Drlee wrote:I am sorry you are unable to understand my posts. Ask someone for help.
Anyway, you aksed a series of questions that boil down to “what if the child regrets it?”.
So, what if?
First of all, this does not excuse the father’s action in any way nor does it repudiate the findings of the courts.
Also, i wonder if this is pertinent to this case. I would expect that those who regret transitioning from one gender to another often share certain characteristics that, in hindsight, make it clear why transitioning was not a good idea. Does this particular child exhibit any of those characteristics?
Finally, I would simply ask how often people regret transitioning from one gender to another. This is brought up quite often by critics of transgender transitioning. Because of this frequency, I would expect that the statistics are easy to come by, and that this is a significant number.
Kaiserschmarrn wrote:Right, and a few pages back I gave you a link to that judgment and asked you to show his justification. Yet after several posts of useless back and forth, here you are, musing about your own confusion. I've metaphorically spoon-fed you my points several times, but you just can't be bothered to pay attention and have an actual good faith argument.
Oh I see.
You wanted me to support a specific claim that I never made, and using an specific source that I did not choose.
I apologise, but I hope you can understand why it did not occur to me that you wanted me to support this other argument using some specific source, neither of which were part of my argument.
Here I was, thinking I was helping by explaining to you where you can find the evidence you may need for whatever argument you are making.
If you like, I can try to answer this question for you, but I would need some clarification on what exactly you think is not justified.
Looking back on the thread, you are somewhat vague on what this is. At one point, you simply ask me to use that specific pdf to support my claim. Please note that I supported it with text that you quoted from the second ruling.
If that is the new standard of evidence, I can add to my previous argument and show exactly how the father tried to deny access to medical treatment:
From page 10:
 There is some evidence that indicates the A.B.’s father is somewhat disingenuous in seeking to present more scientific evidence relating to gender transition treatment. Rather, some evidence suggests that he has been delaying proceedings as a way of preventing his son from obtaining the gender transition treatment that he seeks.
 After informing the clinic at BCCH on August 19, 2018 that he was opposed to the proposed hormone therapy, notwithstanding the consent signed by A.B., the treatment was postponed. The clinic’s social worker then tried on numerous occasions to arrange a meeting between A.B.’s father and Dr. Hursh. In response to one of the requests by the social worker, A.B.’s father wrote on October 22, 2018 that he could not meet because of scheduled hip surgery. He also said that while he did not agree with the proposed hormone therapy he had decided that he would not try and block the medical treatment and would honour that decision movingforward. The social worker was again unsuccessful in arranging a meeting with the father. On December 1, 2018 the clinic wrote to the father indicating that they would commence the treatment after December 15, 2018 as A.B.had the exclusive right to consent to it. The father then commenced proceedings in the Provincial Court.
 In the Provincial Court on January 28, 2019, the father argued that the matter could not be heard that day and that he needed to commence proceedings in the Supreme Court under the Infants Act. The Provincial Court then ordered a continuation of the injunction described earlier in these reasons.
 Between January 28, 2019 and February 6, 2019 the father did not commence proceedings in this court.
47] On February 7, 2019, A.B. initiated proceedings under the Family Law Act seeking the treatment that he believes he urgently needs. The father filed a response but no evidence in relation to A.B.’s claim.
Please note that the father did not present any evidence whatsoever at any time during any of the proceedings, did not meet with the doctor, and simply sought to delay treatment.
This is preventing access to medical treatment, and is part of the reason for the finding of family violence.
Anyway, the evidence already presented in this thread show that the pronoun usage was not an isolated event that was then defined as family violence all by itself