The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Divorced Father Inflicted "Mental Injury" on 12-Year-Old Son By Religious Criticisms of Son's Felt Homosexuality
The Appellate Court of Maryland just upheld the lower court's finding, and related protective order.
From C.M. v. J.M., decided Friday by the Appellate Court of Maryland, in an opinion by Justice Alexander Wright, Jr.:
The Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County entered a final protective order against C.M. ("Father") on grounds that he was mentally abusive to his 12-year-old son ("N.") regarding his son's sexual orientation….
Father and J.M. ("Mother") were married for about five years and had two children before divorcing in 2012. As part of the divorce settlement, the parties agreed to joint legal custody of their two children with Mother to have primary physical custody and Father to have visitation every other weekend from Friday to Sunday.
Roughly three years later, on June 15, 2022, Mother filed for a protective order for herself and her children, then aged 15 and 12, alleging that Father had caused her and the children mental injury based on abusive texts and emails he had sent to them….
As to their older child, "S.", Mother testified that about three years ago, S. told her that he believed he was transgender. {We shall refer to the parties' oldest child as "S." which is the first letter of the name the child prefers to be called rather than his given name. We shall also refer to S. with his preferred pronouns, he/him/his.} Mother denied steering S. toward identifying as transgender but has actively supported S. by arranging for therapy and attending meetings of Parents, Families, and Friends of Lesbians and Gays ("PFLAG"). When S. told Father that he identified as transgender, Father "opposed" his decision and refused to call him by his preferred name. S. subsequently engaged in the self-harming behavior of "cutting." On March 4, 2022, Father sent the following text messages to S.:
What is your email address? I'm sending you an email and I'm copying your mother and my lawyer. I'm t[ir]ed the BS manipulations. Your grandmother doesn't call you S[.] and neither does either one of your aunts and uncle up here and for some reason my Christian beliefs are being attacked, so the intent is for a trial, so that everyone can understand what your mother that has manipulated a wedge after you and I had already came to an agreement [to call you a shortened version of your given name]. Thanks[.]
Mother testified that S. is "scared" to be around Father because "he doesn't feel support; doesn't feel that S[.] can be himself, … his true self[.]"
As to their younger child, N., Mother testified that about five months ago N. told her that he believed he was gay. On June 11, 2022, Father sent N. the following text:
You can text me anytime. Just between us and call if you ever need to talk. I will tell you like I told you before—you are being heavily manipulated and influenced by your mother and sister. Son. Listen to your dad and our father who created us (God) in this matter. Please please do not allow these demons you are surrounded by influence you. Pray my son. For protection. I love you. Dad.
The next day, while N. was visiting Father at his house, Father asked N. to show him his TikTok account. According to Father, N. started acting "very strangely[,]" eventually walking outside the house and calling and then texting his Mother. Father testified he told N. that he was not "happy with" him because he had every right to see N.'s social media account. Father then told N. that because he was undercutting his authority by calling Mother, he could "[j]ust go home." N. called his Mother to pick him up and while she was enroute, Father and N. had a conversation in which N. told him he was gay. Father testified that he responded by telling N.: "I love [you] no matter what, and that whatever he is when he's an adult and down the road, that I will love him, but he needs to respect that his father doesn't actually hold the same beliefs due to my Biblical beliefs." He explained to the court that his "Christian beliefs, my Biblical beliefs, preclude me from agreeing with any LGBTQ agenda." Father testified that his Christian religion "means everything" to him.
Mother was asked about her observations of N. when she drove him home from Father's house. She testified that N. "seemed a little down and out, and was a little shaken up, and you know, I just asked if he was okay, and he said … 'I am now.' " She testified that N. told her that when he told his Father he was gay, his Father said, "No, you're not, but I love you anyway."
Later that evening, Father texted a picture to S. The picture is of two unhappy looking teenage girls with zig zag stitching across their chests with the typed statement above it: "It's not 'top surgery.' It's a radical elective double mastectomy performed on healthy girls who have been sucked into a cult by groomer schools and online influencers." Father wrote underneath the picture: "Don't ever do this stuff to yourself. If you ever want to talk about the thousands of UK children who regretted this and other things later in life, let me know. Also, I hope you read my google email to you."
Father sent a second text a few hours later to S. that showed a photograph of a bull with horns with the message, "If you're still confused about gender, try milking a bull and you'll learn real quick." Father texted underneath the photograph: "I think this one is hilariously accurate."
The next day Father texted Mother the following text messages over the course of an hour, each paragraph represents a separate text:
You really have no idea who you are talking to…. The wolves will enter in and not spare the flock says our father…. The ascension of Christ opened the book of Revelation, it has been 80 generations now, but we are the last. And time is almost up. I will not be staying. Many will. You will understand after all of this is over. I promise, you will live to see…. You have no idea who I am. And you should thank me because if I can have you and your parents repent and turn before this is over, that's 3 souls I will get credit for saving.
[* * *]
I am a child of God. I am a watchm[a]n. They have been warned, but as instructed each has to work out our own salvation says our father. Your fake Christian parents have been warned, or at least your father, to Repent and turn.
[* * *]
For example, our father tells us about tranny's and gays right in the bible. He says any one who cuts off things or if man lay with man or women with women will be burned. But the Holy See and most other Churches say, no, it's all good now.
[* * *]
This is what Christ was talking about when he said, when I leave, I know the wolves will enter and not spare the flock. You have no idea how close we are to Michael standing up. But I promise, short of God taking you out prematurely, I do believe you will see.
[* * *]
The spirit of Truth is upon you. You are being shown the truth that you must bend to or you and your parents will burn. It's that simple.
[* * *]
You have been warned and will have no excuse now once asked to give an account.
Half an hour later, Father texted Mother a picture of a horned, animal-like human sitting on a throne and wrote that it is a picture of a deity called "Baphomet" that was "after everyone's children right now." He continued:
What you are going to see very shortly in this world is of Biblical proportions…. As I stated to you before, we are the last and you have no idea how close we are to Michael standing up. If you and your family do not repent and turn before that happens, you will be subjected to the plagues that follows after Michael stands. Again, and for the last time, you and yours have been warned.
A CPS report dated June 21, 2022, was admitted into evidence. The case worker, a licensed social worker, wrote that five days after the incident between Father and N., she interviewed the children in person at their respective schools, and Mother and Father over the telephone. As to the interview with the children, she wrote:
S[.] stated around 6th grade, his relationship with his father went downhill. S[.] stated he came out as transgender and his father blames his mother and says he is a part of a cult. S[.] stated he wanted to get into therapy and his father blamed his mother. S[.] stated his father threatens to sue his mother because he is transgender. S[.] stated he stopped seeing his father regularly in late 2019. S[.] stated he sometimes goes to his father's around the holidays because he wants to continue to see his cousins. S[.] stated his father has sent him text messages and emails with information against the LGBTQ+ community. S[.] denied feeling safe with his father. This worker asked why. S[.] stated he guesses it is more of an uncomfortable situation because he does not feel like he can be himself.
This worker asked how his father treats N[.] S[.] stated this past weekend, their father kicked N[.] out of the house because he would not show him a TikTok because it stated he was gay. S[.] stated his father also threatened to break the phone. S[.] was not present for the incident. S[.] denied his father ever becoming physical with him or his mother. S[.] stated years ago, his father "slammed" N[.] because he was learning how to ride a bike and said something like "mom would have done it better". S[.] denied witnessing what happened.
[* * *]
N[.] stated he sees his father every other weekend. N[.] stated this past weekend was not good but normally they are fine. N[.] stated his father was mad because he would not show him his TikTok. N[.] stated he would not show him his TikTok because it showed his sexual orientation. N[.] stated he eventually told his father he was gay. N[.] denied his father becoming physical with him and stated it was only verbal. N[.] stated his father was insulting his mother and said "you can go back with your psychotic mother". N[.] stated he was picked up by his mother after this occurred. N[.] stated his father sent him a text message stating he was being manipulated by his mother and sister and he should not allow the demons that surround him to influence him. This worker asked how his father treats S[.] N[.] stated his father often uses the slur "tranny".
[* * *]
This worker asked if his father ever became physical with him. N[.] stated when he was 9 years old, his father hit him on the head with an open hand because he said his mother would have taught him how to ride a bike better. N[.] denied any other physical altercations with his father and denied seeing his father become physical with anyone else. This worker asked if N[.] felt safe with his father. N[.] stated not really because his father has "anger issues" and makes him feel scared like he may hit him. This worker asked what could help N[.] feel safe with his father. N[.] stated his father accepting him, getting less angry, and not saying bad things about their mother would help him to feel safe.
During the social worker's interview with Mother, Mother told her that she filed the protective order because Father told her she "would rot in hell if she did not repent[,]" that he was "not of this world" and he was a "messenger of God" and it scared her. Although the social worker attempted to schedule an in-person appointment with Father, he was unwilling to do so. Father told the social worker over the telephone that Mother has influenced their children to believe that they are transgender and gay by taking them to pride parades before they have fully gone through puberty. He told her that "no one, not even a police officer, a judge, or a social services worker, will ever tell him what he is going to call his children or the pronouns he is going to use." He mentioned that "God does not agree with a man laying down with a man" and he expressed "how his faith does not agree with the LGBTQ+ community."
