Lawyers for CT high school female runners ask judge to recuse after forbidding them to call trans athletes 'male'

Selina Soule and Alana Smith Photo: Alliance Defending Freedom/Screen grab

If President Donald Trump said he now identifies as a woman, would the left refer to him as the first female President of the United States? I think you can guess the answer to that question.

But attorneys representing three biological female high school runners who are attempting to bar biological males from competing against them filed a motion Saturday calling for the judge in the case to recuse himself after forbidding the attorneys from referring to the boys who think they are girls as "males," in spite of the fact they have XY chromosomes and were born with penises and testicles.

The Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) filed suit in February against the Connecticut Interscholastic Athletic Conference (CIAC) on behalf of three girls: Selina Soule, Alana Smith, and Chelsea Mitchell.

[H/T: National Review]

The suit challenges the CIAC policy allowing students to compete in the division that goes along with their gender identity [which is based on a psychological disorder known as Gender Dysphoria] on the grounds that it disadvantages women in violation of the Title IX prohibition against discrimination on the “basis of sex.”

It also gives an obvious biological advantage to guys competing as gals. Males, in general, are born with more muscle mass, more fast-twitch musculature, and overall strength than females--that's simply a provable, scientific fact.

During an April 16 conference call, progressive Judge Robert Chatigny chastised the ADF attorneys for referring to the male athletes seeking to compete in the women’s division as “males,” according to a transcript of the call obtained by National Review.

Chatigny:

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. [Technically, Chatigny is wrong. The more accurate term would be "gender dysphoric males."] Referring to these individuals as “transgender females” is consistent with [pseudo]science, common practice and perhaps human decency. {Since when is going along with someone's mental illness a form of '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?

Actually, the case is about high school boys, who were at best mediocre as male runners competing against their fellow fellows, now winning all their events as "males" running against real females based on their XX chromosomes and their female gear.

Roger Brooks, the lead attorney for ADF, pointed out that the biology of transgender athletes seeking to compete in the women’s division is obviously relevant to the case and, as such, his duty provide a vigorous defense of his clients’ interests required him to use the term “male.”

Brooks:

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. So, Your Honor, I do have a concern that I am not adequately representing my client and I’m not accurately representing their position in this case as it has to be argued before Your Honor and all the way up if I refer to these individuals as “female,” because that’s simply, when we’re talking about physiology, that’s not accurate, at least in the belief of my clients.

And so too would it be just as ridiculous to refer to President Donald Trump as the first female president of the United States if he simply believed [or said] he was a woman, see him tweet.

Brooks further informed the judge that he was “not sure [he] could comply” with the prohibition against the use of “male,” and asked if he would be permitted to simply use “transgender” rather than “transgender females” when referring to the athletes – a request which the judge granted.

The Judge then stipulated that he didn’t want to “bully” the ADF attorneys but nevertheless felt that he had to draw a hard line with respect to the terminology used out of a concern for “human decency.”

So if a guy sees himself as a gal, we have to go along with it or we would be considered indecent because . . . that doesn't go along with the guy's delusion?

Chatigny:

So if you feel strongly that you and your clients have a right to refer to these individuals as “males” [because that's what they are] and that you therefore do not want to comply with my [silly] 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 [into going along with my truth], 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.

It seems that the real bullying is by the Court's demanding the attorneys go along with the judge's leftist politics.

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

The case centers on the participation of two mediocre transgender sprinters, Terry Miller and Andraya Yearwood, who have combined to win 15 girls indoor and outdoor championship events since 2017. The year prior to Miller and Yearwood’s participation against the females, the titles were held by ten different actual girls. The three plaintiffs have competed directly against Miller and Yearwood and have lost to them in nearly every case, but the guys are so mediocre that they have been beaten by the girls on occasion.

“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,” Selina Soule told the Wall Street Journal. “We have no chance of winning.”

C'mon, girls--grow a pair.


Please consider following this blog, and remember, every time you click on an ad, an angel gets its wings and a dead terrorist gets his virgins.




Tweet