Once again someone in politics doesn't even have the decency to become educated enough to make an informed decision before making policy decisions which affect all of us in some way or another. We wonder why our battle is so difficult and always seems to be uphill?
http://www.vox.com/2015/7/28/9058213/gavin-grimm-title-ix
I am not mentally ill and I am not a freak. I am a woman! My mind is what makes me female no matter what this physical, external flesh shows me to be. That means to me, my body is deformed, not my brain. My external body does not make me who or what I am. Any other known birth defect is looked at with understanding, sympathy and a medical push to make the child whole so they fit in with society. Are we any different? It seems that no matter how much science proves that what we have is real, so many refuse to acknowledge us as people who just want to live our lives.
And again, a judges decision is wrong
A word from our sponsor:
Comments
It sounds like...
This was in a district court? I hope they appeal to the Supreme Court. This is the kind of case that if taken to the Supreme Court could make for some massive improvements for us.
Abigail Drew.
So the Judge decided the case
So the Judge decided the case before it was presented? Uh, isn't that the opposite of the way it's supposed to work.
Sadly
Sadly It think that in too many cases put before the judicial system this is the case. It is just not something that is openly vocalized. It will be interesting to see what the outcome of this case is or how far it is taken in the courts.
Dahlia
I wonder if there could be an odd angle to this.
Could the Judged be sued for declaring someone has a mental disorder when medical opinion is otherwise? If possible how would we convey this idea to the lawyers involved? It sounds like some sort of slander to me. However I have no idea how legal or not such an action might technically be.
Just s crazy* thought? Or an interesting idea outside the box?
~Hypatia >i< ..:::
* :p
Legalese
I'm not a legal wizz or anything but I don't know if you could sue a judge personally or not. I've a feeling that they are in some way protected from this type of action. Maybe someone else in the BC readership will know. I know I would take it very personal if I was told by the judge that I had a mental disorder.
Dahlia
Judges are protected
Judges are protected from civil suits based on decisions made on the bench. This goes back to Common Law and further. It has to work that way or no judge would dare make any rulings at all. That said, situations like this can be handled through censure by a judicial board. Once censured, in some cases, judges can be sued but don't hold your breath.
Hugs,
Erin
= Give everyone the benefit of the doubt because certainty is a fragile thing that can be shattered by one overlooked fact.
Appeal
The vox story you quote missed one very important fact that I saw in other coverage. The case is being handled by (IIRC) the ACLU, and they'll appeal to the relevant Appellate Court. He will almost certainly be reversed on the decision to throw out the Title IX claim. It won't go to the Supreme Court until there are at least two conflicting Appellate Court decisions.
This is the way the system is supposed to work. The judge decides matters of law, you only get a jury trial to decide disputed matters of fact. It's the judge's job to decide the lawyers are out to lunch if they brief stuff he considers wrong, hence he threw out the Title IX claim because he didn't think it applied.
The decision at the federal level that Title IX applies to discrimination against transgender people is only a start; it's going to be a long path before case law settles how schools are supposed to handle transgender students, and then another long path before it actually happens in any consistent fashion.
This is simply a first misstep on that path by an 82-year-old judge who should have retired a long time ago.