Attorneys for girls in US sports case must refer to males as transgender females

[CumannNamBan]

Judge on the case:

"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." 🙄

www.nationalreview.com/news/attorneys-for-connecticut-high-school-runners-ask-judge-to-recuse-after-he-forbids-them-from-describing-trans-athletes-as-male/amp/?__twitter_impression=true

I've just watched the YouTube clip and I am blown away at how smart and articulate and strong those amazing young women are.

I have never heard any of the opposition ever sound that coherent and articulate . Never.

I hope they read this and see the support they have from all over.

Want to see brave and stunning? Here it is...

At least we might say the word woman is particular to human beings, and has connotations beyond pure biology attached to it

Eh? Woman means adult human female, it's just as specific and equally should not be used to describe men.

These are boys not girls.

Young men - same age as my DS (not a top class athlete but very sporty and built like a tank).

I'm really glad the lawyer was so well prepared to be faced with such nonsense from the judge.

As has been said many times, the goal posts endlessly shift because it's always about chasing the next point of validation/proof/nothing that can't be owned.

I went through a long time of being prepared to accept that 'woman' could be a nice, polite term including those who were male but identified as. I've long since seen that merely meant having conquered 'woman' the next goal became 'female', which is a far bigger stretch past polite suspension of disbelief than I am willing to go, it's just plain not true. Female animals, female plants, female is a material reality and female humans have to be permitted at least one solitary fucking word to describe themselves.

But no. This movement has no interest or care in anyone else, particularly females. If female people called themselves Blips or Yrush381s, that would immediately become the next goal. It's not about self definition, it's about conquering and owning. It's not about kindness, it's about having boundaries to prevent being abused, when you are dealing with someone incapable of being reciprocal in kindness, respect or the basic social contract.

As has been said many times, the goal posts endlessly shift because it's always about chasing the next point of validation/proof/nothing that can't be owned

Yep they push and push and push getting ever more unreasonable then play the victim when someone finally says no.

Language is so important here as every documented part of this case will become precendent in the future.

I have no personal problem with transgender women/female as a term because it does differentiate from a women/female, however most people would view a transgender women to be a person who has received hormone treatment and surgery which we know is a small percentage of the community so using the term in this case is to frame the 'defendants' in a different physiological light to what is actually happening.

if the judge persists I'd love for the lawyers to go completely to base level and refer to everything on a chromosome basis. XY has 'z' advantages above XX on a biological level so should only compete against other 'XY's'

This reminds me of Maria MacLachlan, after being attacked by thugs in Hyde Park. During her main attacker's trial, the judge told Maria to call them "she". Remember that men's feelings are always more important than the injuries they inflict on you.

Your Honor, I do have a concern that I am not adequately representing my client ... if I refer to these individuals as “female,” because that’s simply, when we’re talking about physiology, that’s not accurate".

Good for that attorney.

Eh? Woman means adult human female, it's just as specific and equally should not be used to describe men.

Well, that's what I think, yes.

But I also think that there is more to the word woman than that - as human beings there are all kinds of other cultural and social things we associate with womanhood. For example the history of women, something like the suffrage movement. There is a whole history of art that depicts women. There is literature about women, or written by women. There are customs related to childbirth or marriage etc.

So maybe someone thinks that this is why we call human females women, but not ducks, say. There is none of that with other animals, they are females but not women. They have no culture.

I think that the biological designation is essential to that, you can't take it out without it becoming meaningless, but it's not beyond my ability to comprehend that someone else could see the culture part as separable in some way.

But I don't see how anyone could make the same sort of differentiation about the word female which has none of the cultural attachments. You can use it about plants. There is just no way to construct even a flawed logic to "transgender females" the way the judge is trying to use it.

it's not beyond my ability to comprehend that someone else could see the culture part as separable in some way.

How? Women's history is about women. How can that be separated from their female bodies?

How can art depicting women be separated from their female bodies?

And how do you separate customs around childbirth from the fact that it is women with female bodies who give birth?

I really struggle to see how anyone can separate being a woman from being female.

So maybe someone thinks that this is why we call human females women, but not ducks, say. There is none of that with other animals, they are females but not women. They have no culture.

