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

[Metaphor]

Honestly, this is one of the reasons I'm very glad that Metaphor is gay. It makes it unlikely we will ever have to worry about Metaphor polluting the minds of youth with such garbage.

I have many nieces and nephews so my influence over young minds has already been felt.

Though there's got to be some mad wicked cognitive dissonance going to both have struggled under a society that proclaims some core element of yourself illegitimate and made-up, and then turn around and do exactly that to someone else on the basis of MUH BINARY, which is just definitional the same way "healthy sexuality" was defined as being straight, historically.

I have no idea what Jarhyn can be implying. I was never told attraction to men was 'made up' or not real. I was told it was immoral and against God.

What would be wicked bad cognitive dissonance is for me to be gay but tell everybody I am straight and insist they see me that way and call me straight.

 

[Angry Floof]

Well, the court did.

You know where the word "lynch" came from?

It's the name of a judge who reliably ruled against due process, and in favor of mob justice.

Tom

Does that apply here? If so, please explain and don't just blurt out a one-liner that may or may not reflect anything true in this situation.

What is explained in relation to this story is the fact that the father insisted on continuing to call his child pronouns that he knew were expressing at best, a dismissal of his child's feelings and experiences, and at worst, a desire to psychologically abuse his child in his stupid need to feel like he's right about something.

So my saying a court did find his behavior to be abusive or bullying, I don't need to rely on one-liners about something that isn't relevant to this story to explain that.

If you think the basis of my entire argument is the fact that a court said something, then I would say you are wrong and would ask if you're actually reading my posts to know what the bases of my arguments are before flippantly reacting to them.

 

[TomC]

It is true they pointed that out. But they are wrong.

Did the parent get arrested and jailed for child abuse or contempt of court?

Tom

 

[Metaphor]

I wonder how long it would take Metaphor to hit the Report button if I started in on calling him by female pronouns. As it is, I've already gotten him to throw a goodly number of highly enjoyable tantrums just from the posts where I use gender-neutral pronouns (they/them). Maybe we should all start doing that? Or maybe not. After all, I don't want to get another warning over that. It's sure tempting though.

Call me any pronouns you like, darling, though you've made it clear you'd be doing it solely in an attempt to bully me. If the board moderators decide to enforce their own rules, I'd expect you'd be pulled up for it.

One thing I won't do, however, is pretend you calling me a particular pronoun that aligns with my sex is bullying, and that the State should jail you for it.

 

[Jarhyn]

It is true they pointed that out. But they are wrong.

Did the parent get arrested and jailed for child abuse or contempt of court?

Tom

Contempt of court. The original judgement was to cease and desist; he had already been ruled against on the basis of the behavior in question. The contempt is over his contempt of a previous ruling as far as I am aware.

 

[laughing dog]

Did the parent get arrested and jailed for child abuse or contempt of court?

The court order was to stop verbally abusing the child by calling him a "she". The contempt and subsequent jailing is essentially for verbal abuse of the child. This is ought not to be difficult to understand.

 

[Metaphor]

It is based on the evidence. He has been told it is insulting and he continues.

It is irrelevant what he's been 'told'. You have no evidence that he believes what he is doing to be insulting, and an insult implies intent. In fact, I believe he loves his daughter very much and wants to do everything he can to avoid harm coming to her.

Are you claiming this father is randomly choosing to insulting?

I don't know what you mean by the sentence, but I believe the father understands his female child to be a girl (as would almost all people who have ever lived until about ten years ago), and that therefore calling her a girl and using 'she' is not in any way an insult.

Too bad for you, that is not reflected in reality.

Well, yes, it is too bad for me.

 

[Toni]

Honestly, this is one of the reasons I'm very glad that Metaphor is gay. It makes it unlikely we will ever have to worry about Metaphor polluting the minds of youth with such garbage.

I have many nieces and nephews so my influence over young minds has already been felt.

