Connecticut: Judge Rules Transgender Sprinters Competing Against Girls Cannot Be Called “Males” In Court . . . Or Else
Judge Chatigny: “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”
In February 2019, two Connecticut high school transgender sprinters claimed the two top spots in the Girls Indoor Track Championship for the second year in a row.
Three of the biological girls who competed in the 2019 track championship filed a federal discrimination complaint against a statewide policy on transgender athletes. Although she’s the fastest biological female sprinter, one of the girls “nonetheless lost four state championships to male competitors who identified as female.”
This complaint centered on an alleged violation of Title IX in that the biological girls are deprived of “opportunities for participation, recruitment, and scholarships.”
The filing against the Connecticut Interscholastic Athletic Conference (CIAC) has made it into the courts, and District Court Judge Robert Chatigny ruled that the attorneys for the biological girls cannot refer to the transgender sprinters as males and must instead say “transgender females.”
The attorneys for the girl athletes are requesting that the judge recuse himself over this stipulation because, in part, it appears he has “destroyed the appearance of impartiality in this proceeding.”
Three female high school track athletes are suing the Connecticut Interscholastic Athletic Conference (CIAC) over unfair rules that allow biological males who identify as female to compete in women’s sports. Last month, a district court judge barred the girls’ lawyers from referring to the biological males as “males,” insisting that the lawyers call them “transgender females.” He threatened to retaliate if they refuse to do so. This effective gag order may undermine their case, and it certainly shows bias against their underlying argument. Therefore, the lawyers moved for the judge to recuse himself.
“The Court has now reprimanded Plaintiffs’ counsel and prohibited Plaintiffs from referring to those individuals as ‘male athletes’ because—in the Court’s view— alluding to an individual of the male sex as male is contrary to science, ‘bullying,’ and violates ‘human decency’ if that individual claims a female gender identity,” attorneys Roger Brooks, Kristen Waggoner, and Howard M. Wood III wrote in a motion filed Friday and provided to PJ Media. “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.”
They asked District Court Judge Robert Chatigny to recuse himself from the case, arguing that his order “and comments during the hearing would leave an impartial observer gravely concerned that the Court has prejudged the matter, rejected core aspects of Plaintiffs’ case before hearing the evidence and legal arguments, and assumed the role of advocate for the defendants, all to the detriment of Selina Soule, Chelsea Mitchell, Alanna Smith, and Ashley Nicoletti.”
PJMedia has a transcript of the court proceedings; here’s what Judge Chatigny stated in court:
“Let me raise a point that undoubtedly will cause some consternation for you, Mr. Brooks, and your colleagues, but I exercise my prerogative as the presiding judge in this instance and I hope you will forgive me.
I don’t think we should be referring to the proposed intervenors as ‘male athletes.’ I understand that you prefer to use those words, but they’re very provocative, and I think needlessly so. 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?”
Brooks, who is lead on the biological girls’ legal team, responded as follows:
“The entire focus of the case has to do with the fact that male bodies have a physiological advantage over female bodies that gives them an unfair advantage,” he replied. “The entire focus of the case is the fact that the CIAC policy allows individuals who are physiologically, genetically male to compete in girls’ athletics.”
“But if I use the term ‘females’ to describe those individuals — and we’ve said in our opening brief, we’re happy to use their preferred names, because names are not the point to the case. Gender identity is not the point of this case. The point of this case is physiology of bodies driven by chromosomes and the documented athletic advantage that comes from a male body, male hormones, and male puberty in particular,” Brooks explained. He insisted that referring to the males as “transgender females” would do his clients a disservice by “not accurately represented their position in this case” and it would be “not accurate” because they lack female physiology.
Chatigny, however, dismissed these points out of hand.
From the transcript:
I’m not asking you to refer to these individuals as “females.” I know that you don’t want to do so. 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; and, for me, civility is a very important value, especially in litigation.
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. Quite the opposite. My goals for this case include, very importantly, the goal of maintaining civil discourse, respectful, humane, intelligent, civil discourse in the course of the case. Nothing more, nothing less.
You really have to read the whole PJMedia post, but here are the concluding two paragraphs:
However, Chatigny’s insistence that the use of the term “male” is inaccurate, “needlessly provocative,” “bullying,” and perhaps in violation of “human decency” is beyond the pale. His repeated threat that it would be “unfortunate” if the girls’ lawyers disagreed and that “maybe we’ll need to do something” if they don’t shut up about the whole “male” thing is particularly terrifying.
This judge has dismissed the key argument in the case as offensive, attempted to silence the girls’ lawyers, and threatened them if they do not comply. Anyone who is rightly concerned about the unfairness of allowing boys to compete in women’s sports should be horrified — and even transgender advocates should be aghast at this miscarriage of impartial justice.
