Judicial Bias?

Warning, the sources that I am using today are from Christian and conservative sources and derogatory language is used by them.

There is a lawsuit in federal court that is being heard here in Connecticut against trans athletes.

Attorneys for Conn. High School Runners Ask Judge to Recuse after He Forbids Them from Describing Trans Athletes as ‘Male’
National Review via Yahoo News
By Jack Crowe
May 11, 2020

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.”

You got that?

The plaintiff’s attorneys want to disparagingly call the defendants by their birth gender and the judge said no, so now...

During an April 16 conference call, District Judge Robert Chatigny chastised the ADF [Alliance Defending Freedom] 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.

Hmm… I wonder how the National Review got a copy of the transcript of the call obtained?

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 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.”

Round 1 to us.

The defendants in this case include the Connecticut Interscholastic Athletic Conference (CIAC) and their policy on trans athletes can be found here.

The International Olympic Committee (IOC) meeting on trans athletes can be found here

Also the NCAA has done extensive research into trans athletes and their policy and guidelines can be found here.

Whatever the outcome of the lawsuit this case is bound for the Supreme Court because that is what the Alliance Defending Freedom are, to set court precedence. In the Gavin Grimm v. Gloucester County School Board the Alliance Defending Freedom filed a Amicus Curiae brief supporting the school board  which lost the case, so the ADF is not some scary defender of bigotry they do lose and they do lose often.

---

Update 11:40 AM

Since I writing this this morning I cam across another article on the subject.

Anti-LGBTQ Firm Tries to Disqualify Judge Because He Won’t Let It Misgender Trans Kids
Slate
By Mark Joseph Sterm
May 11, 2020

The nation’s most powerful anti-LGBTQ law firm took the extraordinary step on Friday of demanding the recusal of a federal judge—because he insisted that its attorneys respect transgender people’s gender identity in court proceedings.

That firm, Alliance Defending Freedom, is devoted to attacking the rights of LGBTQ people in court. In February, it filed a lawsuit challenging Connecticut’s policy of allowing trans athletes to compete with cisgender students. On behalf of three cisgender student athletes, ADF alleged a violation of Title IX, which bars sex discrimination in federally funded educational programs. Per ADF policy, its attorneys called transgender girls “male athletes” and referred to them with male pronouns. In April, U.S. District Judge Robert N. Chatigny, the Bill Clinton appointee overseeing the case, ordered ADF lawyers to say “transgender females” instead in an effort to preserve “respectful, humane, intelligent, civil discourse.” In response, ADF accused Chatigny of displaying an “appearance of bias,” asserted a violation of its First Amendment rights, and asked the judge to disqualify himself.

The article goes on to have the quote from the ADF lawyers and the judge.

...ADF attorney Roger Greenwood Brooks kept calling these students “males” even though they identify as female. Chatigny told Brooks:

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.

Brooks disagreed, claiming that he could not “comply with that direction consistent with vigorous representation of the position that my clients are putting forward here.” Chatigny further explained:

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 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 it’s needlessly provocative; and, for me, civility is a very important value, especially in litigation. …

I don’t want to bully you, but at the same time, I don’t want you to be bullying anybody else. … 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.

[...]
...In 2017, the clerk of the Supreme Court chastised several right-wing groups for misgendering a transgender student in their briefs. Despite this rebuke, other judges still refuse to respect transgender litigants.

I have said before it is the states that determine gender on their birth certificates, the Constitution does not the federal government the right determine the gender of their citizens, it is a state’s right.