<p id="x51zx"></p>
<p id="x51zx"><cite id="x51zx"><progress id="x51zx"></progress></cite></p>

    <pre id="x51zx"><b id="x51zx"></b></pre>
    <p id="x51zx"><del id="x51zx"><dfn id="x51zx"></dfn></del></p>

      <track id="x51zx"></track>


        The more accurate terminology

        When The National Review is on the sanity side of the argument…

        Attorneys representing three female high school track athletes in their effort to bar biological males from competing against them filed a motion on Saturday calling for the presiding judge to recuse himself after he forbid the attorneys from referring to the transgender athletes at issue as “males.”

        [Editorial correction: it’s “after he forbade the attorneys to refer”]

        The ADF?filed suit in February?against the Connecticut Interscholastic Athletic Conference (CIAC) on behalf of three girls — Selina Soule, Alana Smith, and Chelsea Mitchell. The suit challenges the CIAC policy allowing students to compete in the division that accords with their gender identity on the grounds that it disadvantages women in violation of the Title IX prohibition against discrimination on the “basis of sex.”

        Which it indisputably does. You can claim that’s the price women have to pay so that men can have the right to be called women in every context and situation, but you can’t claim there is no such disadvantage. The first is debatable, the second is just a lie.

        NR has a transcript of a phone call in which the judge laid out his reasoning:

        What I’m saying is you must refer to them as “transgender females” rather than as “males.” Again, that’s the more accurate terminology, and I think that it fully protects your client’s legitimate interests. Referring to these individuals as “transgender females” is consistent with science, common practice and perhaps human decency. To refer to them as “males,” period, is not accurate, certainly not as accurate, and I think it’s needlessly provocative. I don’t think that you surrender any legitimate interest or position if you refer to them as transgender females. That is what the case is about. This isn’t a case involving males who have decided that they want to run in girls’ events. This is a case about girls who say that transgender girls should not be allowed to run in girls’ events. So going forward, we will not refer to the proposed intervenors as “males”; understood?

        Before we even get to the core issue, there’s a slightly less core issue, which is that the judge doesn’t even know that. He can’t know it. He doesn’t know that the two transgender athletes really are transgender and really are not just exploiting the category for the sake of winning races and scholarships. He can’t, in short, know that they’re not faking it.

        But even if they’re not faking it, even if they “sincerely” identify as trans girls aka they identify as girls, the fact still remains that literally speaking they are not girls. That’s the core issue, and judges shouldn’t be forcing anyone to repeat these stupid lies in court.

        The lead attorney for ADF got the judge to agree that they could say “transgender” as opposed to “transgender females,” but then the judge accused the attorneys of bullying.

        So if you feel strongly that you and your clients have a right to refer to these individuals as “males” and that you therefore do not want to comply with my order, then that’s unfortunate. But I’ll give you some time to think about it and you can let me know if it’s a problem. If it is, gosh, maybe we’ll need to do something. I don’t want to bully you, but at the same time, I don’t want you to be bullying anybody else. Maybe you might need to take an application to the Court of Appeals. I don’t know. But I certainly don’t want to put civility at risk in this case.

        This, again, is reality turned on its head. The trans athletes are conspicuously much bigger and more muscular than the female athletes they’ve been beating at their sport, yet they are portrayed as the sad fragile victims in this scenario.

        In the motion filed Saturday, the ADF attorneys argue that Chatigyny’s order is “legally unprecedented” and disrupts the appearance of impartiality.

        “A disinterested observer would reasonably believe that the Court’s order and comments have destroyed the appearance of impartiality in this proceeding. That requires recusal,” reads the motion, which was obtained by?National Review. “To be sure, the public debate over gender identity and sports is a heated and emotional one. This only increases the urgency that court preserve their role as the singular place in society where all can be heard and present facts before an impartial tribunal.”

        Facts, not fictions, not fantasies, not magic realism, not “identities.”

        8 Responses to “The more accurate terminology”

        Leave a Comment

        Subscribe without commenting