The court’s mandatory course teaches the following:
A person’s sex is “assigned” at birth based on physical characteristics.
A transgender person is a person whose gender identity is different from the sex assigned to that person at birth.
Gender identity is a person’s sincere belief regarding their own gender.
Gender exists on a spectrum. A person’s gender identity could be anything: male, female, a combination of male and female, non-binary, genderqueer, bi-gender, gender fluid or some other undefined category.
Identifying as transgender is not a choice. It is a biological and psychological imperative.
Employees and judges in the trial court may wear pronoun buttons indicating the manner in which they prefer to be called (“he/him/his”, “they/them/theirs”) in order to be inclusive of people who are transgender and “demonstrate respect for each individual’s choice of pronouns.”
The court also provides an interactive chart where employees can answer “Where are you on the spectrum?”
The trial court’s promotion of this new understanding of male and female is gravely problematic.
1. Appearance of Impartiality
While the court’s teachings are in line with state statutes as the Massachusetts legislature is friendly toward the new gender ideology, the area of sex and gender is ripe for litigation. Courts often hear challenges to state statutes and resolve questions concerning their applicability to certain facts. It should go without saying that when the court itself starts teaching the gender dogma, it sacrifices any pretense of adjudicating gender issues objectively.
The court system has endorsed an ideology that denies that there is any meaningful difference between females and males who identify as females. Therefore, the interest of men who want to be women take priority over the interest of women.
Inundating a child with gender options and gender ideology and asking them “Where do you fit on the gender spectrum? How do you know? Are you sure?” encourages gender dysphoria. That approach is horribly wrong and not in any child’s “best interests.”
Now, in the Massachusetts court system, the arena where truth is paramount, the Court is telling people otherwise. Everyone is instructed to recognize the expression of gender, not the actual biological sex. We are told to pretend that a man who has gender dysphoria actually is a woman and vice versa.
Gender dogma is backed by enormous power and unlimited wealth. Activists treat criticism of gender ideology as a hate crime. They get books banned, opponents fired, professors cancelled, and world-renowned authors harassed. Now, cherished institutions, like the Massachusetts Trial Court, have aligned with today’s powerful in-crowd.
John M. Smoot served as a trial court judge in Boston’s Probate and Family Court from 1990 to 2012. He currently practices law and mediation in Quincy, Massachusetts
Source: Sync.com | Control Panel