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

[Metaphor]

Which means they are insulted by you

It means they took offense.

Not accirding to the standard that belief is everything.

In what universe is the act of child molestation qua child molestation dependent on the feelings of love of the molester?

You are since he obviously has observed this is hurtful yet he continues.

You don't know that he has 'observed' any such thing.

I suspect that if you asked him, he would say 'I think it hurts her feelings, but greater harm is done if I indulge her belief that she is a boy'.

You cannot know what I admire or don’t.

To know something is justified true belief.

I believe you do not admire my free speech principles, and your expression of admiration was a sarcastic jab.
I am justified in that belief, given the long history of our interactions.
I suppose only you know if it's true or not that you don't admire my free speech principles.

You are defending the verbal abuse if this child no matter how you wish to frame it.

I am condemning the State jailing a man for pronoun usage.

 

[laughing dog]

It means they took offense.

Finally you agree.

In what universe is the act of child molestation qua child molestation dependent on the feelings of love of the molester?

In the same universe where the act of verbal abuse of a child is dependent on the feelings of love of the abuser.

You don't know that he has 'observed' any such thing.

I have justified true belief.

I believe you do not admire my free speech principles, and your expression of admiration was a sarcastic jab.
I am justified in that belief, given the long history of our interactions.

Your belief is wrong.

I suppose only you know if it's true or not that you don't admire my free speech principles.

Finally you get something right.

I am condemning the State jailing a man for pronoun usage.

Which was proscribed because it was deemed to be verbal harassment. So you are defending his right to verbally abuse his child.

 

[Metaphor]

Finally you agree.


In the same universe where the act of verbal abuse of a child is dependent on the feelings of love of the abuser.

You don't know that he has 'observed' any such thing.

I have justified true belief.

I believe you do not admire my free speech principles, and your expression of admiration was a sarcastic jab.
I am justified in that belief, given the long history of our interactions.

Your belief is wrong.

I suppose only you know if it's true or not that you don't admire my free speech principles.

Finally you get something right.

I am condemning the State jailing a man for pronoun usage.

Which was proscribed because it was deemed to be verbal harassment. So you are defending his right to verbally abuse his child.

I am defending the right of a man to use female pronouns for his female child, and for the State not to jail him for it, no matter how the use of pronouns is imagined to be an act of verbal abuse.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

The issue is taking away his right to see his child because of continued harassment.

 

[Toni]

Finally you agree.


In the same universe where the act of verbal abuse of a child is dependent on the feelings of love of the abuser.

I have justified true belief.

Your belief is wrong.

I suppose only you know if it's true or not that you don't admire my free speech principles.

Finally you get something right.

I am condemning the State jailing a man for pronoun usage.

Which was proscribed because it was deemed to be verbal harassment. So you are defending his right to verbally abuse his child.

I am defending the right of a man to use female pronouns for his female child, and for the State not to jail him for it, no matter how the use of pronouns is imagined to be an act of verbal abuse.

Then you must be talking about some other case. In the case offered in the OP, a man was jailed for violating the judge's orders to stop referring to his son as female and to stop using female pronouns for him.

 

[Toni]

Someone has been arrested for harassing a minor in contravention of a court order.

And the harassment was defined as using the term 'she' for his female child.

His child is not female.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

That somebody finds a particular action or utterance 'insulting' or 'hurtful' is irrelevant. The State has no business interfering in the exercise of your speech, whether you imagine it to be 'harassment' or not.

What you are missing is that freedom of speech does not include the ability to compel an audience. Other than in the context of punishment for criminal actions nobody is allowed to compel somebody to listen and efforts to do so are struck down by the courts.

 

[Toni]

Thinking of the case of a wife or husband of ten years who was in shape and is now pretty fat (like when insulin resistance is finally pushed past the limit as can happen).

If the other spouse is still svelte they do not have to say that their fat spouse is actually thin, but also do not have to point out he/she is fat all the time. But if asked by their spouse "am I fat" then "yes" is an acceptable answer - preferably followed with other positive praise. The question is how much positive ledger does the rest of the relationship have.

