Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) attorneys representing three female athletes suing the Connecticut Interscholastic Athletic Conference (CIAC) for sex discrimination in violation of Title IX have asked for the judge to recuse himself from the case, the National Review has reported.
The case involves female track athletes who are claiming discrimination based on the CIAC policy of allowing biological males who are transgender females to compete against female athletes. The attorneys are seeking to stop the males from completing against the females.
It is worth noting that in Connecticut, students can compete in any division they choose. There are no hormone level requirements like in the NCAA. So males with full-blown levels of testosterone can compete against females.
The reason the ADF has requested the judge recuse himself is because of his apparent bias. This bias is evident in his directive to the ADF lawyers. He has banned the ADF lawyers from referring to the transgender athletes as males.
In essence, the judge has forbidden the attorneys from stating verifiable FACTS. According to this judge, facts are provocative. Using facts is bullying.
The crazy man on the bench is District Judge Robert Chatigny. It will come as no surprise to you that he is an Obama appointee.
This case is yet another example of why we must have four more years of Trump.
Below is a transcript of the exchange between the judge and the attorneys. Emphasis has been added.
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?
Roger Brooks, the lead attorney for ADF, responded by pointing out that the biology of transgender athletes seeking to compete in the women’s division is relevant to the case and, as such, his duty provide a vigorous defense of his clients’ interests required him to use the term “male.”
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.
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 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.
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.”
There is so much ridiculousness here.
First, who is this judge crapping to say that they must call the males transgender females in the interest of SCIENCE? It is a scientific, biological fact that these athletes are men. I can look at them and see that they are men. The judge’s order has nothing to do with science and everything to do with a political and social agenda.
And as far as human decency, where is the decency towards all the female athletes who have worked and trained so hard in their sport? Why don’t liberals care about them?
The judge is living in a fantasyland to say this is not a case about males competing against females. That is precisely what this case is about.
The judge said the ADF does not surrender any legitimate interest or position to call them transgender females. Of course they do. Their whole argument revolves around the fact that males are competing against females. Why should the ADF have to start arguing the CIAC position and use their terminology?
One of the athletes who is part of the suit, Selina Soule, has lost to the males. She said, “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 two males participating who have led to this conflict have won 15 girls championship track events since 2017.
I hope they are proud of themselves.
Thankfully, we have a Trump administration right now. The DOJ has gone on record supporting the ADF in this case.
“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,” 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.”
Here is my departing sentiment regarding this case…
— National Review (@NRO) May 11, 2020