I have a trial coming up where I will be representing a community college professor who was put on a year's leave after a transgender employee complained about him handing out "He/him - chocolates with nuts" candy bars.
In my own mind, I've been dealing with the issue of whether I refer to this person as "He" or as "she." In briefing I've engaged in a lot of circumlocution on this issue, because I don't want to undermine my client's position that a man is a man by nature and does not become a female by nominalist manipulation of language.
I am inclined to think that discretion is the better part of valor and to not get into a ruckus with the judge - who will undoubtedly be wary of bad press for allowing "transphobia" in the courtroom.
On the other hand, this is a free speech case, and part of the case turns on the right of my client to speak the the truth, and it seems hypocritical to sacrifice the truth value (without a court order to the contrary, at least.)
For my part, I am a Catholic and a Thomist, and I believe as a matter of religious faith and theological training - which includes an understanding of human anthropology - that human nature comes in two modes - male and female - and that just as a human does not become a coyote by saying so, a man does not become a woman by saying so.
Does Mahmoud speak to my First Amendment religious right to "opt out" of the enforced decorum of being mandated to call a "trans female" by the pronoun "she"?
I suspect that the authority of the court to define decorum in the courtroom and the duty of prudence I owe my client is paramount, but it is something to consider.
This is a hot topic of debate among lawyers litigating these cases. I’d be inclined to use biologically accurate language, let the judge try and force you to adopt different language and then use that on your appeal. But this is obviously lacking context and not considered legal advice. My favorite person on this subject is Theo Wold, who says that when lawyers adopt the language of the left to argue these cases in court they’ve ceded all the ground.
The part about "ceding ground" is germane as a matter of advocacy. Would it look like I am agreeing that the issue is closed and that anyone raising the issue is "out of bounds" in terms of public discussion? Maybe?
Or is it that a federal jury in Fresno County, California would think that we are being impolite. (Federal juries come mostly from the rural areas of the Eastern District and presumably are more conservative.)
I have a trial coming up where I will be representing a community college professor who was put on a year's leave after a transgender employee complained about him handing out "He/him - chocolates with nuts" candy bars.
In my own mind, I've been dealing with the issue of whether I refer to this person as "He" or as "she." In briefing I've engaged in a lot of circumlocution on this issue, because I don't want to undermine my client's position that a man is a man by nature and does not become a female by nominalist manipulation of language.
I am inclined to think that discretion is the better part of valor and to not get into a ruckus with the judge - who will undoubtedly be wary of bad press for allowing "transphobia" in the courtroom.
On the other hand, this is a free speech case, and part of the case turns on the right of my client to speak the the truth, and it seems hypocritical to sacrifice the truth value (without a court order to the contrary, at least.)
For my part, I am a Catholic and a Thomist, and I believe as a matter of religious faith and theological training - which includes an understanding of human anthropology - that human nature comes in two modes - male and female - and that just as a human does not become a coyote by saying so, a man does not become a woman by saying so.
Does Mahmoud speak to my First Amendment religious right to "opt out" of the enforced decorum of being mandated to call a "trans female" by the pronoun "she"?
I suspect that the authority of the court to define decorum in the courtroom and the duty of prudence I owe my client is paramount, but it is something to consider.
Any ideas?
This is a hot topic of debate among lawyers litigating these cases. I’d be inclined to use biologically accurate language, let the judge try and force you to adopt different language and then use that on your appeal. But this is obviously lacking context and not considered legal advice. My favorite person on this subject is Theo Wold, who says that when lawyers adopt the language of the left to argue these cases in court they’ve ceded all the ground.
I appreciate your input.
The part about "ceding ground" is germane as a matter of advocacy. Would it look like I am agreeing that the issue is closed and that anyone raising the issue is "out of bounds" in terms of public discussion? Maybe?
Or is it that a federal jury in Fresno County, California would think that we are being impolite. (Federal juries come mostly from the rural areas of the Eastern District and presumably are more conservative.)
Tough call.
FYI - You may have heard about the case.
https://www.scnr.com/article/gay-conservative-professor-under-investigation-for-offering-chocolates-to-attendees-at-an-open-house_2a2ed999f02211ed9f19b07b25f8c291
This is great news. Excellent work!