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

[Angra Mainyu]

Outing the child by giving public statements to sympathetic to the father media outlets. Who knows what else he has said to the child.

But the child wanted to go public. The court did not allow it. At any rate, that does not seem to be why the father got punished (or at least, not the only reason if it was one), but rather, that the father's public denial of the child's gender identity (i.e., his public disagreement with the child on the matter) is considered "family violence" due to the potential psychological impact (regardless of what third parties actually do).

He defied an order to not speak to the media. Any other reason offered is speculation.

I would make two points:

1. What do you mean by "speculation"?

Of course, one speculates on the basis of the available evidence, makes probabilistic assessments, etc. But you seem to be saying it in a negative sense. For that matter, one could say that your assessment about the reasons is also speculation. But that there is no certainty does not mean one cannot properly make assessments as to what is probable.

2. You were saying it was "child abuse" to out the child. The child, however, does not want to remain hidden, and the judge specifically mentioned the psychological impact on the child.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Actually, the child wanted to go public, as you can see in the other link I posted. The court did not allow the name to be published, but that is not the child's choice.

If you had bothered to read your own link, you’d realize how moot your comment is:

This order arose from the fact that, in mid-March, Clark invited his daughter to watch a video of a small-time Canadian conservative commentator with him.

The video contained a section discussing Maxine’s case, which she quickly recognized. She told her father she “did not want to watch the video, and went to [her] room.” This incident, according to Marzari, was a clear case of an “attempt to persuade [Maxine] to abandon treatment,” and, hence, of family violence……

What Marzari found particularly egregious, however, was not Clark’s private interactions with his daughter but his “continued willingness to provide interviews to the media … in which he identifies [Maxine] as female, uses a female name for [Maxine] … and expresses his opposition to the therapies [Maxine] has chosen.” According to the court, this willingness placed Maxine at “a significant risk of harm.”.....
This harm was not so much feared because Maxine’s anonymity might be breached (it is worth noting that Maxine previously sought to have the press publish her real name), but because Clark’s “family violence of a public denial of [Maxine’s] gender identity” was regarded as likely to cause Maxine distress. Marzari argued that such a denial about such a “deeply private aspect of [Maxine’s] innermost thoughts and feelings” was likely to lead to a variety of dangers, “including self-harm.”

I did read the link. My point stands. Did you read the full link?

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Not to mention, yes, public denial of a gender identity is family violence, for the same reason it would be illegal were I to tell everyone and sundry as a nurse that someone had to have their balls cut off due to a testicular torsion.

Illegal, perhaps. It depends on the law, but chances are in most places it would be illegal. Depending on your motivations, it may well be unethical. But it would not be violence.

The nurse only knows because of their obligation to provide treatment, similarly the parent only knows because of a similar obligation for providing care.

No, the father knows because he knows the child since she was born, not because he has an obligation (he does, but that is not why he knows). If the father had abandoned the future mother before the child was born, he would still have an obligation to provide care, but he may very well not know.

What they find out about the private information of those people is still private.

Parents regularly tell other people (third parties, parents of classmates, etc.) that they have a daughter or a son, etc.

I see no reason to treat the situation of (person who is not you) (gaining access to privileged information as a function of who they are, as a functionary assisting you with your health and wellness)(disclosing privileged information) any different just because the thing they didn't choose to do was be born to this parent vs be driven to this hospital.

Well, clearly that is not how the father gained information, and also clearly, parents disclose that information about their children all the time, which is pretty ordinary frankly. What is not ordinary here is the child's claim to have a boy's brain, or the father's reply. But the "disclosure" of information about their children is pretty normal.

Regardless, maybe what he did was wrong. It depends on the information available to him. From what I read, the child, the mother and the father are all three jumping to conclusions, though the precise extent of their epistemic errors - and, in relation to that, their moral culpability - is difficult to assess without further details. However, I am not arguing it was not wrong.

It is dumb that this even needs to be explained. It's dumb that this needs to be explained to the father of this boy. It's dumb that it needs to be explained to the posters here. It's dumb that the posters here can't be arsed to stand with the son and at least not abuse him the way his father did.

I would not stand with the judge that incarcerated a man for expressing his views to the media when, for all we know, he was trying to save his daughter. I do not know how much information he has, but imprisonment is both abusive and - of course - violent.

As for being dumb, I would say it is...well, not really dumb, more like religious... none of the Woke is willing to debate me in support of their trans claims.

Now instead of the father calling him a girl, it's random assholes all over the world calling him a girl, just because he wasn't born with testicles.

