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

[bilby]

Calling a biological female 'she' is not offensive,

Calling anyone anything that they have repeatedly asked you not to, is offensive.

and it is detestable to think so. It is even more grotesque to think so and think the State is right to punish somebody for it.

The state has the right to call a halt to harassment. And to punish those who ignore court rulings on the issue.

The State mandating language that a biological girl is in fact a boy is the state compelling people to lie or face punishment.

The state did no such thing. The state mandated the cessation of language that had passed beyond mere opinion, to become harassment. The state at no point mandated that anyone say anything at all; Only that they STOP saying something that the plaintiff reasonably demonstrated had risen to the level of harassment.

An adult insulting a child is just about as far from courageous as it is possible to get.

Acknowledging somebody's biological sex is not an insult, though the post-truth transactivist stasi appear to have made people believe so. But even if it were (and it's not), the State ought never be in the business of punishing 'insults'.

Nonsense. The state has always been in the business of punishing insults. And the accused didn't merely 'acknowledge somebody's biological sex'; He repeatedly and consistently persisted in contradicting a person's sexual identity. Sexual identity is hugely complex, but one thing about it is obvious - the final and absolute authority on a given person's sexual identity is that person themselves.

This really isn't hard to understand; Unless you are absolutely determined to ignore the facts in favour of being outraged.

It is you ignoring the facts.

EDIT: I take it back. You understand the facts of the story. You simply agree with the State punishing somebody for calling his biologically female daughter 'she'.

Repeatedly, and after having been asked to stop, taken to court and ordered to stop. Yes.

If your new roommate turns out to be a flat eath believer, you are perfectly entitled to discuss his beliefs, and even to call him an idiot for believing something that is clearly untrue. You are NOT entitled to call him 'idiot' every time you see him, and when discussing him in his presence, after he has asked you to desist from doing so. And you can expect to be arrested if he gets a court injunction against you for consistently referencing him as 'the idiot', and you defy the judge's ruling and continue to harass him in this way.

Truth isn't a defence here, because the facts are not in dispute. The issue is the persistent and repeated insults, which even if founded in truth would constitute harassment.

 

[Trausti]

Define biological female.

A biological female, in sexually reproducing species, is an organism that produces large, (and depending on the species) generally immotile gametes. Males, on the other hand, produce small, motile gametes (again, depending on the species).

This is a phenomenon that has apparently evolved several time independently as a form of ansiogamy. It is well defined, and quite a major feature of biology.

Human female children are sometimes born without a uterus or Fallopian tubes or even without one or both ovaries (or occasionally with an extra ovary) but with normal female external genitalia.

A male child can be born without testicles.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penile_agenesis_and_testicular_agenesis

There are many situations where an individual is born without the 'standard' gender conforming external genitalia or internal gonads and other reproductive structures.

Goodness, biological sex difference aren’t limited to genitals.

 

[Toni]

The willingness to ignore the definition of well, definition, in service of one's political and/or religious ideology is as sad as it is obvious.

How does a rational person like you arrive at a point where you deny biological differences between male and female? It’s just fascinating.

I'm just trying to get you to understand the definition of: definition.

I am not the definition of female, as you attempted to suggest.

I am an example of a female.

 

[Toni]

Human female children are sometimes born without a uterus or Fallopian tubes or even without one or both ovaries (or occasionally with an extra ovary) but with normal female external genitalia.

A male child can be born without testicles.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penile_agenesis_and_testicular_agenesis

There are many situations where an individual is born without the 'standard' gender conforming external genitalia or internal gonads and other reproductive structures.

Goodness, biological sex difference aren’t limited to genitals.

EXACTLY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

That is the entire point that many transgender people would like the rest of the world to understand!

 

[Trausti]

Human female children are sometimes born without a uterus or Fallopian tubes or even without one or both ovaries (or occasionally with an extra ovary) but with normal female external genitalia.

A male child can be born without testicles.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penile_agenesis_and_testicular_agenesis

There are many situations where an individual is born without the 'standard' gender conforming external genitalia or internal gonads and other reproductive structures.

