| Washington Examiner
Lawyers representing three female high school track athletes suing to bar biologically male students from playing against females has called on the judge presiding over the case to recuse himself for saying transgender athletes may not be called “males.”
Three athletes filed a lawsuit with their families in February against the Connecticut Interscholastic Athletic Conference to block male students who identify as female from competing in girls sports. They claim the CIAC rule to allow students to play on teams based on gender identity violates Title IX, which prohibits discrimination based on sex.
The lawsuit comes after two transgender athletes, Terry Miller and Andraya Yearwood, won a combined 15 track championships since 2017, according to the National Review.
District Judge Robert Chatigny admonished lawyers from the Alliance Defending Freedom, which is representing the girls, for referring to transgender athletes as “males.” The transcript of an April 16 conference call between the lawyers and judge shows Chatigny saying: “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: “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.”
The judge responded: “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.”
The ADF filed a motion Saturday calling for Chatigny to recuse himself, claiming his order is “legally unprecedented.”
The motion states: “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. 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.” READ MORE