Judge Finds Father Guilty of ‘Family Violence’ for Not Using Transgender Teen’s Preferred Pronouns - Page 4 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

News stories of lesser political significance, but still of international interest.

Moderator: PoFo Today's News Mods

Forum rules: Please include a source with news articles. No stupid or joke stories. The usual forum rules also still apply.
#15002987
A messy legal dispute between a 14-year-old transgender boy and his father, who rejects the child’s gender identity, has expanded into a fight over freedom of expression.

In a recent decision, a B.C. Supreme Court judge ordered the father to stop publicly discussing the case after finding some of his actions, including interviews with conservative media outlets, exposed his child to significant harm and constituted “family violence.”

https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/le ... expression


It constituted family violence because the father talked to conservative media outlets, thus exposing his child to significant harm. Probably this girl is a XY female with Swyer syndrome. In Swyer syndrome, individuals with a X chromosome and a Y chromosome, which are typically found in boys and men, have female external genitalia. If the girl is formally diagnosed with Swyer syndrome after a genetic test, it would be much easier for the father to accept her.

Swyer syndrome is a condition that affects sexual development. Sexual development is usually determined by an individual's chromosomes; however, in Swyer syndrome, sexual development does not match the affected individual's chromosomal makeup.

People usually have 46 chromosomes in each cell. Two of the 46 chromosomes, known as X and Y, are called sex chromosomes because they help determine whether a person will develop male or female sex characteristics. Girls and women typically have two X chromosomes (46,XX karyotype), while boys and men usually have one X chromosome and one Y chromosome (46,XY karyotype). In Swyer syndrome, individuals with one X chromosome and one Y chromosome in each cell, the pattern typically found in boys and men, have female reproductive structures.

People with Swyer syndrome have typical female external genitalia. The uterus and fallopian tubes are normally-formed, but the gonads (ovaries or testes) are not functional; affected individuals have undeveloped clumps of tissue called streak gonads. Because of the lack of development of the gonads, Swyer syndrome is also called 46,XY complete gonadal dysgenesis. The residual gonadal tissue often becomes cancerous, so it is usually removed surgically early in life.

People with Swyer syndrome are typically raised as girls and have a female gender identity. Because they do not have functional ovaries, affected individuals usually begin hormone replacement therapy during adolescence to induce menstruation and development of female secondary sex characteristics such as breast enlargement and uterine growth. Hormone replacement therapy also helps reduce the risk of reduced bone density (osteopenia and osteoporosis). Women with this disorder do not produce eggs (ova), but they may be able to become pregnant with a donated egg or embryo.

https://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/condition/swyer-syndrome
#15002989
Kaiserschmarrn wrote:The decision on pronouns is about pronoun usage. Neither of the rulings gives any indication that the family violence designation has anything to do with what critics in this thread have brought up.


Whose decision on pronouns is about pronoun usage? And do you mean the decision is solely about pronoun usage, or do you mean it is about pronoun usage as well as other factors?

Yes, the critics in this thread have not addressed the actual reasons for the family violence designation.

An alternative interpretation of the father's actions is that he is desperate to prevent state-sanctioned harm to his daughter. And while he may not have made the best decision at any given time, his motives are not nefarious (e.g. his personal benefit) or meant to harm his child.


He has indicated that he hoped that the story would be picked up by larger news media outlets, and he did show a high level of disregard for the child’s safety by giving out personal information that could lead to the child being a target of transphobic violence.

Do you have any evidence that his motives were not nefarious?
#15003001
Pants-of-dog wrote:And you quoted the excerpt that the Heritage Foundation has been promoting, because of their openly homophobic and transphobic stance.


The excerpt comes from the introduction to the discussion given by a public health expert. The Heritage Foundation hosted this panel because they are wingnut bigots but that doesn't have any bearing on the validity of the criticism.

Once again, you quote conservative pundits instead of actual science.

You should look up actual studies by scientists and then see if your ideas are ac verified.


The panelists are actual scientists doing actual science, you just don't like the conclusions. And medicine and psychology are the two most dysfunctional fields of science by every metric, academics write books on how fucked up the science coming out of those fields is. So there is no "actual science", there's just bullshit junk science and the criticism of it.

