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

[Trausti]

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?

We know young people go through fads and fall easily to peer pressure. Transgenderism has been hyped by the media in recent years; hence, confused youth opt for that as the answer to puberty pains. While past fades were somewhat harmless, it is entirely understandable that a parent would want to protect their child from the irreversible damage of gender transition.

 

[Emily Lake]

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.

This is absurd beyond belief. Nobody has the *right* to *choose* their sex. Their sex is what it is. If they wish to adopt the social sterotypes and affectations of the opposite sex, by all means, they should be allowed to. But no 14 year old has the *right* to demand that their parents let them take anabolic steroids so their muscles can look more like Vin Diesel's. And no 14 year old has the *right* to undergo cosmetic surgery so their faces look more like Vin Diesels. And no 14 year - no mammal on the planet including humans - has the *right* to change their sex. In fact, it cannot be done. It simply cannot. Sex is not merely innate, sex is a trait that is as out of control for a human as is natural hair color or height or eye color or blood type.

Trying to define some *right* for a CHILD to decide, before they are mentally or emotionally mature, that they want to permanently damage their healthy bodies is negligent and, frankly, reckless disregard for that child's well being.

 

[Emily Lake]

It's courageous to stand up to a 13 year old biological little girl that identifies as a socially male little boy? OK, Kaptain Kid Kreeper... to the Kreep Mobile!! (/gets into an unmarked white van and slowly rolls away before turning on the engine).

That's something I was thinking but just didn't say. I mean, it is creepy if you think about how he wants to control his teenager's body to keep her physical body as female as possible.

WTF is wrong with you two? You're equivocating a parent wanting to prevent the permanent medicalization of his minor child that will almost certainly result in that child's sterilization... with him being a pedophile?

That's so far beyond merely trying to poison the well or tarnish by assertion of vaguely speculated evilness that I don't even have a term for it.

 

[Emily Lake]

IMO, he's abusing the child.

You know, it's very easy to make this arm-chair declaration without any evidence, prompted by a desire to be on the right side of a social movement. But before you get too cozy in your Lay-Z-Boy, perhaps you'd like to take a few minutes out of your day and read up on the Keira Bell Case against Tavistock?

 

[TomC]

There was a thread a few months back. It was about a 14y/o boy who managed to lose his cherry to a 30ish MILF*.

Many of the posters there agreed with me that, at 14, people aren't usually capable of making such decisions. That's why we have various ways of protecting young people from themselves. Oftentimes, the ways are rather arbitrary. Had the boy been 16, there'd have been no legal issue(although I'd still have had a moral issue). But, legally it was rape(or at least would have been here where I live. Apparently Brits are a lot more lax concerning sexing kids.)

Would the people who agreed with me, 14y/o can't make such decisions on their own, explain why this 14y/o is different? Because I'm not seeing it. My problem here is not with the kid being trans. It's all too possible. It's the premise that a 14y/o knows themselves well enough for such massive, and irrevocable, body modifications.
Tom




*"Mothers I'd Like to Fuck" is MILF. NSFW googling

 

[laughing dog]

IMO, he's abusing the child.

You know, it's very easy to make this arm-chair declaration without any evidence, prompted by a desire to be on the right side of a social movement. But before you get too cozy in your Lay-Z-Boy, perhaps you'd like to take a few minutes out of your day and read up on the Keira Bell Case against Tavistock?

I believe you are missing the point. This has nothing to do with a right side of a social movement. It is about a father's treatment and actions towards his child. It is the manner (going public instead of staying private) and tenor (his approach and word choice) that are viewed as harmful.

 

[Emily Lake]

It is true that the courts banned the publication of the child's real name. However, that was against the child's own choice (source: https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/who-gets-to-decide-when-a-14-year-old-wants-to-change-gender ). The judge who jailed the father seems to have been focused on the father's claims that she is a girl (in public or to her) because of how the child would suffer upon hearing them (reading them, etc.), not on the outing.

This is a good, objective article.

For those of you asserting that the father is abusing his child and is basically an evil person...

A clinical psychologist assessed Max about a half-dozen times over a period of several months, beginning in Grade 8. By the end of those sessions, Sarah says the psychologist deemed Max to be a good candidate for testosterone therapy. According to B.C. health guidelines, Max needed to have demonstrated to the psychologist a “long-lasting and intense pattern of gender non-conformity or gender dysphoria,” among other things.

The only other thing Max needed was a referral from a family doctor, which his father agreed to obtain.

In August, Sarah and Max attended the B.C. Children’s Hospital’s gender clinic, one of the busiest in North America. There they met with a team of people, including a paediatric endocrinologist, a social worker and a nurse, who laid out in plain language what the treatment would entail and all the pros and cons. A three-page “informed consent form” spelled out the risks of testosterone therapy, including that the “treatment in young adolescents is a newer development, and the long-term effects are not fully known.”

