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

[Ford]

His child is a girl.

Well then, you're not gay.

I mean, I know (or based on this thread I think I know) that you self identify as such.


But you're not. You're wrong. You're straight, but for some reason you're rebelling against what's normal. What you identify as is irrelevant. You were designed by God to be heterosexual, and while you may deny that and act as if you're gay, you aren't really gay at all!



Now, I don't actually believe any of those things I just typed in that previous paragraph, but those are the sort of things that LGBTQ people have had to face when someone in their lives (parents, family members, church community) find out that they aren't straight. I suspect you've encountered this sort of thinking on your own journey.


You saying that this man's child IS a girl is IMO not far off from what LGBTQ people have faced. No, you're not gay. No, you're not lesbian. I heard "well, he's just confused" or "well, she's just young" bandied about as people tried to pin a label on LGBTQ friends or family.

It's an odd flex.

 

[Metaphor]

His child is a girl.

Well then, you're not gay.

I mean, I know (or based on this thread I think I know) that you self identify as such.


But you're not. You're wrong. You're straight, but for some reason you're rebelling against what's normal. What you identify as is irrelevant. You were designed by God to be heterosexual, and while you may deny that and act as if you're gay, you aren't really gay at all!



Now, I don't actually believe any of those things I just typed in that previous paragraph, but those are the sort of things that LGBTQ people have had to face when someone in their lives (parents, family members, church community) find out that they aren't straight. I suspect you've encountered this sort of thinking on your own journey.


You saying that this man's child IS a girl is IMO not far off from what LGBTQ people have faced. No, you're not gay. No, you're not lesbian. I heard "well, he's just confused" or "well, she's just young" bandied about as people tried to pin a label on LGBTQ friends or family.

It's an odd flex.

I've never understood the odd parallel that some people attempt to draw between sex and sexual orientation. You've done it and Toni did it in this same thread.

There is a fact of the matter about my sex. My sex is male. I was male before I was born, I am male now, and when I am no longer alive, my body will be a male body.

I do not need to 'identify' as male to be male. My thoughts on the matter are irrelevant. As is convention in English, young human males are boys and adult human males are men. Wishing I were the other sex - female - if that's what I wished - would not make me female. It would make me a male with the gender identity of 'female' or 'woman'.

So, there is a fact of the matter about a person's sex, and somebody can trivially determine that fact with near 100% accuracy without tools of any kind other than their eyes and the knowledge a four year old has.

There is also a fact of the matter about my sexual orientation. I'm gay. I'm not gay because I 'identify' as gay (though I acknowledge I'm gay), I'm gay because I'm a man and I'm sexually attracted to men. I am sexually attracted to the sex 'male'. I am not attracted to the gender identity of 'male', because I have never asked somebody's gender identity and their gender identity does not matter to me.

 

[repoman]

Are transgender people more "touchy" about things not related to their gender in general than cis people?

Are cis people who shake their heads (as opposed to not caring) about trans being touchy - themselves more likely to be more touchy about their personal details being discussed by others?

 

[ZiprHead]

Maybe I'm just too old to even understand the insults on your forum.

You don't understand it but you think it's an insult. How does that work?

Easy.

I'm old but I'm not stupid.

I didn't know what "brony" meant until you explained it.
But now you have.

Was I wrong in assuming it was unflattering?
Or was I right?

It was a joke. Lighten up, Francis.

 

[Ford]

I've never understood the odd parallel that some people attempt to draw between sex and sexual orientation. You've done it and Toni did it in this same thread.

There is a fact of the matter about my sex. My sex is male. I was male before I was born, I am male now, and when I am no longer alive, my body will be a male body

Okay. Let's try a little experiment. Without resorting to a web search, you tell me if this is a man or a woman:





Furthermore, was this person always a man, or always a woman?

 

[Jarhyn]

Ergo, the father was arrested not for calling his child "she," but arrested for defying a court order. The crime is contempt of court, and he was not jailed for anything else.

If you go back through the nearly 300 posts in this thread you'll find differently.
Plenty of posters have asserted that the father was jailed for abusing his child.

You ought to be able to actual quote someone on that in context.

