The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Pronouns and Cases Involving Transgender Parties
From In the Interest of C.G., decided today by the Wisconsin Supreme Court, in an opinion by Justice Rebecca Grassl Bradley, agreed with in relevant part by all the Justices except Justice Brian Hagedorn:
Because Ella [the pseudonym the parties used for the petitioner] entered the juvenile justice system as a male, many relevant records——including records prepared at the direction of Ella's appellate counsel——refer to her using male pronouns. When quoting those records, we use those pronouns. Elsewhere in our opinion, however, we use female pronouns out of respect for Ella's individual dignity. All parties and amici curiae used her preferred pronouns in their briefing, and the court of appeals used them in its published opinion.
{We recognize the use of preferred pronouns is a controversial issue. No law compels our use of Ella's preferred pronouns; we use them voluntarily. Our decision to do so bears no legal significance in this case, nor should it be construed to support their compulsory use.
Although cautioning courts to "remain scrupulously neutral" with respect to the use of pronouns, Justice Brian Hagedorn does not recognize in his concurrence that referring to Ella as C.G. will be seen as a partisan choice by many readers. The "ontological and moral question[]" over pronouns is neither legal in nature nor within the scope of the issues presented. We join the parties and the court of appeals in referring to Ella using her preferred pronouns.
In addition to showing respect for Ella's individual dignity, using the same convention as the parties ensures we "remain scrupulously neutral"——in contrast, Justice Hagedorn uses a convention even the State, which is adversarial to Ella, has chosen not to use. The only alternatives to choosing between masculine and feminine pronouns in this opinion would either offend the rules of grammar (the singular "they") or produce a stilted writing (exclusive use of proper nouns).}
Justice Hagedorn took a different view:
I write separately to address a sensitive matter. The majority/lead opinion explains that it uses "female pronouns out of respect for Ella's individual dignity," acknowledging "[n]o law compels our use of Ella's preferred pronouns; we use them voluntarily." The dissent and the court of appeals make the same editorial decision. Whether to use an individual's preferred pronouns, rather than those consonant with one's biological sex, presents ontological and moral questions about our identity as human beings. It is a matter deeply personal to those who wish to be called by certain pronouns, and to many who are asked to call others by their preferred pronouns.
These relatively new cultural debates are, in the main, not questions courts are well-equipped to answer. As a court of law, we should do our best to remain agnostic regarding debates where the law does not supply an answer. This is motivated in part by the modest nature of the judicial role, and in part out of the prudential concern that these contested moral matters could soon become contested legal matters. The court's decision to use female pronouns could be misread as suggesting that someone who identifies as a female is in fact a female, under the law or otherwise. See also United States v. Varner (5th Cir. 2020) (presenting additional reasons why the court's use of a party's preferred pronouns could prove problematic). We should aim to avoid any unintended legal consequences of our language choices.
C.G.'s decision to identify as a woman is grounded in a particular way of understanding sex and gender——one rooted in a person's individual sense of identity. This view is a departure from what was widely accepted just a few years ago and is by no means universally shared today. Without question, C.G. should be treated with the same dignity and respect as any other litigant before this court. But I believe we would do well to remain scrupulously neutral rather than assume that pronouns are for choosing. These matters of grammar have downstream consequences that counsel caution, particularly as a court of law where such decisions could have unknown legal repercussions.
For a bit of the factual backstory, which may be relevant because it may illustrate how use of pronouns might color readers' perspective: Petitioner C.G. was found to have sexually assaulted a 14-year-old boy (whom the opinion calls Alan, a pseudonym) who had been "diagnosed with autism" and who was apparently working in school at three grades below his age level.
At the time, C.G., who was 15 and who would a year later be 300-345 pounds and 6'4″ or 6'5″, was apparently perceived by people, or at least by Alan, as male. The court notes that, though, C.G. "questioned her gender identity throughout her adolescence," "she began to express 'thoughts of transitioning'" after "the State filed a delinquency petition" based on the sexual assault. In the assault, C.G. and a female classmate held down Alan (who was 110 pounds and 5'10") and covered his mouth while C.G. performed oral sex on Alan. The opinion notes that "Alan is a heterosexual male," who objected precisely because "he 'did not want to get "head" from a guy.'"