This is the field that's mass medicating a whole generation of children with speed and all manner of powerful psychotropic drugs and now we're gonna trust them to give sex changes to 12 year olds? Get real.
#15003003
Sivad wrote:The excerpt comes from the introduction to the discussion given by a public health expert.


Correction: the guy that gave the intro is a policy expert but he has been published by Oxford University Press on gender and public health.
#15003004
Godstud wrote: :roll: Only if you purposefully don't look further, and ignore everything else that was said... which you did.

I'm not going to humour your lazy diversion attempts. I'm bored to death by them already.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Whose decision on pronouns is about pronoun usage? And do you mean the decision is solely about pronoun usage, or do you mean it is about pronoun usage as well as other factors?

I've already explained all this in previous posts. The decision that the father's pronoun usage constitutes family violence was made at a hearing prior to the protection order hearing (see this post for the summary of the decisions in the former hearing). Several decisions were made, but that on family violence is separate to the others and, again, has nothing to do with the father going to the media, etc. It's the latter protection order hearing (judgment) that deals with the dissemination of personal information and uses the previously established family violence designation as a prerequisite for the protection order (see this post for the quote on that).

All of this is obvious from the judgment I linked earlier in this thread and which I have provided again above for your convenience, but I'm sure all of you have read it already, right?

Pants-of-dog wrote:He has indicated that he hoped that the story would be picked up by larger news media outlets, and he did show a high level of disregard for the child’s safety by giving out personal information that could lead to the child being a target of transphobic violence.

All consistent with being desperate.
#15003007

“Elaine” (pseudonym) is the mother of a daughter suffering from gender dysphoria. She shared the pain and heartbreak of watching her daughter hormonally and surgically alter her body.
#15003010
Sivad wrote:“Elaine” (pseudonym) is the mother of a daughter suffering from gender dysphoria. She shared the pain and heartbreak of watching her daughter hormonally and surgically alter her body.

Clearly just a right-wing idiot brainwashed by Jordan Peterson.
#15003017
It's surreal, although the fact that all we have to offer the people suffering is mutilation (or at least a path to mutilation) or "let's talk about it" is possibly even worse. If I was a teenager I would probably opt for the hormones too, especially if I was cheered on in the process and while having the full force of the law and state behind me.
#15003018
If you go read the Endocrine Society guidelines they state up front that these hormone therapies they use on children and adolescents are off label and not FDA approved and the evidence for safety is "low to very low". :lol:



Michael K. Laidlaw, MD, is an Endocrinologist practicing in Rocklin, CA. Dr. Laidlaw graduated from University of Southern California School of Medicine in 2001 and has been in practice for 18 years. He explained the dangers of radical new transition-affirming therapies for children with gender dysphoria.
#15003020
Canada is not the USA. We have different guidelines that are often stricter for drugs. Do you have a decent source that isn't talking about USA, since this happened in Canada?
#15003021
Ter wrote:Let us be reminded that in Canada, any woman can have an abortion done legally till the day she is supposed to give birth. What else can you expect from a country that allows that ?

Canada has a terribly corrupt Prime Minister that looks like a hobbit too.

Godstud wrote:Canada does not share the same freedom of speech laws as the USA, and it's always good for Americans to remember that.

Which is to say that Canada doesn't have constitutionally protected freedom of speech.

I think true multiculturalism could be of use in situations like this. If you are truly open minded, you might ask yourself, "What would King Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud do?" I'm sure it would be the right thing.
#15003023
blackjack21 wrote: you might ask yourself, "What would King Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud do?"


He does pretty much the same thing these quacks do, he mutilates the genitals of children.
#15003025
Ter wrote:Let us be reminded that in Canada, any woman can have an abortion done legally till the day she is supposed to give birth. What else can you expect from a country that allows that ?
:roll: What is permitted and what actually happens in practice, are two entirely different things. I suppose you can point to an incident where this has happened?

Blackjack21 wrote:Canada has a terribly corrupt Prime Minister that looks like a hobbit too.
Still leaps and bounds better than what USA has. :D Better a hobbit than a troll.