Shame on you. Quote me on it:

The father was abusing his son. Harassment of ones own child over something that is within their rights to decide for themselves is abuse. The child asked repeatedly that he would stop outing them. He just kept doing it, clearly to the detriment of his own child. He is one of the few people in the universe that would have an expectation of knowing what is in his son's pants, and then he violates his son's privacy before God and the world, loudly, about what that is. Again, against the child's own wishes.

This abuse created a judgement. He violated the judgement. He got jailed for violating the judgement.

 

[Trausti]

I've never understood the odd parallel that some people attempt to draw between sex and sexual orientation. You've done it and Toni did it in this same thread.

There is a fact of the matter about my sex. My sex is male. I was male before I was born, I am male now, and when I am no longer alive, my body will be a male body

Okay. Let's try a little experiment. Without resorting to a web search, you tell me if this is a man or a woman:

View attachment 32399



Furthermore, was this person always a man, or always a woman?

 

[TomC]

I've never understood the odd parallel that some people attempt to draw between sex and sexual orientation. You've done it and Toni did it in this same thread.

There is a fact of the matter about my sex. My sex is male. I was male before I was born, I am male now, and when I am no longer alive, my body will be a male body

Okay. Let's try a little experiment. Without resorting to a web search, you tell me if this is a man or a woman:

View attachment 32399



Furthermore, was this person always a man, or always a woman?

Here's an answer that didn't involve Google or any such thing.

Looks like a competent adult. Beyond that, I don't care much about their gender, sex, or orientation.

Was I right? Is that a pic of a competent adult?
Tom

 

[Toni]

When I was four, I changed my own name to Sunshine. My mother played along. She didn't try to force a four year old to adhere to the fact. She didn't say, "tHaT's nOt yEr nAmE, gOdDaMmiT. sToP sAyIng tHaT," while waving my birth certificate at me as proof that she was right and I was wrong.

If your mother had refused to call you Sunshine and had kept using the name given to you at birth, no sane person would say your mother was abusing you.

I guess the radio silence from Angry Floof indicates that, indeed, if AF's parents had refused to call her 'Sunshine', it would not amount to child abuse.

AF provided an illustration of a parent respecting and honoring her child.

Too bad that the father in this case is incapable of so respecting and honoring his child.

It would be much more understandable if there had not been years of appointments with doctors, psychologists, etc. to help determine what was going on with the child. But at the point at which this case went to court, the child was several years into the process. That's enough time for the father to have gotten his own counseling and at least made a good faith effort to honor and respect his child.

 

[Metaphor]

I've never understood the odd parallel that some people attempt to draw between sex and sexual orientation. You've done it and Toni did it in this same thread.

There is a fact of the matter about my sex. My sex is male. I was male before I was born, I am male now, and when I am no longer alive, my body will be a male body

Okay. Let's try a little experiment. Without resorting to a web search, you tell me if this is a man or a woman:

View attachment 32399



Furthermore, was this person always a man, or always a woman?

I didn't try to look up this person, but the 'attached images' box gives the image names, and one of them is d7474ee69f41c9d9529fc3fcf9e2944d--jamie-clayton-transgender-people.jpg so that kind of gives the game away. The person is a biologically male transwoman.

Now I do not like to participate in games of 'gotcha'. If I had said 'she's clearly a woman' or 'she's clearly female', that would not prove that he is a woman. It would simply be evidence that biological males can sometimes style themselves to 'pass' as females - or at least, they can pass successfully in a posed glamour shot.

But if someone were really determined to 'test' me, I suspect that Jamie probably has the hands of a man (drag queens and transwomen cannot easily disguise their thenar eminences), that Jamie's voice will not be that of a natal female, that Jamie takes testosterone-suppressing hormones, and that Jamie probably has a penis and testicles. But, even if Jamie had exceptional bottom surgery and never experienced a male puberty and otherwise 'passed' on all the conventional trappings of looking outwardly female, he'd still be a man. Every cell in his body would by XY. He'd be of the sex 'of, relating to, or being the sex that typically has the capacity to produce relatively small, usually motile gametes which fertilize the eggs of a female.'

But as I said, I do not like to participate in 'gotcha' games, because I don't know what you think you can conclude from the outcome.

 

[Toni]

There could be several reasons why the father persisted after being ordered by the State to stop. But I'm glad to see that people have given up on their unevidenced claim that the father did it specifically to bully the child.



Again, your own lack of imagination and lack of human empathy betrays you.

