Tony's got a new TikTok about Richard Raskind / Renee Richards (
tiktok.com,
archive.ph).
Interesting that he's saying nice things about someone who is still mates with
evil bitch notorious terf Martina Navratilova, and is on record as saying that SRS is required for men to count as women, and that young fit TIMs have no business playing against women (
telegraph.co.uk,
archive.ph). This sounds awfully like a "transmed" or "truscum", Tony, and you said those people "do more harm than terfs" (
twitter.com,
archive.ph).
Anyway, it appears that this time Tony did in fact read most of Richards' Wikipedia page, and I'm not interested in Richards as a person, so I'll skip my usual "actually Tony got this completely wrong" post.
Instead, let's focus in on the lawsuit Richards filed (and won) to be able to play in the women's US Open, Richards v US Tennis Association (
casetext.com,
archive.ph), decided by the New York Supreme Court in 1977.
The judgment opens with this, which gives you a pretty good idea where things are going.
Ascione J said:
[Richards had his cock chop two years previous], "at which time", Dr. Richards avers, "for all intents and purposes, I became a female, psychologically, socially and physically, as has been attested to by my doctors." Dr. Richards says that, "I underwent this operation after many years of being a transsexual, a woman trapped inside the body of a man."
Richards argued that the sex chromosome test then in use was "insufficient, grossly unfair, inaccurate, faulty and inequitable" and that "the criteria for such a test is arbitrary and capricious and does not have a rational basis."
USTA made the obvious argument that they brought in the sex chromosome test for the purposes of "insuring [sic] fairness. They claim that there is a competitive advantage for a male who has undergone "sex change" surgery as a result of physical training and development as a male. … The USTA believes the question at issue transcends the factual background or medical history of one applicant." Their supporting evidence stressed the importance of puberty in developing male physical advantages over females.
After initially refusing to take the test, Richards finally did in summer ’77. Except it was inconclusive, apparently because the facility didn't account for the fact that Richards had herpes(!).
The quack who dug Richards' stench trench testified that Richards' "internal sexual structure is anatomically similar to a biological woman who underwent a total hysterectomy and ovariectomy."(!) Followed by the typical argument about present testosterone levels, and that the op & cross-sex hormones changed "the structure of the muscle/fat ratio … to a feminine type".
A tranny specialist doc who had treated Richards testified that if a man "has the external genital appearance, the internal organ appearance, gonadal identity, endocrinological makeup and psychological and social development of a female, she [sic] would be considered a female by any reasonable test of sexuality." Then Richards' gynecologist(!) says that Richards "examines as a woman"(?).
Lastly, and amazingly, we come to perhaps the star witness for Richards,
Dr John Money. Yes, the one and the same! (
reduxx.info,
archive.ph)
Money says that Richards "functions as a woman … her [sic] internal sex organs resemble those of a female … her [sic] external organs and appearance, as well as her [sic] psychological, social and endocrinological makeup are that of a woman." Seeing the terf bingo cards of the future, Money points out that the particular chromosome test at issue would exclude females with certain DSDs.
Ascione J said:
Dr. Money's professional conclusion, based on 26 years of professional experience as a psychoendocrinologist, is that a person such as Dr. Renee Richards should be classified as female and for anyone in the medical or legal field to find otherwise is completely unjustified.
Measured by all the factors, including chromosomal structure, Dr. Money asserts that Dr. Richards should be classified as female and that would be a widely held conclusion of medicine today.
(As an aside, at the time this case was decided in 1977, Money was abusing David and Brian Reimer, then aged 12.)
Now we get to the judgment proper. Ascione cites parts of the New York state Human Rights Law that "the State has the responsibility to act to assure that every individual within this State is afforded an equal opportunity to enjoy a full and productive life" and that employment discrimination is unlawful on several grounds.
More interesting though is the reasoning Ascione sets out beforehand:
Ascione J said:
In this court's view, the requirement of defendants that this plaintiff pass the Barr body test in order to be eligible to participate in the women's singles of the United States Open is grossly unfair, discriminatory and inequitable, and violative of her rights under the Human Rights Law of this State (Executive Law, § 290 et seq.). It seems clear that defendants knowingly instituted this test for the sole purpose of preventing plaintiff from participating in the tournament.
…
When an individual such as plaintiff, a successful physician, a husband and father, finds it necessary for his own mental sanity to undergo a sex reassignment, the unfounded fears and misconceptions of defendants must give way to the overwhelming medical evidence that this person is now female.
A classic from that halcyon era of US jurisprudence, and so on board with the gender nonsense it reads like it could have been written in the past few years.
masslawyersweekly.com
Enjoy the T4T hell you’ve created for yourself, you deserve it