Judge Finds Father Guilty of ‘Family Violence’ for Not Using Transgender Teen’s Preferred Pronouns - Page 6 - 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.
#15003483
Pants-of-dog wrote:As I said, you already quoted it.

You don't want to quote anything because you know that there is no justification in the judgment. Bowden could have given his reasons and made clear under what circumstances pronoun usage is family violence, and he should have if his decision was meant to be restrictive rather than expansive. On the other hand, he goes to great length in explaining his decision with respect to the treatment and rightly so because that's a major part of any judgment.

Pants-of-dog wrote:This is not evidence, it is your imagination.

No, it's just being able to put oneself in the father's position. Most of us are capable of doing that.
#15003496
Kaiserschmarrn wrote:You don't want to quote anything because you know that there is no justification in the judgment. Bowden could have given his reasons and made clear under what circumstances pronoun usage is family violence, and he should have if his decision was meant to be restrictive rather than expansive. On the other hand, he goes to great length in explaining his decision with respect to the treatment and rightly so because that's a major part of any judgment.


Tell you what, I will quote the part of the judgement that shows that pronoun usage is not the only criteria.

And in return, I would like you to clarify whether or not you think the judge was discussing ONLY pronoun usage as family violence, or if you are saying that pronoun usage was one of the things that was defined as family violence.

No, it's just being able to put oneself in the father's position. Most of us are capable of doing that.


Yes, I understand why you sympathise with him. But sympathy and a sense of compassion is not an argument.
#15003497
Kaiserschmarrn wrote:
Now for some new and exiting progress in the transgender treatment world: Is the surgical world ready for adolescent gender surgery?



It's fascinating that the mother just magically knew from the first instant she first held her newborn son that the child was transgendered. :knife: These fucking liberal freaks are just out of their gourds and they are hellbent on dragging us all with them into their twisted authoritarian phantasmagoria of a depraved new world.
#15003500
@Kaiserschmarrn

So this is the post where you originally quoted the part of the second judgement:

viewtopic.php?p=15002735#p15002735

Here is the exact text you quoted, however the bolding is mine:

    [10] Mr. Justice Bowden granted AB’s summary trial application, dismissed CD’s application for an interlocutory injunction, and made a series of declarations and final orders that are relevant to the matter before me, including:

    1. It is declared under s. 37 of the Family Law Act, S.B.C. 2011, c. 25 [FLA] that it is in the best interests of AB that:
    (a) he receive the medical treatment for gender dysphoria recommended by the Gender Clinic at BCCH;

    (b) he be acknowledged and referred to as male, both generally and with respect to any matters arising in these proceedings, now or in the future and any references to him in relation to this proceeding, now or in the future, employ only male pronouns; and
    (c) he be identified, both generally and in these proceedings by the name he has currently chosen, notwithstanding that his birth certificate presently identifies him under a different name.

    2. It is declared under the Family Law Act that:
    (a) AB is exclusively entitled to consent to medical treatment for gender dysphoria and to take any necessary legal proceedings in relation to such medical treatment;

    (b) Pursuant to para. 201(2)(b), AB is permitted to bring this application under the Family Law Act and to bring or defend any further or future proceedings concerning his gender identity; and
    (c) Attempting to persuade AB to abandon treatment for gender dysphoria; addressing AB by his birth name; referring to AB as a girl or with female pronouns whether to him directly or to third parties; shall be considered to be family violence under s. 38 of the Family Law Act.

    3. AB is permitted to apply to change his legal name from that on his birth certificate to his chosen name and the consent of his mother or father for such change is not required.

    4. AB is permitted to apply to change his gender pursuant to s. 27 of the Vital Statistics Act, without the consent of his father or mother.

    5. In these proceedings, including all applications associated with the proceedings, the names of the applicant young person, his father and his mother shall be anonymized. The applicant young person shall be referred to as AB, his father shall be referred to as CD and his mother shall be referred to as EF

Please note the bolded phrases and how they show that the father tried to interfere in the medical treatment of the child.

This is a factor other than pronoun usage.

Since there is at least one other factor that is not pronoun usage, it would be incorrect to say that anyone is defining improper pronoun usage by itself as “family violence”.

Now, please answer my question.
#15003504
Pants-of-dog wrote:Since there is at least one other factor that is not pronoun usage, it would be incorrect to say that anyone is defining improper pronoun usage by itself as “family violence”.


That's a totally distorted and dishonest reading of the ruling. The judge is defining any of the above as family violence. If the father violates any one of those injunctions he judge will haul him up on family violence charges.
#15003506
Pants-of-dog wrote:Since there is at least one other factor that is not pronoun usage, it would be incorrect to say that anyone is defining improper pronoun usage by itself as “family violence”.

