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

[Emily Lake]

Define biological female.

Of the sex that normally produces large immobile gametes.

 

[Emily Lake]

Define biological female.

I would presume based on the organs at birth.

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.

Don't conflate sexual characteristics with sex itself.

 

[Emily Lake]

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.

It's tricky. I don't think it's necessarily an insistence to hurt his child. On one side is a child with a gender identity issue, that may not be long-term persistent. On the other side is the risk of permanent damage to bone density and other side effects caused by puberty blockers, as well as the permanent damage and likely sterility caused by cross sex hormones and surgeries.

 

[Toni]

Define biological female.

Of the sex that normally produces large immobile gametes.

Post menopausal women are not longer female? Those who have undergone oophorectomies are no longer female?

 

[Emily Lake]

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.

Yes... but those are DSDs, and each of those individuals is still either male or female.

 

[Emily Lake]

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!

Okay.. .what are the elements of sex that a transgender person has that makes them the opposite sex in any meaningful way?

 

[TomC]

Legalities aside,
Suppose the child wanted to bang a neighbor dude because he promised to buy her a pony. She really really wants that pony. Would the father refusing her direct wishes be "abusive"?
Tom

There is no reason to bring your personal fantasies into this discussion, is there?

Typical dodge.
Ignore what I wrote and make it a personal insult.
Tom

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Define biological female.

Of the sex that normally produces large immobile gametes.

It isn't clear to me that a definition that includes the word "normally" is effective in a context that involves an uncommon subset of persons.

For example, suppose we were having a discussion about a lesbian teenager. Someone writes, "define female." and you respond with "of the sex that is normally attracted to males." That isn't at all effective in context.

Now perhaps you could change the wording of your definition and it could be more effective. I don't know. I'm not over-analyzing it. Or perhaps you could try again.

As far as I am concerned, when people say "sex is binary," I think they are wrong and when people say that sex is fluid I think that is also an over-simplifcation. To me, and I could be wrong, sex has multi-dimensional characteristics, not merely one, and some of these characteristics may be fluid, binary, or bimodal, but overall, I think that sex is bimodal.

 

[Emily Lake]

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.

Well... and the whole period thing, needing menstrual supplies, wanting to have sex *without* becoming pregnant, being harassed for feeding a child in public, inappropriate erections, nocturnal emissions, retributive rape, genital mutilation, circumcision, designating one sex as disallowed from owning property or voting, discriminating against one sex because they *might* become pregnant so there's no point in promoting them, discriminating against one sex because they *might* be a pedophile and shouldn't be trusted around young children, cat-calls, up-skirt panty-shots posted on the internet without permission, hidden cameras catching women peeing, panty-raids, date rape, social stereotypes that decide one sex is less able to lead because they might get PMS, assumptions that one sex are just "natural" caregivers and would be happiest as homemakers instead of having the burden of work, etc.

Seriously, your comment here is akin to saying that skin color only matters when picking out make-up or when a doctor is checking for melanoma. It's an asinine dismissal of the reality of the influence that sex has on our lives, both biologically and socially.

 

[Ford]

The judge - the "moderator" in this case, had apparently seen enough of the father's behavior or knew enough of the situation to determine that he was swapping the pronouns in order to bully the kid.

There is no evidence that he was doing it to 'bully' the child.

As others have noted, family court is not always generous about sharing intimate details of a case. All we (and that includes you) have to go on is an account shared from a source so biased they call the father a "prisoner of conscience" before getting around to the actual facts...such as they are. The article gets downright laughable when it paints trans people as suffering from a delusion, describes teenagers transitioning of their own free will as "an atrocity," and bemoans the fact that they may never become mothers. The hyperbole in the article is really laid on thick:

The Canadian state has taken a drastically wrong turning by institutionalizing transsexual medical procedures for children, then imposing draconian constraints on free expression to conceal the full horror of what it is doing to a generation of children.

Nowhere in the opinion piece you've presented is any of the testimony of the mother, or the child, or any account of events leading up to the initial ruling. Just a snippet of the gag order. As has been pointed out, the primary audience for this story has been right wing and far right websites and opinion outlets. Rather than a sober legal analysis of the issues, it is a "whoa is the poor traditional gender roles/family being assaulted by liberal judges and the mainstream media" piece that paints the father out to be some sort of saint and/or martyr of free speech.