You do not know what somebody who 'truly cares' would do in this situation, because you don't know what the father's reasoning is.

Your lack of reading comprehension and basic lack of honesty betray you.

My empathy is with the child. I understand that this is difficult for the father. It is much, much more difficult for the child and the father is making it harder, whether or not that is his intention.

Man, all this reminds me of when I first came out to my own parents. I'm honestly not going to pretend that it is easy to build up this idea of who someone is, and expectations of who they will become, and all the dreams people have of some particular future for their children. The thing is, handling such events with grace is part of what it means to be a good parent.

Because while parents can't not form such expectations, dreams, hopes for their children, it's not actually within their rights to foist that upon their child. Rather it is their responsibility to accept all that pain and disappointment with a smile and a nod and a hug and an "I love you."

I think that for some parents, it's harder than for others. Many parents already have some awareness that their child may not be straight or cis. Not all do. When one of my friends (probably near your age) told me her daughter had come out as bisexual, she was concerned for her daughter and how she would be accepted or not by extended family, some of whom had already shown themselves to be not particularly accepting of any kind of deviations from a very narrow standard. She was worried about her child and what difficulties her child might face.

For a lot of parents of my generation and before (and I assume your parents' generation), there is a fear that they did something wrong while raising their child that messed the kid up so that they 'only believe' that they are gay or transgender. I think one of the biggest fears a parent has is that they will not do right by their child. If their child is doing well, is happy with themselves, is healthy, has friends/relationships, is making progress in life or is satisfied with their lot, parents often take that as a sign that they didn't mess up too badly. If their child is struggling in any way, or is perceived to be struggling in any way, parents often feel tremendous guilt that they did something wrong, that they somehow failed their child.

Of course, the real 'test' is to be able to accept your child as they are and not as you had thought they were or would be.

 

[Toni]

On this thread, a number of hypotheticals are being used and then we are being asked "would that be okay? Would that be abuse"?

The "illustrations" highlight words that are intended to be harmful and abusive and equate them to the abuse of calling a female child 'she'.

Have you stopped to think about this?

Again: the child is male in every way that matters to him. The child is no more mixed up about his identity than you are about your sexual preferences.

I did not call the child 'mixed up'. I called the child female.

Yes, we notice that you persist in misgendering a child.

 

[Metaphor]

I did not call the child 'mixed up'. I called the child female.

Yes, we notice that you persist in misgendering a child.

Who's 'we', got a mouse in your purse?

The child is female. To call a female child 'female' is to repeat a fact about the child's sex. It is not possible for me to have misgendered the child because I did not make reference to the child's gender.

The fact that the child has the sex 'female' but has a conflicting gender identity is what makes her trans.

 

[Ford]

I did not call the child 'mixed up'. I called the child female.

Yes, we notice that you persist in misgendering a child.

And if his response to my earlier post is any indication, once that child is an adult, no matter what they identify as or what medical procedures they have as an adult to conform to their identity, Metaphor will always consider the person a woman. Because what Metaphor thinks they are is far, far more important than what the individual thinks they are, wants to be, or is.

And of course, Metaphor thinks the father is entirely correct in forcing the kid to identify as female. Even against her own wishes. Because traditional family values and roles.

 

[laughing dog]

You ought to be able to actual quote someone on that in context.

I could if I cared enough.

In other words, your claim is baseless.

 

[laughing dog]

There could be several reasons why the father persisted after being ordered by the State to stop. But I'm glad to see that people have given up on their unevidenced claim that the father did it specifically to bully the child.



Again, your own lack of imagination and lack of human empathy betrays you.

You do not know what somebody who 'truly cares' would do in this situation, because you don't know what the father's reasoning is.

Your lack of reading comprehension and basic lack of honesty betray you.

My empathy is with the child. I understand that this is difficult for the father. It is much, much more difficult for the child and the father is making it harder, whether or not that is his intention.

Your empathy extends to those in your tribe and that is all.

No irony meters in this universe for the next 100 years.

 

[Ford]

I've never understood the odd parallel that some people attempt to draw between sex and sexual orientation. You've done it and Toni did it in this same thread.

There is a fact of the matter about my sex. My sex is male. I was male before I was born, I am male now, and when I am no longer alive, my body will be a male body

Okay. Let's try a little experiment. Without resorting to a web search, you tell me if this is a man or a woman:

View attachment 32399



Furthermore, was this person always a man, or always a woman?

