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

[Metaphor]

Nobody cares what you find ridiculous.

That may be the case, but we're on a discussion board and I reserve the right to discuss things on it.

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.

I disagree.

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.

That the State does not ordinarily monitor private conversations is no more to the point than the fact that the State does not monitor the blood alcohol of drivers in 99.9% of car trips.

The point is that the father was forbidden by the State from using certain words and expressions when having a private conversation about his child.

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.

Do you agree that the gag order ought not have proscribed the father's language in private conversations? Or do you think Canada has a right to proscribe the language someone uses in private conversations? Note I am not asking you about enforcement mechanisms.

 

[bilby]

That may be the case, but we're on a discussion board and I reserve the right to discuss things on it.



I disagree.

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.

That the State does not ordinarily monitor private conversations is no more to the point than the fact that the State does not monitor the blood alcohol of drivers in 99.9% of car trips.

The point is that the father was forbidden by the State from using certain words and expressions when having a private conversation about his child.

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.

Do you agree that the gag order ought not have proscribed the father's language in private conversations? Or do you think Canada has a right to proscribe the language someone uses in private conversations? Note I am not asking you about enforcement mechanisms.

Note that I don't have to accept your restrictions on my responses, particularly when such restrictions prevent me from responding in a way that doesn't pander to your fantasies.

For someone whose entire position is supposedly built on 'facts are more important than people', that's an odd limitation to attempt to impose.

It's a fact that no state has the right to do anything it cannot enforce.

If that fact offends you, just imagine if your own father wouldn't shut up about how much of a fool you are for not understanding it.


Oh, and the order makes no mention whatsoever of private conversations.

 

[Metaphor]

Note that I don't have to accept your restrictions on my responses,

I did not impose, or try to impose, any restrictions on your response. I asked a question and, for the avoidance of doubt, added detail about what I was asking.

You are of course free to answer and talk about things I was not asking about.

particularly when such restrictions prevent me from responding in a way that doesn't pander to your fantasies.

For someone whose entire position is supposedly built on 'facts are more important than people', that's an odd limitation to attempt to impose.

I did not attempt to impose any such limitation.

It's a fact that no state has the right to do anything it cannot enforce.

If that fact offends you, just imagine if your own father wouldn't shut up about how much of a fool you are for not understanding it.

You are correct: I don't understand it.

Oh, and the order makes no mention whatsoever of private conversations.

The order says, in part:

"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;

A third party is somebody who is not CD or the child. If you believe that this is not meant to restrict his private conversation, perhaps you would be kind enough to explain how I am misreading the text.

 

[bilby]

I did not impose, or try to impose, any restrictions on your response. I asked a question and, for the avoidance of doubt, added detail about what I was asking.

You are of course free to answer and talk about things I was not asking about.



I did not attempt to impose any such limitation.

It's a fact that no state has the right to do anything it cannot enforce.

If that fact offends you, just imagine if your own father wouldn't shut up about how much of a fool you are for not understanding it.

You are correct: I don't understand it.

Oh, and the order makes no mention whatsoever of private conversations.

The order says, in part:

"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;

A third party is somebody who is not CD or the child. If you believe that this is not meant to restrict his private conversation, perhaps you would be kind enough to explain how I am misreading the text.

A third party is ANYbody who is not CD or AB. That would include, for example, a journalist, or one of AB's teachers. Do you think that a conversation with a journalist constitutes 'private conversation'? What about a conversation with a teacher about one of their pupils?

 

[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......

Whatever you need to make you feel better.

 

[laughing dog]

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.

The gag order refers to other parties which includes publicly. Duh.

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.

The ease of compliance is a factor in determining reasonableness. Really, it is as if you don't even bother to think before your respond.

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.

Are they under a court order? Really, it is as if you just respond without thinking. [

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.

"Freedom of conscience"? He can think whatever he wants. No one has absolute freedom of speech. So please take your hysterics elsewhere.

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".

I didn't say that, but hey, why not through in a straw man.

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.

It is telling that your responses focus on the man and completely ignore the effects on and the welfare of the child.

 

[Metaphor]

A third party is ANYbody who is not CD or AB. That would include, for example, a journalist, or one of AB's teachers. Do you think that a conversation with a journalist constitutes 'private conversation'?

What makes you think that, because a conversation with a third party includes the category "private conversations", that that means I think any and every conversation with a 'third party' is a 'private conversation'?

bilby, why did you deliberately ignore my example?

bilby, do you think the State should have the right to proscribe CD's private conversations with third parties (for example, CD talking to a friend about his emotional states regarding the situation with his child)?

 

[Metaphor]

The gag order refers to other parties which includes publicly. Duh.