This case has caught the interest of the Department of Justice.
“It’s just really frustrating and heartbreaking, because we all train extremely hard to shave off just fractions of a second off of our time. And these athletes can do half the amount of work that we do, and it doesn’t matter,” Soule told the Wall Street Journal. “We have no chance of winning.”
The Department of Justice filed a statement of interest in March expressing support for the girls’ position.
“In our pluralistic society we generally try to accommodate how individuals desire to live their lives up to the point where those desires impinge on the other people’s rights,” said Attorney General William Barr said in a statement at the time. “Allowing biological males to compete in all-female sports deprives women of the opportunity to participate fully and fairly in sports and is fundamentally unfair to female athletes.”
While the regressive left wails about “misgendering trans kids,” serious people are asking serious questions about the efficacy of policies that require biological females to compete against biological males in high school athletic competitions designated explicitly for girls.
These aren’t “here’s your pretty pretty ribbon to hang on your fridge” events. These are serious athletic competitions that affect college admissions, scholarships, and future careers in sports, up to and including the Olympics.
What on earth would inspire any little girl to pursue an interest in athletics if she knows she has, in the words of one complainant, “no chance of winning” against transgender “females”?
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
The judge appears to have already decided an important aspect of the case. Well, why not? How could it be justice if it’s impartial?
All women’s Sports are Thoughly PLUCKED.
…..like by a Biden, or a Kamala……
This judge has a history of unlawfully bullying lawyers.
Several years ago in a death penalty case, the defendant murderer ordered his attorney to stop the appeals and allow the execution to take place.
When the attorney attempted to do so, this judge threatened the attorney with disbarment because the judge wanted to rule against the death penalty and the defendant murderer and the attorney were preventing this.
The judge eventually was reprimanded but kept his position where he can do it again and again. He showed no remorse and was feted by liberal groups and treated like a hero.
Can we at least refer to the judge as “Judge Schumuck?”
A lesson in liberalese,
“I don’t want to bully you. But having said that, I’m now gonna bully you. In this court you will be compelled to speak as I dictate. But, understand, I’m only doing this to be fair.”
This is straight-up government compelled speech. They say judges can rule their courtrooms as they wish, but of course that’s not entirely true.
In June, 2018 the USSC held (with the usual lefty gang of four dissenting) that a pro-life center cannot be forced to display a sign on its premises contrary to its core principles and message.
Here’s hoping that the plaintiffs’ attorneys fight the judge on this one.
“it would be ‘unfortunate’ if the girls’ lawyers disagreed and that ‘maybe we’ll need to do something’ if they don’t shut up about the whole ‘male’ thing”
Maybe he’ll give the plaintiffs’ lawyers the Bobby Seale treatment (Seale’s trial, 1968),
NB: those drawings are depictions of a real event, of what a federal judge did to a defendant.
The whole point is THAT THEY ARE MALES! Are we not allowed to refer to defendants as defendants?
I don’t think the boys are defendants.
They’re not–I was just extrapolating to another legal class.
Judge needs to read the opinion from the 5th circuit https://www.abajournal.com/news/article/5th-circuit-denies-transgender-prisoners-request-to-use-female-pronouns-change-court-records
If you control the language, you control the debate.
Conservatives, having been ejected from the Academy, have lost control of the debate.
Instead of calling them transgender females, how about “Athletes who were born male and now self-identify as female?” Not saying they are male, not saying they are female. If the judge objects to that one, he has indeed abandoned any pretense of neutrality.
Chatigny is a Clinton judge, and was nominated by Obama for the 2nd Circuit. I don’t think he was voted on for that position.
He’s also previously been excoriated for advocating from the bench.
Ok folks. Here’s the deal. The individuals declaring themselves as female are (this is scientifically accurate) sexually heterogametic. The girls suing are sexually homogametic. The “transgender female” unscientific label is an amorphous straw man and must be rejected. The judge is clearly biased and must be tossed off the case.
Use these terms only. They define the cellular differences between what we categorize as “male” and “female”. Desire, makeup, mental state, external plumbing, political party, and personality are IRRELEVANT. Chromosomes determine if one is male or female for competition purposes. Period.
Doc, they should just call these heterogametes “things” or, if you are Southern, “thangs.” Not “males” nor “females.”
Have these thangs cut off their balls and peckers? (Or if you’d prefer, their “external sex characteristics”.) If so, they can be called “sick thangs” or “really sick thangs”.
Um, no. Males are heterogametic. Females are homogametic.
