978, where he was Case and Note Editor of the Georgetown Law Journal.

Legal career
Chatigny served as a law clerk to three different judges: Samuel Conti of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California (1979–1980); Jose Cabranes of the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut (1980); and Jon O. Newman of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (1980–1981). He was in the private practice of law in Washington, D.C., from 1981 to 1983 and in Hartford, Connecticut, from 1984 to 1994.

Federal judicial service
Chatigny was nominated to the court by President Bill Clinton on August 5, 1994, to a seat vacated by Warren W. Eginton, confirmed by the United States Senate on September 28, 1994, and received his commission on September 29, 1994. He served as chief judge of the court from 2003 to September 2009. He assumed senior status on January 1, 2017.

Consideration for Second Circuit
Chatigny was nominated by President Barack Obama to a seat on the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.[1] The nomination received a unanimous rating of "well qualified" from the American Bar Association's Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary, and the U.S. Judiciary Committee approved the nomination on June 10, 2010, on an 11-7 party-line vote. No date was set for full Senate consideration.

quote:

Originally posted by 2Adefender:

quote:

Originally posted by PHPaul:
I can't imagine that being enforceable.

When you’re in a Federal courtroom, you do what the judge tells you to do. They reign supreme in their courtroom. If you refuse, they can throw you in jail or fine you.

Sure, they can be reversed on appeal, but in their own courtrooms they are kings. They are not like your local state court judges.

Oh. In his/her courtroom, okay. Stupid, but okay.

Elsewhere? Fuck that.

What bearing does the religion of the lawyers have on what the people involved are called? If the lawyers were of a different religion would they be forced to use different terms?

quote:

Originally posted by 2Adefender:

quote:

Originally posted by PHPaul:
I can't imagine that being enforceable.

When you’re in a Federal courtroom, you do what the judge tells you to do. They reign supreme in their courtroom. If you refuse, they can throw you in jail or fine you.

Sure, they can be reversed on appeal, but in their own courtrooms they are kings. They are not like your local state court judges.

The same is true of state court judges. They often don't have as much ego about it, but . . .

quote:

Originally posted by Stlhead:
What bearing does the religion of the lawyers have on what the people involved are called? If the lawyers were of a different religion would they be forced to use different terms?

No, everyone has to call them that. The story writer just threw in the Christian part to stir up more outrage.