No, it wouldn't. I already mentioned that he made several decisions and then also declared a list of things family violence. There's nothing in your post contradicting or adding to what I posted. And again, I can't find any justification or reasoning in the judgment with respect to the family violence designation. As I suspected, you cannot either.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Yes, I understand why you sympathise with him. But sympathy and a sense of compassion is not an argument.

No, people who can put themselves in another person's position have a better chance to understand them and their motives. It's a perfectly logical and reasonable alternative. I do of course understand why you don't want to do that and rather try to paint a black and white picture.

Sivad wrote:It's fascinating that the mother just magically knew from the first instant she first held her newborn son that the child was transgendered. :knife: These fucking liberal freaks are just out of their gourds and they are hellbent on dragging us all with them into their twisted authoritarian phantasmagoria of a depraved new world.

Mastectomies at 12 years brought to you by Kaiser Permanente:

#15003521
b) he be acknowledged and referred to as male, both generally and with respect to any matters arising in these proceedings, now or in the future and any references to him in relation to this proceeding, now or in the future, employ only male pronouns; and
(c) he be identified, both generally and in these proceedings by the name he has currently chosen, notwithstanding that his birth certificate presently identifies him under a different name.


Y'all do realize that the judge essentially proclaimed this person male. Note that the judge ordered treatment for gender dysphoria and prohibited anyone from discouraging the child from receiving the treatment. Does anyone else see the inherent contradiction in this? What if, in treatment, the child is "cured" and comfortably returns to her birth gender? What then? The judge ruled that the child is male. This is contrary to science and it is beyond his scope of authority. The only person or persons who should make such a decision for a child are properly trained medical doctors.

But Sivad is absolutely correct. The state of the medical science in this field is appalling. It is not so much science as a moral determination. Something like "it is moral to want people to have their own way; science or no science."

I see the results of this kind of anti-scientific progressiveness every day. I see seriously mentally ill people who have been "freed" from mental hospitals where they were kept "against their will". Yes. "Released" from the institutional care that kept them from being terrified every moment of their lives. "Freed" to live their lives on their own terms, laying in doorways covered with their own feces, hungry and cold, and afraid of every passerby. Never mind what some stodgy old white male MD's at the state hospital said. They are just caught in the past. Let the people go into the freedom of a rainbow world.

As I was leaving the clinic today I glanced over to a chain link fence by the parking lot. There was a bundle of rags there. I am accustomed to this and went to check. In the rags was a girl of about 20-25. I had seen her at the clinic the previous week. All cleaned up and looking quite attractive though she had lost her shoes. We gave her a meal and some shoes and sent her happily on her way. Had this judge seen her then and then listened to my opinion that she needed to be institutionalized at least for a time he would have turned her loose and enjoined me from advocating that she receive inpatient psychiatric care. Drive by judging. She is paranoid schizophrenic. Today she was laying terrified in her own filth. Because she knew me she allowed me to take her into the clinic and get the nurses to clean her up, give her some clothes and feed her. Then she had a thought and ran away.

I wonder who is going to fuck her tonight. I wonder if it will be voluntary or if some other street person will just drag her into the bushes. Will she scream for help or will the voices tell her to be quiet? Was she together enough to work a corner? She was definitely not together enough to "qualify" for a shelter. Or will tonight be the night that she has had enough and she will just walk in front of a train?

I'm going to break my rule and use the "L" word. Liberals need to stop playing God where they have nothing to go on but their own self-righteous notions of what ought to be. We have science for a reason. Science does not just say yes or no. Science frequently says "wait". We know very little about gender dysphoria. (Or as I would prefer it be called, the old-fashioned "gender identity disorder".) How to deal with these cases is not a moral decision. That should have nothing to do with it. If science presents a clearly correct, peer reviewed, effective course of action the the answer is yes. If there is no good course of action then the answer is no. In the case of GID the scientific answer is "wait". Experimenting on children is not good science. Nor is allowing some arrogant judge to presume to declare someone's gender identity by judicial fiat. I feel sorry for the young girl. She is the one who is not getting the help she needs. And part of that help should be to treat her dysphoria and wait for her to be ready to make the decision to transition, only when and if she and the doctors agree it is the right thing to do. And that is as an adult.
#15003525
Kaiserschmarrn wrote:No, it wouldn't.


Yes, it would. If the judge mentions factors other pronoun usage, then factors other than pronoun isage were also involved.

I already mentioned that he made several decisions and then also declared a list of things family violence. There's nothing in your post contradicting or adding to what I posted. And again, I can't find any justification or reasoning in the judgment with respect to the family violence designation. As I suspected, you cannot either.


