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

[Ford]

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.

Actually, Metaphor is implicitly making the case that the father of the child in question should have the final say in his child's sexual identity. That his child's desire to identify as male is biologically wrong, and what the kid wants is irrelevant. The father has a "right" to refer to the kid as his "daughter" and anything that gets in the way of his identification of him is an "atrocity" (according to the article) and must be stopped. The father is not just making the case that he can call his child "she," but that if "she" doesn't produce offspring of her own then he's somehow been robbed of watching his child grow up as he sees, regardless of what the kid wants. Or the mother.

It's an absurd level of paternalism.

 

[J842P]

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

Actually, Metaphor is implicitly making the case that the father of the child in question should have the final say in his child's sexual identity. That his child's desire to identify as male is biologically wrong, and what the kid wants is irrelevant. The father has a "right" to refer to the kid as his "daughter" and anything that gets in the way of his identification of him is an "atrocity" (according to the article) and must be stopped. The father is not just making the case that he can call his child "she," but that if "she" doesn't produce offspring of her own then he's somehow been robbed of watching his child grow up as he sees, regardless of what the kid wants. Or the mother.

It's an absurd level of paternalism.

No, you've made this entire thing up whole cloth. Not only that, but you don't even seem to understand the issue at hand. For example, no one (currently) has a say in their sexual identity. Your sex is an aspect of your biology which at the moment we cannot alter. You mean gender

 

[Angra Mainyu]

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

Actually, Metaphor is implicitly making the case that the father of the child in question should have the final say in his child's sexual identity. That his child's desire to identify as male is biologically wrong, and what the kid wants is irrelevant. The father has a "right" to refer to the kid as his "daughter" and anything that gets in the way of his identification of him is an "atrocity" (according to the article) and must be stopped. The father is not just making the case that he can call his child "she," but that if "she" doesn't produce offspring of her own then he's somehow been robbed of watching his child grow up as he sees, regardless of what the kid wants. Or the mother.

It's an absurd level of paternalism.

Metaphor is not making the case that the father should have the final say. Metaphor is saying that no one has the final say, as a matter of fact: the child is a female, and if the father believed otherwise, the father would be in error too. And Metaphor is saying that the father is being jailed for trying to persuade her daughter that she is a female, a girl, etc.

 

[Ford]

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

Actually, Metaphor is implicitly making the case that the father of the child in question should have the final say in his child's sexual identity. That his child's desire to identify as male is biologically wrong, and what the kid wants is irrelevant. The father has a "right" to refer to the kid as his "daughter" and anything that gets in the way of his identification of him is an "atrocity" (according to the article) and must be stopped. The father is not just making the case that he can call his child "she," but that if "she" doesn't produce offspring of her own then he's somehow been robbed of watching his child grow up as he sees, regardless of what the kid wants. Or the mother.

It's an absurd level of paternalism.

Metaphor is not making the case that the father should have the final say. Metaphor is saying that no one has the final say, as a matter of fact: the child is a female, and if the father believed otherwise, the father would be in error too. And Metaphor is saying that the father is being jailed for trying to persuade her daughter that she is a female, a girl, etc.

I go back to the article linked in his OP.

At the core of the case is that the father wants to not just persuade, but insist that his child be identified as female. That there's some terrible injustice being visited upon HIM because of this ruling. That he is being compelled to affirm his child's gender identity contrary to HIS wishes, and that is somehow an affront to his rights as a parent - which of course supersede the rights of the minor child.

That what the child wants is irrelevant. The gender identity of the child is irrelevant. That as the child is currently biologically female, "she" must conform to the father's wishes for "her" and accept his labeling of her as female. In their perfect world, the court would rule that no matter what the child or the mother wants, the father should be able to decide what the gender of his child is, will be, and will be referred to as moving forward. Sure, the kid can say "I'm a boy," but legally,he's not. That's up to dad to decide. That's the desired outcome here. Gender is not fluid. If you were born with a dick, you're a dude forever. If you were born with a vag, no amount of surgery can change that you're a girl.


Anything else, according to the opinion piece linked in the OP, is an affront to nature. The court - apparently - should tell the kid "look, you're a girl. Deal with it." The problem here is that the court disagrees, and this is somehow an "atrocity" and a terrible thing visited upon children.

 

[Metaphor]

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?

What? However do you go from "he is male" to "he must identify as a man" "must wear men's clothing" and "use 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.

It's breathtaking how many times people get things exactly backwards like you have here. I don't want to force Clayton or anybody else into any 'gender roles'. I do not care how he 'identifies', what drugs he takes, what parts of his body he surgically re-fashions, what he changes his name to, whether he wears jock straps or tiaras or anything else an adult human wants to do.

