“It gives her an unfair advantage,” said the lawyer, Michael King. “It’s not just sour grapes.”

This has to be the most ridiculous women-have-an-unfair-advantage lawsuit since some prisoner sued to overturn his conviction on the ground that the prosecutor was visibly pregnant when she tried the case, which would make the jurors sympathetic to her.

“It gives her an unfair advantage,” said the lawyer, Michael King. “It’s not just sour grapes. The people need to know whether the election is fair.”

So now being a woman is an advantage in an election? Since when?

A SOUTHERN election? Right. What a fucking joke.

The whole “We totally have the right to ask invasive questions about your genitals and personal life because you have a transsexual history” thing is just one of the ways that society tries to hammer home that trans people don’t deserve full personhood and the benefits that come with that (privacy, for example). I’ve heard people with disabilities talk about similarly invasive questioning – not genitalia, but the assumption that a visible medical condition means you’re obligated to tell people about it.

Not that this is a button of mine or anything.

I really hope the case is just thrown out as frivolous.

Ms. Bruce ran as a woman even though she wasn’t, knew she wasn’t, acted with the intent of making plaintiff do … um… something? Not vote for her, since the plaintiffs would have voted for themselves. Vote for a woman? Since one of the plaintiffs is a woman

Hilarity ensues.

Sorry Ms. Fuller, your case and your lawyer are both stupid and reprehensible. Please go home and accept your political defeat. Also let not forget the big elephant in the room, Wayne Hall, a man, beat you, Ms. fuller.

There’s a beautiful comedy skit inside that whole thing just waiting to come out.

Oh yeah, sour grapes.

I also agree with the bloggers above who question his assertion that being female is somehow an advantage in politics. So not true in any universe I know of.

I’m sure it’s something like this: Ms. Bruce ran as a woman even though she wasn’t, knew she wasn’t, acted with the intent of making plaintiff do … um… something? Not vote for her, since the plaintiffs would have voted for themselves. Vote for a woman? Since one of the plaintiffs is a woman, how does that work? This is where it all falls apart, IMO.

Not to mention, usually the fact that’s being hidden or lied about has to be material, and I don’t see how you make the argument that a candidate’s gender is material.