Goodness, biological sex difference aren’t limited to genitals.

EXACTLY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

That is the entire point that many transgender people would like the rest of the world to understand!

Right, like there are sex differences in many parts of the body. Those don’t change even if your trans.

 

[Jarhyn]

Human female children are sometimes born without a uterus or Fallopian tubes or even without one or both ovaries (or occasionally with an extra ovary) but with normal female external genitalia.

A male child can be born without testicles.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penile_agenesis_and_testicular_agenesis

There are many situations where an individual is born without the 'standard' gender conforming external genitalia or internal gonads and other reproductive structures.

Goodness, biological sex difference aren’t limited to genitals.

EXACTLY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

That is the entire point that many transgender people would like the rest of the world to understand!

So, I'm honestly not going to be too bent out of shape that Trausti is unable to get past the 6th grade level of biology understanding.

Biology is messy. To use an analogy from a popular children's game of my generation, Mousetrap, it's not as simple as "turn crank, trap mouse". If the man doesn't land in the pan, it doesn't matter that the crank was turned, the cage is not going to come down. While the man might land in the pan a good 90% of the time, it's just not a guarantee.

And sometimes the man just kind of falls down into the pan because someone sneezed or whatever and the cage comes down without touching the crank at all...

 

[TomC]

No, you and I did not just meet. I feel as though I've known you all my life. Perhaps we even went to high school together. Would not surprise me one little bit.

Perhaps you should leave your own personal and obviously very bitter experiences with former spouses out of this discussion. Unless your former spouse refused to acknowledge one of your children's gender.

I suppose the fact that I'm male is why you assume that you can read my mind?

The closest thing I have to a bitter ex-spouse is a guy I bought a house with around 30 years ago. The breakup was acrimonious, but once I got clear title to the property I completely stopped caring.

However, I'm not particularly fond of gay people as a group. Too much drama llama, promiscuity, politically correct group think, etc. for my tastes. Most of my social circle is the "married with children" sort of people. But I've seen lots of bitter ex's manipulate their ex's by manipulating the kids.

Based on the sketchy information available, that looks more likely than the non-costodial parent deliberately abusing his child. But there isn't enough information available to be sure. So I'm not.

Unlike many other posters in this thread.

Tom

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Why did evolution produce sexual dimorphism? Why a male and female? Apparently, for no reason whatsoever.

Evolution is a name we gave a long-term process of failure to reproduce a copy of something exactly. Evolution happens because the reproduction process screws up. So for Humans there is a generalized baseline for gender. This does not mean reproductive adherence to the baseline is gospel or that there is no deviation from the baseline.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

No, you and I did not just meet. I feel as though I've known you all my life. Perhaps we even went to high school together. Would not surprise me one little bit.

Perhaps you should leave your own personal and obviously very bitter experiences with former spouses out of this discussion. Unless your former spouse refused to acknowledge one of your children's gender.

I suppose the fact that I'm male is why you assume that you can read my mind?

The closest thing I have to a bitter ex-spouse is a guy I bought a house with around 30 years ago. The breakup was acrimonious, but once I got clear title to the property I completely stopped caring.

However, I'm not particularly fond of gay people as a group. Too much drama llama, promiscuity, politically correct group think, etc. for my tastes. Most of my social circle is the "married with children" sort of people. But I've seen lots of bitter ex's manipulate their ex's by manipulating the kids.

Too much baggage and drama in your post.

Based on the sketchy information available, that looks more likely than the non-costodial parent deliberately abusing his child. But there isn't enough information available to be sure. So I'm not.

Unlike many other posters in this thread.

Tom

I'd start with the following instead. Does harassment have to be intended or can it be the impact of what you do? I'd say, give people a chance to learn. People are innocent until proven guilty. People make mistakes. People often don't understand the impact of their actions. BUT. What about later on doing it many times? Having the information that it is harmful? And doing it anyway? What if over and over a person isn't learning or refuses? At what point does it become harassment? At that point, I'd look at the impact and consider the actions reckless because the person was given opportunities to learn and was made aware of the impact of their actions.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Huh?

