In Britain and America, judges are buying into transgender lies - Andrea Widburg

​
by Andrea Widburg

Although transgenderism is nothing more than a form of body dysmorphia, legal systems are accepting its premise, something terrible for real women.

Judges in England and America are becoming infected with the politically correct theory that transgenderism is real – that is, a person who thinks he is a member of the opposite sex, is a member of the opposite sex. This notion will cause damage to real women who find themselves before judges who have substituted politically-espoused mental illness over biological reality.

Transgenderism is not real. The science of sex is simple: Among mammals, including humans, there are two sexes, male and female. Within each mammalian species, the biological gender differences are strong, both physically and mentally. Only in rare cases are kids born with tangled sex genes.

The “science” of “gender,” as opposed to the biological reality about human sex, is a make-believe 21st-century construct. Examining a recent statement about so-called transgenderism from the American Academy of Pediatrics, America’s preeminent pediatric organization, reveals that, while the AAP has all sorts of theories predicated upon accepting that transgenderism is real, you will find nothing proving that through the scientific method.

So-called transgenderism is just another form of body dysmorphia (people’s feeling that their bodies do not align with their sense of self). It’s a tragic condition and sufferers deserve sympathy. Nevertheless, in a functioning society, sympathy cannot transmute into a legal system that accepts delusions as reality. That’s why what’s happening in English and American courts is so dangerous.

In England, there’s a battle between feminists and judges over the Equal Treatment Bench Book, which tells judges how to handle people who claim to be “transgender”:

Guidance for judges on transgender issues has come under fire from solicitors in the wake of controversial court rulings. Feminist lawyers say the guidance, in the Equal Treatment Bench Book, fails to highlight conflicts between transgender and women’s rights.
The Bench Book advises that transgender defendants should be addressed by the pronouns of their choice and that ‘self-definition is the most important criteria’ (sic). At least one victim of violence by a transgender woman has been reprimanded in court for using male pronouns while describing the attack. Finding the defendant guilty, the judge refused the victim compensation, saying that when asked to refer to the defendant as ‘she’, the victim had done so with ‘bad grace’ or continued to use ‘he’.
Solicitor Harriet Wistrich, head of the Centre for Women’s Justice, has raised concerns about pronoun use in cases involving violence against women. ‘Here there is a conflict between the right of self-definition and the right of a victim, who may have been violated in the most horrendous way, to describe her material reality as she perceives it,’ she said. ‘Why is the victim’s right less important?’

For those who think that what’s happening in England can’t happen here, think again. Three girls in Connecticut sued after two fake girls competed in state track trails and locked the real girls out of the winning slots. Unfortunately for them, the judge, a Bill Clinton appointee, has already embraced the so-called “transgender” narrative (emphasis added):

During a phone call to discuss an ongoing suit filed by three jilted female athletes in Connecticut, Senior Judge Robert Chatigny of the District Court of Connecticut stopped the conversation to correct the plaintiff’s counsel on their choice to say “biologically male” in the complaint rather than “transgender female.”
[snip]

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. So going forward, we will not refer to the proposed intervenors as “males”; understood?

[snip]

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; and, for me, civility is a very important value, especially in litigation.

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.

There is nothing “uncivil” about identifying a biological male accurately. This is especially true in a case revolving around the harm done to biological females when they are forced to compete for accolades and scholarships with males who have muscle mass and reflexes that have been biologically coded for greater speed and power. In a case that revolves around men racing women for real prizes, any judge who, as the trial begins, accepts delusional individuals' reality should automatically be recused from the case.

Andrea Widburg

Source: https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2020/05/in_britain_and_america_judges_are_buying_into_transgender_lies.html

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter