Father arrested and jailed for calling his biologically female daughter "she": this week in the strange death of Canada

[Ford]

I wonder how long it would take Metaphor to hit the Report button if I started in on calling him by female pronouns. As it is, I've already gotten him to throw a goodly number of highly enjoyable tantrums just from the posts where I use gender-neutral pronouns (they/them). Maybe we should all start doing that? Or maybe not. After all, I don't want to get another warning over that. It's sure tempting though.

Call me any pronouns you like, darling, though you've made it clear you'd be doing it solely in an attempt to bully me. If the board moderators decide to enforce their own rules, I'd expect you'd be pulled up for it.

One thing I won't do, however, is pretend you calling me a particular pronoun that aligns with my sex is bullying, and that the State should jail you for it.

Emphasis emphatically added.


The judge - the "moderator" in this case, had apparently seen enough of the father's behavior or knew enough of the situation to determine that he was swapping the pronouns in order to bully the kid. The state (the board) has rules (laws) that they can and do enforce. One of those laws deals with contempt of court. Just like with the board, if you keep up a behavior which the court has specifically ordered you to stop, you can be ruled in contempt for violating a court order. This is what's happening here. The behavior was reported to the mods, the mods told the offender "that's against our rules, don't do it again," he kept doing it anyway, and was pulled up for it.

That's why he was arrested and jailed. Not because he called his kid an unwanted pronoun, but because the judge told him to stop engaging in a behavior, and he defied a court order. It is the same as if he was abusive to his wife, was ordered to stay a certain distance from her, and yet he kept showing up at her doorstep because he "just wants to talk it out." Would your defense of him be that "he was arrested for wanting to talk to someone?" I mean, you could say that, but you'd be wrong.

He was arrested and jailed for defying a court order. It's not an issue of free speech, or what the definition of female is, or any of the other window dressing you keep bringing up. Judge told him to stop engaging in a behavior, he kept doing it in defiance of a court order, he gets thrown in jail. That's it. End of story.

 

[Metaphor]

The judge - the "moderator" in this case, had apparently seen enough of the father's behavior or knew enough of the situation to determine that he was swapping the pronouns in order to bully the kid.

There is no evidence that he was doing it to 'bully' the child.

The state (the board) has rules (laws) that they can and do enforce. One of those laws deals with contempt of court. Just like with the board, if you keep up a behavior which the court has specifically ordered you to stop, you can be ruled in contempt for violating a court order. This is what's happening here. The behavior was reported to the mods, the mods told the offender "that's against our rules, don't do it again," he kept doing it anyway, and was pulled up for it.

That's why he was arrested and jailed. Not because he called his kid an unwanted pronoun, but because the judge told him to stop engaging in a behavior, and he defied a court order. It is the same as if he was abusive to his wife, was ordered to stay a certain distance from her, and yet he kept showing up at her doorstep because he "just wants to talk it out." Would your defense of him be that "he was arrested for wanting to talk to someone?" I mean, you could say that, but you'd be wrong.

He was arrested and jailed for defying a court order. It's not an issue of free speech, or what the definition of female is, or any of the other window dressing you keep bringing up. Judge told him to stop engaging in a behavior, he kept doing it in defiance of a court order, he gets thrown in jail. That's it. End of story.

I know why he was arrested and jailed.

 

[Jarhyn]

I wonder how long it would take Metaphor to hit the Report button if I started in on calling him by female pronouns. As it is, I've already gotten him to throw a goodly number of highly enjoyable tantrums just from the posts where I use gender-neutral pronouns (they/them). Maybe we should all start doing that? Or maybe not. After all, I don't want to get another warning over that. It's sure tempting though.

Call me any pronouns you like, darling, though you've made it clear you'd be doing it solely in an attempt to bully me. If the board moderators decide to enforce their own rules, I'd expect you'd be pulled up for it.

One thing I won't do, however, is pretend you calling me a particular pronoun that aligns with my sex is bullying, and that the State should jail you for it.

Emphasis emphatically added.


The judge - the "moderator" in this case, had apparently seen enough of the father's behavior or knew enough of the situation to determine that he was swapping the pronouns in order to bully the kid. The state (the board) has rules (laws) that they can and do enforce. One of those laws deals with contempt of court. Just like with the board, if you keep up a behavior which the court has specifically ordered you to stop, you can be ruled in contempt for violating a court order. This is what's happening here. The behavior was reported to the mods, the mods told the offender "that's against our rules, don't do it again," he kept doing it anyway, and was pulled up for it.

