5th Cir. The defendant "moves that he be addressed with female pronouns. We will deny that motion." 
Instead, the 5th Cir. says, "courts sometimes choose to refer to gender-dysphoric parties by their preferred pronouns."
But the panel pointedly declines to extend that courtesy in its opinion, which uses the male pronouns the defendant had asked it not to use.
But the panel pointedly declines to extend that courtesy in its opinion, which uses the male pronouns the defendant had asked it not to use.
Then follows a long-ish discussion of gender pronouns, why they're confusing and how courts shouldn't issue orders about who gets referred to as what because people will want to be called all kinds of different things.
Judge Dennis, in dissent, says the court didn't need to issue an opinion at all, he would use the defendant's preferred pronoun. "Many courts and judges adhere to such requests out of respect for the litigant's dignity."
Basically, Judge Dennis says the majority is going pretty far out of its way to be rude to the defendant.
Here's the opinion: ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/1…
Ex-DA once told me about a sentencing for a guy with a complicated name. The judge stopped the proceeding to figure out how to pronounce it. Guy was surprised. He was going to prison. Judge said there's little the guy could control, but he should decide how people say his name.