It bears repeating that the article doesn't share any information from the mother, the child, or the court's reasoning in the lead up to the imposition of the gag order and subsequent arrest for contempt. It merely tells the story of a poor, put-upon dad just trying to lovingly raise his daughter so that someday she can grow up and be all girly like he dreamed. There is clearly something else going on in this family dynamic, and clearly something else going on in the case. Do we have evidence of what is actually going on? Not in this mountain of moaning about "his child's stolen future." We can infer from the scraps of truth in the article that there was more at work than just a father's concern and an oppressive state imposing transitions on hapless children, and as anyone who has been through a divorce or custody battle can tell you, there are always two sides to the story.

You've given us one, and insist we must accept your narrative.

The state (the board) has rules (laws) that they can and do enforce. One of those laws deals with contempt of court. Just like with the board, if you keep up a behavior which the court has specifically ordered you to stop, you can be ruled in contempt for violating a court order. This is what's happening here. The behavior was reported to the mods, the mods told the offender "that's against our rules, don't do it again," he kept doing it anyway, and was pulled up for it.

That's why he was arrested and jailed. Not because he called his kid an unwanted pronoun, but because the judge told him to stop engaging in a behavior, and he defied a court order. It is the same as if he was abusive to his wife, was ordered to stay a certain distance from her, and yet he kept showing up at her doorstep because he "just wants to talk it out." Would your defense of him be that "he was arrested for wanting to talk to someone?" I mean, you could say that, but you'd be wrong.

He was arrested and jailed for defying a court order. It's not an issue of free speech, or what the definition of female is, or any of the other window dressing you keep bringing up. Judge told him to stop engaging in a behavior, he kept doing it in defiance of a court order, he gets thrown in jail. That's it. End of story.

I know why he was arrested and jailed.

The title of your post - and of the article you linked - say otherwise. You claimed that the father was arrested and jailed for calling his transitioning child "she." He was not, and now you've admitted that. You also threw in the "strange death of Canada" hyperbole because...?


Finally, as I'm sure you are well aware, this sort of wailing about "traditional values," "atrocities," "delusions," and other predictions of doom and gloom were made in the long struggle for gay rights. Young teenagers who figured out their sexuality early on were bullied - in many cases by parents - and when gay, lesbian, and bi people began to assert their rights (and eventually earn them) there was much gnashing of conservative teeth around "what about the children?" and how if we "normalized" these people the "traditional family" would fall apart and society would collapse.

That didn't happen. The L, the B, and the G have gotten out of their metaphorical closets and society didn't collapse. Yet now, faced with a decreasing ability to discriminate against or minimalize the LGB community, the "family values" crowd says "wait...what about the T?" and has turned their guns on the trans community.

 

[Emily Lake]

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.

LD that's just plain dumb. That's like saying that an amputee is no longer human because they don't have both arms. A female is of the sex that normally produces large immobile gametes, oocytes. "Female" is not some nebulous arbitrary term that can't be pinned down. The same definition holds throughout all mammals as well as the vast majority of vertebrates, because nearly all vertebrates (as well as all mammals) evolved binary sexual reproduction.

 

[Emily Lake]

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.

If a 14 yo identified as a black kid, despite being nordic pale, would you find it moot to compel the parent to refer to their child as "Leroy" because that's what the child wants and the child is offended if the parent fails to do so?

 

[Emily Lake]

I did not say that. He is being verbally abusive towards his child. That is an indicator of an abusive parent.

I think this is an extrapolation based on assumptions and not on evidence.

Consider the case of a child named Alexandra. At 14, the child decides they don't like that name, nor the shortening of it to Alex. The child wants to be called "K-Dawg" from here out.

Would you consider the parent to be abusive if they continued to refer to their child by their given name of Alexandra?

 

[Emily Lake]

No, it has nothing to do with your biological definition of sex. There is no "the biological definition of sex".

According to Dr. Tatiana's Sex Advice to All Creation: The Definitive Guide to the Evolutionary Biology of Sex, by Olivia Judson, the biologist definition of sex is the exchange of genetic material.
So, two bacteria can have sex, while a man and woman using a condom are not having sex.