Well, that is not why I would call her a girl. Rather, after assessing the available information, including my observations about how most English speakers "in the wild" use the words (i.e., not when thinking about the tenets of their ideology), which support the assessment that she is very probably a girl, though I cannot say it's certain. Will my assessment make her feel bad? That seems improbable. But - at any rate - it is probable that my assessments regularly make a number of people who show up here feel bad. It's a discussion board.


In any event, though, this is not violence.

 

[laughing dog]

If you had bothered to read your own link, you’d realize how moot your comment is:

I did read the link. My point stands. Did you read the full link?

If you had read your full link with a modicum of comprehension, you'd see your point was moot. What the child did not want to view his view where he publicly talked about her case because he was trying to use it to dissuade her - her not viewing was not about it being public. Which means your comment about her wanting to go public was moot.

 

[Ahab]

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.

Actually critics of transgender ideology want quite the opposite: they don't think biological males or females should be forced to accept traditional gender roles.

It is transgender ideology that reinforces and supports gender roles.

It is perfectly fine if a male wishes to accept some of the gender roles that have been traditionally assigned to those of the female sex. What is not fine is thinking that by adhering to those roles that makes a man a 'real woman' for that just adds support to traditional gender roles.

As a liberal male I have trouble understanding why other liberals or progressives seem so eager to support these gender roles.

 

[TomC]

As a liberal male I have trouble understanding why other liberals or progressives seem so eager to support these gender roles.]

This is crucial point.
Thank you for bringing it up.

If gender roles weren't so fixed, why would anyone care? If everyone could just be themselves, as they are, why would anybody want to identify as a different gender? If a dude with lots of feminine traits, or a chick with lots of masculine traits, could just be themselves without stressing out over the cultural artifact of gender, what problem would there be?

Split wood. Use makeup. Get covered in grease fixing a car. Develop a sense for this year's fashion trends. Love whomever you love. Use whichever bathroom you're comfortable in(just don't get creepy, that's you guys).

For most of recorded history, most everywhere, people who didn't fit into gender box were treated horribly. Either you identify as a male or female, or you were ostracized, or worse. We don't have to do that, I don't care what people think God meant by anything.
Tom

 

[Trausti]

As a liberal male I have trouble understanding why other liberals or progressives seem so eager to support these gender roles.]

This is crucial point.
Thank you for bringing it up.

If gender roles weren't so fixed, why would anyone care? If everyone could just be themselves, as they are, why would anybody want to identify as a different gender? If a dude with lots of feminine traits, or a chick with lots of masculine traits, could just be themselves without stressing out over the cultural artifact of gender, what problem would there be?

Split wood. Use makeup. Get covered in grease fixing a car. Develop a sense for this year's fashion trends. Love whomever you love. Use whichever bathroom you're comfortable in(just don't get creepy, that's you guys).

For most of recorded history, most everywhere, people who didn't fit into gender box were treated horribly. Either you identify as a male or female, or you were ostracized, or worse. We don't have to do that, I don't care what people think God meant by anything.
Tom

Isn’t this the patriarchy’s plan to eliminate gays and lesbians? That boy is effeminate, cut off his willy.

 

[TomC]

As a liberal male I have trouble understanding why other liberals or progressives seem so eager to support these gender roles.]

This is crucial point.
Thank you for bringing it up.

If gender roles weren't so fixed, why would anyone care? If everyone could just be themselves, as they are, why would anybody want to identify as a different gender? If a dude with lots of feminine traits, or a chick with lots of masculine traits, could just be themselves without stressing out over the cultural artifact of gender, what problem would there be?

Split wood. Use makeup. Get covered in grease fixing a car. Develop a sense for this year's fashion trends. Love whomever you love. Use whichever bathroom you're comfortable in(just don't get creepy, that's you guys).

For most of recorded history, most everywhere, people who didn't fit into gender box were treated horribly. Either you identify as a male or female, or you were ostracized, or worse. We don't have to do that, I don't care what people think God meant by anything.
Tom

Isn’t this the patriarchy’s plan to eliminate gays and lesbians? That boy is effeminate, cut off his willy.

Maybe cutting off dicks is the feminist plan?
That's the way it seems to me.

Thanks for sharing.
Tom

ETA. ~At first I mistook you for Toni. I thought that was who I was responding to. You have more in common than just a screen name beginning with a T ~

 

[repoman]

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.

Milo Yiannopoulos is going through cock detox right now, framing it like an exorcism

 

[Ahab]

As a liberal male I have trouble understanding why other liberals or progressives seem so eager to support these gender roles.]

This is crucial point.
Thank you for bringing it up.