To get the Volokh Conspiracy Daily e-mail, please sign up here.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
My pronouns are: Fuck. This. Shit.
Enough with the pronouns. I wish my former middle school writing students were half as interested in pronouns as people are today.
We get it. You’re old (me too sorta) and the world keeps changing. Well, as it’s ever been, norms evolve. Getting mad at it won’t stop it.
I know. So many people unable to roll with the change to Roe v. Wade recently, just as an example.
You don’t see me rending garments over Roe, but that’s a dumb false equivalence.
No false equivalence, you made a dumb comment.
Sure. Depriving people today of what was a Constitutional right yesterday is exactly the same as people wanting to be called something different today than they were called yesterday.
They’re both examples of the world changing, which is what your comment was about.
Keep telling yourself that erasing a constitutional right overnight is what my comment on evolving norms was about. What changed was the makeup of the Supreme Court. If anything, abortion norms, which were strongly divided when Roe was decided, and remain so today, have evolved somewhat in the pro-abortion-rights direction.
“Keep telling yourself that erasing a constitutional right overnight is what my comment on evolving norms was about.”
I don’t need to, I can read your comment.
And maybe someday I’ll hear someone on the left raise the “erasing a constitutional right” argument in defense of Heller.
I don’t need to, I can read your comment.
You can certainly read what you want to into it. I’ll give you that.
And maybe someday I’ll hear someone on the left raise the “erasing a constitutional right” argument in defense of Heller.
And maybe you’ll show me where I ever said Heller should be overturned.
“And maybe you’ll show me where I ever said Heller should be overturned.”
I don’t know if you’ve said that, but the majority of people who are hyperventilating over a constitutional right being erased have been fantasizing about overturning Heller since its inception, so the odds are good that you’ve said it.
First, no, I’ve never said it, so may want to reassess your oddsmaking skills.
Second, I’m not the one hyperventilating over Roe. You brought it up to assert a silly false equivalence. But the fact that SCOTUS just erased what was until then a Constitutional right is just that, i.e., a fact. If you can’t acknowledge that, you may be the one who needs the paper bag.
Second, don’t go to Vegas. Your oddsmaking skills will bankrupt you.
Screwed again by the lack of a an edit function. Obviously delete the last paragraph.
Norms are “evolving”. They are purposefully being changed to ruin the world.
Getting mad at it won’t stop it, sure. Resisting going along with it absolutely will.
In 1970 I took a BA in English and German. Now wtf is a pronoun?
I’m going back to the patriarchy and leaving the matriarchal society for good. No, I don’t care for the Bonobos as a model. Kipling, Shakespeare, Swift, Robert Burns, and Dickens are my poets.
yeah, like WTF (was zum Teufel) were you thinking majoring in those subjects ? Speak both fluently (some question the Engrish) with no formal courses except the required Engrish in Pubic Screwel-College. Pretty Anglo-Centric lists of Dichters, no Goethe? Schiller? OK, thats all I know, more of a Yeats man myself,
Frank “Slouching towards Athens (GA)”
I did read Goethe and Schiller, Thomas Mann, Heinrich Mann, Wagner lyrics in all his operas, Hermann Hesse, German translations of Shakespeare, Heinrich Heine, to name my favorites. I am no longer fluent in German and therefore envious of you.
Deutschland. Das Land der Dichter und Denker
Yeats is great stuff too.
The court is awfully concerned with the individual dignity of a rapist.
But setting that aside, the judge is fooling herself about not having taken sides in a public controversy. Or perhaps thinks she’s fooling everybody else. Not sure which. Alan was raped by a boy, who wasn’t even pretending to be a girl at the time, so why the heck does the judge keep calling him “her”, “she”, even when recounting those events?
