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

[laughing dog]

There were not other reasons given for his arrest, nor do I know what you mean by 'better'.

The gag order gives several conditions:

"[1] AB, a 14 year old transgender boy, applies for a protection order to restrain his father, CD, from publishing, speaking or giving interviews about this case or about AB’s personal and medical information.
"a) CD shall be restrained from: i. attempting to persuade AB to abandon treatment for gender dysphoria; ii. addressing AB by his birth name; and iii. referring to AB as a girl or with female pronouns whether to AB directly or to third parties;

"b) CD shall not directly, or indirectly through an agent or third party, publish or share information or documentation relating to AB’s sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, mental or physical health, medical status or therapies."

laughing dog first made the claim he was jailed for violating both conditions but if he has evidence of that he has not produced it.

On a closer reading, the gag order is worse than I thought. It not only restricts the father's speech whilst talking to his daughter, but also while talking about his daughter to other parties, whether his daughter is present or not.

Right, because the child's welfare is less important than the man's right to publicly complain about his situation. Do you even think about anyone but the men?

 

[laughing dog]

Using the justified true belief, given your history of histrionics, emotional rhetoric, exaggeration, straw men and mischaracterizations, there is no way to "know".

You knew it, laughing dog.

I realize you need to save some face, but your vastly over-estimate your mind-reading ability and your deductive capacity.

 

[Metaphor]

Those are standard privacy issues, varying on the merits, that are used in all child/family courts in the US.

The gag order prevents his use of 'she' pronouns to describe his daughter even in a private conversation with a friend, but wouldn't prevent the same conversation if the jailed father had used 'he' instead. He could have an breakdown of emotional despair in front of a sympathetic friend, utter "what happened to my daughter, she will never be able to take this decision back", and he'd be violating that gag order.

And again I ask, why do you believe the orders posted by the father are the real orders that were given?

I'm responding to the story as if it has the facts right, as have others. If there is evidence that some of the facts are wrong, then people can produce that evidence.

 

[Metaphor]

Using the justified true belief, given your history of histrionics, emotional rhetoric, exaggeration, straw men and mischaracterizations, there is no way to "know".

You knew it, laughing dog.

I realize you need to save some face, but your vastly over-estimate your mind-reading ability and your deductive capacity.

No. I said there was no evidence that the father was using pronouns in order to bully his child. I am correct: there is no evidence. If someone produces evidence, then there will be evidence. Who has produced this evidence? Did I miss it? Where is it? What post # was the evidence presented?

 

[Metaphor]

There were not other reasons given for his arrest, nor do I know what you mean by 'better'.

The gag order gives several conditions:

"[1] AB, a 14 year old transgender boy, applies for a protection order to restrain his father, CD, from publishing, speaking or giving interviews about this case or about AB’s personal and medical information.
"a) CD shall be restrained from: i. attempting to persuade AB to abandon treatment for gender dysphoria; ii. addressing AB by his birth name; and iii. referring to AB as a girl or with female pronouns whether to AB directly or to third parties;

"b) CD shall not directly, or indirectly through an agent or third party, publish or share information or documentation relating to AB’s sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, mental or physical health, medical status or therapies."

laughing dog first made the claim he was jailed for violating both conditions but if he has evidence of that he has not produced it.

On a closer reading, the gag order is worse than I thought. It not only restricts the father's speech whilst talking to his daughter, but also while talking about his daughter to other parties, whether his daughter is present or not.

Right, because the child's welfare is less important than the man's right to publicly complain about his situation. Do you even think about anyone but the men?

Evidently, I'm not thinking of some men, like his 'son'.

Also, where do you get the idea that only 'publically complain about the situation' is gagged?

iii. referring to AB as a girl or with female pronouns whether to AB directly or to third parties;

The father, who is obviously a complete transphobe, might be expressing to a friend his sense of despair at losing his daughter, or talking about some incident when she was eight years old, or talking about how they chose her name as parents. In private, to a friend, and that would be violating the gag order.

