It uses the pronouns or it gets the hose.
We are asking you to use a contorted peculiar anti-factual way of referring to this person who claims to be special, despite the fact that you disagree with the ideology that says the person is special and despite the fact that this brand of coercive bullshit is what this very hearing is about.
It’s like being in a super-sized spider web, you escape one bit of it only to be entangled by another.
Witnesses are under oath to tell the truth. The truth requires the use of truthful language, including language that correctly and truthfully signifies the actual (truthful) sex of the person being referred to.
Lawyers are officers of the court, and they are duty bound to be truthful and honest before the court/tribunal.
A court/tribunal is a forum for determining the truth. The court/tribunal must remain impartial in its fact-finding function.
How can telling the truth be “inappropriate”? What’s inappropriate is the court/tribunal putting its thumb on the scale in favor of one party over another; it’s particularly inapprpriate to put its thumb on the scale in favor of known falsehood.
Here, the tribunal is dishonest, and is influencing others to be dishonest. The whole thing stinks.
Why is “they/them,” which often leaves doubt as to whether the use is singular or plural, the only gender neutral option? “It” has been around for centuries as a singular, neuter, third-person pronoun. No plural confusion, and no different subjective and objective forms. Seems ideal for courtroom use, where brevity and unambiguous language are prized.
Leave a Reply