Father testified that since 2019, he has not seen S. nor does he have a relationship with S. He claims the lack of a relationship has "nothing to do with h[im] wanting to be called S[.]" or because he identifies as transgender but because Mother "encourages the isolation, alienation, compartmentalization of the [F]ather." He testified that "most" of the texts that he has sent to S. over the last couple of years are related to S. identifying as transgender, and that his texts, which "reflect[ ] the truth[,]" are sent to present S. with an opposing view of the transgender community. He also admitted to sending a three page, single-spaced email to S. on March 5, 2022, which was admitted into evidence, in which he presented his detailed view of Mother's faults, the parties' failed marriage, and why the parties' divorced.
The court asked Father a few questions. The court asked if he and his children were "just not discuss[ing] the idea of transgender or homosexuality, or [do] you want them to be tolerant of you not accepting it, … are you … expecting tolerance both ways, or are you expecting only tolerance your way?" Father responded that when the children are older they can all be in the same room and "agree to disagree[,]" but that he texts S. "so that she has a picture of all sides." The court then asked Father if he texts S. "about anything else" and the following colloquy occurred:
[FATHER]: Uh … I could check my phone, Your Honor, but—and I could talk for hours about what my beliefs are about—
THE COURT: I'm not—that's not—look; this, to me, just so it's clear to everyone in the room, everyone can be—have their own beliefs. That's fine; I'm not one who's going to tell you what you should believe or shouldn't belie[ve], because some persons believe what's right or wrong…. You're not here to make me have your beliefs or anybody else. You're not here to convince me that their beliefs are right and you[rs] are wrong. I don't care. Right? All I care about is the impact in this circumstance of what is going on with regard to your children, and whether I believe they need some protection. That's what I—that's my job.
So, I understand your beliefs, and you have very strong Biblical beliefs and you are entitled to those. But it's my question, what I'm trying to get at, because I believe—and [Father's attorney], I apologize for asking some questions, but I believe that's really the heart of this case, is what is going on when you are communicating with them. Is there any more to you [inaudible] other than you trying to show these different views about transgender[?]
The court then reiterated its question about whether Father communicates with S. on other topics or texts him, ' "I love you', 'I miss you', 'How are things going?', 'How's school?' " Father responded, "[t]here hasn't been much communication[.]"
Father again admitted that his relationship with his children is "pretty contentious because of what I would consider to be a concerted effort on their mother's part to pit one child against a parent" and to "purposely steer my son into this arena, because it's to her liking." He admitted to calling the police when Mother took the children to the Pride Parade, after which he called the Crisis Hotline and then Legal Aid. He testified that he is concerned for his children's souls and has no intent to harm them.
After both parties testified, the court interviewed both children privately. After the interview, the court summarized the interviews. The court stated that S. "is a strong person[,]" and although S. was "worried" about Father's behavior in the past, he was not upset by Father's current text messages. In contrast, the court stated that N. is "frightened" by Father's behavior and "worries" that Father does not believe him around his sexual identity, believing instead that it has to do with Mother's "manipulat[ion.]"
The court granted the protective order petition as to N. but denied the petition as to Mother and S. The court found by a preponderance of the evidence that Father "has repeatedly communicated in person and through text messages homophobic comments and religious beliefs, causing mental injury to N[.] N[.] communicated to the court that he is fearful of his father because of his father's anger and aggressiveness in the past and his reaction to him coming out as gay." The order provides that Father: 1) shall not abuse or threaten to abuse N.; 2) shall not enter N.'s residence; 3) may continue to have visitation as set forth in the previous order but visitation with Father "can only occur if N[.] is comfortable doing so"; and 4) may call or text N. "but may not use that communication to abuse N[.] regarding sexual orientation and/or religion." The order is effective until June 22, 2023….
Father argues that the circuit court erred in finding that Father inflicted a mental injury on N. and he advances two contentions. First, Father contends that Mother's petition for a temporary protective order was insufficient because it failed to allege facts from which a court could find that Father's actions and behavior caused mental injury to N. Second, Father contends that there was insufficient evidence presented at the final protective order hearing for the court to find that he caused mental injury to N. or that he did so intentionally. Mother responds that she sufficiently pled mental injury in her petition for a temporary protective order, and there was sufficient evidence presented at the hearing from which the circuit court could find by a preponderance of evidence that Father's actions caused mental injury to N. and that those actions were intentional. We agree with Mother. We explain.
Family Law ("FL") Article, subsection 5 of title 4 of the of the Maryland Code, governs domestic violence. Its purpose is "to protect and aid victims of domestic abuse by providing … immediate and effective remed[ies]" wide in variety and scope to "avoid future abuse." "[T]he primary goals of the statute are preventative, protective and remedial, not punitive."
A judge may issue a final protective order if they find abuse by a preponderance of the evidence. " '[P]reponderance of the evidence' means 'more likely than not[.]' " "Abuse" of a child is defined as "the physical or mental injury of a child under circumstances that indicate that the child's health or welfare is harmed or at substantial risk of being harmed[.]"
"Mental injury" is defined by statute as "the observable, identifiable, and substantial impairment of a child's mental or psychological ability to function caused by an intentional act or series of acts[.]" Both physical and mental harm must be intentional and cannot be the product of an accident. The scienter element of mental and physical injury can be met by showing a parent acted in reckless disregard for the child's welfare. "Reckless conduct" is conduct that amounts to a "gross departure from the type of conduct a reasonable person would engage in under the circumstances." …
Father argues that there was insufficient evidence presented at the final protective order hearing to prove that he caused mental injury to N. or that he did so intentionally. In advancing this argument, Father attempts to redirect the gravamen of the case to the incident on June 12, 2022. He reframes the incident as not about his reaction to N.'s statement that he was gay but about N.'s refusal to let him see his phone and TikTok account, which was a challenge to Father's authority. Father then argues that his decision to end the visit was a "reasonable" way to discipline his son for refusing to give him access to his TikTok account. Father also reframes the court's conclusion after interviewing N. that he is "frightened," "worried," and "fearful with his [F]ather's anger," as a result of the text message Father sent N. the day before the incident. Father argues that the court's conclusion lacked "legal analysis or rational explanation" because the court failed to explain how the one text message frightened N. or how N.'s fear and worry impacted his ability to function mentally. Lastly, Father argues that because he specifically testified that he did not intend to harm N., there was insufficient evidence of the required intent.
We disagree with Father's arguments and hold that the circuit court did not err in finding that it was more likely than not that Father's actions caused substantial risk of harm to N. within the meaning of FL § 5-701(b)(1)(i), and Father's actions were intentional or with reckless disregard as to the consequences of his actions….
Under the circumstances presented, we find no error by the trial court in finding that Father had mentally abused N. The circuit court concluded that N. was "frightened," "scared," and "fearful" of his Father's anger and his Father's refusal to accept his sexual orientation. Contrary to Father's argument, in reaching that conclusion the court relied on, among other things, its interview with N. in which the court "saw with my own eyes" N.'s fear about his Father's anger regarding his sexual orientation; the text message Father sent N. the day before their interaction on June 12, 2022, in which Father stated "you are being heavily manipulated and influenced by your mother and sister…. Please please do not allow these demons you are surrounded by influence you. Pray my son. For protection."; and the CPS report in which the social worker related that N. told her that he does not feel safe with Father, and he fears that Father might hit him because Father is angry and does not accept N.'s sexual orientation.
The court also heard Mother's testimony that when she picked N. up from Father's house after the incident and asked if N. was okay, N. responded, "I am now[,]" clearly suggesting that N. was not okay when he had been with Father. Additionally, the court expressly stated that it did not find credible Father's testimony that his actions were not intended to harm his children but were only intended "to just share another view." In assessing credibility, the circuit court is "entitled to accept—or reject—all, part, or none of the testimony of any witness, whether that testimony was or was not contradicted or corroborated by any other evidence." Moreover, Father's communications with N.'s sibling and the resulting harm provided the court with additional evidence that was relevant in assessing the seriousness of the abuse and the "substantial risk of harm" to N. by Father's actions.
Under these circumstances, we find no error by the circuit court in ruling that there was sufficient evidence of mental abuse of N. by Father and that these acts were done intentionally or with a conscious disregard or indifference to N.'s welfare….
To get the Volokh Conspiracy Daily e-mail, please sign up here.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
This is sad — and outrageous.
And as to social workers, I’m reminded of what Lord Jeffery Amherst said about Indians.
not so much what he said, but the small pox infested blankets (how long before Mike Lindell has “My Blanket”)
Ummm, the germ theory of disease wasn’t established until 1880, this was well over a century earlier when the best & brightest medical minds of the time still believed in miasma theory.
So even if he actually gave the Indians smallpox infected blankets, and there’s no evidence he did, he would have neither known (a) that they were infected and (b) that the Indians lacked the immunity that Europeans had.
But I’m all for giving social workers infected blankets…
There are recorded cases of Brits and Americans giving smallpox blankets to Indians during the French and Indian War. Doesn’t take modern science to understand contagion. People have understood the relation between sex and children without any understanding of what eggs and sperm are.
There’s evidence of intent – less of actual effect :
https://www.history.com/news/colonists-native-americans-smallpox-blankets
Lol why don’t you go murder some social workers instead of being a weirdo posting online if it’s so important to you.
What is this “it” that is not important to you? Whether young women are manipulated by their mothers into having their breasts hacked off?
So I guess Edward (no relation to Bruce/Kaitlin)Jenner was Psychic, coming up with the Small Pox Vaccine in the 18th Century.
