Kulturkampf

[benji]

Some amusing trans related lawsuits:

From Justice Gerald Lebovits (Manhattan trial court) in Tuesday's Garlington v. Austin; defendant Burstiner goes by "they/them," but plaintiff had apparently referred to Burstiner as "him":
...
Burstiner had sought an order "requiring Plaintiff to use correct names and pronouns for all parties, as well as damages for each instance of deliberate misgendering that has occurred and continues to occur," and argued,

New York Penal Law §240.31 criminalizes aggravated harassment in the first degree when conduct is motivated by bias regarding "gender, gender identity or expression" or other protected characteristics. Each instance of deliberate misgendering constitutes a separate violation under this Class E felony provision.

New York Civil Rights Law §79-n provides civil remedies for "bias-related violence or intimidation" based on gender identity. The statute covers "intimidation" as well as violence, and New York courts have recognized that persistent misgendering can constitute bias-related harassment under this provision.

...

Time and again, Counsel demonstrates the uncouth, disrespectful, dehumanizing, sanctionable conduct that characterizes this outrageous action, spitting on any deference he purports to show this Honorable Court. He gives up the ghost as a transphobe twisting the First Amendment to mean, in effect, "Intentionally misgendering you is free, not hate, speech," a hollow, disingenuous notion echoing willfully ignorant, intellectually dishonest predators who weaponize incompetence as our social fabric tears at the seams in this 'Age of Information'. Truth exists and, in this case, it is known.

Unlike isolated incidents that might constitute "petty slights," wanton unwillingness to accept the truth of an individual's gender expression or pronouns demonstrates a total disregard for facts of reality. The distortion of 'First Amendment Rights' by obviously bad faith actors who serve against the interests of justice impugns the Opposition's credibility beyond repair. Defendants respectfully request this Court direct all parties to use appropriate designations consistent with each party's gender identification, as failure to do so appears calculated to harass and intimidate.

Plaintiff's interaction with Defendant Vern Harner on April 20, 2023 was "momentary." Plaintiff mentioned she was thinking about focusing her zine project on women's rights and showed Harner her computer screen with a Google search for an article available; she "did not have any article open." Harner did not say much but told Plaintiff to make sure the source Plaintiff planned to use was reputable. Harner did not tell Plaintiff that her project idea violated social work values and ethics.

Either later that day or the next day, Harner identified and reviewed an article that Harner believed Plaintiff had open on her computer. Harner believed Plaintiff's planned zine project was on "the issue of 'trans' people sexually assaulting others in prison," a topic Harner found "so many issues with." One issue was Plaintiff's alleged reliance on the article as a source, which among other things, Harner identified as being "full of TERF and far right dog whistles and talking points." {TERF appears to refer to trans-exclusionary radical feminism.} Harner sought advice from Defendant Claudia Sellmaier, explaining Harner's impressions of Plaintiff to Sellmaier.

On April 27, 2023, Plaintiff presented Harner with her draft zine project sometime after 11:30 a.m. Harner planned three-to-five minutes with each student that morning. Harner did not identify why Plaintiff's project targeted transgender people or what specific social work standards Harner believed Plaintiff violated. Plaintiff expressed she did not understand why her project was not considered a social justice issue.

Harner became visibly upset reviewing and discussing the draft zine, eventually throwing their hands in the air and telling Plaintiff, "[t]his is targeting transgender." Their interaction ended and at some point Plaintiff asked to meet later that day with Harner, but Harner stated they were unavailable that day.

...

At 2:12 p.m., Harner sent Plaintiff an email informing her they could not meet that afternoon. Harner directed Plaintiff to contact Sellmaier and Chris Barrans for any further questions or concerns. Harner told Plaintiff her draft project was "harmful and not aligned with social work values & ethics" and attached to the email three links for Plaintiff to review, but did not explain to Plaintiff why the draft project was harmful or not aligned with social work values and ethics. Harner also told Plaintiff further discussion could be had "about the intersection of trans rights and women's rights when that conversation is approached appropriately and in good faith."

By 2:50 p.m., 38 minutes after sending the email to Plaintiff, Harner had completed and emailed a Professional Standards Committee ("PSC") referral form. In their referral, Harner asserted Plaintiff's proposed zine project topic was "extremely anti-trans," that Harner suspected Plaintiff had sent Harner an anonymous email a few weeks prior, that Plaintiff did not believe her proposed topic was misaligned with social work values, and that Plaintiff "sees women's & trans rights as competing issues." As to why Harner decided not to inform Plaintiff of the PSC review request, Harner identified they had "connected" Plaintiff with the BASW chair and the faculty advisor and identified that "further escalation may include safety concerns."

Harner:


Also is part of Trans/Queer Partners in Dance: https://www.tqpid.org/about