Is the child putting a lot of eggs in the basket gender identity out of a sense of insecurity?

If dad was like "I am skeptical that you are transgender and will not desist, but I accept YOU come what may" is this an acceptable communication to the child?

No. Effectively, you are telling the child that you don't believe them when they say what/who they are....followed up by saying you accept them, come what may. Really Obviously, you don't accept them as transgender. You've just lied to them. Why should the child believe that you 'accept them' when clearly you don't? And what does 'come what may' mean in this context?

It is acceptable to say to the child that you're struggling with coming to this new understanding of who your child is, that is is your responsibility and to apologize if you sometimes make mistakes. And then you do your very, very best to not make hurtful mistakes. AND you get yourself to some good counseling so that you can fully understand and accept your child as who they truly are.

If this is difficult for you to understand, try this: Would it be acceptable for a parent to say to their child who has just come out as gay that the parent is skeptical that the child is actually gay but that you accept the child, 'come what may' whatever the hell that phrase is supposed to mean in this context.

Because, putting on my 14 year old hat, that just sounds like: I don't believe you but I love you even though you are confused and delusional and I'm sure that someday you will fully accept my version of who you are as your authentic self and then I will truly love you because you reflect my beliefs when you are who I say you are.

I think it is perfectly acceptable to acknowledge that shifting your perception of this person is going to take some time and adjustment on your part, that the hard work is all yours and not the child's and that you apologize in advance if you say or do anything hurtful, that you hope the child will point out to you if you do something that is hurtful and that you will do your best. And then YOU DO YOUR BEST, even if it feels wrong to you because your child's wellbeing is on the line.

Who a person desires romantically or sexually is a lot more clear cut than the sense of gender identity and it does not affect physical maturation. People don't desist from being gay like they do with feelings of being transgender. To not be skeptical of a specific person's transgenderism (not transgenderism as a whole) is imprudent.

I strongly disagree.

Children usually strongly identify with one sex or the other years and years before they have even the vaguest feelings of sexual attraction to anyone.

Not everyone who is gay or bisexual realizes that they are gay or bisexual in childhood. Some do not realize or accept this until they are adults. Even today, some attempt to live as 'straight' including having opposite sex spouses and biological children conceived in a marriage bed and only later acknowledge that they are gay. Or in some cases, but not all, bisexual. Some individuals have only opposite sex attractions throughout their lives until they meet the 'right' same sex person and then their understanding of their sexual preferences is upended.

Not everyone who is transgender realizes that this is the source of their discomfort with themselves until they are adults. Or they are in denial for decades until they acknowledge what they have felt for years. Or they never felt able to express their true selves or they never were actually allowed to express their true selves.

What I think is true is that in our society, we have become much more comfortable talking about homosexuality and even bisexuality whereas talking about transgender individuals openly is relatively new for most people and perhaps more uncomfortable because it is new. Additionally, a lot of people are very concerned about the potential to manipulate a young child into 'choosing' to express that they are transgender and put them through surgery, hormone therapy, etc. before they are old enough to make most decisions for themselves. A lot of people are concerned about somehow getting it wrong and irrevocably harming a child by allowing surgical alterations to their bodies.

But there is evidence that NOT allowing gender reassignment to happen at an early age can cause significantly more harm and more medical complications.

It truly is a complex issue, taken in totality with the medical ramifications.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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

Subjective classification, especially at birth, can later prove to have been inaccurate.

The classification of sex at birth is not subjective. The correct sex of nearly all babies can be trivially discovered by a cursory glance at the baby's external genitalia, by a doctor, a nurse, a complete stranger, or even myself as a four year old.

Except for 5α-reductase deficiency. Some will be trivially determined to be female short of imaging being done--but at puberty they develop male characteristics, not female.

 

[Metaphor]

Someone has been arrested for harassing a minor in contravention of a court order.

And the harassment was defined as using the term 'she' for his female child.

His child is not female.

His child is female.

