No outrage from you about it, no doubt.

quote:

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

Either that or only one classification - person.

By the judge issuing that order, it signals the verdict in advance, he's already made up his mind.

quote:

Originally posted by flesheatingvirus:
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.

That happens. Here is what I guess this is about:

Someone filed a motion in limine (say lim-NEE) asking to not permit them to be called males. This is not uncommon - I often file motions in limine to prevent the other side from using prejudicial descriptors or mentioning other things that are merely meant to be prejudicial but are not relevant. For example, if you were defending Exxon, you might not want the plaintiff constantly calling Exxon "the corporate behemoth, $400 million Exxon corporation." If you were representing a chronic weed-smoker in a case you wouldn't want the other side constantly calling him "Pot-head Harry." This is common, and such a request would be routinely granted.

Now, whether this is the right decision on this particular point is not the question I mean to debate here. But asking the court to limit they way certain things are talked or described about to prevent mere prejudice is very common.

No need for that, jhe. We already know what side you're on. Enough with the "I'm so objective" crap. You'd be better off leaving this thread alone.

Anyone who supports this kind of disgusting crap is part of the problem. There is no neutrality on this subject. You're on one side or the other, unless one wishes to claim idiocy. Enough is enough. Time to push back, hard.

I was describing how this comes up in court. I deliberately tried to avoid the merits of the decision in that last post. You are imagining what my opinion on this is, but you probably would be surprised.

But if you want to limit contribution to those you think agree with you, fine with me.

Stick a sock in it

Isn't that the point of contention? Whether the athletes qualify as females (transgender or otherwise) or are, in fact, males?

I looked up Alliance Defending Freedom. I suppose "christian" is an appropriate description unless they're a jewish organization or islam. So much so that donations to them are tax deductible.

Big difference between asking a judge not to refer to a party as 'Pot-head Harry', or 'the corporate behemouth', and. . .'male'.

quote:

Originally posted by Rey HRH:
Isn't that the point of contention? Whether the athletes qualify as females (transgender or otherwise) or are, in fact, males?

That's it to me, as well. The notion of male vs female is the very crux of the case, so how can you force both sides to use terminology that favors only one side? I agree that this clearly shows prejudice toward the "female athletes".

I'd be curious if the lawyers could use air quotes and dripping sarcasm every time they said "female", or if that would also constitute contempt. They are, after all, following the judge's orders. I can only assume the order didn't say "no air quotes or sarcastic tones".

"human decency" would dictate that men claiming to be women would voluntarily not choose to compete with women unfairly. It is an unfair advantage and I do believe they know that.

flashguy

The lawyers should refer to them as "Those Ladies..."

Call them "Youts"

quote:

Originally posted by ArtieS:
The lawyers should refer to them as "Those Ladies..."

So 'you people' is off the table?

Isn't testosterone a performance enhancing drug?

I would ask anyone competing in female sports should be test for testosterone. If they have testosterone, they should be disqualified from competing.

Would something like this help?

Fewer notions are more vile and repugnant than the idea that a power hungy wanker of a Judge can jail you for talking in an unapproved way or having an attitude they don't like. Nowhere in the Constitution is a goddamn thing about ones clothing or attitude or choice of words while in court.

Temporarily kick you out of their courtroom in some instances, sure, whatever.

Insist on new council for Case-X, maybe.

But jail you? Eat a dick, fascist nutjob.

Nothing, ever, has heen important enough to justify that nonsense.

It's a rare remaining vestige of Kings and Queens and an all-powerful State, and it's always been wrong.

quote:

Originally posted by flashguy:
"human decency" would dictate that men claiming to be women would voluntarily not choose to compete with women unfairly. It is an unfair advantage and I do believe they know that.

flashguy

To admit the obvious would illustrate and emphasize their lie. Can’t have that. Better to sacrifice fairness, civility and sanity.

Why not something along these lines....

"Your Honor, Suzy and Tammy, the transgender females (Cough - Dudes! - Cough), have the unfair physical advantage over my clients (Cough - Chicks! - Cough)."

How would that do?

This bullshit isn't new. Richard Raskind, aka, Renee Richards started this trans-gender competition crap in the 70's after the USTA and WTA "began requiring genetic screening for female players." You can read what the New York Supreme Court ruled at this link...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ren%C3%A9e_Richards

The wikipedia article states that Raskind/Richards "began dressing as a woman, which at the time was considered a perversion...". Hate to break it to the "woke" SJW of society...IT STILL IS, in my Conservative, God-fearing opinion.

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

I think the judge was out of line with his decision.

Easy fix, refer to them as "biological males" and "biological females" or, "those born as a male" and "those born as a female."

The court should not give a rat's ass about the current political climate or any other snowflake, heart warming, feel good, descriptor of the day

Yeah, he was out of line, and he should be removed from this case.