In what might be the biggest nothing burger in the history of the world, a Trump appointee is under fire for not respecting the pronouns of someone who pleaded guilty of trying to receive child porn.
NBC:
Stuart Kyle Duncan, a judge on the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, issued an advisory opinion Wednesday that dismissed a transgender defendant’s chosen pronouns and the broader concept of gender identity, just less than two years after LGBTQ advocates warned that Duncan would not rule fairly if confirmed to the bench.
Kathrine Nicole Jett, a transgender woman who was known as Norman Varner when she pleaded guilty in 2012 to attempted receipt of child pornography, moved to have her conviction records updated to match her changed name, according to the decision. A lower court judge dismissed her motion because there was no “defect” in the original judgment paperwork, in that “Norman Varner” was her legal name when the documents were produced.
Jett’s appeal appeared before the 5th Circuit, where Duncan sits. In his majority opinion, Duncan vacated the lower court ruling that denied Jett’s appeal, saying the court lacked jurisdiction, but then he proceeded to mock Jett’s court motion that she be referred to using female pronouns and her new name.
More:
Duncan refers to Jett only using “he” pronouns throughout and refers to her as a “gender-dysphoric” person, instead of as a transgender person.
“Federal courts sometimes choose to refer to gender-dysphoric parties by their preferred pronouns,” Duncan wrote, and “our court has gone both ways.”
In fact, the 5th Circuit has broadly respected the identities of transgender defendants for at least four decades. In 1980, the 5th Circuit wrote in Rush v. Parham that it would follow the “convention” in “medical literature” of referring to transgender people using their preferred pronouns.
In his argument against using Jett’s pronouns and name, Duncan cites eight cases from 1980 to 2014 in which the 5th Circuit referred to transgender people using their correct pronouns. He cites three cases in which the 5th Circuit did not, including edge cases, such as one in which a prisoner who once identified as a gay man had later come out as a transgender women.
“Congress has said nothing to prohibit courts from referring to litigants according to their biological sex, rather than according to their subjective gender identity,” Duncan correctly observes, noting that the “convention” is and continues to be a “courtesy.”
Duncan goes on to warn that respecting a transgender person’s gender in the same way courts respect a cisgender person’s gender “may unintentionally convey its tacit approval of the litigant’s underlying legal position.” He warns that respecting transgender people’s gender identities “may well turn out to be more complex than at first it might appear” because of a “galaxy” of genders, citing what he says is a “widely circulated” University of Wisconsin LGBTQ+ Resource Center guide to pronouns. (A Google reverse image search of the pronoun guide included in Duncan’s opinions returned no matches.)
What does using someone’s correct gender pronouns have to do with whether a judge can rule fair or not? By this rule only people who are completely accepting of everything the LGBTQ+ agenda advocates for are allowed to be a judge.
This is the real problem with the radicalism of the LGBTQ+ agenda. It isn’t just about someone making a personal decision. It is actually affecting our institutions. It is completely attempting to re-write things that have been longstanding since the beginning of our country.
The Palmieri Report is a Pro-America News Outlet founded by Jacob Palmieri two years ago at the age of 19. Since its founding, it has gotten over 1M pages views and over 20k followers. The Palmieri Report is dedicated to debunking the lies spread by the left-wing Mainstream Media.