This is nothing to do with culture. It's just about language. There are names for the males and females of many species of animals.

Female horses are mares. Female sheep are ewes. And so on. They're not women because they're not human.

How? Women's history is about women. How can that be separated from their female bodies?How can art depicting women be separated from their female bodies. And how do you separate customs around childbirth from the fact that it is women with female bodies who give birth? I really struggle to see how anyone can separate being a woman from being female.

I would say it's not coherent to do it, because the body is what ties these things to the word woman. It creates it as a category that is meaningful.

But it is the case that they are physically separate things and a different order of thing, the history of women's literature for example is an artefact you could look at and read even if you were an alien who had never met a human being at all.

People who want to say the word woman isn't biologically constrained usually seem to want to say that being a woman somehow applies to those other phenomena rather than the biological element. I think it's this separate existence or distinction that allows them to think that way.

I don't think talking about an ewe is totally similar because an ewe is clearly just a female sheep. There is nothing more in the small mind of a sheep associated with that. There just isn't any example in the animal kingdom that we can see the same kind of cultural archetypes as you see in human beings. In any case so far no rams are claiming to be ewes.

I've met a few people who see gender as being about man/woman, and sex being about male/female. I would say that again they are drawing from a distinction between culture and biology - even if it doesn't bear close scrutiny, the fact is many people never take things to that level, and many seem to see enough of a distinction there to be able to justify the language change when it's suggested to them.

What I was saying was that while I can see that people do that, drawing from that peculiarity of human beings, no such distinction exists within the word female. In order to apply that to a male at all you have to really erase every element of the term. You have to be willing to say, gee, I wonder why these two cows aren't producing a calf, what could be wrong? This is something that is so immediate to almost everyone that it is difficult for me to see how someone like a judge could get it so wrong.

Please do not forget that both Terry Miller and Andraya Yearwood are still children

I believe they are in fact 18 year old

One of the comments on the article asked, “What science? Clown science?”

A transgender female sounds like a female person who is transgender - a transman, in other words.

I absolutely agree that the perception of 'this transgender female wants to run in the girls' race' and 'this boy wants to run in the girls' race' will be completely different to someone outside this debate, despite both sentences referring to the same individual.

This is compelled speech.

I've met a few people who see gender as being about man/woman, and sex being about male/female.

This is why I wear a wonderful hoodie which says "woman: adult human female" on it. That's why I have been politicised by this campaign.

The word woman refers to women and no matter how hard men try to take it over, we must not let them.

Men know full well what women are or how come women couldn't get degrees or even study at university or vote. Or needed a man's signature to get a mortgage?

Fuck this nonsense.

".... 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....."

Do you know, it blows my mind that we are even having to have this argument, again and again, that men are just bigger, stronger and faster than women. We have milena of sports results, reference to our own experiences, in fact, the evidence of our eyes, to back us up, what kind of mental gymnastics does it take for someone to even voice the opinion that transgender men have no physical advantage.......

The judge is wrong on every point and by definition the males as females has already shown he is more than impartial.

And the crazy thing is I just know his position stems from some kink or fetish of his, not from any moral position.

Some men really are despicable and their entire being is about their junk.

I’m with forsucksfake

Every time I see a man defend any of this nonsense, I immediately know he is one of those men. Defending his own perversions.

forfucks

You are spot on.

Can we go back to the days where fetishes were for bedrooms amongst other consenting adults. Please. For the love of god. .

Goodness, The Monitors are busy reporting posts this morning!

If this judge is correct the logical conclusion - the only logical conclusion - is to remove all sex segregation, all sex categories, all protected spaces. Everything unisex. Now. No differentiation. No male sport/female sport, just sport.

I wonder if it would work to just push this. Gender neutral the fucking everything. We're all NonBinary now, let's just remove all male/female prison designations, all sport, healthcare, hospital wards, all changing rooms, all toilets are to now be unisex.

Let's see how it works. I would actually prefer that, and I think it might almost be preferable to have everyone in together, than to have a small cohort of people relentlessly insinuating themselves into the category of female against the wishes of the majority of females.

Public toilets were originally unisex and communal, a good place for a sit-down (I said a sit down) and a chat.