Though there's got to be some mad wicked cognitive dissonance going to both have struggled under a society that proclaims some core element of yourself illegitimate and made-up, and then turn around and do exactly that to someone else on the basis of MUH BINARY, which is just definitional the same way "healthy sexuality" was defined as being straight, historically.

I have no idea what Jarhyn can be implying. I was never told attraction to men was 'made up' or not real. I was told it was immoral and against God.

What would be wicked bad cognitive dissonance is for me to be gay but tell everybody I am straight and insist they see me that way and call me straight.

What about if everyone told YOU that you were just confused and mixed up and probably it was just your vindictive mother trying to get back at your father by convincing you that you are gay?

What if it was them calling you Nancy (in the US, in the past, a female name but one that was also used to imply that a boy or a man failed to live up to masculine standards: i.e. they were a 'sissy' or effeminate).

If you were a minor child in either of those cases, and a judge ordered the parent so abusing you to stop, I think most of us would agree that the judge was right. And if the parent refused to quit calling you Nancy or quit trying to convince you that you were just 'confused' and that it was just a vindictive parent trying to get back at the other parent, then the judge would be correct to issue an order of contempt and potentially throw that parent in jail until they agreed to comply.

 

[TomC]

Since the court order is about talking to the child, your claim is idiotic.

Did the judge order the dad to jail for child abuse or contempt of court? My understanding is that it was contempt of court, the judge had the power to jail the dad for using words the judge didn't like. And the judge did exactly that. The judge sent a parent to jail for using words the judge didn't like.

Back in the olden days, a judge could send someone to jail for saying something white folk didn't like. The mob is different nowadays, but it's still mob justice.

Referring to your daughter as "she" is now an actionable crime. The judge just proved it. Now it's called "contempt of court", but it's the same crime.
Saying something the mob doesn't like.
Tom

 

[Toni]

It is irrelevant what he's been 'told'. You have no evidence that he believes what he is doing to be insulting, and an insult implies intent. In fact, I believe he loves his daughter very much and wants to do everything he can to avoid harm coming to her.



I don't know what you mean by the sentence, but I believe the father understands his female child to be a girl (as would almost all people who have ever lived until about ten years ago), and that therefore calling her a girl and using 'she' is not in any way an insult.

Too bad for you, that is not reflected in reality.

Well, yes, it is too bad for me.

I am convinced that he does love his child but is so blinded by his own anger and lack of understanding that he is unable or unwilling to see that he is causing harm to his child. He loves his own sense of what is right more than the reality that his child is facing.

Or do you not believe that the only reason this came to court in the first place is because the child expressed that they felt harmed by their father's treatment?

 

[Toni]

Since the court order is about talking to the child, your claim is idiotic.

Did the judge order the dad to jail for child abuse or contempt of court? My understanding is that it was contempt of court, the judge had the power to jail the dad for using words the judge didn't like. And the judge did exactly that. The judge sent a parent to jail for using words the judge didn't like.

Back in the olden days, a judge could send someone to jail for saying something white folk didn't like. The mob is different nowadays, but it's still mob justice.

Referring to your daughter as "she" is now an actionable crime. The judge just proved it. Now it's called "contempt of court", but it's the same crime.
Saying something the mob doesn't like.
Tom

It's saying something THE CHILD doesn't like and that the CHILD FINDS HURTFUL AND HARMFUL.

Would it be OK for a father to repeatedly refer to his child as an idiot? As stupid? As a fool? What if that child were developmentally delayed, would that make it OK? Would it be OK for the father to refer his child as stupid if the child failed a class? Would it be helpful? Is there a point at which it becomes abusive? If a judge is called to speak on the matter and tells the father to desist because it is harming the child, is that 'mob rule?'

 

[Jarhyn]

I have many nieces and nephews so my influence over young minds has already been felt.



I have no idea what Jarhyn can be implying. I was never told attraction to men was 'made up' or not real. I was told it was immoral and against God.

What would be wicked bad cognitive dissonance is for me to be gay but tell everybody I am straight and insist they see me that way and call me straight.