For that matter, C.G. has NOT legally changed his name, and “Ella” is NOT a “traditional male name”, which C.G. is described as having, so why is the judge using a fake feminine name in what is, after all, a legal document, to refer to a guy?
Yeah, she’s lying to herself about not having taken sides.
As a side note, the idea that being put on a sex offender list ‘isn’t a punishment’ because it’s for the public’s protection is BS. Being thrown in prison is for the public’s protection, too, and nobody would pretend it isn’t a punishment.
“For that matter, C.G. has NOT legally changed his name”
Wisconsin still recognizes common law name changes.
https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/786/36#:~:text=Wisconsin%20recognizes%20the%20common%20law,effected%20for%20a%20fraudulent%20purpose.
But doesn’t permit it if you’re on the sex offender list. Because, I assume, it then presumptive IS for a fraudulent purpose.
I hadn’t seen the next post yet, but that seems to have an ex-post-facto problem.
If the name/gender change occurred before C.G. was put on the sex offender registry, which is the way the assault was described, can that prohibition validly be retroactive?
“If the name/gender change occurred before C.G. was put on the sex offender registry, which is the way the assault was described, can that prohibition validly be retroactive?”
And there we have the difficulty with the court humoring C.G. by using a feminine alias even for periods prior to C.G. claiming to be a girl. It confuses people.
No, he decided he was a girl after ending up with a juvenile record for rape.
Aren’t you the one who is always going on about the presumption of innocence?
Plus, criminals are still citizens. As the Russians say, the degree of civilization in a society can be judged by entering its prisons.
You’re referring, I take it, to the presumption that was overcome when “Ella” adjudicated to have committed the sexual assault?
No dignity for Alan, just this freak.
Lost is the bigger issue –
The delusional believe that a mental disease can be cured biologically – biologically with josef mengelee type experiments
“The only alternatives to choosing between masculine and feminine pronouns in this opinion would either offend the rules of grammar…”
Incorrect. Several options are open to the author. First, the use of a hybrid term such as “(s)he” or “he/she” or the none plural generic “it” could be used; however, those too would likely come with controversy. Alternatively, and a much better plan in my opinion, would be to just don’t use any pronouns. You find this all the time in technical business writing when referring to businesses. “it” is not an appealing term, assigning a sex to a business is not ideal, and “we” and “they” can add an ambiguity which should be avoided (e.g. is “we” the author AS part of the business or the author AND the business, etc.). General rule is to refer to the business as the business’s name… always. That might not make for the most pleasing reading experience, but the purpose of of technical writing, or that of a legal opinion, is not to sell novels.
That said, here is my issue with the whole “pronouns” debate:
Pronoun are essentially descriptors which are used to convey a message about the object you are referring to.
Whenever you are describing someone/something, THEY do not get to choose the terminology use. Fat, tall, large, pretty, blonde, black, white, shady, mousy, etc. We choose what we refer to people as according to our own preferences, our intent, the social situation, and our audience.
Referring to person by a pronoun should be based on what is most comfortable to you and what you believe will best get the message across to your audience.
I agree that pronouns are chosen by the speaker to convey their message, as it should be. So, for example, if I were to choose to use “fuckwad” as a pronoun for someone, I’m sure they’ll get my message loud and clear. And, similarly, if I refer to a woman as “he” because I might have some narrow view of femininity, I’m certain she’ll get the picture as well. In both cases, I will also understand that I’m being exceptionally rude and that other persons nearby might form an (accurate) opinion about the sort of person I’d be in that instance. All of this is fine insofar as I take responsibility for any repercussions that result from my poor behavior.
Now, if I was to look astonished if someone took insult and treated me like a jerk, that would be disingenuous and doubling down on the rudeness. How I treat people reflects well–or poorly–on me. If I cannot extend common courtesy to others, I have no reason to expect it in return. (But, hey! I can just play the victim and claim cancellation and earn a right-wing merit badge. So there’s that.)
Keep in mind that, as a sex offender, C.G. is not legally entitled to change either his legal name or his legal sex. Because he is not entitled to legal cooperation in obscuring his identity, and for good and sufficient reason: He’s a rapist.