If gender roles weren't so fixed, why would anyone care? If everyone could just be themselves, as they are, why would anybody want to identify as a different gender? If a dude with lots of feminine traits, or a chick with lots of masculine traits, could just be themselves without stressing out over the cultural artifact of gender, what problem would there be?

Split wood. Use makeup. Get covered in grease fixing a car. Develop a sense for this year's fashion trends. Love whomever you love. Use whichever bathroom you're comfortable in(just don't get creepy, that's you guys).

For most of recorded history, most everywhere, people who didn't fit into gender box were treated horribly. Either you identify as a male or female, or you were ostracized, or worse. We don't have to do that, I don't care what people think God meant by anything.
Tom

I would think the sensible approach is to not to use gender to distinguish between male or female. We already do that with sex. Humans are sexually dimorphic.

 

[Toni]

Isn’t this the patriarchy’s plan to eliminate gays and lesbians? That boy is effeminate, cut off his willy.

Maybe cutting off dicks is the feminist plan?
That's the way it seems to me.

Thanks for sharing.
Tom

ETA. ~At first I mistook you for Toni. I thought that was who I was responding to. You have more in common than just a screen name beginning with a T ~

Only very insecure men think that feminists want to cut off men's dicks. Mostly, we just want to be left alone and not sexually harassed, not have men jerk off on our desks, stalk us, threaten us, grab us, rape us, tell us we belong in the kitchen or bedroom, call us whores or frigid or bitches and so on. We want to be able to get education and job training and work at jobs we are interested in without having to hear how we don't belong, we don't deserve to be paid what men are paid, we're taking up a man's space, we should be home cooking dinner, any comments on our looks or weight, and so on. You know: RESPECT.

Poor Trausti! I genuinely feel for you and think that Tom C owes you an apology. We are two posters with some of the most disparate views on most subjects on this forum. I feel bad that you have to endure what Tom would consider the ultimate insult. Please don't faint that I offered you up some sympathy, my fellow T person.

Now for the part where you both bemoan rigid gender roles: I agree completely! People should be free to pursue whatever interests they choose, dress how they choose, love whom they choose (assuming consenting adults) and so on. Free to Be You and Me all the way!

But that will not change the fact that some individuals, through no fault of their own or any mistakes in their upbringing, do not feel at home in their bodies and in fact don't just want to do stereotypical boy (or girl) things or dress in boy or girl things but feel themselves to really be a different gender than the one that matches their external genitalia. Their insides do not match their outsides. If cis people find it disconcerting and uncomfortable, imagine for a moment if you had to live your life as someone who is transgender, rather than as someone who is made uncomfortable even thinking about it. Imagine having to explain or justify your very self every single day to everyone you know. Maybe find a little empathy in your hearts and even if you don't understand or don't completely accept, just let people figure themselves out and try not to judge them if their truth seems very weird to you.

 

[Emily Lake]

If a 14 yo identified as a black kid, despite being nordic pale, would you find it moot to compel the parent to refer to their child as "Leroy" because that's what the child wants and the child is offended if the parent fails to do so?

EXCUSE ME.

What the fuck to you mean by implying that names denote race?

They don't, but some have more common associations with certain ethnicities and colors. Most people are going to assume that someone named "Padmini" is of Indian descent.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

If you had bothered to read your own link, you’d realize how moot your comment is:

I did read the link. My point stands. Did you read the full link?

If you had read your full link with a modicum of comprehension, you'd see your point was moot. What the child did not want to view his view where he publicly talked about her case because he was trying to use it to dissuade her - her not viewing was not about it being public. Which means your comment about her wanting to go public was moot.

Well, it is difficult to comprehend the above claim, more precisely your second sentence. I give up trying to interpret it.

But that aside I read the full link and understand what it says. So, what point of mine was moot, precisely, and why?

 

[Emily Lake]

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.

I'd say no. Ms. Clayton can be referred to as "she" and liver her life as a woman to the greatest extent possible. But Ms. Clayton is still *male*. And if Ms. Clayton has physically intact male genitals, then if Ms. Clayton ever gets jailed for some reason, Ms. Clayton should NOT be placed in cells with biological females. And Ms. Clayton should probably not compete against biological females in sports. And I would be pretty put out if Ms. Clayton took a position on a board of directors that is held for women and intended to increase the representation of females in business. Because while Ms. Clayton is free to present however she pleases, and live her best life... she does not and cannot represent the views of females. She cannot speak to the experiences of females in society and throughout the world. She can no more represent the voice and needs of females as Rachel Dolezal can represent the voice and needs of black women.

 

[Emily Lake]

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.