What about if everyone told YOU that you were just confused and mixed up and probably it was just your vindictive mother trying to get back at your father by convincing you that you are gay?

What if it was them calling you Nancy (in the US, in the past, a female name but one that was also used to imply that a boy or a man failed to live up to masculine standards: i.e. they were a 'sissy' or effeminate).

If you were a minor child in either of those cases, and a judge ordered the parent so abusing you to stop, I think most of us would agree that the judge was right. And if the parent refused to quit calling you Nancy or quit trying to convince you that you were just 'confused' and that it was just a vindictive parent trying to get back at the other parent, then the judge would be correct to issue an order of contempt and potentially throw that parent in jail until they agreed to comply.

Not to mention that Metaphor is straight (gay?) Up lying-for-Jesus at this point.

I've had that message slung out, seen it slung out HERE, in the months surrounding the repeal of the military gay-ban that homosexuality is really just straight men "rebelling against god" or whatever and that "god doesn't make people gay, people just decide to be sinners".

I find it fucking hilarious that this extremely common message has never been encountered or levied at Metaphor, who AFAICT is old enough to be contemporary to Stonewall.

 

[laughing dog]

It is irrelevant what he's been 'told'. You have no evidence that he believes what he is doing to be insulting, and an insult implies intent.

It is a fact he is insulting his child. It is a fact he has been told so. His belief is immaterial.

In fact, I believe he loves his daughter very much and wants to do everything he can to avoid harm coming to her.

You have no evidence to support your belief that he loves his daughter very much nor that he wants to do everything he can to avoid harm coming to her. If he wanted to do everything he could to avoid harm coming to her, he would not have been held in contempt of court because he would have stopped using "she". Duh.

I don't know what you mean by the sentence, but I believe the father understands his female child to be a girl (as would almost all people who have ever lived until about ten years ago), and that therefore calling her a girl and using 'she' is not in any way an insult.

I am sorry the English language is so difficult for you. He is choosing his words, so he is being deliberate. He knows he is insulting the child because he has been told so and been told to stop by the courts. He is deliberately insulting the child. You have no evidence to support your belief

 

[laughing dog]

Since the court order is about talking to the child, your claim is idiotic.

Did the judge order the dad to jail for child abuse or contempt of court? My understanding is that it was contempt of court, the judge had the power to jail the dad for using words the judge didn't like. And the judge did exactly that. The judge sent a parent to jail for using words the judge didn't like.

Back in the olden days, a judge could send someone to jail for saying something white folk didn't like. The mob is different nowadays, but it's still mob justice.

Referring to your daughter as "she" is now an actionable crime. The judge just proved it. Now it's called "contempt of court", but it's the same crime.
Saying something the mob doesn't like.
Tom

Your description of the situation is as accurate and valid as a description of your argument as defending the repeated verbal abuse of children.

 

[ronburgundy]

Once the child told the father (repeatedly) that they did not want be called a "she" and that it hurt them emotionally, then deliberately and needlessly doing it became nothing but an act with the intent to cause psychological harm, and thus abuse.

You have no basis for making that claim.

Yes I do. He has been told by his child via the court that it is causing psychological harm. That is the basis for being told to stop. There is no possible reason for him to continue to do it knowing that other than to cause harm.

 

[Metaphor]

What about if everyone told YOU that you were just confused and mixed up and probably it was just your vindictive mother trying to get back at your father by convincing you that you are gay?

I would say: well, it doesn't matter if you think that. I know my own mind.

What if it was them calling you Nancy (in the US, in the past, a female name but one that was also used to imply that a boy or a man failed to live up to masculine standards: i.e. they were a 'sissy' or effeminate).

Calling me a name that was not my own? I've been called plenty worse than 'Nancy'. But it would beggar belief that anybody could call it bullying that somebody calls me my actual name.

If you were a minor child in either of those cases, and a judge ordered the parent so abusing you to stop, I think most of us would agree that the judge was right.

I think you have already begged the question by calling it 'abuse'.