And the judge is writing in a legal proceeding.
If legal name and sex are not to be used in a legal proceeding, what does it mean to say that they’re your legal name and sex?
“And, similarly, if I refer to a woman as “he” because I might have some narrow view of femininity, ”
Yeah, this is exactly the bullshit the judge is signing onto while pretending to not take sides. C.G. isn’t a woman, he’s a man. Yeah, if you referred to a woman as “he”, it would be impolite, but C.G. isn’t a woman.
That’s an objective fact, not an opinion or choice.
“That’s an objective fact, not an opinion or choice.”
This is your opinion and your choice, but it’s no longer an “objective fact” as our society is beginning to recognize more variation in sex and gender expression. This is the debate referred to in the OP. So unless C.G.’s sex or gender is relevant to the crime they are accused of committing, the court should either use gender neutral terminology or use the person’s chosen pronouns and then focus on the facts of the case that are relevant.
At the time of the court case, C.G. isn’t a convicted sex offender. Remember that whole “innocent until proven guilty” thing? And a person who is convicted of a crime doesn’t automatically lose their civil rights.
Substitute “the person’s chosen pronouns” with “gendered pronouns consistent with the person’s gender identity” and the same point is made (it is wrong to claim that objectively C.G. is not a woman and therefore should not be referred to using female pronouns).
Agree with you 100% about the function of pronouns vs. nicknames.
Thought I would add though…
“If people say “Hey, Davey” to me, that’s not the same thing as one of them saying to another, “I was talking to Davey yesterday and he said…” The former might irk me, but what business of mine is the latter?”
There is a third situation which often occurs… referring to a person to others in front of said person. For example, if a prof. who’s class you are in, were to ask the rest of the class “what do you think of Davey’s idea?”. If being called Davey to your face irks you, would it not at least be somewhat your business if it was done in front of you?
Look, you can say all you like that it isn’t an objective fact, but that doesn’t make it into an opinion or a whim. Out society isn’t ‘beginning to recognize’ diddly squat, we’re having various confusions imposed upon us by lunatics caught up in a fad.
“At the time of the court case, C.G. isn’t a convicted sex offender.”
You’re wrong about that, too. C.G. is a convicted sex offender, albeit as a juvenile, this case concerns his demand to change his name and have the government humor his pretense of being a woman.
“You’re wrong about that, too. C.G. is a convicted sex offender”
C.G. Was adjudicated to be delinquent. Do you have a cite that this counts as a criminal conviction under Wisconsin law?
Sheesh. I direct you to the very opinion we’re discussing. C.G. lost.
“Keep in mind that, as a sex offender, C.G. is not legally entitled to change either his legal name or his legal sex.”
You may be misreading the Wisconsin law on this point.
From the same link I posted above:
From the decision in this case:
So:
1. Not a convicted felon.
2. Not imprisoned or on parole
3. The court decision reads like the name change pre-dates the sexual assault,
You are basically referring to pejoratives, which brings “intent” into the equation. Fuckwad is always going to be, as far as I know, derogatory, as well as being vulgar. If that is the intent, so be it.
There is a difference between using a term in an effort to describe vs. in an effort to insult.
I had a coach who regularly referred to male players as “ladies”, fulling intending it to be disparaging. While “ladies” is not in and off itself derogatory (unless perhaps you are Muslim?), it is in that context. He also coached a women’s team where he also referred to the the players as “ladies”. In that case, it was in no way disparaging or derogatory, merely descriptive. Similarly, “you throw like a girl” tended to get used as as in insult to both guys and gals. In this case, the audience he was speaking to accepted what he was saying without controversy. At the time, nobody thought he was a sexist or that it was anything to be concerned about.
Context, social situation, intent.
C.G. should be hung from the highest (umm, 345lbs?? make that “Stoutest”) tree in the County.