I only know that because I’m a Doctor (and got a used 1952 Copy of the World Book Encyclopedia in 1970 (missing the “M-N” volume, don’t aske me anything about Minnesota, New Hampshire, New York, Nova Scotia…)
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1200696/
Next you’re gonna be saying it was Christopher Columbus who discovered the Earth is round…
Frank
All he knew was that milkmaids (a) got cowpox and (b) didn’t get smallpox and all he proved was that a past cowpox infection prevented smallpox. He didn’t know why.
A Hungarian doctor named Ignaz Semmelweis came to a similar conclusion in 1846 regarding handwashing preventing childbirth fever — he didn’t know why, and they shipped him off to the insane asylum.
And the earth is NOT round — it’s actually an oblate spheroid.
Must be my Glaucoma medication, because I could swear you’re slamming one of the greatest Medical Advances since Leaches, as “All he Knew”
speaking of “Knowing” Know anyone who’s had Smallpox??
Oblate Spheroid, look at the Big Brain on Brett! and I love when Hank Williams jr does “Are you ready for some Prolate Spheroid?!?!?!?”
Mengele:
“Oblate Spheroid, look at the Big Brain on Brett!”
Hey, Mengele, keep yur crackpots straight.
“I only know that because I’m a Doctor. . .”
Sure. You’re a doctor in the same way that Harland Sanders was a colonel.
Thanks, I am and he was
Colonel Harland Sanders was commissioned by Governor Ruby Laffoon in 1935 and launched Kentucky Fried Chicken as a franchise chain in 1952.
Kentucky Colonel is the highest title of honor bestowed by the Commonwealth of Kentucky, and is the most well-known of a number of honorary colonelcies conferred by United States governors.[1] A Kentucky Colonel Commission (the certificate) is awarded in the name of the Commonwealth by the Governor of Kentucky to individuals with “Honorable” titular style recognition preceding the names of civilians aged 18 or over, for noteworthy accomplishments, contributions to civil society, remarkable deeds, or outstanding service to the community, state, or a nation.[2] The Governor bestows the honorable title with a colonelcy commission, by issuance of letters patent.
While many famous and noteworthy people have received commissions as Kentucky colonels, the award is equally available to those of all backgrounds based on their deeds. A Kentucky Colonel is traditionally considered a goodwill ambassador of the Kentucky state, culture, folklore, traditions and values
As most everyone knows, he was an honorary colonel which made him as much a colonel as as an honorary degree makes someone a doctor. An actual colonel is one who holds a military rank. “A Kentucky Colonel is traditionally considered a goodwill ambassador of the Kentucky state, culture, folklore, traditions and values.” Harland Sanders was as much a colonel as Major Garrett is a major.
“No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States”
So *states* (which the Commonwealth of Kentucky is) can grant them? And what I never understood is how Kentucky, formed post 1789, had the right to become a Commonwealth (because Virginia was one). Maine is only a state.
For those who wonder, the Commonwealths are MA, PA, VA, & KY. Fun things you learn researching a doctorate…
“Commonwealths are MA, PA, VA, & KY.“
I am absolutely, completely shocked. This is actually an accurate factual statement by Ed.
StellaLink_the dog: “An actual colonel is one who holds a military rank.”
Your asserting this does not make it so.
Harland Sanders was an ACTUAL Kentucky Colonel. Unlike the “Major” in “Major Garrett” it is a title and not a given name.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kentucky_Colonel
My point is that he didn’t know that Smallpox was caused by the variola virus, or even what a virus was.
He wouldn’t have to know how it worked, just that it worked.
No, it actually was more likely for smallpox infected blankets to confer immunity than cause disease.
And since innoculation was known well before that time I’m surprised it was even tried.
“Smallpox inoculation was a simple procedure: a doctor removed pus from an active pustule of an infected person, and then inserted that pus into the skin of a non-infected person via a small incision. The insertion of the pus resulted in the inoculated person contracting smallpox. Despite being infected, the inoculated person usually experienced only mild symptoms that were not life threatening. Inoculation had been practiced for centuries in parts of Asia and northeastern Africa before being introduced to Europe, and eventually the North American colonies.”
So if the blankets had remnants of pustules and contacted the skin of people who hasn’t been exposed before it would confer immunity not disease.https://www.nps.gov/articles/000/smallpox-inoculation-revolutionary-war.htm
It would confer immunity to the ones it didn’t kill off. Then they’d just have to survive having their tribe decimated.
So the Dad’s the bad guy because he doesn’t support his daughter getting the Add-a-dick-to-me??
and I’m confused, (as usual) so the “Son” was “Assigned” Female at birth and now wants to play on the Boys team??
Frank
Obviously. Anything that doesn’t attack the West’s traditional order is “hateful” and “abusive.”
No, not anything. You? Definitely. Proudly so, it seems.
Would you answer a question? When you change your onscreen ID — I couldn’t even guess many you’ve had; the only one I recall offhand is “Aktenberg” which I think is the most recent though I may have missed one or two — is it because Eugene or one of the other Conspirators or someone from Reason itself has banned your then-current persona? Or is it just whimsy or some other reason?
I don’t care personally. I only ask because RAK alleges that Eugene singles him out for censorship because of his left-wing ideology. If you’ve also been moderated/banned, that would be an interesting data point to Arthur’s argument.
More importantly, the disorder of “cutting” — intentionally inflicting unnecessary lacerations on one’s arms or elsewhere — is a *female* practice — males don’t do it. Or at least I’ve never seen a report of it.
So “he” is “cutting”? I think he’s really the she she was born as.
“Males don’t do it”
Oh really Ed? APA estimates 35% to 50% male.
Why do you do this? It took me 2 seconds to find this statistic.
This is an ostensibly legal blog, not a fucking bar. Why you insist on coming into these threads and crapping all over the place with your pointless, inaccurate and too cute by half anecdotes is really beyond me. Save it for the drunks at Applebees.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25795294/
“The results showed that across studies women were significantly more likely to report a history of NSSI than men.”
The actual comparison of rates doesn’t appear in the abstract
“The actual comparison of rates doesn’t appear in the abstract”
So you said something similar to what Estragon said, but he did it with numbers and yiu did it with vague words. Seems on-brand.
“he doesn’t support his daughter getting the Add-a-dick-to-me”
There’s nothing that said anything about surgery, or even puberty blockers. Why do cultural conservatives always go straight to the surgery place? Are they that insecure that they have valid arguments?
If a trangender kid just socially transitions, or socially transitions and takes puberty blockers, do you fear your argument will be too weak to convince people that those are bad things? Is that why every anti-trans argument prominently features claims of surgical procedures when the occurance of surgery is vanishingly small in pre-adults?
And yes. Calling your kid a tranny and claiming their mother is the problem for letting them go to a Pride event is pretty clearly the behavior of a bad guy.
“Valid arguments!” You’ll be lucky to get “coherent sentences” from the right.
They know they’re stupid, because their heroes basically tell them so. The message is essentially “hey my people, you can’t possibly understand what’s going on so I’m going to tell you: your craziest fears are true!” It’s not “think for yourself” like on the left. It’s “allow me to do the thinking for you.”
So the best strategy is just to keep reminding them how stupid they are. Eventually they’ll give up and go back to worrying about their cars and their spray-tans.
“Father told the social worker over the telephone that Mother has influenced their children to believe that they are transgender and gay by taking them to pride parades before they have fully gone through puberty.”
“Taking” is not “letting them go”.
Maybe the events I’ve seen in San Francisco’s Castro District are atypical, but keeping kids away from them is no evidence of “bad” fatherhood any more than not being happy at his ex-wife taking his kids to Drag Queen Story Hour.
Being rampantly homophobic towards your kids is bad fathering, even if they aren’t gay.
It is not for you or these egregious bureaucrats to decide that religious beliefs are unacceptably “homophobic”. When the kids grow up they will be entitled to decide to agree with these judges’ opinion that buggery, etc., is perfectly fine despite their father’s religious beliefs. As minors they shouldn’t get to gag their father on the subject.
Actually, since it is before the court and is the issue at hand, it is for the court to decide. Kids shouldn’t have to endure that kind of abuse until they reach majority out of some misguided reverence for religion.
The idea that courts are not entitled to decide every issue dragged into court may be alien to you, but you are an evil totalitarian.
This isn’t ‘every issue dragged into court,’ this is one issue, and the evidence is right there and only uncompelling to people who agree with the idea of abusing kids who aren’t straight or cis.
The evidence is right there that the totalitarian judge thinks he has a right to impose his Lefty-religious approval of homosexuality on the father.
No, the evidence is there that the father verbally abused the kid.
False.
You’re just cool with children being abused. Right-wing people throw that accusation around a lot, it’s rare and unpleasant to see it actually merited.
What gives you the right to impose this moral belief on others??? You realize that this is the same argument used by fascists and communists everywhere?? You must comply with OUR beliefs, or you will be dehumanized. Why is the left always so authoritarian? You are reaping the whirlwind.
No, the argument used by fascists was that the Jews and coosmopolitans were imposing their moral beliefs on them, corrupting children, weakening the moral fibre and gene pool of the Nation, and that the poor fascists were being subjected to authoritarianism. They were also insanely homophobic.
““Taking” is not “letting them go”.”
Since they are too young to drive, it really does.
“Drag Queen Story Hour”
Again with the idea that people dressed in costumes shouldn’t read books to kids? Tell me you’re a bigot without saying it.
“When the truth is found to be lies,
And all the joy within you dies – – – – – – “
You might recognize this song as performed by Jefferson Airplane, in a little rockumentary called “Gimme Shelter,” about the Rolling Stones and their nightmare at Altamont. That night the Oakland chapter of the Hell’s Angels had their way. Tonight, it’s my turn.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altamont_Free_Concert
Mengele: “Tonight, it’s my turn.”