The form indicated that testosterone use would likely lead to permanent changes — such as a lower-pitched voice, facial hair and thicker hair on the arms, legs and torso — even if the treatment stopped. Taking testosterone could also lead to elevated risk of heart disease, stroke and diabetes. “It is not known,” the form says, what the effects of testosterone are on fertility. “You may or may not be able to get pregnant in the future.”

Despite the risks, Sarah and Max signed the form that day and agreed to proceed with the treatment. After three years, Sarah says she had come to a clear conclusion: Max wasn’t going through some “phase.”

“If this is what alleviates my child experiencing this dysphoria, I’d rather move forward. … If it happens to have side effects down the road, we’re OK to handle that — at least our child would still be alive.”

***

Hospital staff were ready to begin injections that same day, Sarah says — but she felt it would only be fair to let Clark, who did not attend the meeting, weigh in on the decision.

Clark, whose legal challenge was first reported in the alternative news website The Post Millennial, told the National Post he didn’t want to miss work that day and thought the visit to the gender clinic was exploratory. He says he was shocked to hear how quickly things were moving.

“I thought it was a long process and nothing drastic was going to really happen, at least without consent,” he says.

Clark did not sign the form. He felt the potential medical ramifications were too serious for someone Max’s age to take on.

“You don’t just jump them into things they can’t change back,” he says. “When she’s 18 and she does it, I’ll support her 100 per cent.” (During his conversations with the Post, Clark referred to Max as his daughter and used female pronouns.)

So... to recap - this child had already demonstrated other mental health issues, including self-harm. The child had decided they were trans after watching a video on YouTube. A psychologist decided, after only six visits, that the child should immediately move into cross-sex hormone therapy.

The father supports his child's decision to transition medically - but not until they are an adult. The father opposes starting a 14 year old on cross-sex hormones which *will* lead to *permanent* physical changes and are highly likely to result in 1) infertility and 2) loss of sexual function.

But hey - he used the "wrong" pronoun for his female offspring... so clearly, he's just an evil abuser standing in the way of this child's "right" to decide - at age 14 - that they're just fine giving permanently altering their natural body in irreversible ways and sacrificing their ability to procreate, and likely to ever even gain physical pleasure from sexual intercourse.

Yeah. He's clearly an evil person.

 

[laughing dog]

There was a thread a few months back. It was about a 14y/o boy who managed to lose his cherry to a 30ish MILF*.

Many of the posters there agreed with me that, at 14, people aren't usually capable of making such decisions. That's why we have various ways of protecting young people from themselves. Oftentimes, the ways are rather arbitrary. Had the boy been 16, there'd have been no legal issue(although I'd still have had a moral issue). But, legally it was rape(or at least would have been here where I live. Apparently Brits are a lot more lax concerning sexing kids.)

Would the people who agreed with me, 14y/o can't make such decisions on their own, explain why this 14y/o is different? Because I'm not seeing it. My problem here is not with the kid being trans. It's all too possible. It's the premise that a 14y/o knows themselves well enough for such massive, and irrevocable, body modifications.

Well, for one, this child is not making the decision on their own.

 

[Emily Lake]

I don't know anything about violence but mental abuse is still abuse, and can sometimes be worse than actual violence.

Fair enough. Which actions of the father do you reckon are instances of child abuse?

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

The child was already out.

 

[Emily Lake]

Not to mention, yes, public denial of a gender identity is family violence

This stretches the very concept of violence to the breaking point.

 

[Emily Lake]

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.

You're an evil abuser, LD - you just misgendered that child!!!!!!

 

[laughing dog]

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.

You're an evil abuser, LD - you just misgendered that child!!!!!!

If I was badgering her to do something, you'd have a real point.

 

[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.

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.

My opinion... which is quite harsh and certainly not intended to apply to every single person... is that the reason it is so eagerly supported is:
1) Double Virtue Signaling Points
2) Ideological Capture
3) The people most harmed are females, and nobody (especially ejaculators and prostate owners) gives a fuck about females

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

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.

My opinion... which is quite harsh and certainly not intended to apply to every single person... is that the reason it is so eagerly supported is:
1) Double Virtue Signaling Points
2) Ideological Capture
3) The people most harmed are females, and nobody (especially ejaculators and prostate owners) gives a fuck about females

You are not being harsh so much as ideological, engaging in virtual signaling to ideological tribe, and playing up to females in the forum trying to get them to agree with you. I mean, come on, let's be honest here, not engaging in toxicity.