But one thing that I cannot believe is that Clayton is a woman (because he is male) and one thing I do not want is for the State to forbid me from vocalising this fact. Putting on the outward trappings of sex stereotypes does not change your sex.

In fact, as a sex-nonconforming child, I have long advocated that parents let kids the fuck dress how they want and play with the toys they want. As an adult, I have long advocated that women stop wearing makeup, because it is an extra burden on women. But it is a sexed expectation that absolutely will not go away until and unless women do away with it.

But the reality of sex cannot be changed, no matter how people may wish it were otherwise.

 

[Metaphor]

At the core of the case is that the father wants to not just persuade, but insist that his child be identified as female. That there's some terrible injustice being visited upon HIM because of this ruling. That he is being compelled to affirm his child's gender identity contrary to HIS wishes, and that is somehow an affront to his rights as a parent - which of course supersede the rights of the minor child.

It is an affront to his right as a human being to freedom of conscience and freedom of speech.

That what the child wants is irrelevant. The gender identity of the child is irrelevant. That as the child is currently biologically female, "she" must conform to the father's wishes for "her" and accept his labeling of her as female. In their perfect world, the court would rule that no matter what the child or the mother wants, the father should be able to decide what the gender of his child is, will be, and will be referred to as moving forward. Sure, the kid can say "I'm a boy," but legally,he's not. That's up to dad to decide. That's the desired outcome here.

How do you get this from anything I've ever said? The child being female is not up to the father to decide. Nobody decided it. It's a brute fact.

Gender is not fluid.

Gender can be fluid, because gender identity is a thought in your head and thoughts can change. Babies have a sex but they do not have a gender identity because gender identity involves thoughts that need language, experience of the world, and a cultural framework.

If you were born with a dick, you're a dude forever.

If you were born male, you are male forever, barring far-future technology that can rebuild a body cell by cell, and it is possible that new body could be female, though whether that new body would still be you is a matter of philosophical debate.

If you were born with a vag, no amount of surgery can change that you're a girl.

Well, yes. Females cannot turn into males.

Anything else, according to the opinion piece linked in the OP, is an affront to nature. The court - apparently - should tell the kid "look, you're a girl. Deal with it." The problem here is that the court disagrees, and this is somehow an "atrocity" and a terrible thing visited upon children.

The court doesn't have to 'tell' the girl anything. The court should desist from punishing somebody for uttering biological facts.

 

[Metaphor]

Actually, Metaphor is implicitly making the case that the father of the child in question should have the final say in his child's sexual identity.

I'm not doing any such thing.

That his child's desire to identify as male is biologically wrong, and what the kid wants is irrelevant. The father has a "right" to refer to the kid as his "daughter" and anything that gets in the way of his identification of him is an "atrocity" (according to the article) and must be stopped.

Anybody ought have the right to refer to a female as female without a court forbidding you from doing so. (In fact, I'd go further and say you have the right to refer to females as male if you want to do so and the court has no business forbidding you from doing so). The atrocity is the abridgment of freedom of speech and freedom of conscience.

The father is not just making the case that he can call his child "she," but that if "she" doesn't produce offspring of her own then he's somehow been robbed of watching his child grow up as he sees, regardless of what the kid wants. Or the mother.

No idea where you are getting this or how you get that from anything I've said on this thread or at any point in my entire life.

It's an absurd level of paternalism.

You are developing an 'exactly backwards' habit.

[h=3]pa•ter•nal•ism pə-tûr′nə-lĭz″əm[/h]Paternal care or government; specifically, excessive governmental regulation of the private affairs and business methods and interests of the people; undue solicitude on the part of the central government for the protection of the people and their interests, and interference therewith.

The government arresting and jailing people for correctly referring to to somebody's sex to 'protect' that somebody is paternalism.

 

[Metaphor]

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?

There is an overlap.

 

[Toni]

It is an affront to his right as a human being to freedom of conscience and freedom of speech.



How do you get this from anything I've ever said? The child being female is not up to the father to decide. Nobody decided it. It's a brute fact.

Gender is not fluid.

Gender can be fluid, because gender identity is a thought in your head and thoughts can change. Babies have a sex but they do not have a gender identity because gender identity involves thoughts that need language, experience of the world, and a cultural framework.

If you were born with a dick, you're a dude forever.

If you were born male, you are male forever, barring far-future technology that can rebuild a body cell by cell, and it is possible that new body could be female, though whether that new body would still be you is a matter of philosophical debate.

If you were born with a vag, no amount of surgery can change that you're a girl.

Well, yes. Females cannot turn into males.

Anything else, according to the opinion piece linked in the OP, is an affront to nature. The court - apparently - should tell the kid "look, you're a girl. Deal with it." The problem here is that the court disagrees, and this is somehow an "atrocity" and a terrible thing visited upon children.

The court doesn't have to 'tell' the girl anything. The court should desist from punishing somebody for uttering biological facts.