 

[Metaphor]

The classification of sex at birth is not subjective. The correct sex of nearly all babies can be trivially discovered by a cursory glance at the baby's external genitalia, by a doctor, a nurse, a complete stranger, or even myself as a four year old.

Except for 5α-reductase deficiency. Some will be trivially determined to be female short of imaging being done--but at puberty they develop male characteristics, not female.

I will repeat my true statement.

The correct sex of nearly all babies can be trivially discovered by a cursory glance at the baby's external genitalia, by a doctor, a nurse, a complete stranger, or even myself as a four year old.

 

[Metaphor]

That somebody finds a particular action or utterance 'insulting' or 'hurtful' is irrelevant. The State has no business interfering in the exercise of your speech, whether you imagine it to be 'harassment' or not.

What you are missing is that freedom of speech does not include the ability to compel an audience. Other than in the context of punishment for criminal actions nobody is allowed to compel somebody to listen and efforts to do so are struck down by the courts.

I am missing nothing. Unbelievable that you would talk of compulsion: it is the judge compelling the father, not the father compelling anybody else.

Note also that this compulsion is not restricted to parent-child pronoun usage. A judge in the UK compelled a witness to describe her male assailant as female and refer to her as 'she'.

 

[Metaphor]

Finally you agree.


In the same universe where the act of verbal abuse of a child is dependent on the feelings of love of the abuser.

I have justified true belief.

Your belief is wrong.
Finally you get something right.

I am condemning the State jailing a man for pronoun usage.

Which was proscribed because it was deemed to be verbal harassment. So you are defending his right to verbally abuse his child.

I am defending the right of a man to use female pronouns for his female child, and for the State not to jail him for it, no matter how the use of pronouns is imagined to be an act of verbal abuse.

Then you must be talking about some other case. In the case offered in the OP, a man was jailed for violating the judge's orders to stop referring to his son as female and to stop using female pronouns for him.

His child is female.

 

[Toni]

Finally you agree.


In the same universe where the act of verbal abuse of a child is dependent on the feelings of love of the abuser.

I have justified true belief.

Your belief is wrong.
Finally you get something right.

Which was proscribed because it was deemed to be verbal harassment. So you are defending his right to verbally abuse his child.

I am defending the right of a man to use female pronouns for his female child, and for the State not to jail him for it, no matter how the use of pronouns is imagined to be an act of verbal abuse.

Then you must be talking about some other case. In the case offered in the OP, a man was jailed for violating the judge's orders to stop referring to his son as female and to stop using female pronouns for him.

His child is female.

He is not. He is not female anymore than you are straight.

 

[Metaphor]

I am defending the right of a man to use female pronouns for his female child, and for the State not to jail him for it, no matter how the use of pronouns is imagined to be an act of verbal abuse.

Then you must be talking about some other case. In the case offered in the OP, a man was jailed for violating the judge's orders to stop referring to his son as female and to stop using female pronouns for him.

His child is female.

He is not. He is not female anymore than you are straight.

His daughter is female. If you think she is not, you do not understand what female means.

 

[repoman]

I am defending the right of a man to use female pronouns for his female child, and for the State not to jail him for it, no matter how the use of pronouns is imagined to be an act of verbal abuse.

Then you must be talking about some other case. In the case offered in the OP, a man was jailed for violating the judge's orders to stop referring to his son as female and to stop using female pronouns for him.

His child is female.

He is not. He is not female anymore than you are straight.

Yo, hol up...

There was a tacit agreement that (barring rare anomalies that have nothing to do with cis and trans) that male and female were dead locked into XY and XX respectively. No question about it. The terms man/boy and woman/girl were to be for gender identity.

Now you are switching the rules?

Hahaha

Just checked, wikipedia is not infected with this BS yet

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female

 

[bilby]

Someone has been arrested for harassing a minor in contravention of a court order.

And the harassment was defined as using the term 'she' for his female child.

For his transgender child. Repeatedly. After being asked not to. Several times. Including by a judge.

