If you’ve ever wondered how a judge can write something as mindnumbingly bonkers as “Clark attempted to castrate herself by tying a shoelace around her penis and scrotum,” much of the blame lies with bar associations and judicial organizations that allow trans activists to steep lawyers and judges in transgender ideology. As Kathleen Barceleau writes in an excellent essay titled “Setting the Terms of the Debate: How Trans Activists Shape Judicial Language,” trans activists “advance their cause indirectly by training judges to use gender-identity-based pronouns, nouns, and other trans-centered language”:
In less than a decade, activists have craftily shaped the terms of the debate. Couching language guides as cultural competency, they openly indoctrinate judges in trans theory. They present new, value-laden terms as merely descriptive. They frame compelled speech as a matter of civility, convincing courts that gender-identity-based language is the only permissible option. But when it comes to the merits of their cases, they insist that this language conveys substantive ideas, stating facts about the reality of sex and gender….
While a judge who opts for trans terminology may insist it is merely a matter of etiquette and not substance, that language slants the framing and record of the case. In considering whether a person has a right to use a women’s bathroom or play on a women’s sports team, the terminology used all but answers the question. A man cannot use a woman’s bathroom. But a woman, obviously, can. So using “she” and “trans woman,” even if the court explains its meaning, sets the narrative of the case.
This year’s conference of the Appellate Judges Education Institute, which begins tomorrow, is just the latest example. The conference includes a plenary session labeled “R.E.S.P.E.C.T – LGBTQ Inclusion in the Courtroom and Workplace.” The stated purposes of the session include “help[ing] attorneys and judges understand the differences between gender and sexuality, describe the use of terminology, [and] review pronoun inclusion.” (As if there isn’t ample room to contest these matters.) The three panelists are “a trans man and father,” an attorney who “transitioned from male to female,” and the “first open member of the LGBTQ+ community” to serve on the Minnesota supreme court.
Don’t look for any exploration of how transgender terminology makes even smart judges stupid.
State and federal judges from around the country will be attending the AJEI conference, surely at taxpayer expense. I wonder how many legislators are aware that they are subsidizing transgender indoctrination of their judges.