Still entertaining delusions of significance.
it’s a line from “The Cable Guy”
Can’t you both be right?
Wrong parent – its the mother who is harming the child.
Concur – pseudo beliefs implanted in the mind of a distressed child.
further hampered by those who embrace the current fad in mental health treatment.
Always great to hear concerns about “pseudo beliefs” from people trying to defend a hateful, bigoted, superstitious asshole who claims his entire world revolves around the delusion that childish fairy tales are true.
Carry on, clingers. Your betters will let you know how far, how long, etc.
the rev – again demonstrating his inability to distinquish quality medical science from woke pseudo medical treatment
Do you mean the existence of human homosexuality? Pretty well documented.
Implanted beliefs changing one’s sexuality? Not so much.
the belief that a mental illness can be cured with a biological treatment including but limited to mutilation, rearranging the plumbing,. Along with the failure to recognize that the diagnosis is just the latest fad in the long sordid history of the mental health profession of false diagnosis and treatments.
Not a mental illness, the treatment has a 99% satisfaction rating.
Yeah, you’re fantasizing that.
Not only is he fantasizing it, he is believing agenda driven social science. Like most woke progressives, he lacks the intellectual capacity to recognize pseudo science.
As opposed to the rigorous science of your “It’s bad because I don’t like it” system?
Too many links in my previous comment. Try this:https://whatweknow.inequality.cornell.edu/topics/lgbt-equality/what-does-the-scholarly-research-say-about-the-well-being-of-transgender-people/
‘Regrets following gender transition are extremely rare and have become even rarer as both surgical techniques and social support have improved. Pooling data from numerous studies demonstrates a regret rate ranging from .3 percent to 3.8 percent. Regrets are most likely to result from a lack of social support after transition or poor surgical outcomes using older techniques.’
Looks like I overstated it by about 2.8%. My bad.
Nige
you need to develop basic skills in Distinguish good science and agenda driven social science.
Very short follow up periods and low response rates Bouman 2016 – 30 month follow up period Silva 2016 12 month follow up period Colizzi 2013 – 12 month follow up period hess 2014 5 year follow up period , but only 46% response rate Keo 2015 – 3 month follow up period
bottom line the meta study you linked is crapp
Nige – again demonstrating a complete inability to distinguish valid science
Whetever else about it, it’s superior to all the studies supporting your various assertions on the subject by dint of actually existing.
“bottom line the meta study you linked is crap”
While I’m sure your opinion is better than a peer-reviewed meta analysis, you can use this one instead. It followed up on patients from 1970-1990.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36149983/
““bottom line the meta study you linked is crap””
Or this one. It followed up on patients from 1 to 11 years post-surgery.
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fendo.2014.00087/full
“bottom line the meta study you linked is crap”
Or this one:
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15532739.2011.675233
“bottom line the meta study you linked is crap”
Or this one:
https://journals.lww.com/plasreconsurg/Abstract/9900/_Regret_after_Gender_Affirming_Surgery___A.1529.aspx
I assume you get the point, Joe. The myth of large-scale regret and detransitioning (especially for reasons other than family/social pressure) is just that: a myth.
When peer-reviewed studies find the same thing over and over again, maybe you should consider you might be wrong?
Joe and Brett’s idea of “valid science” is when the results agree with their priors.
I guess the ones who committed suicide weren’t available to answer the surveys.
99.7% “no regrets” isn’t even plausible. When a Dear Leader gets that kind of vote we all know it’s fraud even before we know the details about how the result was achieved.
But, yeah, these are more or less the same people claiming there’s a 97% agreement by scientists on Climate Catastrophe.
Since there is no ‘dear leader’ we can discount that as a factor then! Good job.
You are a moron if you missed my point that badly.
But, yeah, Nige = moron is not exactly a new observation.
Honestly, I was giving you more credit than you deserve. Baseless accusations of fraud are baseless.
Utterly implausible (but “politically correct” and financially profitable) claims are in fact evidence of fraud.
Yeah, you have a non-existent standard for evidence.
“99.7% “no regrets” isn’t even plausible”
Why would you say that, Gandy? This is data, collected and available for scrutiny. What is your reasoning for making accusations of falsehood?
By the time someone chooses to transition (especially surgically), they have been considering and wrestling with the decision for a long time. Those who transition are self-selected for those who cannot find a way to live without transitioning.
If this was a survey of people who thought they might be trans, the numbers would be very different. But it isn’t, it’s those who have made a decision that will open them up to danger from those who can’t just let others live their lives in the way they choose.
99.7% is inherently simply unbelievable, especially if the satisfaction is being expressed with so inherently unsatisfactory a process as “transitioning”. If this child “transitions” she will find that afterwards she is not in fact a boy. And boys do not become, after all, girls. Considerable disappointment is inevitable and if a survey doesn’t reflect that then it is obviously fraudulent. That you don’t grasp this is unfortunate, but believing the incredible is what religion (here, wokeness) does all the time.
“If this child “transitions” she will find that afterwards she is not in fact a boy.”
Since they don’t expect that to happen, why would they be dissatisfied?
This idea that trans people believe that they will have different organs or chromosomes is one of the weirdest ones that anti-trans bigots hold.
Trans people aren’t stupid. They know the limits to what medical science can do. Why cultural conservatives want to pretend they don’t is one of many (so, so many) things that don’t make sense about cultural conservatism.
“if a survey doesn’t reflect that then it is obviously fraudulent”
How? In what way are these surveys fraudulent? You can see them for yourself. Nothing is being hidden from you.
The only counter-argument is that you can’t imagine being satisfied with one of the transitioning methods, so you assume those who have actively sought the treatment couldn’t be, either.
When data collected in a rigorous way, years or decades apart, transparently presented, and resulting in clear results don’t conform to your beliefs, predicated on your feelings, a rational person would admit they might be wrong.
You and your intellectual compatriots clearly aren’t rational.
“That you don’t grasp this is unfortunate”
Believing empirical data over biased, but firmly held, beliefs is unfortunate in your world? Sure, that whole “believing evidence” thing is such a terrible way to understand the world.
I could use a 2000 year old book of fairy tales with a loose connection to history instead.
Or just believe that everything I think is right, even if it isn’t supported by and factual support.
Sorry, I’ll go with accepting things that have been examined and found to be accurate over superstition or believing my own infallibility. But you do you.
Nelson makes the following comment – Nelson 19 hours ago (edited)
““bottom line the meta study you linked is crap””
Or this one. It followed up on patients from 1 to 11 years post-surgery.
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fendo.2014.00087/full
Nelson – Read the F*ng study – the raw data doesnt say what you think it says.
“between 2005 and early 2014”
Oh, my mistake. Between 1 and 9 years, not 1 and 11 years. Still not the short-term study you (wrongly) claimed.
Also, the various studies that support my position vadtly outnumber the zero studies that support yours.
Claiming a mistake of 2 years of a multi-year period invalidates my position while your completely nonexistent support doesn’t invalidate yours is completely irrational.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8099405/
“A total of 27 studies, pooling 7928 transgender patients who underwent any type of GAS, were included. The pooled prevalence of regret after GAS was 1% (95% CI <1%–2%)."
That sure seems like a 99% satisfaction rating.
Nelson –
I presume you read all the 97% plus satisfaction studies before you posted the links
I presume you noticed the A) short follow up periods, B) the methodology mostly questioniares, C) the low response rates, less than 50% in many of the studies D) mixing the pre surgery responses with post surgery responses, E) the “poor” & “fair ” confidence levels in the studies used due to the inherent biases in the methodology.
Other than those qualifying limitations, I sure those studies meet the high standards associated with social science studies.
In other words,
“I presume you noticed the A) short follow up periods”
Some are. Some cover 20+ years and were published over 10 years after the studied period. One covered people from 1-11 years after surgery. So no, they were not all over short periods and they all found similar results. One specifically identified 10.8 years. So not short at all.
“B) the methodology mostly questioniares”
Also not true, although questionnaires aren’t inaccurate measuring tools. So even if every one of them used questionnaires, this wouldn’t make them invalid.
“C) the low response rates, less than 50% in many of the studies”
Especially on the one that studied surgical patients from 1979-1990 and was published after 2000, that isn’t surprising. Nor is it invalidating.
“D) mixing the pre surgery responses with post surgery responses”
You mean measuring satisfaction before surgery and confirming it remains the same post-surgery? How crazy! Why would they monitor changes in satisfaction in a study measuring satisfaction?
“E) the “poor” & “fair ” confidence levels in the studies used due to the inherent biases in the methodology.”
Yes, that’s how good science works. They not only identify the conclusions that the data indicated, they identify the confidence level based on statistical and scientific convention.
Of course, your studies have the same … oh, wait. You just have your opinion to back you up? It must suck coming to an intellectual shootout unarmed.
“the belief that a mental illness can be cured with a biological treatment….”
You just described most of modern psychiatry. Which includes anxiety drugs, anti-depressants, and ADHD medications. Also Viagra (yes, Virginia, ED is significantly mental in most patients).
You also described direct surgical interventions like corpus collostomy (for seizures) and cingulotomy (for pain).
You also described a great many body modifications that improve happiness and mood, and can stave off depression (e.g. cleft palate repair, breast reconstruction secondary to massive mastectomy, orthodonture, etc.)
Not to mention testosterone injections for the low-T man, and hormone replacement therapy for (men and) women. Those directly correlate with reduced mental illness.