That's why he was arrested and jailed. Not because he called his kid an unwanted pronoun, but because the judge told him to stop engaging in a behavior, and he defied a court order. It is the same as if he was abusive to his wife, was ordered to stay a certain distance from her, and yet he kept showing up at her doorstep because he "just wants to talk it out." Would your defense of him be that "he was arrested for wanting to talk to someone?" I mean, you could say that, but you'd be wrong.

He was arrested and jailed for defying a court order. It's not an issue of free speech, or what the definition of female is, or any of the other window dressing you keep bringing up. Judge told him to stop engaging in a behavior, he kept doing it in defiance of a court order, he gets thrown in jail. That's it. End of story.

"I'm not going to admit making a concerted attempt to bully someone is bullying"...



Pretty sure that's the very definition of ideologically driven cognitive dissonance.

 

[ZiprHead]

..

 

[ZiprHead]

There is no evidence that he was doing it to 'bully' the child.

Why do you think the judge forbade him from doing so then?

 

[Jarhyn]

There is no evidence that he was doing it to 'bully' the child.

Why do you think the judge forbade him from doing so then?

I wonder if I would keep my job were I to start telling my HR manager to "smile more" and to "act more like a lady", or calling her "sweet thing", when there's no evidence I'm "trying to" harass her... I mean, I'm gay right, I CoUlDn'T PosSiBly Be tRyInG tO HarRaSs HeR!

It doesn't fucking matter what he was "trying to do" here. It matters "what he actually did". And the actual shape that took was "needlessly leveraging an utterance that he had been repeatedly told caused distress, in such a way that continued to cause actual distress".

 

[TomC]

There is no evidence that he was doing it to 'bully' the child.

Why do you think the judge forbade him from doing so then?

I described it as "out of control PC ideology". I honestly consider the bullying here as the judge bullying the father.
Tom

 

[Metaphor]

There is no evidence that he was doing it to 'bully' the child.

Why do you think the judge forbade him from doing so then?

The judge forbid the father from using 'she' pronouns because the judge thought he should be using 'he' pronouns.

There is no evidence whatsoever that the father was using 'she' pronouns for bullying purposes.

 

[Metaphor]

I wonder if I would keep my job were I to start telling my HR manager to "smile more" and to "act more like a lady", or calling her "sweet thing", when there's no evidence I'm "trying to" harass her... I mean, I'm gay right, I CoUlDn'T PosSiBly Be tRyInG tO HarRaSs HeR!

I don't know why you would imagine your homosexuality somehow precludes you being able to harass somebody. In fact, gay men can be extraordinarily catty and mean. You've met gay men, right?

But although your behaviour might cause your work to fire you, I don't know that they can arrest and jail you for it.

It doesn't fucking matter what he was "trying to do" here. It matters "what he actually did". And the actual shape that took was "needlessly leveraging an utterance that he had been repeatedly told caused distress, in such a way that continued to cause actual distress".

No. Your example was one of needless utterances. One does not need to tell a HR manager to smile in order interact with her. But one does generally need to use pronouns in day to day English when speaking about people, and although using a pronoun that conforms with somebody's sex might cause distress to somebody, the State should not mandate you desist from doing so.

 

[ZiprHead]

There is no evidence that he was doing it to 'bully' the child.

Why do you think the judge forbade him from doing so then?

The judge forbid the father from using 'she' pronouns because the judge thought he should be using 'he' pronouns.

There is no evidence whatsoever that the father was using 'she' pronouns for bullying purposes.

What is your evidence of this?

 

[Metaphor]

The judge forbid the father from using 'she' pronouns because the judge thought he should be using 'he' pronouns.

There is no evidence whatsoever that the father was using 'she' pronouns for bullying purposes.

What is your evidence of this?

What is my evidence of what? That there's no evidence the father was using pronouns in order to bully his child?

The people on the thread who claim the father was using pronouns in order to bully his child need to furnish the evidence, not me.

 

[TomC]

The judge forbid the father from using 'she' pronouns because the judge thought he should be using 'he' pronouns.

There is no evidence whatsoever that the father was using 'she' pronouns for bullying purposes.

What is your evidence of this?

What evidence can there be to explain a lack of evidence?

There's no evidence that a father continuing to use the pronoun he's used since his child was born is anything more than his belief that the child is too young to make this huge irrevocable decision.
Tom

 

[ZiprHead]

The judge forbid the father from using 'she' pronouns because the judge thought he should be using 'he' pronouns.

There is no evidence whatsoever that the father was using 'she' pronouns for bullying purposes.

What is your evidence of this?

What is my evidence of what? That there's no evidence the father was using pronouns in order to bully his child?

