“Let me raise a point that undoubtedly will cause some consternation for you, Mr. [Roger] Brooks (lead ADF attorney representing the Plaintiffs); and your colleagues. But I exercise my prerogative as the presiding judge in this instance and I hope you will forgive me. 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.”
The above monologue is an excerpt of the transcript from an April 16 conference call. Speaking, was District Judge Robert Chatigny to Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) attorneys. The attorneys represent three high school female athletes in a lawsuit against the Connecticut Interscholastic Athletic Conference (CIAC).
Per the Daily Wire, “in February, student-athletes Selina Soule, Alanna Smith, and Chelsea Mitchell, represented by Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF); filed a lawsuit in federal court against the (CIAC) for permitting biological boys to compete in events and win awards that would otherwise have gone to girls.”
But the judge is clearly biased towards the transgender athletes.
Move For Judge Chatigny To Recuse Himself
Judge Chatigny, after his opening remarks, ordered the ADF lawyers, that “going forward, we will not refer to the proposed intervenors as ‘males’; understood?”
Brooks replied: “The entire focus of the case has to do with the fact that male bodies have a physiological advantage over female bodies; that gives them an unfair advantage to competition. 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.”
“Names are not the point to the case,” Brooks argued. “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”.
But Judge Chatigny was not with satisfied Brooks’ rationale. “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.“ (author’s emphasis). Judge Chatigny added: “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.”
With reasoning like that from the presiding judge of such a case, it is little wonder that on Monday, the ADF lawyers have “legally moved to call on the judge overseeing their case, Soule et al v. Connecticut Association of Schools et al., to recuse himself”.