To be honest, I am not entirely clear what you are arguing.

This is why i have asked you to clarify your argument as to pronoun usage.

Also, you may be unclear as to what I am arguing, since I did find justification and reasoning in the judgement that supported my claim, and that claim is that pronoun usage was not the only factor.

No, people who can put themselves in another person's position have a better chance to understand them and their motives. It's a perfectly logical and reasonable alternative. I do of course understand why you don't want to do that and rather try to paint a black and white picture.


It is an appeal to emotion.

Again, the evidence seems to indicate that he was shopping his story around and trying to get alrge media imvolved.
#15003537
Pants-of-dog wrote:Yes, it would. If the judge mentions factors other pronoun usage, then factors other than pronoun isage were also involved.

Any of the listed actions are family violence. That's it. The judge doesn't explain the factors, if any, that justify that decision. And this ruling had nothing to do with the father going to the press or making personal information public either. Breitbard is more honest and accurate than your misleading commentary in this thread. Congratulations.

Pants-of-dog wrote:It is an appeal to emotion.

Nonsense. As I said, it's trying to understand other people's motives. Mine is an obvious explanation, unless you need the father to be a villain.
#15003539
Kaiserschmarrn wrote:Any of the listed actions are family violence. That's it. The judge doesn't explain the factors, if any, that justify that decision.


The excerpt you quoted is the list of policy decisions that the first judge made, and that the second judge is taking into account.

It is very possible that the second judge does not bother explaining the factors that justify the decision of the first judge. This would be because the factors that justify the decisions of the first judge would be in the judgement of the first judge and not the second.

And this ruling had nothing to do with the father going to the press or making personal information public either.


That is correct, if you are referring to the ruling made by Justice Bowden.

Breitbard is more honest and accurate than your misleading commentary in this thread. Congratulations.


I think you mean Breitbart.

Please show how I have been misleading. Thank you.

Nonsense. As I said, it's trying to understand other people's motives. Mine is an obvious explanation, unless you need the father to be a villain.


I was explaining why the second judge reasoned that the father was prioritising his own fame over the safety of his child.

If you wish to muse on his possible motives, feel free.

The trouble with this speculation about motives is that it is unverifiable.
#15003542
Pants-of-dog wrote:The excerpt you quoted is the list of policy decisions that the first judge made, and that the second judge is taking into account.

It is very possible that the second judge does not bother explaining the factors that justify the decision of the first judge. This would be because the factors that justify the decisions of the first judge would be in the judgement of the first judge and not the second.

What are you on about? I'm not interested in a debate by attrition where I have to endlessly repeat what I have already said over and over because you are either unable to understand what I'm saying or pretend to not understand. Either way, it's obviously useless to carry on.
#15003598
There are two judges.

The first one (Bowden) was the one who defined pronoun usage as family violence,

He looked at the behaviour of the father, took note of several things the father did, and then made a set of decisions.

These decisions were then reviewed by the second judge in her ruling. She summarised the decisions by Bowden that affected her ruling.

That is the excerpt you quoted.

The logic behind Justice Bowden’s decisions would be in his ruling, not the second judge’s.
#15003601
The issue of the "family violence" is pole vaulting over mouse turds. This ruling was abhorrent in far more important ways than that.
#15003631
I have read all of them.

I also noticed that I replied to all but two.

I ignored one because it was about free speech, which is off topic.

I did not answer the second one because it was very long, most of it was about an unrelated subject, and ended in an unsupported rant about anti-science progressives.

There was no argument in it. The closest thing ro an argument in that post was a series of questions at the beginning. If you wish to make that into an argument, I would be happy to address that as well.
#15003639
Drlee wrote:People on the far right and far left define "free speech" as all speech that agrees with them and harmful speech as all speech that does not.



Conventionally a true statement, except it's hard to ignore the fact that the definition of "far right" and "far left" has been completely hijacked by conglomerate echo chambers with partisan intentions.
#15003651
There was no argument in it. The closest thing ro an argument in that post was a series of questions at the beginning. If you wish to make that into an argument, I would be happy to address that as well.


I am sorry you are unable to understand my posts. Ask someone for help.

Finfinder said: Conventionally a true statement, except it's hard to ignore the fact that the definition of "far right" and "far left" has been completely hijacked by conglomerate echo chambers with partisan intentions.


Sad but true. I still stand behind the gist of my message.
  • 1
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8

I could buy a carton of Marlboro of $4 How much[…]

Beto is a slime ball. He's going no where. Democ[…]

EU-BREXIT

Lib dems are gonna HULK SMASH in the next election[…]

Election 2020

What’s most disturbing about “Sharpiegate” isn’t […]