This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

Lawsuit targets officials for allowing a male to be on the women's volleyball team at San Jose State

A federal judge based in the leftist enclave of Colorado has refused to remove himself from a case concerning transgenderism despite his own court rules that call for all participants in cases to use the "proper" pronouns in his courtroom. And his decision should be appealed to the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, the plaintiffs say.

The issue of "proper" pronouns is one of the strategic points used by advocates for transgenderism, in which various authorities require others to call a man who says he is a woman "she."

The report comes from the Cowboy State Daily about the advocacy for transgenderism adopted by S. Kato Crews, a judge based in Colorado, who has imposed those pronoun requirements in his court.

At the same time, he is refusing to remove himself from a lawsuit by members of the University of Wyoming volleyball team who are among multiple plaintiffs suing the Mountain West Conference and its officials for allowing a male to be on the women's volleyball team at San Jose State.

The report explained, "The women are now trying to appeal that decision to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, according to an argument they filed Wednesday."

They had charged, based on his expression of his ideology, that Crews was harboring bias and infringing on their speech.

The report notes: "Crews' rule required parties in his court to refer to people by their preferred pronouns. But Crews told the plaintiffs early in the case, at a Nov. 20 status conference, that he wouldn't require them to call Fleming 'she' in accordance with the rule. He only asked them to be professional and respectful when speaking about Fleming, according to the judge's order."

The order concerned Blaire Fleming, a man who presents himself as a woman, who was on the San Jose State team.

Crews imposed his requirements, with, "I do want to make clear, though, that the parties should not construe my use of she/her pronouns (for Fleming) as any indication that the Court has prejudged any issues in this case."

He claimed that courts all over use "preferred pronouns" "out of courtesy."

But Crews' ruling has a "chilling effect' on speech in the courtroom, the plaintiffs argue.

Their lawyer told the court that the ruling is unconstitutional, whether it's enforced or not, the report explained.

He said, "The court's statements do not eliminate or address the constitutional questions raised by plaintiffs."

There are issues, the plaintiffs explained, of viewpoint discrimination, prior restraint and more.