What else ya got?
“ED is significantly mental in most patients”
That would come as quite a surprise to millions of Type 1 diabetics, those who have had prostate surgery, and those who have had an open Hartmann’s Procedure colon resection and/or colovesical fistula repair for Diverticulitis.
I think they’d tell you the spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak.
That’s fair. I’ll stand by my “most” meaning more than half.
Perhaps you’ll show me I’m still wrong , but I think I read that most Viagra is sold to folks who do not have physical-etiology ED.
I liked it better when Yogi Berra said it (it was actually Jim Wohlford, Yogi didn’t say 90% of the things he said)
” 90% of ED is 1/2 Mental” was the Actual Quote (“Baseball” instead of “ED” of course)
Frank
We’re talking about a per-pubescent 12 year old. There’s scarcely any sexuality at that age TO change. The mom didn’t change the kid’s sexuality, she just planted the notion that he was a homosexual at an age when he wasn’t ANYTHING yet.
‘she just planted the notion that he was a homosexual’
You have no evidence for this, other than the father, and he doesn’t exactly back it up with anything other than ranting about Baphomet. The only alternative is that some kids DO know at an early age. Baphomet/some kids develop earlier than others, which to choose?
very similar to the discredited repressed memory syndrome that was the fad diagnosis de jour of its day. Also considered the gold standard diagnosis of its day.
both the repressed memory syndrome and the “transgender” / “born in the wrong body” are diagnosis implanted into the minds of the mentally ill.
You seem to think that you’re an expert on nearly everything, so I guess it’s believable that you’d have some first-hand understanding of mental illnesses.
Nice of you to display your ignorance of basic science,
care to point to any statement I have made that is incorrect
You’ve provided precisely zero evidence for any of the ranting you’ve engaged in thus far, so on its face, everything you’ve said is presumably wrong.
Claiming people are having transgendersim somehow implanted in children is satanic panic bullshit.
Claiming that per-pubescent children could already be homosexuals or transgenders is lunacy. Children don’t normally HAVE a sexual orientation, as such, prior to puberty! How is a kid who doesn’t yet have sexual urges going to know they’re sexually attracted to the same sex, when they’re not sexually attracted to ANYONE yet?
It’s the sort of notion a kid is only going to get if it was deliberately fed to them.
Explains the massive increase in it and why it seems to be focused so heavily in highly progressive political locations.
Some people say they knew they were gay, or at least different, at an early age, some do not. Perhaps experts in child psychology and behviour could explain it.
damikesc – perhaps that’s because they don’t get bundled off to conversion therapy at the first sign of being different in progressive areas.
Nige: “perhaps that’s because they don’t get bundled off to conversion therapy at the first sign of being different in progressive areas.”
Or perhaps in “progressive” areas they are propagandized by an unfortunate selection of deranged mothers who take them to Gay Pride marches and Drag Queen Story Hours to implant the idea that mental illness is a good choice.
If ‘propagandised’ means they aren’t subjected to rantings and ravings about Baphomet and ugly verbal abuse?
I said with great clarity that “propagandize” was in this instance “tak[ing] them to Gay Pride marches and Drag Queen Story Hours to implant the idea that mental illness is a good choice.”
But I guess you don’t need to PRETEND to be stupid.
As to “ravings about Baphomet”, I am not a Christian (or religious in any way) but I assume that that’s a reference to his Bible. And, yes, religious freedom definitely includes the right (in this case on alternate weekends) to teach your kids your religious beliefs even if some jackass called “Nige” doesn’t like them.
They’re only ‘propaganda’ if you hate gay people, and neither has anything to do with mental illness.
You are having a lot of problems with the idea that you don’t get to dictate to everyone else what they are allowed to think.
As did this miserable excuse for a judge,
Tell that to the Dad.
Parents do in fact have a right to bring up their children in their religion. That you think the State has the right to veto that says a lot about you, only some of which I’ve gotten around to saying.
No, the state has a right to intervene if a parent abuses a child. Millions bring up thir kids in their religion without resorting to abuse. This guy did.
You keep claiming that telling a truth different than the “progressive” one is abuse, but that is well past tedious.
No, subjecting your lgtbq children to religously extremist homophobic hate is abuse.
Hi again. Check the research. The notion of implanting memories has very weak support in the literature. Even weaker if we’re talking about shifting a kid’s gender identification or sexuality.
yet implanting memories was being done via the “repressed memory syndrome” and it was considered the gold standard diagnosis/treatment at the time.
Joe, I thought you said repressed memories were bullshit. But implanted gender beliefs aren’t?
Pick a side.
You are confused or, more likely, simply dishonest. That the “memories” are or ever were “repressed” is bullshit. That they can be implanted isn’t. That the children are trannies is bullshit, that the belief and behavior can be propagandized for isn’t. These observations are not in opposition to each other.
There has been absolutely no connection drawn between the repressed memory stuff and being trans. None whatsoever.
Nelson made the comparison. I know it’s more difficult for short bus people than others, but please try harder to keep up.
No, Joe_dallas has been making the claim.
Reading comprehension: FAIL
“Nelson “Joe, I thought you said repressed memories were bullshit. But implanted gender beliefs aren’t?”
me: “That the “memories” are or ever were “repressed” is bullshit. That they can be implanted isn’t. That the children are trannies is bullshit, that the belief and behavior can be propagandized for isn’t. These observations are not in opposition to each other.”
Can you seriously contend that my response wasn’t on point? And right?
I mean, you can and often do say things that stupid. But only because you are dim and shameless,.
Your assumption is that I was replying to you rather than J_D.
YOU’ve chosen not to invent that excuse until now. Semi-clever, but no sale.
“Reading comprehension: FAIL”
Yes, you did.
Joe: “yet implanting memories was being done via the “repressed memory syndrome” and it was considered the gold standard diagnosis/treatment at the time.”
As a reply to Reallynotbob:
“The notion of implanting memories has very weak support in the literature. Even weaker if we’re talking about shifting a kid’s gender identification or sexuality.”
So he’s claiming that repressed memories are bullshit, but supports the idea that a child’s gender identity can be implanted. He can’t have it both ways.
YOU wrote “Joe, I thought you said repressed memories were bullshit. But implanted gender beliefs aren’t?”
I responded, “That the “memories” are or ever were “repressed” is bullshit. That they can be implanted isn’t. That the children are trannies is bullshit, that the belief and behavior can be propagandized for isn’t. These observations are not in opposition to each other.”
I stand by every word of that.
nelson – learn to read –
The repressed memory syndrome as it existed in the 1970/1980’s before that gold standard treatment was discredited consisted primarily of implanting false memories into the minds of mentally ill patients.
Very similar to implanting the false belief into the minds of mentally ill patients that their mental illness is due to being born in the wrong body.
‘YOU’ve chosen not to invent that excuse until now.’
You’re overthinking.
Tell me you’ve never worked with kids without telling me you’ve never worked with kids.
Brett went first.
Speaking for myself, I’ve observed a 10-yo experiencing gender dysphoria and can report that it presented clear as day. There may be edge cases out there, but this was for sure. (P.S. I met this particular child about 25 years ago, so it wasn’t a function of current society; transgenderism was barely talked about then.)
NotBob — I’ve met skinny-as-a-rail female undergrads who clearly thought that they were outright *fat*, not merely overweight.
On one occasion, it took me a minute to realize that “87 pounds” was 087 lb and not 187 lbs — 187 lbs still being way below the threshold of where I would be considered anorexic under the “10% below ideal” definition. Another had photos of even skinnier women in bikinis as her laptop screen saver “as encouragement.”
I didn’t affirm their mistaken belief that they were overweight, and affirm an equally pathological belief that they were male would be equally wrong. The literature talks about people wanting to have a perfectly good arm or leg cut off and no ethical surgeon would ever do this!
“187 lbs still being way below the threshold of where I would be considered anorexic under the “10% below ideal” definition“
Can I ask you a personal question. How tall are you? Be honest!
12?? I was jerking off like a friggin horny Chimpanzee at 12, lets see, “Ginger” from Gilligan’s Island, “Agent 99” from “Get Smart” Raquel Welch from “Fantastic Voyage”, my Baby Sitters, My Aunt (go ahead “Reverend” she was 20 and hot), I even learned to do it with my right hand so I wouldn’t wear out my pitching arm,
OK, maybe at 10 I wasn’t doing it,
Frank “Still doing it (hey, I’m away from home alot) “
I had sex for the first time when I was 12. And no, she wasn’t a pedophile, she was also 12. And fortunately I had a mother who told me what my Midwestern conservative sex ed wouldn’t, so I knew what a condom was and how to use one.
“The mom didn’t change the kid’s sexuality, she just planted the notion that he was a homosexual at an age when he wasn’t ANYTHING yet.”
Nothing except the father’s assertions support that. The mother doesn’t seem to be doing anything except supporting her kids. The father doesn’t seem to be doing anything but the opposite.
The Gay Pride Parade was child abuse.
Of course it was.
The mother apparently celebrated it, and indeed of course that was abuse of her children. No wonder they BOTH ended totally fucked up.
Somehow THAT “mental damage” was invisible to this egregious judge.
You mean making the kids feel as if they *weren’t* evil abominations seduced by Baphomet and damned to suffer the eternal torments of hell?
Love is apparently abusive and hate is love, in the cultural conservative worldview.
Using slurs against your kids and spewing end-of-days delusions is clearly supportive parenting. Why can’t you see it? It’s so obvious.
LUGgies are very well documented — it’s called “being a slut.”