And after he/she/they/it’s dead, cut off the offending organ (After death, I’m not a Sadist) so even if he/she/they/it comes back to life, he/she/they will be “Un-organed”
Know it’s a Pipe-Dream, CG probably already interviewing for Intern spot on Common-Law Harris’s 0-24 Cam-pain staff..
Frank
“cut off the offending organ”
The assault in question was a blow job.
Too be 100% accurate, the assailant performed oral sex on the victim. So the “offending organ” would be the assailant’s mouth.
I knew that, still be pretty painful. (again I’m not totally into the Mid-Evil-ness, just another way to display societies disapproval of certain behaviors. Did Eichmann really care they dumped his ashes in the Sea? or Bin Laden?)
Frank
The he/she nonsense is bad enough, but this degradation of language becomes more convoluted yet. There is a recent media story about a man (for lack of a better word) who sexually assaulted a woman. The rapist “identifies” as neither male nor female and has the “preferred pronouns” of their/theirs. So, when politically-correct journalists, afraid to offend the dignity of a rapist his, scrupulously try to use the preferred pronouns, the result is a convoluted mess, as one wonders whether “their” is singular or plural in any given sentence, and what its antecedent might be,
Until this momentary fever passes from society, perhaps a compromise, cumbersome as it might be, is, in such cases, simply to avoid the use of pronouns altogether, as in, for example, “Bob returned to Bob’s house to retrieve Bob’s books.”
I dunno… maybe one can prosecute a sexual assault without caring about the genders involved since it shouldn’t matter either way. The fact that they are the same sex or not is irrelevant. On the other hand, how public employees handle non-CIS persons in the court can impact how citizens view the court in general. A court viewed to be adversarial towards non-CIS persons could impact an innocent non-CIS person who appear before it because it would be viewed as having pre-judged them.
I get what you are saying… to a point. However, you bring yourself to an absurd situation. If the genders don’t/shouldn’t matter… that applies to the person declaring reality to be different than real-reality. Why do they care?
They adopted the philosophy that it doesn’t matter so no one should have a problem… but they get to have a problem because it matters.
That is, frankly, stupid. Like… literally stupid. Low IQ, in ability to think, lacking coherence, unintelligible… stupid.
“The fact that they are the same sex or not is irrelevant…”
Probably not to the victim. And the victim cares about how he perceives the rapist, not how the rapist identifies.
So what? The victim can withhold consent for any reason or no reason. Same sex or not is still irrelevant to the criminal justice process.
Its relevant to Alan here. The forced sex was worse for him because it was a guy doing it.
The harm was greater. The law ought to take that into account.
Criminal law can take the subjective effect on the victim into account, but I’m not sure that’s what it ought to do.
The State is not standing in for the victim.
I have to say, I hate the whole Paul Cassel project. The victim’s POV should be part of the legislative calculus. Criminal prosecution and punishment are no place for passion and bias. At least that’s my view.
So if I’m sexually assaulted by a redhead, and I hate redheads, the punishment should be greater? How about if I’m robbed at gunpoint, and I don’t give a crap? Should the robber be set free, no charges filed?
“So if I’m sexually assaulted by a redhead, and I hate redheads, the punishment should be greater?”
No, but if you’re assaulted by a redhead who wants to be described as a blond, the court should give equal deference to your view as the rapist’s. One way to do that is to stick to actual facts.
No, but if you’re assaulted by a redhead who wants to be described as a blond, the court should give equal deference to your view as the rapist’s.
You keep saying that, but you’ve yet to explain why.
Well, it’s pretty obvious that the victim just has a better moral claim to deference than the attacker.
No it isn’t. It may be that the victim is less morally compromised generally than the attacker, but that doesn’t give the victim any moral claim over what the court should call the attacker.
“You keep saying that, but you’ve yet to explain why.”
Because they’re both human, and have the same right to human dignity, which is what the deference is purportedly based on.
Oh please. If you crime me, and I ask the court to call you Needle Dick instead of TwelveInchPianist, you think it should seriously consider my request because I have equal human dignity?
No, but they’re not going to call me TwelveInchPianist either.