 

[Jarhyn]

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

Because, and I can't believe this requires discussion, it's not all about what you do, how you behave, or what you look like.

This would be all good and fine except for the fact that for most trans and nonbinary persons, the issue is not about the outside, per se. Rather, the issue is as much on the inside.

We have in us gonads and those gonads produce hormones and those hormones cause our bodies to change. It is about which drugs we feel the constant effects of.

And now that you are a person who likes handbags and high heels and whose body is rocking estrogen instead of testosterone. Perhaps now with this new balance you have, you find yourself wanting to be wanted by people who are masculine, and like the aesthetic you are going for.

But there's the rub. That goal, the goal to catch people's eyes and feel "wanted" that way is not commensurate to people knowing popularly what is in your pants on the basis of how people refer to you: people will subconsciously disregard "men" even if they are beautiful.

And so it has to do with privacy. Because regardless of whether we care about gender roles, there is still a matter of privacy concerning private parts.

You present this great world... And as a person who is full up on "trans ideology" I would only make one change: that it were taboo to know or assume what is in another person's pants at all.

We don't have to know that either.

What problem would there be?

 

[TomC]

My opinion... which is quite harsh and certainly not intended to apply to every single person... is that the reason it is so eagerly supported is:
1) Double Virtue Signaling Points
2) Ideological Capture
3) The people most harmed are females, and nobody (especially ejaculators and prostate owners) gives a fuck about females

You are not being harsh so much as ideological, engaging in virtual signaling to ideological tribe, and playing up to females in the forum trying to get them to agree with you. I mean, come on, let's be honest here, not engaging in toxicity.

Hey [MENTION=765]Emily Lake[/MENTION];

You must be a female, playing up to your tribe of females, or you wouldn't disagree with a man. You cannot be a competent adult expressing an opinion that hasn't been vetted by the Woke.


Don2 doesn't mean to be toxic. He just can't understand why you don't recognize that he's obviously right and you are obviously wrong.

Now, just be a good girl...

Tom

 

[Jarhyn]

My opinion... which is quite harsh and certainly not intended to apply to every single person... is that the reason it is so eagerly supported is:
1) Double Virtue Signaling Points
2) Ideological Capture
3) The people most harmed are females, and nobody (especially ejaculators and prostate owners) gives a fuck about females

You are not being harsh so much as ideological, engaging in virtual signaling to ideological tribe, and playing up to females in the forum trying to get them to agree with you. I mean, come on, let's be honest here, not engaging in toxicity.

Hey [MENTION=765]Emily Lake[/MENTION];

You must be a female, playing up to your tribe of females, or you wouldn't disagree with a man. You cannot be a competent adult expressing an opinion that hasn't been vetted by the Woke.


Don2 doesn't mean to be toxic. He just can't understand why you don't recognize that he's obviously right and you are obviously wrong.

Now, just be a good girl...

Tom

I mean to be as toxic to both of you as it takes to chemo that idiocy from existence, personally. I don't give a shit what either of you ascribes as your sex or gender.

The fact is that you both are straw-manning "trans ideology".

Nobody here on these forums insists that anyone "must" ascribe to one gender or the other. In fact, "trans ideology" is largely populated by "non-binary" people, with a large majority of messaging being directly counter to the idea that you must conform entirely or "well" behaviorally. Instead it is "be yourself, regardless of whether that means being a man or a woman, regardless of whether you were born with a penis or a vagina, regardless of whether you want an aftermarket penis or a vagina."

I don't want you OR her to "just be a good ____." I want you to stop selling shit and ascribing ideology to trans people that trans people do not popularly hold.

 

[Jarhyn]

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.

You're an evil abuser, LD - you just misgendered that child!!!!!!

If I was badgering her to do something, you'd have a real point.

Honestly, I think it's pretty shit you fell into calling him by female pronouns. This is exactly the reason this whole thing blew up. It's deeply disrespectful, and the disrespect isnlt even channeled towards those who have been otherwise disrespectful to him or stood as peanut gallery gatekeepers to his life, but rather to him, a fairly young child.

 

[TomC]

I mean to be as toxic to both of you as it takes

Yeah, I've noticed that. As a group, I don't much care for queers. Too much toxicity.
Tom

 

[laughing dog]

If I was badgering her to do something, you'd have a real point.

Honestly, I think it's pretty shit you fell into calling him by female pronouns. This is exactly the reason this whole thing blew up. It's deeply disrespectful, and the disrespect isnlt even channeled towards those who have been otherwise disrespectful to him or stood as peanut gallery gatekeepers to his life, but rather to him, a fairly young child.

Up to that response, I referred only to the child - I did not use gendered pronouns or nouns. People ought to be allowed slip ups every now and then, because slips up are, by definition, unintentional.