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

[Jimmy Higgins]

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.

Well I applaud you digging up the court records. That must not have been an easy thing to do. Usually family court records are very difficult to gain access to. Could you provide the information in those records that validates your conclusion that the father isn't being "deliberately abusive"?

You note that it is unevidenced, meaning that the judge and others have no basis for this conclusion.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

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

It depends on if he kept calling the teenager a slut or other name repeatedly over and over again, day after day after being told it is unwanted. It's like if someone called you a gay bashing type of name over and over after being told it hurt your feelings. Let's say your father called you "sissy." And he did it over and over and I am not talking about now that you are an adult. I am talking while you are a teen, a 14 year old. That is emotionally abusive. Let's suppose his defense is, "yeah well, this is merika and I have free speech. My boy is a sissy. That's a fact. Can't a man state facts in Merika anymore?" The notion that your father's speech of stating a questionable fact is just one incident is very dishonest intellectually because it is actually repetition and it is unwanted speech about a person and emotionally abusive to a teenager. Are you okay with a parent of a gay male teenager calling him sissy day after day? Are you going to try ignore the repetitive nature of the labeling when describing it?

 

[repoman]

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.

Trans industry professionals should be salaried and not paid by the individual procedure.

 

[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.

Interesting concept.

So if a white guy says "I like niggers. Niggers are very fine people." black people should not be offended.

 

[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

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

You are missing my point.
It's a metaphor about a 14y/o who wants something. But dad doesn't think it's a good idea. It's not just a freakish haircut, it's a permanent alteration of a young body.

Suppose the kid wanted to change their name to Nazi and get a swastika tattoo on their cheek. Would a father refusing to go along with the demands of a 14y/o still be considered abusive?

The problem here, as I see it, is the child's age. If everyone involved were competent adults it would be different. But they're not. There's a reason that children can't overrule their parents on some things.


There is no evidence whatsoever that the father is being abusive. There is solid evidence that he's being bullied by ideologues. He did wind up in jail because the judge didn't like his accurate terminology. The judge is the bully here, likely the mother as well.
Tom

 

[TomC]

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.

Interesting concept.

So if a white guy says "I like niggers. Niggers are very fine people." black people should not be offended.

How is that relevant to a father caring for the future of his underage child?
Tom

 

[Jarhyn]

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.

Trans industry professionals should be salaried and not paid by the individual procedure.

"Paid by the procedure"? That's some deep "not even wrong" territory right there.

The people who evaluate children send out an invoice regardless of whether they feel that the child is being serious or spurious.

The people who do procedures are a completely different subset of people with no financial ties back to the evaluators.

And the whole point here is that if these children are afforded the right to self determination, the 80% who normally never undergo "bottom surgery" need ZERO procedures. Granted there IS an incentive after a certain point to uncomplicate treatment through removal of the gonads, even with no intent to alter the penis or vagina.

 

[ZiprHead]

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.

Interesting concept.

So if a white guy says "I like niggers. Niggers are very fine people." black people should not be offended.

How is that relevant to a father caring for the future of his underage child?
Tom

As I said before, it's not his intent that's in question. It's his actions. That you keep bringing up intent mean you completely misunderstand what's going on here.

 

[repoman]

So if the dad was asked to positively affirm in voice or writing that his child was either a boy or a male or to use he/him pronouns and just kept his mouth shut would that be ok?

In some ways would this be an "action" of neglect?

 

[Jarhyn]

So if the dad was asked to positively affirm in voice or writing that his child was either a boy or a male or to use he/him pronouns and just kept his mouth shut would that be ok?

In some ways would this be an "action" of neglect?

No. That wouldn't be OK. Mostly because compelling speech is even more odious than allowing bullying of children.

I expect that "they/them" would probably be an acceptable compromise, wherein he is not compelled to speak some utterance he does not believe while the child is not compelled to accept the usage of a specifically wrong and disrespectful pronoun.

 

[TomC]

How is that relevant to a father caring for the future of his underage child?
Tom

As I said before, it's not his intent that's in question. It's his actions. That you keep bringing up intent mean you completely misunderstand what's going on here.