Now you’re changing the subject. The question wasn’t whether the court is compelled to accept to the defendant’s preferred name. It was your assertion that the court should give equal consideration to what the victim wants him called.
“It was your assertion that the court should give equal consideration to what the victim wants him called.”
If the court is going to make the defendant’s gender something subjective, why shouldn’t it give equal consideration to the perspective of the victim?
Of course, if you stick to the objective view of gender, you don’t have that problem.
Why shouldn’t the court also give equal consideration to the victim’s decorating preferences? And what the victim wants the judge to have for lunch?
What the court calls the defendant is no more the victim’s business than either of those things.
As for “objective view of gender,” beg the question much?
“So what?”
Huh? In case you didn’t read the post, the point is that it matters how the rapist is described. But victims and others have preferences that count too. We shouldn’t pretend that the rapist’s pronoun preferences are the only ones that matter.
The rapist’s preferences shouldn’t be all that matters. The relevant law, court rules and practice should matter a lot. But there’s no legal, moral or otherwise principled basis for a victim’s preference of what a court should call their attacker mattering whatsoever.
“But there’s no legal, moral or otherwise principled basis for a victim’s preference of what a court should call their attacker mattering whatsoever.”
There’s no legal, moral or otherwise principled basis for an attacker’s preference on how they should be described mattering either.
As I said, just stick to facts.
There’s no legal, moral or otherwise principled basis for an attacker’s preference on how they should be described mattering either.
Obviously this court disagrees.
Yup. The court inexplicably decided to prioritize the perspective of the rapist over the perspective of the victim, based on some conception of human dignity that apparently the rapist is entitled to but the victim is not.
That’s what I’ve been saying.
The conception of human dignity is that when not otherwise prohibited by law or court rules, we defer to the preferred pronouns of the person being named. That would apply to the victim as well as the rapist. I’m certain this court would defer to the victim’s dignity on many matters. Just not on matters, such as this one, that are none of the victim’s business.
Dead Mexican, no penis.
That is a rather profound thought I had not considered.
Women who are raped by men very often have trouble trusting men after the event (it can take months or years, if ever). Even men who they have long known and formally trusted.
So the question would be, if a women was raped by a person with a penis who identifies as a women (trans female), what do you think the odds are the victim losses trust in other women vs. her losing trust in men? How much play do you think a visceral and core reaction is going to take “identifies as” into account?
I would love to see someone at Berkley take on that question…
If someone is not a “he” or a “she”, then under the rules of English as they have existed for the last few hundred year, all that is left is “it”. Unsurprisingly, however, no one seems to have a preferred pronoun of “it”. So, the individual chooses “they”, which has for time immemorial been exclusively a plural pronoun. So, anyone reading, “they assaulted her,” will perceive the meaning as she was assaulted by more than one individual. Surely, the potential for confusion is obvious.
C.G. is a fat criminal homosexual who has been granted anonymity in court papers. He has a sick sexual fantasy about being a girl. What reason could there be for accommodating his preferred pronouns? The readers of the court opinions are not supposed to know his name anyway, or link the pronouns to him.
1. Technically, “C.G. is a fat delinquent homosexual”.
2. The name/gender change appears to predate the assault. If you read the decision, the assailant was already presenting as female and using the new name at the time the assault happened. Given that they predate the criminal act, I’m skeptical that it affects their validity.
2. No, that’s just one of the confusions that result from the court humoring this sort of thing. From the decision: “She entered the juvenile justice system as a male. Sometime thereafter, Ella realized she was a transgender girl, i.e., a biological male who self-identifies as a girl.
The dude only decided he was a girl after he’d already committed the rape.
That would be a problem. If they are going to humor something like that, they should at least keep what name/gender the defendant was using when straight in the description of the facts.
“The dude only decided he was a girl after he’d already committed the rape”
Apparently you didn’t get the memo. Trans folks are often that way at birth. Confusion, shame, fear, etc. as serve to keep them form identify, often even to themselves, until much later in life.