You appear to be attempting the "stop hitting yourself" schoolyard defence against bullying. Nobody should be in any doubt that the accused deliberately used language he knew to be hurtful, on many occasions, to a minor.

The details of what words were used ceased to be relevant the very first time he used them after being told by the victim that they were hurtful.

It's not relevant that he believes that he is uttering The Truth^TM, if he also can reasonably expected to believe that he is saying something hurtful. It's even less relevant what you or I believe to be The Truth about what pronouns are appropriate to refer to a person neither of us knows.

When I was a child, I preferred to be known by my middle name. However after some schoolyard bullying, I decided that I didn't like to be known by that name after all, and reverted to my first name. My parents, not being total arseholes, didn't say "we have been referring to you this way for years, so we refuse to change". No, they respected my wishes, and switched to calling me by the name I requested.

Why anyone who cares about a person would imagine that some 'biological fact' would override that person's clearly expressed wishes in the matter of how to address them I cannot fathom. It seems to be resistance to change gone completely mad. And it's all downside, with no benefits whatsoever, for anyone. What kind of dumb, insensitive, arse would go so far against his child's wishes in the matter of their preferred address as to defy a court ruling requiring him to desist? It's insanity.

 

[Metaphor]

For his transgender child. Repeatedly. After being asked not to. Several times. Including by a judge.

I know what happened. You believe it is bullying to refer to a biological female as 'she'. I believe it is not bullying, but the ordinary use of language.

You appear to be attempting the "stop hitting yourself" schoolyard defence against bullying. Nobody should be in any doubt that the accused deliberately used language he knew to be hurtful, on many occasions, to a minor.

You have no evidence that he believed it was hurtful, and you have discounted the possibility he thought it would bring his female child further harm to call her 'him'.

The details of what words were used ceased to be relevant the very first time he used them after being told by the victim that they were hurtful.

That somebody says 'I find that hurtful' is not some magical formula to shut down the speech of the person you are saying it to.

It's not relevant that he believes that he is uttering The Truth^TM, if he also can reasonably expected to believe that he is saying something hurtful. It's even less relevant what you or I believe to be The Truth about what pronouns are appropriate to refer to a person neither of us knows.

The pronouns appropriate for a female child are 'she'. You can indulge in a polite fiction of referring to a female child as 'he' if you like. Nobody is forcing you otherwise.

When I was a child, I preferred to be known by my middle name. However after some schoolyard bullying, I decided that I didn't like to be known by that name after all, and reverted to my first name. My parents, not being total arseholes, didn't say "we have been referring to you this way for years, so we refuse to change". No, they respected my wishes, and switched to calling me by the name I requested.

I have no idea why you think this story is relevant. Do you think your parents ought have been held in contempt of court for continuing to use your previous name?

Why anyone who cares about a person would imagine that some 'biological fact' would override that person's clearly expressed wishes in the matter of how to address them I cannot fathom.

Because you value at zero freedom of speech and freedom of conscience for people you do not care for.

It seems to be resistance to change gone completely mad. And it's all downside, with no benefits whatsoever, for anyone. What kind of dumb, insensitive, arse would go so far against his child's wishes in the matter of their preferred address as to defy a court ruling requiring him to desist? It's insanity.

It is insanity that people are being jailed for referring to their female child as 'she', and that people support this fascist encroachment on freedom of speech. It is wholesale madness. It is callous. It is beyond contempt.

 

[Metaphor]

And in the UK, a woman who was assaulted by a transwoman failed to receive compensation because she referred to her male attacker as 'he' during the court case.

https://thepostmillennial.com/women...efer-to-attackers-gender-preferences-in-court

It's all okay though. To call her attacker 'he' is, of course, violence, and the court wasn't having a bar of it.

 

[repoman]

And in the UK, a woman who was assaulted by a transwoman failed to receive compensation because she referred to her male attacker as 'he' during the court case.

https://thepostmillennial.com/women...efer-to-attackers-gender-preferences-in-court

It's all okay though. To call her attacker 'he' is, of course, violence, and the court wasn't having a bar of it.

The actual incident which is not very graphic...