They are Lesbians Until Graduation because they are rewarded for that, and then they become heterosexuals afterwards because they are rewarded for that. Hence I consider them sluts because it isn’t about sexual attraction but instead personal gain.
Me-Ow! Sensing someone lost a Boyfriend to a “LUGgie”
Ok every once in a while Drackman hits.
LUGgies are very well documented
By incels, maybe.
Up Bright and Early at https://www.cor.pa.gov/Facilities/StatePrisons/Pages/Greene.aspx
Coach????
94% of us are laughing at you. You use ‘Rev’ for that very reason !!
You have 3 traits illlustrated in this typcial post of yours
1) you are very authoritariian, hence the Rev thing (though you are unaware of this)
2) You devalue reason as you always do. Everything with you is will, motive, secret urges, etc.
3) You crave to be accepted by the very folks you belittle. You figure that if you are mean on certain issues and avoid taking a stand yourself, you think that everyone who agrees with you must personallly like and approve you.
No, Rev, I doubt anyone here with children (even the ones you court) would let you within miles of their kids 🙂
I know that readers laugh at you , I know this.
ON this particular dumb post you unwittingly show that you won’t tolerate ANY beliefs, pseudo or not, and that you act solely from unsubstantiated beliefs. You look just grotesque, keep it up 🙂
But….but…didn’t you listen to Virginia’s Lt. Governor Winsome Sears (R) who recently said:
“I’m a parent. I’m a parent all day. I get to decide what happens in my child’s life,” Sears said earlier in the segment. “Not you. Not you. Not the government. Not anybody. I don’t co-parent. I had this child. I’m responsible for this child.”
As an actual government official, she probably knows better, but it plays well on the hustings.
Oh, you’re one of those “It takes a Village” peoples
get it? “Village” “Peoples”
“Village Peoples”
and its Winsome Earle-Sears, (sounds like a Chinese Ethnic Joke, “Didya hear about the Chinese mechanic and the Oil Seals??”
Which Village Person? The cowboy? The Indian chief? The cop? The leather guy? The soldier? The construction worker?
as a former Navy Man, the “Sailor” of course
She sounds like a hopeless dumbass.
And a hero to antisocial, disaffected, destined-for-replacement clingers everywhere.
if you omitted “Bitter”, “Klinger”, and “Replacement” from your vocabulary you’d have even less to say than you already do, of course you (were) a Foo-bawl Coach, not the most mentally demanding of occupations (OK it is now, not so much during Jerry’s Hey-day) “See Player with bawl? Tackle player with bawl!”
Frank
Have you ever heard Sandusky speak?
You should pray that you never have to face her in a debate. She’d run rings around you for sure.
She was well-rehearsed with canned talking points that she could deliver fast, making her a perfect match for Bill Maher.
I, with other members of the victorious liberal-libertarian mainstream, will dance and then piss on the graves of the political preferences of right-wing culture war casualties, including those of lieutenant governor of Virginia. She has a nice title, and a sweet place at the taxpayer teat, but he is just another culture war loser and she is destined to be replaced, by a better American, sooner or later.
Jerry Sandusky’s earliest possible release date will be October 9, 2042, when he will be 98 years old.
Jerry, if you can still dance and piss at 98, you can piss on my grave,
Frank
“Sooner or later” — so you are a believer 🙂
And, folks, that is all that matters to the lazy “sounds like”
That’s the Rev, settling for ‘sounds like’ — what a concern for truth this clown has 🙂
I don’t follow apedad’s attempted Winsome Sears zinger.
This is a dispute between two parents. The court is intervening on the side of one of them. The Sears philosopht would be for the court to butt out.
Which in this case would seem to be the correct answer.
There are two parents and two kids who cannot agree on a custody/visitation agreement. That’s what the court is for. They can’t butt out of this issue.
There’s already a custody/visitation agreement.
This is an application for a protective order by one parent because she objects to the behavior of the other parent. The court could, and should, do squat.
That is Baphomet-shit crazy.
Face it, you clingers don’t understand modern society. Just watch and try to improve.
We’ll try to be better by your release date, October 9, 2042, when you’ll be 98 years old.
“The court could, and should, do squat.”
Which it did for the mom and ‘S’. ‘N’ was a different story, apparently because ‘S’ was “strong” and could withstand his dad calling him a tranny, but his younger brother was scared of and harassed by his dad, so ‘N’ got the protective order. That seems like pretty straightforward court stuff.
Except the part about courts doing their job by getting it right instead of claiming at the father was injuring the child by not acquiescing in the promotion of a crazy lefty fad.
No, it was because the Dad engaged in verbal abuse of the child.
So the idiot judge said, as well, but two morons voting is no way to arrive at the truth.
The descriptions of the abuse are right there, as well as details of how the kid felt about it.
What a kid feels about his father’s instruction doesn’t govern whether his father’s instruction is abuse. Only Lefty morons — like you and Judge Idiot — could imagine otherwise.
Nonetheless it is taken into consideration by the court, side by side woth evidence of the father’s behaviour, because it is the welfare of the child that is most important, not the father’s religious paroxysms.
Attempting to dissuade his children from making total messes of their lives is not abuse even if their terrible mother is complicit in screwing them up.
“So the idiot judge said”
And it was upheld on appeal, so not just one “idiot judge”. At least two of them found the same legal basis for protecting ‘N’ from his end-of-days father.
Subjecting your child to verbal abuse isn’t going to help anyone, except maybe himself, gratifying his own religious mania at the expense of his kids.
The court then reiterated its question about whether Father communicates with S. on other topics or texts him, ‘ “I love you’, ‘I miss you’, ‘How are things going?’, ‘How’s school?’ ” Father responded, “[t]here hasn’t been much communication[.]”
Yeah. Sounds like a real winner of a parent. (I pray you are not a parent and if you are I pray you would never treat your children this way).
Delusional, bigoted, worthless assholes have rights, too.
But emphatically not the right to inflict pointless misery on any child, which is a lesson this C.M. jerk seems destined to learn the hard way.
Jerry Sandusky, expert on inflicting pointless misery on children.
Rev, has no problem with misery that has a point hahahaha what a scream
But that is what happens when you give in to automatic writing.
“He also admitted to sending a three page, single-spaced email to S. on March 5, 2022, which was admitted into evidence, in which he presented his detailed view of Mother’s faults, the parties’ failed marriage, and why the parties’ divorced.“
Yes, this person truly has the best interests of the kid first and foremost in his Christian heart.
Bingo. Dad sounds like a typical angry party in a contentious divorce-and-custody case, with the added insanity that an end-of-times religious zealot brings.
That’s all you need to decide a parent is bad, huh?
Well, calling his kid a tranny and the other documented verbal abuse is additional evidence.
The kid has indeed been convinced she is a tranny.
The kid is trans and surrounded by people who hate that, except for the mother. Look at you cheering on the verbal abuse of a kid. Who the hell would choose to be that?
A mother-abused kid desperate for the approval of her remaining custodial parent and unequipped to properly identify her as a Lefty Loon.
The kid prefers the parent that doesn’t subject them to verbal abuse. How cunning and Lefty Loony of the mother not to verbally abuse the kid.
Telling you son that buggery is not OK is not “abuse”.
It most definitely is if done in those terms, repeatedly.
The father is entitled to say that buggery is wrong as many times as is appropriate which, with the mother’s terrible influence to be corrected, may be a lot. I see no evidence that he said it too often here.
Reasonable people see calling your kid a tranny and various other, documented abuses as justification for protecting the child from the father, who clearly struggles with reality.
That’s why N won and was upheld on appeal.
That’s a massive failure as a father, though, to put his own beliefs ahead of the wellbeing of his child. Subjecting your gay or trans kid to homophobic or transphobic abuse is evil.
Correction: mother is severely harming TWO children. When there are two LGBTQ kids in one family, something is wrong.
Why?
Math.
You clearly don’t know how math works.
Lets hear from the pro science progressives explain why the transgenderism is a real thing.
Let the pro-science progressives explain how the current fad treatment can cure a mental illness
Well, if somebody cut off my dick I wouldn’t want to play on the men’s team anymore
“The transgenderism”? You know better, Joe.
Here’s a link to the APA’s page on gender dysphoria, which is a robustly documented disorder regardless of what you and Frank and friends think. It causes depression, suicide, etc.
https://www.psychiatry.org/patients-families/gender-dysphoria/what-is-gender-dysphoria
The process of transitioning can help afflicted people. Not all. But some.
From the people who brought you eugenics theory, we have….
I guess a secular transphobe parent would be ranting and raving about eugenics?
Yes, it’s a Psychiatric condition, like Homosexuality (was) until it became socially unacceptable to call it that.
And your “Tell” is when you call it “Transitioning” which doesn’t sound so bad, “I’m Transitioning from Full Time to Part Time”, “I’m Transitioning from Field to Management”,
“I’m getting my Balls/Dick/Tits cut off”
which I guess is a “Transition” (More of a “Transection”)
would have been a great Johnny Carson bit,
“Mr Jenner is here for the Pre Transition Transaction!
“You Mean the Transection Transaction?”
“Yes, the Transaction to confirm the Transition by Transection”
“Have we received the Transmission of the Transaction for Transition by Transection?”
Frank
I always felt it was sad homosexuals had to defend merely being free by saying they were born that way.
It should be irrelevant, or an academic inquiry, as one would never grant government the power to regulate sexuality anyway. That it is to appease a false sky daddy is irrelevant.