Verbs are not Nouns

 

[Emily Lake]

1. The parent was jailed for contempt of court, not for "doing what's right in the parent's own opinion."

2. Children of any age are human beings and their feelings should be respected, and it hurts no one to "play along," even if you think the 14 year old is wrong in their own interpretations of their own experiences. It's not a matter of making the kind of adult decisions you for some reason think are equivalent. They are not, not even remotely.

3. It literally costs nothing to say him and he instead of her and she because you love your child. The parent in this case continued saying she and her even when his own child told him it hurt for him to continue to do so, to the point where a court judge told him to stop doing it.

This isn't a case of just playing along. This is a case of the school changing the name of the student without the parent's knowledge, providing counseling services for gender dysphoria without the parent's knowledge, and suggesting that the 14 yo begin taking testosterone without the parent's consent.

Hoogland opposes his child's undergoing "gender affirmative" medical procedures, and has stated this opposition again and again, in the hope of saving his child from irreversible harm. The Canadian medical system, the legal system, and the child's mother press ahead with social and medical transition of the child.

the judge's order includes:

a) CD shall be restrained from: i. attempting to persuade AB to abandon treatment for gender dysphoria; ii. addressing AB by his birth name; and iii. referring to AB as a girl or with female pronouns whether to AB directly or to third parties;

Hoogland told his story. The child had complex problems, but the court blamed them all on gender dysphoria. His marriage to the child's mother had broken up. He said that, in grades 5 and 6, his daughter was "getting into trouble and hanging out with boys," so they arranged for her to see the school counsellor. In grade 7, he noticed she cut off her long hair and started wearing a toupé. He said that she developed intense crushes on two male teachers, and made a suicide attempt.
Hoogland discovered that the school had been showing his daughter SOGI 123, the going sexual and gender identity education materials in British Columbia which amounts to transgender ideology "propaganda videos." In the grade 7 yearbook, the child was referred to by a different name. The school counsellor changed the child's name without telling her parents. The school "socially transitioned" the biologically female child on its own initiative, with the input of a gender ideologue psychologist, Dr. Wallace Wong.

When Hoogland accompanied his child to a consultation with Wong, the psychologist advised the pubescent child to take testosterone. Wong referred the child to the endocrinology unit at the local hospital. Meanwhile, Hoogland was looking for mental health solutions to help the child without drugs.

 

[Emily Lake]

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?

the court forebade him from doing that.

 

[Keith&Co.]

No, it has nothing to do with your biological definition of sex. There is no "the biological definition of sex".

According to Dr. Tatiana's Sex Advice to All Creation: The Definitive Guide to the Evolutionary Biology of Sex, by Olivia Judson, the biologist definition of sex is the exchange of genetic material.
So, two bacteria can have sex, while a man and woman using a condom are not having sex.

Verbs are not Nouns

They certainly are. You can stomach pain. Gut thru the discomfort.
Elbow someone in the teeth for nosing around.
Face up to the consequences.
Eye your opponent's ass.
Finger the same ass. Maybe while you neck.
Beard the lion.
Toe the line.
Foot the bill.
Dick around.
Pussy out.
Tongue the pole.
Thumb the scales.
Head a company.

 

[laughing dog]

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.

LD that's just plain dumb. That's like saying that an amputee is no longer human because they don't have both arms. A female is of the sex that normally produces large immobile gametes, oocytes. "Female" is not some nebulous arbitrary term that can't be pinned down. The same definition holds throughout all mammals as well as the vast majority of vertebrates, because nearly all vertebrates (as well as all mammals) evolved binary sexual reproduction.

Of course the definition is dumb - that was my point.

 

[Emily Lake]

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.

The child is female. The child might identify as a "boy", at least at present, but the child is not male.

 

[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.

If a 14 yo identified as a black kid, despite being nordic pale, would you find it moot to compel the parent to refer to their child as "Leroy" because that's what the child wants and the child is offended if the parent fails to do so?

A parent that deliberately and persistently harasses or verbally abuses a child for whatever reason is an abusive jackass which makes me wonder about that parent's fitness as a parent.