Do you think that's a reasonable situation?

 

[laughing dog]

Right, because the child's welfare is less important than the man's right to publicly complain about his situation. Do you even think about anyone but the men?

Evidently, I'm not thinking of some men, like his 'son'.

His child is not old enough to be a man.

Also, where do you get the idea that only 'publically complain about the situation' is gagged?

Where do you get the idea that I think that?

The father, who is obviously a complete transphobe, might be expressing to a friend his sense of despair at losing his daughter, or talking about some incident when she was eight years old, or talking about how they chose her name as parents. In private, to a friend, and that would be violating the gag order.

Do you think that's a reasonable situation?

Well, he could simply avoid the problem by referring to his child. And talking about choosing the name is not referring to the child as a daughter, so your examples are not valid. Do I think it is reasonable in the sense of protecting the child's welfare - absolutely yes. Do I think it is reasonable to expect this particular man to abide by it - yes. In fact, in your linked article, he managed to not call his child a girl or she for a year.

Frankly, at this point, the apparent custodial parent thinks it is in the child's best interest to undergo that treatment and the courts agree. I am sorry he is upset, but he needs to keep his issues to himself (like an adult) if he really wants to keep a positive relationship with his child. However difficult this is for him, I strongly suspect this is much more difficult for his child to go through even with support. The child does not need his selfish antics making it worse.

 

[TomC]

If the father didn't care about his child, why would he put himself through this?

He doesn't have to do it.

He could just shut up in the face of overwhelming public and legal pressures. Smile, insincerely, and admit that his ex-wife is now in control and he's not welcome any more.

There's a bunch of mind readers posting in this thread. Perhaps one of them will explain why the dad bothered with all this crap?
Tom

 

[Metaphor]

His child is not old enough to be a man.

Ah, so my advocacy is not on behalf of men and boys but only men.

Where do you get the idea that I think that?

Because in response to my pointing out how wrong the gag order was, you wrote:
"Right, because the child's welfare is less important than the man's right to publicly complain about his situation"

as if I had been talking about a right to air the details publically.

Well, he could simply avoid the problem by referring to his child.

I did not ask what he could do to avoid violating it. I asked if you thought it was reasonable that a private conversation with another adult should be censored.

And talking about choosing the name is not referring to the child as a daughter, so your examples are not valid.

Perhaps you have conversations in a different way to most human beings, but when my sisters and brother talk about their children to me, they use pronouns. Do you think it is reasonable for the father to be ordered to use the 'correct' pronouns when talking about his child in private conversations?

Do I think it is reasonable in the sense of protecting the child's welfare - absolutely yes. Do I think it is reasonable to expect this particular man to abide by it - yes.

Excellent: that's what I wanted to know. You think it is reasonable for the State to violate this man's freedom of speech and freedom of conscience during private conversations.

In fact, in your linked article, he managed to not call his child a girl or she for a year.

I am glad he was able to comply with the State's censorship regime and so escaped punishment for the year of his compliance.

Frankly, at this point, the apparent custodial parent thinks it is in the child's best interest to undergo that treatment and the courts agree. I am sorry he is upset, but he needs to keep his issues to himself (like an adult) if he really wants to keep a positive relationship with his child.

I thought men were supposed to be encouraged to talk about their emotional problems. (Not to women, obviously, that would introduce emotional labour on the women). But, I am glad to see that you think men should suck up whatever emotions they are having, "like an adult".

However difficult this is for him, I strongly suspect this is much more difficult for his child to go through even with support. The child does not need his selfish antics making it worse.

What technological solutions can we implement that will monitor his continued compliance with the gag order in private conversations? I like the Inner Party's 'telesecreen' solution that could be monitoring your speech and behaviour at all times, though of course training children to dob in relatives is a good supplementary method.

 

[ZiprHead]

If the father didn't care about his child, why would he put himself through this?

He doesn't have to do it.

He could just shut up in the face of overwhelming public and legal pressures. Smile, insincerely, and admit that his ex-wife is now in control and he's not welcome any more.