Maybe they would compromise to being called ‘MiliVanili’?
Old Navy Doc, leftism transcends science and facts. You’re headed for the wrong-think gulag with posts like that.
Ah, but the company will be worthy.
Science denier. Oh, wait … .
Just as a small point of clarification, chromosomes do not always determine sex (but almost always do). In rare cases, you can have an xx male with a very rare translocation of the sry gene in an x-bearing sperm cell. This is called De La Chappelle’s syndrome and results in an XX male.
There is also a case where an XY male is essentially feminized by suffering from Androgen Insensitivity syndrome. Unlike the previous example, all of the genes are in the right place. However, a mutation in the androgen receptor gene causes this individual to appear female and often be raised female. However, testes are present but are usually “stuck” in the abdomen. The scrotum resembles labia majora and the micropenis resembles a large clitoris (resemblin a separate female condition known as clitoromegaly).
These cases are VERY rare (and known as intersex conditions), and they have a poor correlation with psychological gender dysphoria (because many dysphorics are not intersex). I just wanted you to be aware of this counter-argument, and also why it is a weak counter-argument, at best.
Yes, exactly. Intersex conditions exist, and they’re actually not as rare as many people think. But it’s irrelevant to the overwhelming majority of “trans” people.
In the end,
If you have a Y,
you’re a guY.
99.9% of the time. There are very rare exceptions.
Here is what the women’s Olympic teams will look like if the judge and those who think like him have their way:
The East German female Olympians.
Every girl refuse to run against them
Hold their own meets
They don’t need to call it UIL they don’t need to belong to UIL…if they try to take them to court, they can say it was a private invite party only, nothing to do with the sanctions
End of story… once the fools in the castles lose their jobs because they won’t have athletes to destroy, they will sing a different tune..
Never underestimate the willingness of the Federal judiciary to firmly insert itself in places where it does not belong.
Yes, except we’re talking about government schools. These are school sports, and (if the ruling goes the wrong way) a government school can’t choose to participate in such a private league, any more than it could choose to participate in a whites-only league.
Perhaps the school can’t, but the kids can. Ever hear of Little League?
The kids can do whatever they like, but this is the official competition. As the article points out, “These are serious athletic competitions that affect college admissions, scholarships, and future careers in sports, up to and including the Olympics.” Participating in an alternative private league will not do that.
* SIGH * … Nothing more just …* SIGH *
Here in California we have a law on the books compelling us to use the preferred pronouns and gender preferences of those who have adopted such things.
For instance – If I were to refer to the traitor Mr. Bradley Manning as the traitor Mr. Bradley Manning and not, as she wishes, the traitor Ms. Chelsea Manning I believe I would run afoul of the law.
Describing the traitor Mr. Bradley Manning as such is also considered subversive and counter revolutionary.
No, there is no such law, even in California. There can’t be such a law, even if the legislature were to try to make one.
I agree that such a law is unconstitutional on its face.
However, it exists.
Here is the link:
It is a regulation of the FEHC, the Fair Employment and Housing Commission, a Cal. regulatory body.
Please pray for me. I live here.
No, it does not exist. The regulation you linked does not do anything like that.
Section 11034 (h)(3):
“(3) If an employee requests to be identified with a preferred gender, name, and/or
pronoun, including gender-neutral pronouns, an employer or other covered entity who
fails to abide by the employee’s stated preference may be liable under the Act, except as noted in subsection (4) below.”
That is a verbatim quote, as linked.
Get this judge kicked off the case.
Girls should do what they do best… make fun of them.
The Heather’s would have a field day.
I know I’ve talked about this til I’m blue in the face, but I’ll say it again:
For the most part, transsexuals have suffered some kind of trauma, typically as children, either severe neglect, severe abuse, sexual abuse, sexual assault, sexual penetration, etc. They have psychological problems which can generally be described by the terms PTSD, dissociative identity disorder, a/k/a multiple personalities, etc.
I find dissociative identity disorder to actually be an amazing adaptation to an impossible situation. The brain amazes me with its plasticity…. These folks can be interesting, if you have the stomach for all the grief they’ll give you.
Nonetheless, there is absolutely no good reason to turn the world upside down trying to humor people who need A LOT OF REALLY GOOD THERAPY. EMDR, etc., etc., etc.,
Kind of like, why are we turning our world upside down for a virus with a very limited target demographic, but whatever.
The point is, if you see a family that claims their child is transsexual, what they are really telling you – whether they know it or not, or are aware of it or not — is that their child has suffered some kind of trauma. That is the LAST thing I’d be advertising about my child. If my child showed up with this, that child would be going to every therapist I could find until I found one that could effectively address his issues.