Parents are not free to verbally and emotionally abuse their minor children as an exercise in the parent's free speech rights.

Only a truly despicable human being would think that this was a case of free speech rights.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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?

Rename the files before you try something like that. A blind person would know that she was once a he.

 

[repoman]

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?

Rename the files before you try something like that. A blind person would know that she was once a he.

The voice is a giveaway that this person is a man trying to sound like a woman or a transman after a modicum of testosterone exposure.

Decent actor in Designated Survivor, though.

 

[Trausti]

Can't tell the difference.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Can't tell the difference.

Why is it telling you how far each of these individuals is from your residence and why are you scribbling it out or cutting it off in bottom profiles?

 

[Trausti]

Can't tell the difference.

Why is it telling you how far each of these individuals is from your residence and why are you scribbling it out or cutting it off in bottom profiles?

My understanding is that a lesbian made this collage to highlight the intrusion of Ex-Men on a lesbian dating site.

 

[repoman]

There was an old video of chubby real lesbians in an argument with a gangly transbian on youtube that was hilarious, but I can't find it anymore.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Can't tell the difference.

Why is it telling you how far each of these individuals is from your residence and why are you scribbling it out or cutting it off in bottom profiles?

My understanding is that a lesbian made this collage to highlight the intrusion of Ex-Men on a lesbian dating site.

If this actually is typical, then why is the same photo being used everywhere on 4chan, twitter, and reddit to make the same point?

I will add Ashley and Aubrey are the same person. JaneDoe and the person above--also the same. If there were a giant selection of this type of person, then the likelihood of 4 duplicates would be astronomical. If this is even real, someone went out of their way to go through many profile returns, stitch them together into a collage, remove distances away so the point seems common, then post across Internet "this is what lesbians see when they go on dating sites."

The bottom middle picture also seems to be one picture copied onto another. Looks modified. Looks like in an attempt to slide one image onto another, they accidentally didn't slide the overlayed image all the way down. This is also why the top is cut off. The description from whatever original photo was in the profile also has "she/her trans woman" is also cut off to make it appear that info is not shared.

Plus, one result says MILES away and another KM away. A single app result wouldn't do that....possibly not even from the same locale.

Granted, there is a point to be made and I don't know if these profiled people are legit or trolling, but the so-called collage seems constructed from uncommon profiles and unknown photos based on this probability and reasoning described above.

 

[Jarhyn]

My understanding is that a lesbian made this collage to highlight the intrusion of Ex-Men on a lesbian dating site.

If this actually is typical, then why is the same photo being used everywhere on 4chan, twitter, and reddit to make the same point?

Man, on reddit I've seen a trend coming out of 2X of transwomen and they look stunning.

As for voice, if someone wasn't put through testosterone at puberty, I sure as shit wouldn't be able to tell.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

My understanding is that a lesbian made this collage to highlight the intrusion of Ex-Men on a lesbian dating site.

If this actually is typical, then why is the same photo being used everywhere on 4chan, twitter, and reddit to make the same point?

Man, on reddit I've seen a trend coming out of 2X of transwomen and they look stunning.

As for voice, if someone wasn't put through testosterone at puberty, I sure as shit wouldn't be able to tell.

You should post some pictures. Trausti did.

 

[bilby]

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?

There's very little evidence of any kind in this thread.

It's likely that there's a great deal of evidence presented to the judge that nobody here knows about.

To claim "there's no evidence of X", for any X in this case, presumes a familiarity with the minutiae of this case that certainly cannot come from the (incredibly biased and frankly useless) article linked in the OP.

Courts very rarely make remarkable rulings on politically sensitive issues. If your reading of a journalistic account of a court case causes you to feel outrage at the judge's politicisation of the case, there's a HUGE probability that the problem is with the journalist, not the judge.

It's not certain; But it's definitely the way to bet.

I have seen nothing in this thread to suggest, much less demonstrate, that the judge is wrong and the journalist is right.

Viewed from any perspective that tends to decline unsupported invitations to outrage, the case here is a simple one of a bully being held in contempt of court for persistent abuse of a minor. The entire transgender question is orthogonal to that issue, and as a result the judge likely didn't even consider it. And nor should he have.

 

[Metaphor]

To claim "there's no evidence of X", for any X in this case, presumes a familiarity with the minutiae of this case that certainly cannot come from the (incredibly biased and frankly useless) article linked in the OP.

It presumes nothing of the kind. It states a fact that there's no evidence of it.

Viewed from any perspective that tends to decline unsupported invitations to outrage, the case here is a simple one of a bully being held in contempt of court for persistent abuse of a minor.

Viewed from a tribe-affirming leftist perspective only.

Others can see a judge threatening, and then acting on his threat, to criminalise and jail somebody for his use of pronouns.