I did not dispute that public conversations were somehow excluded from the censorship.

I said that private conversations were included in the censorship.

If you think private conversations are not included in the language proscriptions of the gag order, please explain to me how the text allows them.

The ease of compliance is a factor in determining reasonableness. Really, it is as if you don't even bother to think before your respond.

You did not answer my question. I did not ask what factors you have used to determine reasonableness. I asked if you thought it was reasonable.

Are they under a court order? Really, it is as if you just respond without thinking.

Of course, they are not under a court order. I am explaining to you how ordinary conversations about children involve using their names and pronouns.

"Freedom of conscience"? He can think whatever he wants. No one has absolute freedom of speech. So please take your hysterics elsewhere.

If the board would like to boot me off, that is for the board to decide, not you.

I didn't say that, but hey, why not through in a straw man.

Of course you said it. I quoted you.

 

[Metaphor]

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......

Whatever you need to make you feel better.

It does not make me feel better that people assert things without evidence.

 

[bilby]

A third party is ANYbody who is not CD or AB. That would include, for example, a journalist, or one of AB's teachers. Do you think that a conversation with a journalist constitutes 'private conversation'?

What makes you think that, because a conversation with a third party includes the category "private conversations", that that means I think any and every conversation with a 'third party' is a 'private conversation'?

bilby, why did you deliberately ignore my example?

bilby, do you think the State should have the right to proscribe CD's private conversations with third parties (for example, CD talking to a friend about his emotional states regarding the situation with his child)?

OK, either you are stupider than you appear, or you are deliberately making this situation out to be outrageous despite knowing that it's not.

Either way, I am now bored with you, and so am unsubscribing from your increasingly hysterical and pointless thread about a person being punished in law for doing something that's both unlawful and immoral.

Have fun!

 

[Metaphor]

A third party is ANYbody who is not CD or AB. That would include, for example, a journalist, or one of AB's teachers. Do you think that a conversation with a journalist constitutes 'private conversation'?

What makes you think that, because a conversation with a third party includes the category "private conversations", that that means I think any and every conversation with a 'third party' is a 'private conversation'?

bilby, why did you deliberately ignore my example?

bilby, do you think the State should have the right to proscribe CD's private conversations with third parties (for example, CD talking to a friend about his emotional states regarding the situation with his child)?

OK, either you are stupider than you appear, or you are deliberately making this situation out to be outrageous despite knowing that it's not.

Either way, I am now bored with you, and so am unsubscribing from your increasingly hysterical and pointless thread about a person being punished in law for doing something that's both unlawful and immoral.

Have fun!

Since bilby cannot or will not answer my question, can anyone else?

How can the gag order be read in such a way that would mean CD's private conversations about his daughter are not being proscribed by the State?

 

[Angra Mainyu]

OK, either you are stupider than you appear, or you are deliberately making this situation out to be outrageous despite knowing that it's not.

Either way, I am now bored with you, and so am unsubscribing from your increasingly hysterical and pointless thread about a person being punished in law for doing something that's both unlawful and immoral.

Have fun!

Since bilby cannot or will not answer my question, can anyone else?

How can the gag order be read in such a way that would mean CD's private conversations about his daughter are not being proscribed by the State?

1. The State does not have that right. This is outrageous. But in practice, some states impose those restrictions, even though that is unethical.
2. The gag order seems to (very clearly) encompass private conversations with third parties. If it is not meant to include them, the judge misspoke.

 

[Jarhyn]

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

Because he cares about himself, and his stupid fucking pride.

Of course he doesn't have to do it. That's what makes it so fucking stupid and tragic.

It's not about his ex-wife. It's about his son. You claim so much that you understand even the slightest bit of context for "LGBTQ" and then just seem to know absolutely nothing about the things that pretty much universally are abusive to that mindset of being trans... Like dead-naming and outing someone.

How about smile insincerely ad admit that his son has a right to control his own life and secondary sexual development? Because regardless of his own opinions, his son does have that right. But no. He has very clearly been more concerned about himself and what he is going through (being disabused of his assumptions about his son), instead of what his son is going through (being denied the right to decide for himself who he is going to be and how he is going to be it).

The pain of being told you are wrong and being asked to admit that -- that you do not have the socially affirmed right to loudly contradict and stand in the way of your own child's goals specifically for themselves and their body, rights that only impact them, and only in ways that about half of everyone normally gets impacted anyway -- does not come before much of anything, let alone the responsibility you have to support the life and decisions and goals of someone you forced to exist without their consent.

The fact is that your bad-faith I WoRk WiTh GaY PeOpLe claim is so much bullshit, given the fact that you yourself can't even call this child the man's son, despite it not being a point in contention here that that is the son's desired public identity.