“Poor is the man whose pleasures depend on the permission of another.” — A wise soul
Huh ? What should be irrelevant ?
Not speaking for him, but I would say that it is irrelevant whether physical and romantic attraction to someone of the same sex is something one is born with or is a “lifestyle” choice, as many religious conservatives call it. A person should be free to be who they want to be, whether that is how they were born or not.
Well, I would beg to differ. It is common for people who disapprove of other people’s lifestyle choices to state their disapproval plainly, and to try to encourage those with what they see as undesirable lifestyle choices to make different ones.
Tobacco and drug usage, poor diet, lack of exercise, credit card bingeing, failure to save, eating meat, voting Republican, voting Democrat. I’m sure you can think of a couple of thousand yourself.
There’s nothing cruel or unfair about encouraging other people to change their bad lifestyle choices (as you see them.) Some may think it is a better policy to keep quiet and let other folk get on and reap the rewards they are sowing for themselves. Some feel the need to offer advice.
But if being, and doing, gay is a “lifestyle choice” then there’s no more reason to complain about “hate” in those who criticise practitioners, than there is when onlookers choose to criticise people who drive gas guzzling cars. Gay just becomes one of those things some people approve of, and some don’t. No different to whether your neighbor recycles or not – a subject on which opinions vary all the way from “Shocking !” to “Meh.”
Conversion therapy is then not only perfectly OK and not hateful, but also actually doable. If it’s a lifestyle choice then a gay guy can be weaned off dudes, just as a fattie can be weaned off pie.
Whereas if gay is an immutable part of your furniture – like race, or like sex (or like sex used to be) – then criticism becomes more problematic.
What distinguishes hate for homosexuality from hate for gas-guzzling cars is there is certainly a rational basis for the latter, while the rational basis for the former is questionable.
That being said, the legal case for gay rights is enhanced by it not being a choice (more likely to be viewed a quasi-suspect classification) and more importantly, society’s acceptance of gay rights was greatly influenced by people coming to accept it isn’t a choice (whether or not such a factor should have played a role).
What distinguishes hate for homosexuality from hate for gas-guzzling cars is there is certainly a rational basis for the latter, while the rational basis for the former is questionable.
Or possibly the other way round.
Assuming you don’t count the fear of God raining down sulfur and fire on your city as a “rational basis”, disapproval of homosexuality can be defended on any number of eminently rational grounds :
– health risks to participants, and spillover to the rest of society
– related health care costs, borne by society
– adverse effects on societal norms necessary or desirable for the rearing of children by their natural parents
– expenditure of social resources on maintenance of useless mouths, ie mouths that do not help sustain the population
– undesirable social emphasis on sexual activity as a valuable end in itself
None of that strikes me as obviously rational. Instead, it’s pretty much on par with the arguments against same-sex marriage. That is, it likely meets the very low legal bar in the rational-basis test, but not anything that is a scintilla higher.
Of course, opinions will differ, both as to the factual questions embedded in the objections, and to the value questions. I am not surprised to find you at the more sceptical end of the spectrum. However opinions also differ on the dangers of gas guzzling cars.
You should note that – aside from health risks to the participants – I focussed on risks to society. But I could have added other potential harms to the individual – such as damaging their opportunities to have and rear children.
Traditionally, folk visiting vaguely libertarian blogs won’t worry about those sort of things, but that is definitely not true of the generality of humanity, who are quite happy to tut-tut at all sorts of entirely personal “faiings”.
In short, if gayness is just a “lifestyle choice” all sorts of very earnest objections to anti-gayness fly out of the window. If a man can change his sexual orientation then, if an employer doesn’t like the employee being gay, he should be able to fire him. Just as if the employer doesn’t like the color of his shirt. Or the color of his eyes.
Indeed the color of his eyes – being unchosen – would be a morally worse ground for firing someone than his sexual orientation.
Obviously those folk interested in the political status of the gay community know this perfectly well, otherwise they would hardly have bothered to make such an extended fuss of how innate gayness is.
Objections to anti-gayness fly out the window no more than objections to anti-choosing to not have kids. Funny how you never see the latter.
Objections to anti-gayness fly out the window no more than objections to anti-choosing to not have kids.
Well some, though not all, of the anti-gayness arguments apply just as well to anti-choosing to not have kids. That just means that there are some rational arguments for criticising people for choosing not to have kids*.
Why would that have any relevance to the question of whether the arguments against gayness – if it were a choice – were rational ?
Funny how you never see the latter.
Not quite sure what your point is here, or whether you’ve got wrapped up in too long a string of negatives. There are obviously rational reasons for being anti-choosing to not have kids. And on the occasion when such views are expressed, the not-gonna-have-kids folk can get quite annoyed, and may start mouthing off about “laying on the table too much.”
So the idea that no one ever objects to being told they ought to have some kids seems, well, odd.
*And it’s not like plenty of polities haven’t had actual policies to try to boost their birth rates.
People who object to homosexuality (supposedly on the grounds of them not having kids) very seldom object to opposite-sex couples not having kids (we saw it in the same-sex marriage debates)? That inconsistency exposes their lack of a rational reason for objecting to homosexuality.
People who object to homosexuality (supposedly on the grounds of them not having kids) very seldom object to opposite-sex couples not having kids
Well there are a number of explanations for that.
1. choosing-not-having-kids folk are not a legally protected class, so they don’t earn the extra animus bonus points for doing the compulsory cake baking thing
2. that some people object to homosexuality on other grounds than failure to pursue reproduction does not mean those people who do, may not have similar objections to choosing-not-to-have-kids folk
3. lots of folk who object to choosing-not-having-kids folk are the parents of the latter and choose to avoid causing a family row despite their deep disappointment of having wasted more than twenty years rearing children who are going to deprive them of grandchildren
4. other reasons may be uppermost in people’s mind.
I note that we seem to have elided the question of whether there is a rational basis for being against gayness, if it were a lifestyle choice, into a question of whether folk who advance one particular rational basis are sincere in doing so.
It seems to me that this is irrelevant to the question of whether being against gayness, if it were a lifestyle choice, lacks a rational basis.
It’s relevant because if the purported rational basis for opposing (life-style choice) gayness is a pretext, then it isn’t a rational basis.
‘that some people object to homosexuality’
See, that’s the problem right there. Some people think they can object to to what other people are. There can be no good reasons for such objections, and the only result can be to force people to be something they are not or to push them to the margins of society.
‘lacks a rational basis.’
It’s like objecting to people having blue eyes.
That’s a Nazi platform, right there.
I would remind Nige that we are discussing the implications of the stipulation that homosexuality is not innate or fixed, but is merely a lifestyle choice.
Consequently it is not like having blue eyes, it is like choosing to watch Fox. Not what you are but what you do.
Fair enough, though even then the arguments are of a utilitarianism that is exceptional inasmuch as they are applied to nothing else, and require a level of deference to good of the state that is more extreme than anyone ever accused a lefty of.
I may be wrong but it was my understanding that the rational basis standard which you originally raised has nothing to do with what actual people actually think and so pretexts are irrelevant.
Which is not to say that I accept that a real person offering the “no kids bad” argument would be being pretextual when arguing that against homosexual relationships, but not against “no kids” heterosexual relationships. One obvious difference is that in the latter the “no kids” option is revocable. Another is that the anti kids plan may be thwarted by accident.
If it has nothing to do with what actual people think it’s irrelevant, isn’t it, and smacks of post hoc rationalisation. Even then the logic is strained and the rationalisations are all non-specific.
Gay couples adopt all the time.
“Assuming you don’t count the fear of God raining down sulfur and fire on your city as a “rational basis”,”
It isn’t.
“health risks to participants”
That is the participant’s choice to make. Their assessment of the pros and cons will differ from yours, but that isn’t a rational reason to restrict their liberty.
“spillover to the rest of society”
How would it spill over to “the rest of society”?
“adverse effects on societal norms”
Adverse according to … who? And why are “societal norms” (aka traditional values) so sacred as to be immutable? A society that stagnates, dies.
“the rearing of children by their natural parents”
What difference does it make if it is natural parents, stepparents, adoptive parents, or some other version? The involvement of the parents, not their biological connection, is the significant factor in successful outcomes for children.
“expenditure of social resources on maintenance of useless mouths, ie mouths that do not help sustain the population”
What are you talking about? You think that the value of a citizen is their ability to reproduce?
“undesirable social emphasis on sexual activity as a valuable end in itself”
Again, undesirable according to who? Culturally conservative values aren’t the default “good” values. Sex is beneficial in a myriad of ways. That’s why the vast majority of sexual activity is for emotional, physical, and mental pleasure, not reproduction. Sexual activity is a valuable end in and of itself for most himans, married or not.
Basically what your points boil down to is “it’s reasonable to oppose non-conservative cultural values because traditional values are good and right”. That isn’t a justification for restricting the liberty of free people.
“health risks to participants”
That is the participant’s choice to make. Their assessment of the pros and cons will differ from yours, but that isn’t a rational reason to restrict their liberty.
If you’re a libertarian, sure. But not everybody is. In any event, you’re confusing law and morals – which is Josh’s fault. But since Josh, though he is wrong, is quite intelligent and rational, we can generally tell when we’re talking to each other, when we’re talking about law and when we’re talking about morals.
So we started talking about morals and then had a little legal interlude when “rational basis” popped up.
But what we started discussing was nothing to do with using the law to restrict homosexual behavior, but simply approving or disapproving of the behavior of folk engaging in it. And as I pointed out, all sorts of people disapprove of all sorts of things.
