Don’t Call Male Litigants ‘Male,’ Judge Orders

A judge in Connecticut has ordered that attorneys call transgender males ‘females’ because it’s ‘consistent with science.’

(photo: QuinceCreative/Pixabay/CC0)

Okay, I’ll admit it. I’m a little confused as to what people mean by “science” these days. You lost me when we were supposed to pretend “potential human” was a scientific designation. 

Science was never my strong suit but I looked up a few things today. XY chromosomes means boy. XX means girl. That hasn’t changed.

Here’s the deal. Two transgender high school sprinters were collecting trophies like a boss in high school races in Connecticut. Like they had a cheat code or something. Actually they did: the code was XY. Three high school female track stars claimed in a lawsuit that it’s unfair to allow biologically male athletes to compete as females. Connecticut is one of 17 states that allows students to compete without restriction.

Normally, a story about oppressed females has editorial boards weeping in indignation and CNN anchors breaking quarantine to feign indignation, but if you haven’t heard about this story it’s not your fault. Few women have been this ignored by the media since Tara Reade went on Megyn Kelly. 

You’d hope that our justice system might be a bit fairer than the media, but no. District Judge Robert Chatigny, the judge in Connecticut presiding over this case, has demanded that attorneys for the three girls never refer to the biologically male runners as males because... science!

I’m not kidding. The judge in the case is insisting that girls’ attorneys never refer to the athletes as males.

I mean, do they really need to proceed any further with the trial if the judge is insisting on the girls’ attorneys referring to the male athletes as not male? It's kind of like a judge in a murder trial declaring that attorneys refer to the defendant as “the one who done it.” It’s game over.

National Review had a transcript of the call between the judge and the ADF attorney:


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 short, according to Judge Chatigny, science says “Shut up!” 

Civility demands that these girls allow their dreams to be steamrolled by a more favored class. A silver medal in the Aggrievement Olympics is a gag order.

I was unaware that crazy had been declared a science but I’m often behind the times. I don’t watch CNN. 

The judge is essentially telling these girls and their attorneys to lie. The judge is ordering them to attest to something they believe to be untrue. And if they fail to do adhere to the new rules they are guilty of thoughtcrime, and then something not good might have to be done.

The ADF attorneys argue that Chatigny’s order is so bizarre that “a disinterested observer would reasonably believe that the Court’s order and comments have destroyed the appearance of impartiality.” Ya think? 

So, the attorneys are asking for the judge to recuse himself because he clearly made up his mind about the case already. The chances of that happening are about as high as CNN covering this story fairly.

In a simpler time, the weak-minded chromosomal protestations of anatomy deniers would be laughed out of court. We do not live in simple times, however. And if you have any questions, civility demands that you shut up in the name of “science.”