The rule is simple: If your wife of 20 years comes to you and says “honey, I am really a man” and lets you know he is going to transition. Even though he you have been making love to his vagina all these years and the transitioning may have just started, he was always a man… and that makes you queer.
Do you have anyone requiring the retconning you posit, or did you pull that out of your ass?
It seems referring to the offender as C. G. gets the job done. Some caution would have to be exercised to be completely consistent and leave out all pronouns referring to the rapist, but that can be done.
There is this quote:
“questioned her gender identity throughout her adolescence,” “she began to express ‘thoughts of transitioning'”
I am sympathetic to both the majority’s and the concurrence’s concern for the appearance of neutrality. But less is more. Both risk seeming non-neutral by highlighting their decisions and then giving contestable reasons for them.
It seems to me the majority could have limited itself to something like this:
The concurrence likewise could simply have said “I refer to Petitioner using the initials found in the caption.”
“For a bit of the factual backstory, which may be relevant because it may illustrate how use of pronouns might color readers’ perspective…”
Is this relevant, though? Is sexual assault more illegal depending on the genders of the rapist and the victim? The only way I can see pronouns having an impact in this case is the way it might color the jury’s opinion.
I served on a jury where a trans-woman was physically assaulted while working for a food bank. The judge had to constantly apologize because he referred to the fully transitioned plaintiff as “he” often. It was distracting at a minimum, undercut the judge’s overall authority, and injected an irrelevant detail into the proceedings that shifted focus away from the relevant facts.
The backstory does clarify what you might not otherwise get, which is that C.G. is a hulking big juvenile rapist.
“The only way I can see pronouns having an impact in this case is the way it might color the jury’s opinion.”
The original trial was a delinquency proceeding. AFIK, no jury.
Another win for Professor Volokh! His post once again dragged the worst of the Internet out of their sewers to impress us with their bigotry and ignorance.
MoreCurious
July.7.2022 at 1:38 pm
Flag Comment Mute User
Another win for Professor Volokh! His post once again dragged the worst of the Internet out of their sewers to impress us with their bigotry and ignorance.
the only ignorance is the delusional belief that a mental disorder can be cured biologically. The embracement of a mental health fad by the woke with a despicable agenda is appallingly evil
This circumstance certainly indicates the problem with the gender theory position.
Alan experienced his attack as an attack by a male, and using female pronouns invalidates his experience. Alan deserves dignity as well.
Best to base this sort of thing on neutral criteria, like biology.
The BBC even though it was a good idea to censor a rape victim’s account of her attack out of respect for the preferences of the rapist.
“[They] threatened to out me as a terf and risk my job if I refused to sleep with [them],” she wrote. “I was too young to argue and had been brainwashed by queer theory so [they were] a ‘woman’ even if every fibre of my being was screaming throughout so I agreed to go home with [them]. [They] used physical force when I changed my mind upon seeing [their] penis and raped me.”
Men are men.
Women are women.
Science.
The funny thing is, we don’t REALLY follow the science. As a rule, society has always tended to follow the sexual identity of a person. It is only recently that the folks with gender dysphoria/incongruence, along with the greater LGBT+ and woke crowds, have made this an issue.
X (Turner syndrome), X/XY mosaicism, XX/XY, XXX (Triple X), XXY (Klinefelter syndrome), XYY, XXXX, XXXY, XXYY, XXXXY, XXXXX, and
XX (Male syndrome)
The biological definition of sex and the physical characteristic of a person do not always match when as you drift away from the common XX & XY pairings. Outside of sports, it has never really been much of an issue.
I note that first, people who confidently state that there are two sexes XX female and XY male and then trumpet “science!” are unaware of the actual science – and seem remarkably resistant to it when it’s pointed out – and that second, they tend to be antiscience in many other areas.
We tend to be aware that the cases that depart from XX female and XY male are damned rare. You don’t deny humans are bipedal just because once in a long while somebody is born with an odd number of legs.
Indeed cases of 46 XX or XY DSD are rare, but that is not the same as non-existent. Cases of XXY and XYY are somewhat more common.
