Reading today’s major Supreme Court decision, something struck me: the decision (properly, IMO) uses female pronouns when referring to one of the plaintiffs, a transgender woman. Considering use of pronouns is seen as a major political issue, this struck me.
Now, I’m fairly sure that the Court does not intend to send the message that it, as a body, takes a stand on transgender people, but the pronoun use is a major way in which laypeople do. So how did it come to this decision? Are there any larger standards? Any written down, or are they all understood?
This would have been the choice of the justice who authored the opinion, assented to by the justices who concurred in the opinion. A different judge might make a different choice.
Sure, but that still means that the judge made a decision to respect that. That’s not necessarily a given. For instance, during the time when Prince was officially going by an unpronounceable symbol, he got involved in a court case, and the judge ruled that, for purposes of the court, he would be referred to by his birth name.
I noticed that as well. It’s not a holding, but it is very, very, very strong persuasive authority for a judge in any state or federal court to rule that persons should be referred to by their own preferred pronoun.
I would expect that judges/justices refer to those before them in a respectful manor. If for any other reason than to appear unbiased. Im sure they had a decision to make for themselves on it. If they were unsure what was appropriate I’d expect them to use the persons name either by birth or as they gave it, as Chronos has mentioned.
However, this being GQ, I cannot help to believe that there will be a question of the judge’s impartiality in a case where it makes a difference. Say when a transgender female youth (biologically a male) wants to play a female sport. If the judge demands that the youth be referred to as “she” I can see a very good argument that the judge has already pre decided the case. It’s a tough and new rule that will need to be worked out.
The judge hasn’t “demanded” that the party in this case be referred to by a particular pronoun; he has simply used that pronoun himself when referring to that party. That’s not evidence of bias or of having approached the case with a preconception, any more than the use of the complementary pronoun would evidence bias and preconception.
No, I’m talking about a hypothetical case where a person is born male and named David transitions to female in 9th grade and wants to be called Susan and play on the girl’s soccer team. I am defending the school board who has denied her/his request to play on the girls team.
If a judge tells me that my pleadings are out of order because I refer to David and him, his, and he, and insists that I say Susan, her, hers, and she, then I would object because the judge has already decided the case.
Why wouldn’t a girl named Susan be allowed to play on the girl’s soccer team? The judge has undercut my argument and will not allow me to argue on behalf of my clients as I would like, and has likely pre judged the case.
That seems to ignore the fact that there are already plenty of reasons why certain girls can’t participate as members of certain girls’ sports teams, such as age limits, weight classes, pro/am status, and so forth. Just because you respect a transgender girl’s preference for the pronouns corresponding to her gender identity doesn’t necessarily mean that you’ve already decided that this particular girl meets requirements for playing on this particular team.
The hypo is a clean case. Nobody is disputing the youth’s age or weight or professional status. The board wants to keep the youth off of the girls’ team because of the biological advantage.
If the judge keeps interjecting that I must refer to the youth as Susan and she, he has prejudged the case. Why wouldn’t an otherwise qualified 9th grade girl named Susan not be able to play for the girls team? I’m pushing back against that notion, but the judge won’t even allow me to make the argument. He has his mind made up.
Getting back to the OP - if the transgender person in question had legally changed her gender then perhaps the judge was simply using the legal gender just as he might use the person’s legal name. Did the person in question legally change gender? (I personally have no idea)
This is General Question, the place for factual questions. The factual question here is what precedent, policy, or law exists for use of pronouns in referring to transgender people in the courtroom. The factual question here is not how transgender people ought to be treated, because that is not a factual question. Everyone is directed to stay on topic.
Not at all. The judge’s position might be (a) people are entitled to adopt the name they want, and their choice should be respected, but (b) this principle does not necessarilyi extend to every choice they make.
(And this is in fact the legal and common-sense position. There have long been processes for people who, for whatever reason, are unhappy with their current name to change their name, and we generally respect that and use the name they have chosen for themselves.)
Since there are a gazillion different courts in the common law countries that write opinions, I have no answer to the original question. However, most U.S. states, if not all, have one or more statutes concerning the interpretation of pronouns. One quick example is a Arkansas statute concerning labor and industrial relations: “Throughout this chapter, the pronoun “he” is deemed to include the masculine gender, the feminine gender, and, in the case of employers who are not persons, the neuter gender.” (AR § 11-10-224).
I believe the Judge in his decision was simply using the names/genders used in the court documents from the filings & previous court decisions.
I think that’s the common practice in court cases. There are many cases where even the names on the cases have changed while the case makes its way through the courts. It used to be common for criminal cases to be filed in the name of the District Attorney (Roe vs. Wade, for example). And sometimes the District Attorney had retired or lost re-election while the case was in the courts. But the courts continued to use the same name for the case. (Now I think they mostly use the name of the jurisdiction instead (Miranda vs. Arizona).)
I don’t think this is going to be a problem for Judges. They can always avoid it by using a neutral term like ‘the plaintiff’ or ‘the defendant’ if they prefer. (That’s a bit longer than just he or she, but brevity doesn’t seem to be much of a consideration in court documents.)
As far as I know, Prince Nelson never legally changed his name, never even filed a request for a legal name change. He continued to use that name in the mundane cases of daily life. The symbol use was part of a legal dispute with his record company, and seems more like a publicity stunt – he claimed he had to use that symbol because the record company ‘owned’ him & his name.
In my state back in November the Attorney General set the standards for all law enforcement in the state. The courts are following that standard. I suspect at least for the near future it’s going to vary widely from state to state.
Mildly related question. Let’s imagine that WWE Executive Vice President of Global Talent Strategy & Development Triple H is testifying as a witness in the modern trial of Phil Brooks, and assume that he hasn’t legally changed his name (I believe this assumption is correct). For some reason, opposing counsel addresses him as “Mr. Levesque,” his last name at birth, and he cordially says, “please, call me Triple H, or, if you must, Mr. Helmsley.”
Opposing counsel then addresses him again as “Mr. Levesque.”
Would the modal judge be likely to instruct the attorney in how to address the witness?