Somebody calling me a name that is not my own solely in order to tease and bully me can be described as bullying.

Somebody calling me my actual name because they know that to be my name cannot be described as bullying, unless one has completely lost her mind and her understanding of words.

And if the parent refused to quit calling you Nancy or quit trying to convince you that you were just 'confused' and that it was just a vindictive parent trying to get back at the other parent, then the judge would be correct to issue an order of contempt and potentially throw that parent in jail until they agreed to comply.

If a white child claimed they were black, and a parent refused to indulge this fantasy, ought that parent be thrown in jail?

 

[Metaphor]

Once the child told the father (repeatedly) that they did not want be called a "she" and that it hurt them emotionally, then deliberately and needlessly doing it became nothing but an act with the intent to cause psychological harm, and thus abuse.

You have no basis for making that claim.

Yes I do. He has been told by his child via the court that it is causing psychological harm. That is the basis for being told to stop. There is no possible reason for him to continue to do it knowing that other than to cause harm.

That you cannot imagine there is 'no possible reason' speaks only to your narrow imagination and lack of empathy.

 

[Jarhyn]

It is a fact he is insulting his child. It is a fact he has been told so. His belief is immaterial.
You have no evidence to support your belief that he loves his daughter very much nor that he wants to do everything he can to avoid harm coming to her. If he wanted to do everything he could to avoid harm coming to her, he would not have been held in contempt of court because he would have stopped using "she". Duh.

I don't know what you mean by the sentence, but I believe the father understands his female child to be a girl (as would almost all people who have ever lived until about ten years ago), and that therefore calling her a girl and using 'she' is not in any way an insult.

I am sorry the English language is so difficult for you. He is choosing his words, so he is being deliberate. He knows he is insulting the child because he has been told so and been told to stop by the courts. He is deliberately insulting the child. You have no evidence to support your belief

I see. So apparently sincerely held belief over the propriety of some pronoun assigned to someone, and if done in the sincere belief that doing so will shield that person from harm, Is sufficient for it to be acceptable. And carry no punishment. So, if I were to stand outside Metaphor's house, specifically, with a God Hates Flags sign and a bullhorn to save his immortal soul from hell, yeah, I should do that. Makes perfect and total sense.

 

[ronburgundy]

Yes I do. He has been told by his child via the court that it is causing psychological harm. That is the basis for being told to stop. There is no possible reason for him to continue to do it knowing that other than to cause harm.

That you cannot imagine there is 'no possible reason' speaks only to your narrow imagination and lack of empathy.

That's pretty fucking rich coming from someone with a sociopathic lack of empathy for transgenders, and defends others with similar lack of empathy. Name one possible reason that you would continue to repeatedly call a person by label they have told you repeatedly and went to great lengths to get you to stop? It proves, at minimum at total disregard for the emotional harm you are causing.

 

[Metaphor]

It is a fact he is insulting his child.

No, that is not a fact.

It is a fact he has been told so. His belief is immaterial.

The matter of his belief is central to whether the behaviour in question is deliberately insulting.

You have no evidence to support your belief that he loves his daughter very much nor that he wants to do everything he can to avoid harm coming to her.

And I said I believed it (because I think that's what most parents want).

If he wanted to do everything he could to avoid harm coming to her, he would not have been held in contempt of court because he would have stopped using "she". Duh.

You are begging the question. For that to be true, he would have to believe his behaviour is harmful.

I am sorry the English language is so difficult for you. He is choosing his words, so he is being deliberate.

Yes. There was never any doubt he was choosing his words. What is contested is that he is choosing words in order to harass, bully, and harm.

He knows he is insulting the child because he has been told so

You cannot know that he knows any such thing. To know something is to believe it to be true, and for it to be actually true.

and been told to stop by the courts. He is deliberately insulting the child. You have no evidence to support your belief

Although I don't agree that he is deliberately insulting the child, it wouldn't matter if I did agree. The State should have no right to jail people for 'insults'.