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 the league based on how they identify.
During a hearing on April 16, District Judge Robert Chatigny ordered Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys representing the four 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 statement, 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.
