Standards for referring to transgender people in law?

[Ace309]

Apologies for missing the edit window. Phil Brooks was meant to be on trial for mopery, and “modern” was a typo.

[UDS]

@Ace309

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?

If it becomes an issue that is impeding the progress of the trial, the judge will intervene. He could direct counsel to use the witness’s preferred name, or he could direct the witness to answer questions put by counsel without quibbling about what name is used. He’s more likely to do the former, not out of any high principle about names and authenticity, but because it’s the course most likely to lead to the trial proceedings smoothly; counsel will almost certainly accept and follow the judge’s direction without making an issue of it.

[Acsenray]

Back in 2017, the clerk of the Supreme Court reprimanded amicus curiae for misgendering a party in a case caption —***Supreme Court reprimands groups for misgendering Gavin Grimm.