In the past few years, as the world pushes us to be more inclusive in all aspects of life, a very controversial conversation has begun in the US and worldwide. Should transgender athletes be allowed to play in female sports?
And in many areas around the nation, this discussion and the heated debate that usually occurs has resulted in time spent before a judge.
But what happens when the judge presiding over the case has a history of sexism and discrimination?
Enter Judge Robert Chatigny. Currently, Chatigny is responsible for ruling on a transgender case in the state of Connecticut, where four female athletes have claimed they are being discriminated against because of their biological sex.
The girls have long played sports for their state. But when the Connecticut Interscholastic Athletic Conference decided to allow transgender females or males who now identify as females, to play in female sports, these brave girls saw an injustice. The “males,” as the girls refer to their new competitors as, have quickly taken over, dominating the field and leaving them at quite a disadvantage.
The young women are now fighting for their rights to even play in their preferred events without discrimination just for being who they were born to be.
However, Judge Chatigny seems a little biased towards one side already, even before the case has been argued. Apparently, he has a problem with the ‘transgender females’ being called males. And he has since banned the term from being used by counsel.
Chatigny wrote, “What I’m saying is you must refer to them as ‘transgender females’ rather than as ‘males.’ Again, that’s the more accurate terminology, and I think that it fully protects your client’s legitimate interests. 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.”
Yes, you read that correctly. Chatigny thinks calling biological males “male” isn’t accurate.
Furthermore, when the girl’s counsel, Roger Brooks, argued that it wasn’t inaccurate, according to the young women’s beliefs, Chatigny seemed to threaten Brooks. He told Brooks he would give him “some time to think about it,” suggesting that some sort of punishment or need to appeal would be made should Brooks and the girls continue in this line of thinking.
It seems a little harsh, right? Is it just me, or does it look like Chatigny has already made up his mind on who will win the case? And it hasn’t even been fully brought forth.
But as it turns out, this isn’t the first time Judge Chatigny has ruled in favor of men, even in criminal cases where evidence would lead anyone else to the opposite decision.
Take the case of Michael Ross in 2010, for example.
Ross was a tried and convicted serial killer. He proudly told of how he had tied up a 14-year-old Leslie Shelley, packed her into a car trunk, and then “took the other (14-year-old) girl, April Brunais, out, and I raped her and killed her, and I put her in the front seat.” He admitted in a documentary that he had raped and killed at least eight other women and girls, aging from 14 to 25. In addition, he told authorities that if he hadn’t been caught, he’d still be out there committing similar crimes.
And yet, when Judge Chatigny discussed the case, he said that Ross “should never have been convicted.” According to Chatigny, Ross’ “sexual sadism is clearly a mitigating factor,” and one that deserved him getting a much lesser sentence.
Or what about the case of another sexual predator, one who lured in a 15 old girl online? Sentencing guidelines recommend 57-71 months of prison. Chatigny gave the man 36, reasoning that it happened only once, and the man said he was sorry.
And in eight out of 12 child pornography cases, Chatigny also gave less than the recommended sentencing.
Starting to seem a bit sexist? You aren’t the only one who thinks so. State prosecutors, organizations like Concerned Women for America, and members of Congress from both parties have voiced similar concerns about Chatigny. And yet, somehow, he is still allowed to rule.
As he stated, the individuals in question, in this case, aren’t even “male” anymore. And yet he is still siding with them.
Talk about a slap in the face to women and their rights.