There's a bunch of mind readers posting in this thread. Perhaps one of them will explain why the dad bothered with all this crap?
Tom

There was no public pressure until he opened up his piehole, against the court order. And he is perfectly within his rights to have a lawyer help him, which he probably already has. That he is still losing should tell you something.

 

[Metaphor]

If the father didn't care about his child, why would he put himself through this?

He doesn't have to do it.

He could just shut up in the face of overwhelming public and legal pressures. Smile, insincerely, and admit that his ex-wife is now in control and he's not welcome any more.

There's a bunch of mind readers posting in this thread. Perhaps one of them will explain why the dad bothered with all this crap?
Tom

Sorry, TomC, I thought I had explained it earlier.

The father is a sadist who wanted to bully his son at every opportunity and went out of his way to deadname and misgender in every conversation. Not because he believes his child is actually a girl, but because he is a bully and transphobe.

He also deliberately flouted the gag order to obtain martyr street cred for the right-wing jackal press to venerate him, and the crypto-fascist racists to beatify as poster-boy for unvarnished hate.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It strikes me that very few who abuse ever think they are being abusive.

I hadn't thought of it that way but I strongly suspect you're right.

 

[repoman]

If the father didn't care about his child, why would he put himself through this?

He doesn't have to do it.

He could just shut up in the face of overwhelming public and legal pressures. Smile, insincerely, and admit that his ex-wife is now in control and he's not welcome any more.

There's a bunch of mind readers posting in this thread. Perhaps one of them will explain why the dad bothered with all this crap?
Tom

Sorry, TomC, I thought I had explained it earlier.

The father is a sadist who wanted to bully his son at every opportunity and went out of his way to deadname and misgender in every conversation. Not because he believes his child is actually a girl, but because he is a bully and transphobe.

He also deliberately flouted the gag order to obtain martyr street cred for the right-wing jackal press to venerate him, and the crypto-fascist racists to beatify as poster-boy for unvarnished hate.

Are you being sarcastic?

What do you actually think is going on, without sarcasm?

 

[Metaphor]

If the father didn't care about his child, why would he put himself through this?

He doesn't have to do it.

He could just shut up in the face of overwhelming public and legal pressures. Smile, insincerely, and admit that his ex-wife is now in control and he's not welcome any more.

There's a bunch of mind readers posting in this thread. Perhaps one of them will explain why the dad bothered with all this crap?
Tom

Sorry, TomC, I thought I had explained it earlier.

The father is a sadist who wanted to bully his son at every opportunity and went out of his way to deadname and misgender in every conversation. Not because he believes his child is actually a girl, but because he is a bully and transphobe.

He also deliberately flouted the gag order to obtain martyr street cred for the right-wing jackal press to venerate him, and the crypto-fascist racists to beatify as poster-boy for unvarnished hate.

Are you being sarcastic?

What do you actually think is going on, without sarcasm?

Yes, I was being sarcastic.

I think what is going on here is a father who is being censored by the State for calling his female child 'she', and for using the name for her that he and the child's mother picked out fourteen years ago for their baby girl.

I don't know the details of the father's beliefs. Perhaps he thinks his daughter's desire to live as the opposite sex will desist, and that therefore cross-sex hormones will have the unwanted outcome of irreversible masculinisation and sterilisation. Perhaps he thinks you cannot be born in the 'wrong' body, and that it would harm his female child to try to make her body something it is not and something it can never be (a body that is actually male). Perhaps he is, indeed, a sadist unmatched in his cruelty to his own offspring and has no other reason to call his female child 'she' than to terrorise and abuse her.

And I think, whatever the reason, the State has no business censoring his private conversations. That's what I think.

 

[TomC]

There was no public pressure until he opened up his piehole, against the court order.

Am I expected to take this on your say so, or do you have evidence?