Health experts, the mother, the teen, and an independent judge are all on the same page.

Let me rephrase this.

"The mother found health experts and a judge who agreed with her."

How did the mother go shopping for a judge?

Apparently, the school also got involved without telling the parents.

Since the teenager wanted to have the name changed, the school would need to be involved in changing the name in the record.

But, below, you are linking that involvement to a conclusion the ex-wife is creating the problem. While above, you are saying the parents were unaware. Clearly, you are placing the conclusion first and then mapping whatever observation to serve that baggage.

Sorry, this still looks more like manipulating and punishing the dad for not agreeing with his vindictive ex-wife.

It doesn't look like that.

From earlier:

The child isn't legally able to buy a six pack, sign a credit card contract, get married, get a tattoo, or bang the neighbor dude.

Actually, if the neighbor dude is 13, 14, or 15, then legally they may be able to do so depending on local laws etc. Derec also said it's legal in some parts of Europe for a 14 year old to have sex with an adult. And historically and in some regions, even in the US, if the parents consent, a 14 year old can get married. The point being that it isn't as cut and dry as you are making it out to be. A 14 year old has control over their body, but ought not be manipulated by corporate advertising because of financial and addiction concerns and corporations historically try to make children addicted for the money. If a 14 year old wants to experiment with their own body, that's a different question, like if two 14 year olds want to experiment...or if one 14 year old wants to change their reported gender in a yearbook primarily being shown to other 14 year olds. Now they may go to the school to get that done, it doesn't mean that the ex-wife is controlling the teen in order to get back at the husband or whatever.

 

[TomC]

Too much baggage and drama in your post

Too much for what?

For you to actually read what I posted?
Tom

 

[J842P]

Define biological female.

A biological female, in sexually reproducing species, is an organism that produces large, (and depending on the species) generally immotile gametes. Males, on the other hand, produce small, motile gametes (again, depending on the species).

This is a phenomenon that has apparently evolved several time independently as a form of ansiogamy. It is well defined, and quite a major feature of biology.

Human female children are sometimes born without a uterus or Fallopian tubes or even without one or both ovaries (or occasionally with an extra ovary) but with normal female external genitalia.

A male child can be born without testicles.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penile_agenesis_and_testicular_agenesis

There are many situations where an individual is born without the 'standard' gender conforming external genitalia or internal gonads and other reproductive structures.

So what? That has nothing to do with the definition of biological sex.

 

[Metaphor]

For example, imagine that I called Metaphor a "testerical purveyor of bigotry." He probably wouldn't like it. It would amount to name calling. So if I just relentlessly referred to Metaphor as a testerical purveyor of bigotry after he repeatedly asked me to stop, most anyone would consider that abusive and bullying. Then imagine Metaphor rightfully takes steps to stop me calling him a testerical purveyor of bigotry, such as reporting my posts, and the mods decide I should be warned or infracted for calling Metaphor a testerical purveyor of bigotry and they tell me to stop immediately. Then imagine I just keep calling Metaphor a testerical purveyor of bigotry anyway. I'd get more infractions and suspensions until I ended up getting banned.

Imagine that this board was owned by the Canadian gov't, and they could arrest you for calling me names.

That's what the story is here. It costs nothing to say him or her at someone's request, especially your own child.

Of course it costs you something to utter lies at the request of the State.

But he kept it up because his right wing moronic bigoted views are more important than his child's well being.

He "kept it up" because calling his female child 'she' is not insulting or offensive, and the State has no right to dictate pronoun usage.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Too much baggage and drama in your post

Too much for what?

For you to actually read what I posted?
Tom

The parts that I addressed with that comment were read but observed to be filled with baggage and drama. Thus, I wrote that it was too much drama and baggage.

The other parts of your post were addressed very specifically because they had logical, non-personal content. You have snipped those at least from this response. It is very unproductive to engage in baggage and drama talk. It is better to stick to the facts of the case, not whether or not you like gay people as a group, historically why, etc. It's irrelevant and can work against you in trying to form a proper conclusion. It also wastes everyone's time. Therefore, it's better to stick to facts of the case and reasoning about them.