I didn't try to look up this person, but the 'attached images' box gives the image names, and one of them is d7474ee69f41c9d9529fc3fcf9e2944d--jamie-clayton-transgender-people.jpg so that kind of gives the game away. The person is a biologically male transwoman.

Now I do not like to participate in games of 'gotcha'. If I had said 'she's clearly a woman' or 'she's clearly female', that would not prove that he is a woman. It would simply be evidence that biological males can sometimes style themselves to 'pass' as females - or at least, they can pass successfully in a posed glamour shot.

But if someone were really determined to 'test' me, I suspect that Jamie probably has the hands of a man (drag queens and transwomen cannot easily disguise their thenar eminences), that Jamie's voice will not be that of a natal female, that Jamie takes testosterone-suppressing hormones, and that Jamie probably has a penis and testicles. But, even if Jamie had exceptional bottom surgery and never experienced a male puberty and otherwise 'passed' on all the conventional trappings of looking outwardly female, he'd still be a man. Every cell in his body would by XY. He'd be of the sex 'of, relating to, or being the sex that typically has the capacity to produce relatively small, usually motile gametes which fertilize the eggs of a female.'

But as I said, I do not like to participate in 'gotcha' games, because I don't know what you think you can conclude from the outcome.

So in your opinion, Ms. Clayton should be forced by society or the state to identify as a man, wear men's clothing, and call herself by a male name?

Because that's at the heart of this whole argument. You want authority to force people into gender roles that you approve of, and what they want is irrelevant.

 

[laughing dog]

Neither did I.



So you cannot imagine other reasons for the judges order and everyone else has the lack of imagination. How does that work?

People have a lack of imagination because they cannot comprehend why somebody would keep using 'she' pronouns for a female child after being told to stop by a judge, other than to be abusive.

Are those the same people who have a lack of imagination because they cannot comprehend that the intent of the father is irrelevant as to the effects of his actions on his child?

I can think of reasons why somebody would keep using 'she' pronouns for his female child, even after being told to stop by a judge, including reasons that do not require that person to be doing it merely to bully. I've explained some of those possible reasons more than once.

That is true. You have shared the irrelevant results from your vivid imagination. Another example of your vivid imagination is the claim that the father was jailed because of his use of "she" to refer to his child. That is false. He was jailed for contempt of court for publicly discussing the case and for using "she" to refer to his child.

 

[J842P]

I did not call the child 'mixed up'. I called the child female.

Yes, we notice that you persist in misgendering a child.

Calling the child a female is *not misgendering*. In fact, if you claim the child is not a female, you are necessarily making the claim the the child isn't transgender.

 

[J842P]

I didn't try to look up this person, but the 'attached images' box gives the image names, and one of them is d7474ee69f41c9d9529fc3fcf9e2944d--jamie-clayton-transgender-people.jpg so that kind of gives the game away. The person is a biologically male transwoman.

Now I do not like to participate in games of 'gotcha'. If I had said 'she's clearly a woman' or 'she's clearly female', that would not prove that he is a woman. It would simply be evidence that biological males can sometimes style themselves to 'pass' as females - or at least, they can pass successfully in a posed glamour shot.

But if someone were really determined to 'test' me, I suspect that Jamie probably has the hands of a man (drag queens and transwomen cannot easily disguise their thenar eminences), that Jamie's voice will not be that of a natal female, that Jamie takes testosterone-suppressing hormones, and that Jamie probably has a penis and testicles. But, even if Jamie had exceptional bottom surgery and never experienced a male puberty and otherwise 'passed' on all the conventional trappings of looking outwardly female, he'd still be a man. Every cell in his body would by XY. He'd be of the sex 'of, relating to, or being the sex that typically has the capacity to produce relatively small, usually motile gametes which fertilize the eggs of a female.'

But as I said, I do not like to participate in 'gotcha' games, because I don't know what you think you can conclude from the outcome.

So in your opinion, Ms. Clayton should be forced by society or the state to identify as a man, wear men's clothing, and call herself by a male name?

Because that's at the heart of this whole argument. You want authority to force people into gender roles that you approve of, and what they want is irrelevant.

No, no one said this or even implied this. Quite the opposite, actually.