 

[Toni]

OK, either you are stupider than you appear, or you are deliberately making this situation out to be outrageous despite knowing that it's not.

Either way, I am now bored with you, and so am unsubscribing from your increasingly hysterical and pointless thread about a person being punished in law for doing something that's both unlawful and immoral.

Have fun!

Since bilby cannot or will not answer my question, can anyone else?

How can the gag order be read in such a way that would mean CD's private conversations about his daughter are not being proscribed by the State?

People are often proscribed from discussing certain matters, sometimes business related, and sometimes terms of a legal settlement through non-disclosure agreements. Persons working in a medical setting are proscribed by law from discussing any patient's particulars except as is necessary in that patient's care: Two physicians in a public elevator cannot discuss any patient's case in a manner which might identify that patient, for example. This could be using the patient's name or it could be mentioning identifying characteristics: That suicide attempt sure messed up his legs permanently when he jumped from that bridge when the news is full of someone jumping from a bridge, for example. This is why you might hear in a medical setting or a tv show about a medical setting people referring to 'that heart attack in room 3)---they can't mention that it is Mr. Brown. They are giving the person they need to direct to that room enough information to help them recall, out of the many patients they are monitoring, exactly which patient that one is without identifying the patient by any means that would identify him to casual bystanders or other patients, etc. Even lab personnel, and administrative personnel are not allowed to use a patient's name or identifying information except as necessary to provide medical care and must take great care not to use any identifying information outside of the necessary setting.

In family court, parents are often proscribed from discussing say, the particulars of their child's medical condition or therapy sessions outside of court or in the appropriate medical setting.

What this father is doing is attempting to impose his view and his will on someone else, against the direction of the court. He is deliberately causing his child unnecessary pain and suffering. Because he's having a hard time dealing with a reality he doesn't like.

It is even worse than if your parents were discussing their matchmaking efforts to help you find a wife and start giving them grandchildren. Because you are an adult and can speak for yourself and simply go to your own home if you are angry or upset. The child cannot escape.

 

[ZiprHead]

What this father is doing is attempting to impose his view and his will on someone else, against the direction of the court. He is deliberately causing his child unnecessary pain and suffering. Because he's having a hard time dealing with a reality he doesn't like.

Metaphor is just fine with the father hurting the child.

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.

 

[TomC]

admit that his son has a right to control his own life and secondary sexual development? Because regardless of his own opinions, his son does have that right.

This is what you refuse to understand. I don't agree on this. I don't believe 14y/o have that degree of personal autonomy. If anything, I feel badly for the ones who do.

I would have pretty much the same opinion if a 14y/o wanted to look like Vin Diesel. Wanted surgery and steroids and growth hormones and such. Suppose one parent was all about that and one parent vehemently opposed. I would be siding with the opposition for the same reasons.

Because he cares about himself, and his stupid fucking pride.

You haven't demonstrated much in the way of mind reading skills. This is no exception.
Tom

 

[Toni]

admit that his son has a right to control his own life and secondary sexual development? Because regardless of his own opinions, his son does have that right.

This is what you refuse to understand. I don't agree on this. I don't believe 14y/o have that degree of personal autonomy. If anything, I feel badly for the ones who do.

I would have pretty much the same opinion if a 14y/o wanted to look like Vin Diesel. Wanted surgery and steroids and growth hormones and such. Suppose one parent was all about that and one parent vehemently opposed. I would be siding with the opposition for the same reasons.

Because he cares about himself, and his stupid fucking pride.

You haven't demonstrated much in the way of mind reading skills. This is no exception.
Tom

How do you feel about the child who loves ballet and wants nothing but to dance Odette or Siegfreid in Swan Lake but whose father insists they play football?

The mother who wants her child to wear pink ruffles while the child prefers to wear jeans and play football?

The child whose parents are distressed because they prefer to climb trees and collect rocks and sticks and insects to watching television?

The autistic child that the parent insists be mainstreamed although the child suffers from extreme sensory overload in a normal classroom?

The child who is academically gifted but very slight of build but whose parents want to play hockey and ditch the books?

The child who is shy and a bit dumpy but whose mother insists they try out to be cheerleader?

The child who is tone deaf and cannot carry a tune but whose parent wants them to try for the lead in the school musical?

I've watched parents do this or similar to their child and it is really horrible.

What this father is doing is much, much, much worse.

I do understand the gravity of the life altering changes this child needs. It would give me pause as well. But if, after YEARS of doctors appointments and appointments with counselors and therapists, I heard over and over that this was truly who my child was, I'd damn well learn to call them by the name they preferred and the pronouns they need.