Blackjack21 wrote:Which is to say that Canada doesn't have constitutionally protected freedom of speech.
Yes, we do. Freedom of expression in Canada is not absolute; Section 1 of the Charter(Bill of Rights) allows the government to pass laws that limit free expression so long as the limits are reasonable and can be justified in a free and democratic society.

Sivad wrote:He does pretty much the same thing these quacks do, he mutilates the genitals of children.
Many think that circumcision is that. You are pointing to an incident in USA, now and not Canada. The 14 year old has to wait until 18(adult), so that isn't going to happen.
#15003030
Sivad wrote:The excerpt comes from the introduction to the discussion given by a public health expert. The Heritage Foundation hosted this panel because they are wingnut bigots but that doesn't have any bearing on the validity of the criticism.


No, it has no bearing on the validity of the criticism.

What does have bearing is the evidence behind the criticism.

Unfortunately, there is no evidence behind said criticism.

And this is because it comes from an opinion piece from a conservative lobby group and not from actual science.

Much like the other videos you have now posted: opinion pieces from conservatives, or at best, arguments from authority.

Do you have any actual argument about the OP?

The panelists are actual scientists doing actual science, you just don't like the conclusions. And medicine and psychology are the two most dysfunctional fields of science by every metric, academics write books on how fucked up the science coming out of those fields is. So there is no "actual science", there's just bullshit junk science and the criticism of it.

This is the field that's mass medicating a whole generation of children with speed and all manner of powerful psychotropic drugs and now we're gonna trust them to give sex changes to 12 year olds? Get real.


So, no evidence.

Just more conservative jargon.

————————-

Kaiserschmarrn wrote:I've already explained all this in previous posts. The decision that the father's pronoun usage constitutes family violence was made at a hearing prior to the protection order hearing (see this post for the summary of the decisions in the former hearing). Several decisions were made, but that on family violence is separate to the others and, again, has nothing to do with the father going to the media, etc.


The bit from your previous post shows clearly that it is not solely about pronoun usage and is about the father’s refusal to allow access to medical treatment, and the father’s disregard for the possibility of the child’s suicide.

So, when I asked if it was solely about pronoun usage, the answer is no.

It was also about denying medical treatment and risking suicide.

In regards to whose decision, that was Justice Bowden’s.

K wrote:All consistent with being desperate.


Do you have any evidence for this supposed desperation?
#15003037
Pants-of-dog wrote:
Unfortunately, there is no evidence behind said criticism.

And this is because it comes from an opinion piece from a conservative lobby group and not from actual science.


It comes from a panel of experts on the subject discussing the science and citing the studies. You can keep trying to pretend it's an "opinion piece" but that only makes you like like a nitwit.

arguments from authority


You're entire idiotic worldview is based on nothing but arguments from authority. I'm pretty sure you're actually incapable of independent thought and analysis, if it wasn't for authorities telling you what to think you wouldn't have any thoughts at all.
#15003041
Sivad wrote:It comes from a panel of experts on the subject discussing the science and citing the studies. You can keep trying to pretend it's an "opinion piece" but that only makes you like like a nitwit.


Yes, the part you quoted but did not credit is opinion.

There may or may not be science and studies discussed in the panel to which you never linked, but we do not know if there is not since you neither linked to it nor quoted any of the science and studies.

You're entire idiotic worldview is ....


You mean “your”.
#15003047
Pants-of-dog wrote:The bit from your previous post shows clearly that it is not solely about pronoun usage.

I already mentioned this. The judge made other decisions (which had to do with the girl's treatment) and furthermore he also decided that the father calling his daughter his daughter was family violence.

Feel free to show us the reasoning in the judgment why the judge decided to designate pronoun usage as family violence.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Do you have any evidence for this supposed desperation?

He's up against the Canadian state and the experimental treatment he opposes is imminent. What reasonable person wouldn't be desperate?
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 8
Election 2020

Yeah we all know how this is going to go. Trump d[…]

Atheism is Evil

The reality is that women evolved to be sex objec[…]

Trump's Dumb Economics

And who do I "blame" at Wells Fargo or […]

America alone generates 34.5m tons of plastic was[…]