The rest of us do not have to play this game of, “Yes, your Majesty, your clothes are the MOST BEAUTIFUL in the world.” Get real.
I agree, except in some cases it isn’t the child with the psych issues, it’s the parent, such as that awful woman in Texas who insists her son James wants to be Luna.
All small children have fragile egos. An individual who has been deeply traumatized a small child often develops poor coping skills. In essence, they don’t want to be who they were born as.
Gender identity dysphoria is most often compared to other types of dysphoria such as species dysphoria (the next phase of this insanity) as illustrated by the “furry” or “otherkin, in which the sufferer doesn’t believe they were born as the wrong sex but as the wrong species. Then there’s body integrity dysphoria, in which the sufferer believes they shouldn’t have been born with four functioning limbs or normal eyesight. They’ll seek a surgeon to lop off a limb or two or to be blinded.
One may argue the last one poses insurmountable obstacles as the hypocritic oath commands doctors to “first, do no harm.” But doctors are already doing irreparable harm when they “affirm” someone’s “gender” as different from their biological sex and then providing chemical “reassignment therapy” on children as young as 3 (yes, that is happening). So I don’t see how anyone can possibly argue that if an adult wants to lose a limb or eyesight society or the medical profession can deny them that. And it really is body integrity disorder that demonstrates the phenomenon. The already have the emotional and psychological scars from their trauma so now they want the physical scars to go with that.
But there is another disorder that has always been lumped in with above although it isn’t widely discussed; addiction. Addicts also don’t want to be who they were born as, and they can escape their identity through drugs.
Really it all comes down to poor coping skills that results from their childhood trauma. And these poor coping skills negatively affect all aspects of their lives; their relationships with family members who didn’t cause the trauma, other social relationships, and the ability to hold down jobs.
This was amply illustrated in a Omaha, NE, coffee shop last September when a “trans woman” freaked out and screamed vulgar insults at a woman quietly eating a crepe and drinking coffee. The “trans woman” was fired because the coffee shop had a policy that employees could ask a disruptive or threatening customer to leave as long as the disruption or threatening behavior occurred during their shifts. Nothing of the sort happened. The “trans woman” freaked out because she recognized that the customer quietly minding her business simply worked for a conservative advocacy group and couldn’t cope. Now she’s out of a job. Which points to the fact that even when the psychiatrists and psychologists bow to political pressure and stop recognizing a disorder as a disorder, the disorder doesn’t go away.
You may remember Dennis Avner, more famously know as Stalking Cat. He claimed to have been Huron, and that a tribal medicine man told him the tiger was his totem animal, and that Avner should modify his body to look like his totem animal.
If anyone knows anything about tribal customs in general, and more generally North American Indian customs, this is obviously not true. No medicine man in any tribe in the world would tell someone that their totem animal is a creature that exists only on a continent half a world away, has never existed on their own continent even in prehistoric times. For instance, I’ve hunted in
Africa several times, sometimes with people who went by their tribal or clan totem animal. For instance, the last time I hunted in Zimbabwe one of the trackers was Ndebele (northern branch of Zulu) went by Nyati. That’s the name for the Cape Buffalo in many African languages. Where we were hunting we were practically surrounded by Cape Buffalo. It’s inconceivable that any tribe would choose the tiger, an animal that exists in Asia, that they wouldn’t even have known of its existence in the not so distant past, and even if now they know it exists they would be totally unfamiliar with. In any case it would have no historical, cultural, or religious significance to the Ndebele, the Shona, or any of the peoples of sub-Saharan S
Same would go for North American tribes. A totem animal would have to have some sort of meaning to the tribes. It could be a mythical animal such as Sasquatch or the Thunderbird (absent proof of actual existence either now or within tribal memory) or a still extant animal. Those animals have meaning to them. A tiger has none.
Then there’s the fact that no North American or African tribe has a tradition of making permanent body modifications beyond perhaps tattooing to look like the totem animal. Avner indulged himself in body modification cosmetic surgery that went far beyond tattooing. And the Huron have publicly stated that what Avner was doing was never part of their tradition.
The bottom line is that whatever the dysphoria it is a disorder of the mind and can’t be fixed by cosmetic surgery. It makes no more sense to affirm someone’s mental disorder than it makes to affirm someone in their heroin addiction. Avner is again a case in point. Apparently he did have a circle of supportive, affirming friends. I suspect he killed himself not because society didn’t support him; his corner of it did. But instead that no matter how much surgery he had he could never actually turn himself into the tigress he believed himself to be. I believe the same goes for “transgendered” people and that explains their high suicide rate even after they get the complete surgery. I’m actually amazed that we buy into the idea that there is anything like an overarching “LGBTQ community” at all. Lesbians roundly reject “trans women” as really men. Same goes for gays. The “trans” movement insists there is no such thing as the gender binary and that gender is fluid and exists across a broad spectrum. Bisexuals insist that there is a gender binary and that it doesn’t exist across a spectrum; there is only male and female.