 

[Jarhyn]

admit that his son has a right to control his own life and secondary sexual development? Because regardless of his own opinions, his son does have that right.

This is what you refuse to understand. I don't agree on this. I don't believe 14y/o have that degree of personal autonomy. If anything, I feel badly for the ones who do.

I would have pretty much the same opinion if a 14y/o wanted to look like Vin Diesel. Wanted surgery and steroids and growth hormones and such. Suppose one parent was all about that and one parent vehemently opposed. I would be siding with the opposition for the same reasons.

Because he cares about himself, and his stupid fucking pride.

You haven't demonstrated much in the way of mind reading skills. This is no exception.
Tom

One person on earth has ever been Vin Diesel. Only one person ever actually gets to have been Vin Diesel. Expecting to be Vin Diesel is unreasonable, especially at 14.

Very close to half of everyone gets to be "man". It is easy to be a "man". In fact "being a man" is a necessary part of being Vin Diesel, AFAICT. It's definitely a sub-goal.

In fact every child born in this world has every right to idolize Vin Diesel and make every reasonable attempt to try to be as "that" as they can, including the power to go out behind their parents backs, take steroids, lift, take acting lessons, and so on.

They have within their power to do what Vin Diesel did, and yes, the right. They have at the age of 14 the right to get a weight set out of their parents, and start lifting. And if part of who they want to be is a man, then yes, they have that right, because we accept that right as intrinsic to at least half their peers.

Do you deny the right of Vin Diesel to be Vin Diesel? Because not even Vin Diesel would be Vin Diesel without steroids, and the right to seek to be himself. I can't say for sure how much his parents approved or didn't approve of that, but I'm pretty sure that they didn't have much choice in the matter by the time that started.

My rules for my child who decides to be Vin Diesel is that they have to follow the same rules he did: hit the gym, work hard, and if they think being a man is part of what they see for themselves, if they cannot be a "woman" image of Vin Diesel to be their best selves, we can treat that as separate to the Vin Diesel thing and treat that in its own right.

I feel this way because I wish for my child to be themselves, even if that means being an approximation of Vin Diesel.

If my husband was vehemently opposed to my child being Vin Diesel to the extent that we would not afford them a weight set (the reasonable ask at 14), that is not fine. That is unreasonable. That would be abusive, to deny them reasonable accommodation.

If they take opposition to their endocrine balance at 14 (well, really, starting as soon as their hormones start going), the most I would afford my child is testosterone/estrogen/delay from 10-17. The social rule on plastic surgery is 18+, though my best council is 24+ (I won't pay for it until then, if it is facial), and the rule on steroids is "don't let me find out about it, or there will be hell to pay" from the ages of 17 on*.

This is because I have a commitment to care about my children, not about myself, no matter how much it would hurt that their goal wasn't to prove me wrong about... Something, or anything, really.

My responsibility as a parent will be to raise my child such that they do not become shitty people. It is not in my purview of responsibilities as a parent to prevent them from growing up to be Vin Diesel. I would be very proud were my child to be as amazing as Vin Diesel. Or to be amazing AS Vin Diesel.

*This is just a threat. It just complicates my life if they get caught up in a competitive league thing, and this lecture is the "hell to pay" they will get from my quarter. Other consequences notwithstanding.

 

[laughing dog]

OK, either you are stupider than you appear, or you are deliberately making this situation out to be outrageous despite knowing that it's not.

Either way, I am now bored with you, and so am unsubscribing from your increasingly hysterical and pointless thread about a person being punished in law for doing something that's both unlawful and immoral.

Have fun!

Since bilby cannot or will not answer my question, can anyone else?

How can the gag order be read in such a way that would mean CD's private conversations about his daughter are not being proscribed by the State?

Um, it would depend on the context of the gag order. While I am not familiar with Canadian law, I would doubt the gag order would extend to conversations about this with a therapist or a spiritual adviser.

 

[laughing dog]

Whatever you need to make you feel better.

It does not make me feel better that people assert things without evidence.

Now you know how almost every reader of your responses feels.

You did not answer my question. I did not ask what factors you have used to determine reasonableness. I asked if you thought it was reasonable.

I did answer the question. I first gave a factor. It is becoming more and more apparent that you have real trouble understanding the English language.

Of course, they are not under a court order. I am explaining to you how ordinary conversations about children involve using their names and pronouns.

Nobody asked you to explain about ordinary conversations. The discussion is about conversations restricted by gag orders. Please try to focus instead of wandering off into straw man land.

If the board would like to boot me off, that is for the board to decide, not you.

I didn't suggest you get booted off. You really seem to have trouble understanding the English language.

Of course you said it. I quoted you.

And the quote did not say what you think because of your demonstrated issues with the English language.