No it wouldn't, only your entire argument would be and is incoherent. Only you are irrationally assuming that strings of letters have scientifically objective meaning.
No, I am not. Words have meanings, though.
Us sensible folk are assuming that regardless of why, being addressed a particular way is causing emotional harm to a child, and the father hell bent on causing his child more pain for no reason other than b/c he thinks he should be able to or holds an irrational dogma that there is objective truth to word meanings.
There is nothing irrational about understanding that 'she' is the pronoun one uses for female children.
We can converse due to having the learned some ever changing culturally shared subjective norms about words, norms that have no more "truth" than the norm that forks go on the left of the plate and knives to the right.
That 'she' is the pronoun that is applied to female children (or females of any species, really) is a shared subjective norm. To ask somebody to use a pronoun that applies to males for a female is to ask that person to engage in a fiction for politeness.
Your irrational beliefs are irrelevant. The fact is they can, and the child's own protestations are direct evidence they were harming her. Word definitions are not facts, but it's a fact that words have emotional impact and the most reliable evidence of that impact what each person says that impact is on them. Your desire to ignore direct evidence of other's emotional distress just shows lack of empathy and immoral disregard for others, just like the father. Your position is no different that the delusional parent who thinks their child is not harmed by lack of proper medical care.
People are harmed when the State forces them to utter words they do not believe, or be forced into silence about what they believe.
Causing emotional harm by trying to stop someone causing emotional harm is analogous to shooting a rapist.
The harm is incidental to a positive act, not the end in itself.
Yet you have not extended the same courtesy to believing the father is trying to prevent harm to his child.
The father is causing harm and there is no reasonable expectation of positive impact to motivate it.
What positive impact do you expect from labelling the father mentally unfit to parent?
I expect the father believes that everyone indulging his female child's demands to be called 'he' are the people causing harm. Why do you assume he does not have positive motivations?
Most abuse is from parents who claim to believe they are doing something good. That has no relevance. What matters is whether a reasonable case can be made that the harm is incidental to what is a actual positive act with ultimately helpful harm reducing impact. That is no different than any area of law. A parent who sprains their kids arm they to yank them out from front of traffic isn't abusive. A parent that causes the same harm because they think pain builds character or b/c they think it ward off the devil is abusvie. Context matters.
Yes, context matters. The context is that a parent is calling his female child 'she', and she doesn't like being called 'she'. Yet, 'she' is the appropriate pronoun that refers to her sex.
Yes you did. You said he thinks he has the right to is a reason why he would say such things to someone who told him it hurts them.
I said he ought have the legal right to say things that cause hurt to other people, not that you should hurt people just because you can.
His belief in "true" definitions is delusional. He is immorally abusing his child to preserve ideological delusions, no different than the parent who tries to burn the devil out of their kid. Not caring enough about your kid to question your own irrational beliefs that lead to harm is abuse.
I was brought up Catholic, which is day-in, day-out, litany of falsehoods that made me uncomfortable and distressed (for example, imagining the torture of crucifixion). That did not make my parents unfit to be parents.
All he would objectively be doing to avoid abuse is use a couple words in a different non-normative (but no less "true") manner on those rare occasions when using pronouns around the person you are talking about, which is actually uncommon since it means you are not talking to them but only about them in their presence (or it's highly plausible he was just going out of his way to use pronouns when talking directly to the child).
You think it's 'highly plausible' without any evidence whatsoever.
Again, pronouns are not any kind of truth. And he was told by the child and the court he was causing harm. If he disregarded that evidence than he's guilty of reckless negligence in ignoring valid evidence of the harm he was causing, and that is abuse, just like a parent that ignores medical information and causes harm.
You think the court telling him is valid evidence because you already believe the court. You are begging the question.
As with your thread title, that's a dishonest strawman. No pronouns themselves are being criminalized.
I didn't say that. I said certain pronoun use is criminalised.
Causing clearly and obvious harm to a child after it has been pointed out, and doing it for no reason other that selfish protection of dogma is abuse.
Repeating something without evidence does not make it somehow more believable.
but they don't give a shit and they repeatedly and deliberately keep saying "apples" to the kid when their is no reason to do even when apples happen to be present. That would make the parent an abusive fucking asshole.
Yes, it would. What has that got to do with the case at hand? You are now suggesting that the father is going
out of his way to use female pronouns like some sort of sadist?
Do you have any idea how deranged it is to think such a thing?