” If my child showed up with this, that child would be going to every therapist I could find until I found one that could effectively address his issues.”
Unfortunately, Close the Fed, some states have criminalized this option. Seeking therapy for your child, the only sane choice, has been made illegal. No therapist or counselor, even clergy, can offer this and if you sought it you would lose custody of your child.
Also, http://www.MaleSurvivor.org has resources to help. Of course. Even during the epidmic, they’ve had two webinars for folks to discuss their issues.
How does he know this? Telepathy?
I’d love to know what this judge thinks is actually the physical difference between a boy and a trans-girl.
The colorful (“Rainbow”) bands of the transgender spectrum from homosexual to neosexual.
This tyrant in judicial robes couldn’t be more clear. He intends to use this case to make a political statement and has no interest in science but activism that he’ll falsely claim is science.
The judge is going to get curb stomped. He went beyond the line.
I could hope my response to the commentary by the judge would have been something like
‘Your Honor, you may personally hold the view that applying the term male athlete to the intervenors is inaccurate and uncivil, the intervenors certainly would. However, neither my clients nor we are interested in living within the arbitrary boundaries of fantasy demanded by the intervenors. Nor, respectfully can we effectively represent our clients interest if we were to conform to your order that we not express the fact that the intervenors are, without a doubt, biologically male and refer to them as such.
To conform to your order would be to place the fullest and best representation of our client’s interest in second place, behind the intervenors and apparently Your Honor’s goal that everyone must conform to the fantasy of the intervenors. Respectfully Your Honor, for you to suggest, much less contemplate an order that we subordinate our client’s interests in order that we conform to your personal viewpoint requires you to recuse. We respectfully move that you do so.
Simple solution, stop playing the judge’s games with words and strike him down with facts. The the lawyers should consistently refer to them as “persons of male sex at birth” instead of “trans girls”. That is a 100% accurate statement that even the judge can not prevent them from making, and it’s really the crux of the debate. Having been of the male sex and birth these persons have certain physiological advantages over girls that were female sex at birth. I could give two shits if they refer to themselves as girls, or blueberries, or doorknobs now, the whole case is not about what they refer to themselves as it’s about what they are, and there is no debate that they were male sex at birth.
“To refer to [the biological males competing in women’s sports]as ‘males,’ period, is not accurate ….”
This judge doesn’t just need to recuse himself; he needs his head examined.
This entire circus is reminiscent of the Rene Richards v Billie Jean King kerfuffle. Richards, a ‘trans-female’ to use today’s newspeak, and only moderately good tennis player wanted to compete against professional women. A whole lot of ink was used to demonstrate the physiologic differences between males and females. Suffice it to say there are decided advantages for males.
Even though these two teenage ‘trans-females’ were obviously born male, it appears the judge, in this case, is trying to advance political theory over scientific fact. Neither of these two former boys was very good in track and field competition. As ‘trans-females’ they can enjoy being ‘Kings of the Hill’ against the best true-girls in the State.
I humbly suggest the following questions:
1. Have their male genitalia been removed and surgically transformed into a pseudo-clitoris/vagina?
2. Do their bodies still produce testosterone? If so, what levels of the hormone existed during their pre-transition competition?
3. Do they exhibit typical teenage girl behavior? For example, do they have boyfriends? Do they wear dresses or skirts?
4. Do they use the same dressing room at the same time as other female competitors?
Regardless, what you ask does not cover the fact that they still have innate biological differences that make competition unfair.
Physical and mental attributes. For example, it should be insufficient for them to claim to be trans/homosexual in order to qualify.
in another life, a biology prof when discussing reproduction, explained this whole trans business rather well:
” assuming the body you live in is normal and healthy without any underlying genetic abnormalities or disease-related limitations and, absent any medical, scientific,outside intervention, can it become pregnant and carry a fetus to term within it and then bring said fetus, alive, into this world?–if it cannot, then whatever body you live in, regardless of what you may think or say or feel, is NOT female. period. “
Despite our age, I’d like to think my wife is still female.
So refer to them as “persons who are genetically not females with unaltered male genitalia.”
Sux to be the kids affected, and I feel for them, but in the macrocosm, this is one leftist dream issue (Title IX) eating up another leftist dream issue (trans rights). I’m buying popcorn.
This would have Pauli spinning in his grave.