His action was continuing to use the same pronoun he'd been using for 14 years for his child.

That trans activists consider that a jailable offense is why I consider them ridiculous bullies. Ideologues without much moral concern for anybody else.
Tom

 

[ZiprHead]

This thread stinks to high heaven from start to finish. I did some checking and this story is only being shared on right-wing and conservative christian sites. It's even being shared on stormfront. What's bad about it is we only have the father's side of this story while he's trying to raise money off it. Family law is a perfect way to do such a scam because no one is allowed to dispute his story with facts. Child/family legal proceedings are supposed to be kept private. He may have been locked up for telling his possibly made up story and it has nothing to do with what he's calling his child.

 

[ZiprHead]

How is that relevant to a father caring for the future of his underage child?
Tom

As I said before, it's not his intent that's in question. It's his actions. That you keep bringing up intent mean you completely misunderstand what's going on here.

His action was continuing to use the same pronoun he'd been using for 14 years for his child.

That trans activists consider that a jailable offense is why I consider them ridiculous bullies. Ideologues without much moral concern for anybody else.
Tom

And he was ordered by the court to not do so and did it anyway, publically.

 

[TomC]

I did some checking and this story is only being shared on right-wing and conservative christian sites.

It's being shared on TFT. That's the only way I would know about it.

Is TFT a "right wing source"? A "conservative Christian source"? Both?
Tom

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

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

It depends on if he kept calling the teenager a slut or other name repeatedly over and over again, day after day after being told it is unwanted. It's like if someone called you a gay bashing type of name over and over after being told it hurt your feelings. Let's say your father called you "sissy." And he did it over and over and I am not talking about now that you are an adult. I am talking while you are a teen, a 14 year old. That is emotionally abusive. Let's suppose his defense is, "yeah well, this is merika and I have free speech. My boy is a sissy. That's a fact. Can't a man state facts in Merika anymore?" The notion that your father's speech of stating a questionable fact is just one incident is very dishonest intellectually because it is actually repetition and it is unwanted speech about a person and emotionally abusive to a teenager. Are you okay with a parent of a gay male teenager calling him sissy day after day? Are you going to try ignore the repetitive nature of the labeling when describing it?

No response.

Hmmmmm.....

 

[TomC]

His action was continuing to use the same pronoun he'd been using for 14 years for his child.

That trans activists consider that a jailable offense is why I consider them ridiculous bullies. Ideologues without much moral concern for anybody else.
Tom

And he was ordered by the court to not do so and did it anyway, publically.

So, this really isn't about the child after all. It's about the judge.
Tom

 

[ZiprHead]

I did some checking and this story is only being shared on right-wing and conservative christian sites.

It's being shared on TFT. That's the only way I would know about it.

Is TFT a "right wing source"? A "conservative Christian source"? Both?
Tom

It was shared here by a right-winger from Australia. Feigning ignorance is not a become trait.

 

[laughing dog]

His action was continuing to use the same pronoun he'd been using for 14 years for his child.

That trans activists consider that a jailable offense is why I consider them ridiculous bullies. Ideologues without much moral concern for anybody else.
Tom

And he was ordered by the court to not do so and did it anyway, publically.

So, this really isn't about the child after all. It's about the judge.

No, it is about the court's action to protect the child.

 

[Toni]

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

There is no reason to bring your personal fantasies into this discussion, is there?

 

[Toni]

Then you must be talking about some other case. In the case offered in the OP, a man was jailed for violating the judge's orders to stop referring to his son as female and to stop using female pronouns for him.

His child is female.

He is not. He is not female anymore than you are straight.

Yo, hol up...

There was a tacit agreement that (barring rare anomalies that have nothing to do with cis and trans) that male and female were dead locked into XY and XX respectively. No question about it. The terms man/boy and woman/girl were to be for gender identity.

Now you are switching the rules?

Hahaha

Just checked, wikipedia is not infected with this BS yet

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female

No. We've already discussed a variety of other conditions that do not fall neatly into 'male' or 'female' broad definitions. Trans, and intersex do not fall neatly into male/female boxes. This, and a variety of genetic anomalies has been discussed many times on this board.