You are making a rather clear claim here. Feel free to back it up with something more substantial than your assumptions about how things should be.
Tom

 

[ZiprHead]

And I think, whatever the reason, the State has no business censoring his private conversations. That's what I think.

Do you think there should be no limits on the things parents are allowed to say to their child/children?

 

[Metaphor]

And I think, whatever the reason, the State has no business censoring his private conversations. That's what I think.

Do you think there should be no limits on the things parents are allowed to say to their child/children?

I don't know about 'no limits'. I think there is such a thing as emotional abuse.

 

[ZiprHead]

And I think, whatever the reason, the State has no business censoring his private conversations. That's what I think.

Do you think there should be no limits on the things parents are allowed to say to their child/children?

I don't know about 'no limits'. I think there is such a thing as emotional abuse.

Hey, we're making progress.

Can I assume you think that calling your trans child pronouns that don't agree with their stated gender should be fine and dandy, even though many in the field of psychology would consider it emotional abuse?

 

[Metaphor]

I don't know about 'no limits'. I think there is such a thing as emotional abuse.

Hey, we're making progress.

Can I assume you think that calling your trans child pronouns that don't agree with their stated gender should be fine and dandy, even though many in the field of psychology would consider it emotional abuse?

Calling your child pronouns that conform to their sex, and using the name you gave them at birth, is not abusive. Please note I find it near ridiculous that parents using 'she' for their female child, and calling their child the name they gave their child at birth, behaviour that almost every parent who has ever lived has done without incident for millennia, can now be re-cast as 'abuse'.

EDIT: And, of course, the State deciding that you shall not express your truth in private to other people is certainly abuse: it's an abuse of State power.

Someone on this board asked me why I was so 'obsessed' with trans issues. What I'm 'obsessed' with is the State not proscribing speech and the State not forcing her citizens to engage in polite fictions and collective delusions.

 

[ZiprHead]

I don't know about 'no limits'. I think there is such a thing as emotional abuse.

Hey, we're making progress.

Can I assume you think that calling your trans child pronouns that don't agree with their stated gender should be fine and dandy, even though many in the field of psychology would consider it emotional abuse?

Calling your child pronouns that conform to their sex, and using the name you gave them at birth, is not abusive. Please note I find it near ridiculous that parents using 'she' for their female child, and calling their child the name they gave their child at birth, behaviour that almost every parent who has ever lived has done without incident for millennia, can now be re-cast as 'abuse'.

So that's a yes then.

 

[bilby]

I don't know about 'no limits'. I think there is such a thing as emotional abuse.

Hey, we're making progress.

Can I assume you think that calling your trans child pronouns that don't agree with their stated gender should be fine and dandy, even though many in the field of psychology would consider it emotional abuse?

Calling your child pronouns that conform to their sex, and using the name you gave them at birth, is not abusive.

In this case, it clearly is.

Absolute statements are always wrong.

Please note I find it near ridiculous that parents using 'she' for their female child, and calling their child the name they gave their child at birth, behaviour that almost every parent who has ever lived has done without incident for millennia, can now be re-cast as 'abuse'.

Nobody cares what you find ridiculous. And nothing is new here, or 're-cast'. Repeatedly calling someone by a name or pronoun that they find hurtful, and persisting in doing so after they repeatedly ask you to desist, is abuse. And always has been.

EDIT: And, of course, the State deciding that you shall not express your truth in private to other people is certainly abuse: it's an abuse of State power.

Someone on this board asked me why I was so 'obsessed' with trans issues. What I'm 'obsessed' with is the State not proscribing speech and the State not forcing her citizens to engage in polite fictions and collective delusions.

The state has no control about what anyone says in private. The court order may technically prohibit privately using specific language when discussing the plaintiff, but unless the defendant lives in a total surveillance state, the reality is that it is only his public language that is affected.

I presume that you are aware that Canada has very limited surveillance of the public, and that people are in fact free to say whatever they please in private conversation, unless and until someone party to the conversation decides to go public.

We are not discussing the DDR prior to the reunification of Germany, nor today's DPRK.