The case involves Norman Varner, a federal prisoner who pleaded guilty in 2012 to attempted receipt of child pornography and was sentenced to 15 years in prison. "Varner cites no legal authority supporting this request. Instead, Varner’s motion simply states that 'I am a woman' and argues that failure to refer to him with female pronouns 'leads me to feel that I am being discriminated against based on my gender identity," the ruling explains. The panel made three key arguments against such a notion. No. No and No.
The panel also argued that "if a court were to compel the use of particular pronouns at the invitation of litigants, it could raise delicate questions about judicial impartiality." The judges referenced a pronoun usage guide from the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee which lists 9 different kinds of pronouns. The guide includes wacky pronouns like "e/ey," "(f)ae," "xemself," and more......
The judges warned that granting preferred pronouns in cases like Varner's would set a precedent that courts should use bizarre pronouns like these. Such pronouns are not only silly — they would make legal proceedings much harder to follow.
"Deploying such neologisms could hinder communication among the parties and the court. And presumably the court’s order, if disobeyed, would be enforceable through its contempt power."If a man can force others to refer to him using female pronouns, why should he not be able to force any other neologisms as well? There is no reason to suggest the personal pronouns will be limited to the nine listed by the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee.
Speaking as a member of the True Sexual Elite, I uphold this decision, and I hereby decree the 5th Circuit to be Judicially Sexy.