Cases of transgenderism, though, may not be as rare as we have previously thought, just as autism, dyslexia, dyspraxia and ADHD may not be as rare as previous generations had thought – though perhaps, particularly in the last case, not quite as common as some may claim.
I’m sure (Reverend) AK’s favorite Judge, the Honorable Warren Fresnell (Love his lenses) would have something to say about CG’s pronouns during Sentencing (I’m guessing Not Probation or a Women’s Prison)
Frank “how long will the “Woke” Navy keep “calling the ball”
“CG’s pronouns during Sentencing (I’m guessing Not Probation or a Women’s Prison)”
Juvenile detention most likely if he/she/it sees any detention at all, as CG was only adjudicated delinquent in juvenile court, not convicted of a crime in adult court.
“I’m guessing Not Probation or a Women’s Prison”
Why not a women’s prison? They put men in them now.
“Why not a women’s prison?”
Because he was adjudicated delinquent in a juvenile court, not convicted on a felony charge in an adult court.
OK, a school for wayward girls or whatever they call them.
C.G., who was 15 and who would a year later be 300-345 pounds and 6’4″ or 6’5″
One wonders whether she will be dangerous to other female juveniles held in a Juvenile facility.
Finally who selected the name Ella? There are numerous other names which serve for either major gender including Ashley, Blake, Blair, Cameron, Drew, Emery, Harper, Jordan and Taylor. I’ve only included names where I know or know of both males and females using the name.
The singular “they” has been in use since at least Shakespeare’s time.
In the fullness of time, all the people who get bent out of shape over pronouns will be dead.
BTW if the thinking part of a person’s body tells them they’re female, and the unthinking part of a person’s body tells them they’re male, why do people prefer what the unthinking part says?
If the thinking part says I have 11 toes, but the unthinking part consists of exactly 10 toes…
How many toes do I have?
Sex or gender are not defined in the same way as toes
California passed a law making it a crime, punishable by a $2500 fine and six months in jail, for a staff member at a care facility from “willfully and repeatedly” failing to use an individual’s “preferred name or pronouns”. A court of appeals declared this a violation of free speech, but the state supreme court has granted review of that decision. Taking Offense v. State, 281 Cal. Rptr. 3d 298 (Ct. App. 2021).
In British Columbia, the supreme court, granting a 15-year-old “transgender boy assigned female at birth” permission for “gender reassignment” surgery, further declared that if the child’s father (who opposed the surgery) must refer to his child as male and use male pronouns. When he later referred to his child as his “daughter” in an interview, the judge issued a warrant for his arrest and jailed him for contempt. A.B. v. C.D., 2019 BCSC 254.
Social media bans people for using the “wrong” pronouns. Schools are expelling students and firing professors for using the “wrong” pronouns. So, who exactly is “bent out of shape over pronouns”? You don’t see conservatives passing laws to mandate “correct” pronouns or demanding punishments for “wrong” pronouns.
BTW, if the thinking part of a person’s body tells him he’s Napoleon or tells him he’s a dragon, that doesn’t make it so. He is suffering from a delusion, and one does not affirm someone in his delusions. An anorexic thinks she is fat, but, rather obviously, one would not affirm her in that dangerous delusion that will kill her if not corrected.
See my response to sparkstable
See Alice’s response to Humpty Dumpty.
Somebody really did a number on you, and I certainly can’t undo the damage with a few words. I will suggest you spend less time on social media, because you are disconnected from reality and just repeating nonsense you picked up somewhere. A little time away from the computer screen might let reality creep back in.
The consistent use of “they” to refer to an individual creates virtually impenetrable confusion regarding the identity and number of people involved. Please try to read some of the recent news articles which adhere to the subjects preference for “they” as a pronoun. The use of they as a singular pronoun has generally been sparing…
“The consistent use of “they” to refer to an individual creates virtually impenetrable confusion regarding the identity and number of people involved.”
From the closer:
They’re coming after you Dave!
Dave Chapelle: One they, or many theys?