In what other situations does a child's desire for interventionary medical treatment with life-long impacts override their parent's duty to protect and safeguard their child form bad decisions with long term consequences?

Do you think a parent should allow a 14 yo male to take steroids, because the 14 yo feels like they should be more muscular than they are? Do you think a parent should be forced to allow their 13 yo female child to undergo cosmetic surgery to reshape their nose and chin, because that's what the child wants? Or do you think the parents in those situations should have the right, as parents with their child's best long-term interests in mind, to deny the desires of the child because of the potential harm that could occur, and the likelihood of the child not having a deep enough understanding of the consequences?

 

[Emily Lake]

Oh, it was over his use of pronouns... As a cudgel of abuse.

It's that "cudgel of narcissistic abuse" part that makes the case.

How can you be so certain that it wasn't mainly because the father went public after being told not to do so?

Got evidence?
Tom

The father went public AFTER he was jailed for failing to adhere to the court order to refrain from referring to his female offspring as "she". According to the originally linked article, and others that I have read, he actually abided by the court order for over a year. He made an intentional decision to violate the order when the child's school and mother began taking the child down a path of medical transition - which the father does not approve of for his MINOR child. The father has expressed that if his child still wants to transition when they're older, he's fine with that... but this is a young child, who he fears is being groomed to adopt a trans identity by the school, the specialized gender identity counselor, and social media. He is opposed to a young teenage female starting down a path that will irrevocably damage their bone density, effect mental maturation, and lead to a full mastectomy before the child's breasts are even fully formed... and that is almost guaranteed to result in permanent sterility.

The father made the decision AFTER over a year of abiding by the court order, because once he is jailed for a crime that HE committed, he can talk about HIS CASE, which gives him a loophole in order to talk about the state-sanctioned sterilization of his child.

For all of you insisting that he's some kind of horrible evil person who has been taunting and harassing his child in order to cause harm and pain to them, please take note that he abided by the order until the point where his child was due to move beyond social transition and begin medical transition of his 14 year old female progeny.

 

[TomC]

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.

I'd say no. Ms. Clayton can be referred to as "she" and liver her life as a woman to the greatest extent possible. But Ms. Clayton is still *male*. And if Ms. Clayton has physically intact male genitals, then if Ms. Clayton ever gets jailed for some reason, Ms. Clayton should NOT be placed in cells with biological females. And Ms. Clayton should probably not compete against biological females in sports. And I would be pretty put out if Ms. Clayton took a position on a board of directors that is held for women and intended to increase the representation of females in business. Because while Ms. Clayton is free to present however she pleases, and live her best life... she does not and cannot represent the views of females. She cannot speak to the experiences of females in society and throughout the world. She can no more represent the voice and needs of females as Rachel Dolezal can represent the voice and needs of black women.

Exactly.
I recognize the struggles trans folk have. I wouldn't wish such a condition on my worst enemy. It's extremely painful. I'm queer as a three dollar bill, but I've never wanted to change my sex or gender.

But the assertion that trans people are no different from the people born with their gender is ridiculous. Trans are different. And I'm all for reasonable accommodation. But that's not the same as any accommodation, regardless of other people's feelings or issues. Because trans....

Tom

 

[Emily Lake]

Oh, it was over his use of pronouns... As a cudgel of abuse.

It's that "cudgel of narcissistic abuse" part that makes the case.

How can you be so certain that it wasn't mainly because the father went public after being told not to do so?

Got evidence?
Tom

No one here has evidence of anything. The father's story is quite obviously bullshit. The conservative religious right of course lapped it up like the dogs they are.

Based on what evidence or reasoning? You not liking it doesn't make it bullshit.

 

[Emily Lake]

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.

Because CHILDREN do NOT have that right. We don't allow 14 year old boys to opt for a vasectomy do we? We don't allow 14 year old girls to undergo voluntary hysterectomies do we?

We get *rightfully* worried when teenagers are self harming, whether it's through drug abuse, cutting, or eating disorders. And it's a parent's duty and obligation to protect children and teens from themselves when they are emotionally vulnerable.

Why on earth do you so vigorously support the sterilization of children who might not persist with their gender dysphoria? Why do you want to sterilize kids?

 

[Emily Lake]

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.

I very strongly disagree with your assessment, Toni. The parents who force activities on their children that the child dislikes or is ill suited for are worse. They are worse, because not a single one of the examples you gave present a situation where the child's desire puts the child in the path of permanent injury and life-long medicalization.

This isn't a parent forcing his child to take part in a sport they don't like, This is a parent preventing his child from opting for sterilization before they are even mature.