Posted on 05/11/2020 10:50:20 AM PDT by PROCON
High-school athletes Selina Soule and Alanna Smith (Photo courtesy Alliance Defending Freedom)
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.
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.
~~~SNIP~~~
{Judge) Chatigny:
What Im saying is you must refer to them as transgender females rather than as males. Again, thats the more accurate terminology, and I think that it fully protects your clients 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 its needlessly provocative. I dont think that you surrender any legitimate interest or position if you refer to them as transgender females...
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...
“consistent with science, common practice and perhaps human decency. “
Actually inconsistent with each of those. Wow, a trifecta of willful ignorance.
Don’t need to show oictures.
Wow, were new chromosomal combos just discovered, to add to the XX and XY that have defined humans since the very beginning of our existence?
Why should GENDERED WOMEN have to deal with those misfits who hate their male body?
God gave them that body and He DOES know what He's doing.
from the judge: “To refer to them as males, period, is not accurate . . .”
I go along with whatever the attorneys do to push back on that, but in the mean time those attorneys should be able to refer to those males as “chromosomally XY individuals, as opposed to those with XX chromosomes who we commonly refer to as females”.
Ain’t no way any judge can claim that’s not accurate - unless that judge wants to “deny the science”.
The homosexual population "celebrates" males, females and "questioning." How does THAT fits into God's plan?
It doesn't.
Someone has been listening to Satan.
I believe you have solved the dilemma.
Bravo!
This judge it there to stay and to make sure the girls lose.
Does this judge believe in science and DNA evidence or feelings and radical political agendas?
Agreed. I sure wouldn’t want to be them on Judgment Day.
A tiny fraction of people have different chromosomes — XXX, XYY, XXY.
Ask the judge if the girls’ locker room is going to be opened to some boys, why do they still enforce segregation against other boys entering?
The pic is an easy test for one’s TransGenDAR.
Man this judge is some piece of work....A Clinton nominee:
“Opposition has centered upon judicial restraint and attitude toward sexual offenders.[4] On March 5, 2010, one of the prosecutors in the Ross case, Michael E. O’Hara, Supervisory Assistant State’s Attorney for the State of Connecticut, wrote a 12-page letter to the U. S. Senate Judiciary Committee to elaborate upon the complaint that was filed and dismissed in 2005/2006, stating that Judge Chatigny’s actions “certainly call into questions [sic] Judge Chatigny’s fitness to serve on the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.”[5] A May 26, 2010 Washington Times editorial enumerated 1) that Chatigny served as co-counsel for director Woody Allen when he unsuccessfully complained against a prosecutor who had publicly stated he had probable cause grounds for Allen’s reportedly abusing a minor stepchild; 2) that Judge Chatigny was reversed by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2001 “when the judge tried to rule against one aspect of his state’s sex-offender registry”; 3) that the sentences imposed by Judge Chatigny in 12 child-pornography cases were “either at or more lenient than the recommended minimum - with most downward departures involving sentences less than half as long”; and 4) that, in the Ross case, Judge Chatigny “threatened to take away an attorney’s law license if the lawyer failed to appeal the death sentence of an eight-time murderer of girls and young women. The judge claimed the killer’s ‘sexual sadism’ was a mental disorder that made the murderer himself a victim.”
He looks “happy”.
I try to not judge a book by its cover, but.... geez. That picture explains a few things.
LOL, I see that ;)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.