So, for example, I responded to the rest of your post with this comment:

I'd start with the following instead. Does harassment have to be intended or can it be the impact of what you do? I'd say, give people a chance to learn. People are innocent until proven guilty. People make mistakes. People often don't understand the impact of their actions. BUT. What about later on doing it many times? Having the information that it is harmful? And doing it anyway? What if over and over a person isn't learning or refuses? At what point does it become harassment? At that point, I'd look at the impact and consider the actions reckless because the person was given opportunities to learn and was made aware of the impact of their actions.

As yet, you did not choose to respond to this more topically relevant part of my response to you but lingered instead on the response to drama which is a waste of time.

 

[Jarhyn]

Human female children are sometimes born without a uterus or Fallopian tubes or even without one or both ovaries (or occasionally with an extra ovary) but with normal female external genitalia.

A male child can be born without testicles.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penile_agenesis_and_testicular_agenesis

There are many situations where an individual is born without the 'standard' gender conforming external genitalia or internal gonads and other reproductive structures.

So what? That has nothing to do with the definition of biological sex.

And definitions humans give things have no actual leverage on the actual shape of those things.

It doesn't matter how you define sex, or how anyone defines it. Trans people will still be exactly what they are, will still want the social latitude to be as they are, will still want to be seen in the identity that they cleave to.

Literally the only two discussion contexts in which "biological sex" ever actually needs to be visited in are "I want to have kids with you, do we have everything between us necessary to make that work?" And "hey doctor, I am taking issue with some thing to do with my body."

That is it. Those are the only two contexts where "biological sex" become relevant.

So why are you banging on about "biological sex"? It is not relevant here, and the existence of pigeon holes that many people happen to fit and self-sort into do not imply in any way that those pigeon holes are sufficient to house exactly 100% of people.

 

[laughing dog]

Human female children are sometimes born without a uterus or Fallopian tubes or even without one or both ovaries (or occasionally with an extra ovary) but with normal female external genitalia.

A male child can be born without testicles.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penile_agenesis_and_testicular_agenesis

There are many situations where an individual is born without the 'standard' gender conforming external genitalia or internal gonads and other reproductive structures.

So what? That has nothing to do with the definition of biological sex.

No, it has nothing to do with your biological definition of sex. There is no "the biological definition of sex". According to your definition, a woman who has had her ovaries removed is no longer a biological female since she will no longer produce immotile gametes.

 

[Metaphor]

I can understand that this father is upset. I can understand he disagree with what is happening (even if I disagree with him). But his insistence to hurt his child is to me the real issue here. It makes me wonder if he should continue to have parental rights.

You 'wonder' whether the State should strip a man of his parenting rights because he called his female daughter 'she'. I can't even.

 

[laughing dog]

He "kept it up" because calling his female child 'she' is not insulting or offensive,

It was to the child and he knows it. So that makes it abusive for no beneficial purpose except to make him feel better. This man is an abusive jackass, and it makes me wonder about his fitness as a parent.

 

[Metaphor]

Which organs, through? The brain? The genitals? The skeletal system? Any of the other slightly differentiated organs?

Presumably, there is every possibility owing to the messy nature of biology that there may be some discordance between the differentiations that happened.

When our twins were born three months premature, they went straight to the NICU. 2lbs 4oz and 2lbs 7oz. It was acouple days before wife and i could visit them.

We walked in, scrubbed up, and split. K1 was in Bay 2. I walked in, the nurse said, "Oh! I can finish the form!"...and marked the baby as white.
In Bay 4, nurse saw Mrs. &co. Said the same thing. Form then said the baby was black.

Maybe we shouldn't expect that even professionals always jump to the most obvious conclusions accurately.

So you are suggesting that subjective skin classification of mixed-race babies at birth casts doubt on the binary nature of sex?

 

[Metaphor]

What is the reason conservative sources focus exclusively on the biological father's opinions instead of the mother and teenager?

I suspect because they were not arrested and jailed for their pronoun usage.