The people on the thread who claim the father was using pronouns in order to bully his child need to furnish the evidence, not me.

That's a pretty tall order to think a sitting court judge would impose such an order for such a trivial reason. It doesn't pass the smell test. You're coming to your conclusion with no evidence. Just like you're charging others of doing.

 

[TomC]

Legalities aside,
Suppose the child wanted to bang a neighbor dude because he promised to buy her a pony. She really really wants that pony. Would the father refusing her direct wishes be "abusive"?
Tom

 

[TomC]

What is my evidence of what? That there's no evidence the father was using pronouns in order to bully his child?

The people on the thread who claim the father was using pronouns in order to bully his child need to furnish the evidence, not me.

That's a pretty tall order to think a sitting court judge would impose such an order for such a trivial reason. It doesn't pass the smell test. You're coming to your conclusion with no evidence. Just like you're charging others of doing.

The tall order, unevidenced, that doesn't pass the smell test, is the assertion that the father is being deliberately abusive. I think it's far more likely that he's unconvinced and very concerned about the child's future. As would any reasonable father of a 14y/o.

I simply cannot see letting a 14y/o decide this. Social transitioning, sure. Wear boy's clothes and get a boy haircut. That's like letting a 14 y/o get a freakish hairstyle. Regardless of how stupid it looks, hair grows out. That's completely different from letting one get a tattoo of a band logo, or a swastika, on their face. That's permanent.

Tom

 

[laughing dog]

Finally you agree.


In the same universe where the act of verbal abuse of a child is dependent on the feelings of love of the abuser.

I have justified true belief.

Your belief is wrong.

I suppose only you know if it's true or not that you don't admire my free speech principles.

Finally you get something right.

I am condemning the State jailing a man for pronoun usage.

Which was proscribed because it was deemed to be verbal harassment. So you are defending his right to verbally abuse his child.

I am defending the right of a man to use female pronouns for his female child, and for the State not to jail him for it, no matter how the use of pronouns is imagined to be an act of verbal abuse.

In the OP case, there is no imagining (as opposed to your "beliefs"): the child is being insulted and harmed. Moreover, the man violated a court order to not speak publicly about the case. So it appears you are defending a hypothetical case.

 

[ZiprHead]

Legalities aside,
Suppose the child wanted to bang a neighbor dude because he promised to buy her a pony. She really really wants that pony. Would the father refusing her direct wishes be "abusive"?
Tom

That's a stupid analogy because you're bringing in a third party to the dispute.

 

[laughing dog]

Legalities aside,
Suppose the child wanted to bang a neighbor dude because he promised to buy her a pony. She really really wants that pony. Would the father refusing her direct wishes be "abusive"?
Tom

Why would anyone think this hypothetical situation which does not involve a parent verbally harassing their child is at all relevant?

 

[ZiprHead]

What is my evidence of what? That there's no evidence the father was using pronouns in order to bully his child?

The people on the thread who claim the father was using pronouns in order to bully his child need to furnish the evidence, not me.

That's a pretty tall order to think a sitting court judge would impose such an order for such a trivial reason. It doesn't pass the smell test. You're coming to your conclusion with no evidence. Just like you're charging others of doing.

The tall order, unevidenced, that doesn't pass the smell test, is the assertion that the father is being deliberately abusive. I think it's far more likely that he's unconvinced and very concerned about the child's future. As would any reasonable father of a 14y/o.

I simply cannot see letting a 14y/o decide this. Social transitioning, sure. Wear boy's clothes and get a boy haircut. That's like letting a 14 y/o get a freakish hairstyle. Regardless of how stupid it looks, hair grows out. That's completely different from letting one get a tattoo of a band logo, or a swastika, on their face. That's permanent.

Tom

You think it's reasonable for a father to use insulting language to his child? It's not his intent that's being questioned. It's his actions.

 

[Jarhyn]

The judge forbid the father from using 'she' pronouns because the judge thought he should be using 'he' pronouns.

There is no evidence whatsoever that the father was using 'she' pronouns for bullying purposes.

What is your evidence of this?

What evidence can there be to explain a lack of evidence?

There's no evidence that a father continuing to use the pronoun he's used since his child was born is anything more than his belief that the child is too young to make this huge irrevocable decision.
Tom

The belief that his child is too young to make this irrevocable decision is spurious. All children eventually have to pass through an irrevocable puberty, and they have to do it when they are young. Thus it doesn't matter how young the child is, the child has a right to make the decision while they still can.

Revoking that agency and placing it in anyone else's hands is not acceptable. At the very most, such diversions from the norm require professional, rather than personal, oversight.