For example, about you. Your irritating sniff, your hairstyle, your habit of arguing for the sake of arguing, your poor bodily hygeine and the way you leer at girls who are way out of your league. Not to mention your execrable taste in music.
Some of these objections have a good rational reason, some are just a matter of taste. The point is – if all of these things are not innate or fixed, but are just a matter of choice, I dont need a rational reason to disapprove. I just don’t like that hair coming out of your nose.
Suck it up. Or at least trim it.
How would it spill over to “the rest of society”?
X gives STD to Y, Y gives STD to Z. It’s not exactly rocket science.
“adverse effects on societal norms”
Adverse according to … who?
The person objecting, obviously. We’re not litigating whether we agree with the objector or not but whether protecting their vision of a good society is a rational reason for objecting to a change that they think would threaten it.
“the rearing of children by their natural parents”
What difference does it make if it is natural parents, stepparents, adoptive parents, or some other version? The involvement of the parents, not their biological connection, is the significant factor in successful outcomes for children.
Yes parents are important. But innumerable studies over decades and decades have demonstrated significantly better outcomes, on average, for children reared by their two natural parents.
“expenditure of social resources on maintenance of useless mouths, ie mouths that do not help sustain the population”
What are you talking about? You think that the value of a citizen is their ability to reproduce?
It seems an entirely rational social objective to preserve or grow the population and to encourage breeding and discourage non-breeding.
“undesirable social emphasis on sexual activity as a valuable end in itself”
Again, undesirable according to who?
The people objecting. Again, you’re missing the point of the game. It doesn’t matter if you agree, the question is simply is it irrational to disapprove of a sex-obsessed society ? And the answer is obviously no.
Unless your take on “irrational” = “disagrees with me.”
‘X gives STD to Y, Y gives STD to Z. It’s not exactly rocket science.’
Heterosexuals do this all the time. Lesbians do it almost never.
If your population is such that it’s threatened by homosexual couples not naturally reproducing, then the homosexuals are not the problem.
“It is common for people who disapprove of other people’s lifestyle choices to state their disapproval plainly, and to try to encourage those with what they see as undesirable lifestyle choices to make different ones.”
But not legislate that disapproval, right?
“There’s nothing cruel or unfair about encouraging other people to change their bad lifestyle choices (as you see them.)”
But not legislate that opinion, right?
“Conversion therapy is then not only perfectly OK”
Considering the various psychological and physiological methods used to “convince” someone they aren’t gay, nothing about conversion therapy is OK. Nor is it justified.
Your belief that disagreement with gay people is only expressed with words is naive, to use the kindest word possible.
“It is common for people who disapprove of other people’s lifestyle choices to state their disapproval plainly, and to try to encourage those with what they see as undesirable lifestyle choices to make different ones.”
But not legislate that disapproval, right?
It is alas very common for such folk to seek legislative crystallisation of their disapproval. Indeed there are even some juridictions where it has been made an offense to “misgender” someone. The world does not lack for authoritarians. But I applaud your evident lack of enthusiasm for them.
Considering the various psychological and physiological methods used to “convince” someone they aren’t gay, nothing about conversion therapy is OK. Nor is it justified.
You have unfortunately slipped and fallen straight through the floor of the hypothetical. Which is that gayness is merely a lifestyle choice. Consequently no one “is” gay, they just choose to perform gay. And thus may be persuaded to desist.
Your belief that disagreement with gay people is only expressed with words is naive, to use the kindest word possible.
Your imagination is getting the better of you. I am quite aware that all sorts of folk who disapprove of all sorts of things are willing to resort to violence.
“Indeed there are even some juridictions where it has been made an offense to “misgender” someone.”
I’m not aware of any, but if such a place exists it is 100% wrong. Intentionally misgendering demonstrates that the person doing so is a self-absorbed dick and will probably cause unnecessary unpleasantness in the workplace, but it should never be legislated.
“Consequently no one “is” gay, they just choose to perform gay.”
Which is their right. That’s what you seem to miss. Liberty has value. Personal choice is a good thing. Coercing people through use of physical and mental force is a bad thing. It’s not a hard concept to grasp.
“I am quite aware that all sorts of folk who disapprove of all sorts of things are willing to resort to violence.”
So you disagree with conversion therapy? Or do you, instead, see such violence as acceptable?
So you disagree with conversion therapy? Or do you, instead, see such violence as acceptable?
Er, “such violence” ?
I’m certainly opposed to gangs of hoodlums roaming the streets and dragging gays back to their labs and forcibly subjecting them to electric shocks and speeches by Billy Graham. Is that what’s going on ?
But – remaining within the stipulation that gayness is merely a lifestyle choice – what possible objection is there to folk trying to help volunteers kick the same sex habit ?
Are you against folk offering help with weight loss ?
Because it’s a grotesque interference with their personal freedom?
In terms of weight loss, not at all comparable to being gay, as a ‘lifestyle choice,’ which for many if not most it isn’t, yes, people should also mind their fucking business.
moi : what possible objection is there to folk trying to help volunteers kick the same sex habit ?
Nige : Because it’s a grotesque interference with their personal freedom?
What part of “volunteers” were you struggling with ?
“what possible objection is there to folk trying to help volunteers kick the same sex habit ?”
That’s not the part that’s objectionable though, is it? The problem is parents putting their unwilling children i to programs that use techniques like food and sleep deprivation, physical punishment, and other violent behavior modifying techniques to “cure” them of being gay with the subject being denied the right to leave or opt out.
Those who choose the abuse for themselves are deserving of pity, but are making an informed decision for themselves.
“Are you against folk offering help with weight loss ?”
No, I’m against people being required to lose weight and ntt being allowed to stop losing weight by the people runnkng the weight loss program.
The problem is parents putting their unwilling children i to programs that use techniques like food and sleep deprivation, physical punishment, and other violent behavior modifying techniques to “cure” them of being gay with the subject being denied the right to leave or opt out.
1. We have of course stipulated that “curing” people of their homosexual behavior is eminently possible, since it is merely a lifestyle choice.
2. I seem to recall a very similar procedure being used to try to force me to learn algebra. And I’m sure these gay-conversionists don’t keep at it for ten years – with the full powers of the government forcing the victims into cold classrooms, populated by thugs. With the subject being denied the right to leave or opt out.
3. Being a kid can suck, though. There’s not nearly as much “voluntary” in it as one might wish. If one were still a kid. Though in retrospect, I think there may have been a bit too much voluntary in my chldhood. What doesn’t kill you makes you stronger.
“1. We have of course stipulated that “curing” people of their homosexual behavior is eminently possible, since it is merely a lifestyle choice.”
But not desirable, not without intentionally harming the victim. My father used to love the phrase “your rights end where my nose begins”. He wasn’t wrong.
If we start from the premise that being gay is a choice, conversion therapy isn’t necessary for those who don’t want to be gay anymore. They would just choose to be straight.
“I seem to recall a very similar procedure being used to try to force me to learn algebra.”
Then your school abused you. Sleep deprivation is literally classified as torture. Food deprivation is called starvation. Physical punishment (by a non-parent) is assault. If that’s what was done to you to teach algebra, you had a terrible school.
“And I’m sure these gay-conversionists don’t keep at it for ten years”
Depends. Cultural conservative parents who are willing to do it once will go back to the well as many times as it takes. Also, how did it take you ten years to learn algebra?
“What doesn’t kill you makes you stronger.”
So just abuse people who choose something you don’t like? You seem awfully blase about gay people getting hurt.
If it isn’t a choice, there is no justification for physical and mental abuse in service to a homophobic end since it won’t change anything, it will just make the gay person hide their gayness around the people who would hurt them. And lie about it working.
That’s the typical result that torture gets. At a certain point, people will say anything to stop being hurt.
If gay-conversionists were actually torturing people and physically abusing people, they’d be arrested under the ordinary laws that forbid torture and physical abuse. How many people, to your knowledge, have been convicted of torture, in the course of attempting gay-conversion ?
If we start from the premise that being gay is a choice, conversion therapy isn’t necessary for those who don’t want to be gay anymore. They would just choose to be straight.
Yup, people get off the pie train, the booze train, the tobacco train, the pot train, the credit card train, the I’l look for a job tomorrow train just by waking up one morning and saying – today, and forever, I’m giving up pies, booze, tobacco, pot, credit cards, and being a lazy bum.
And it works ! People are really like that. In la-la land.
“There’s nothing cruel or unfair about encouraging other people to change their bad lifestyle choices (as you see them.)”
Especially if the “other people” are you minor children.
Sending your kids to sleepaway tortue camp is OK, but taking them to a drag queen story hour is abuse? How disturbing.
Nelson, everybody reads this as you advocating drag shows —and why? Because they see that you are not outraged by anything to do with children, you could care less.
But you know what process helps most 12 year old suffers of gender dysphoria? Puberty. It’s well documented that it usually resolves during puberty, so doing ANYTHING about it prior to that is just medical malpractice.
Generally aiming at making sure that it doesn’t go away, frankly.
“Well documented” says the guy who lied about flu statistics, which in fact are “well documented” themselves.
I noticed a lack of “well documented” sources in your post Brett. Why is that?
Jason – you and nige seriously need to develop basic science knowledge . Your easily fooled by agenda driven social science
“Your” Right…
I’ve not expressed any opinion on the issue.
I have commented on your and Brett’s inability (or refusal) to provide evidence for things you claim as fact.
If you can’t comprehend the difference, what is anyone to make of your alleged universal expertise?
“A search of the literature (Korte, 2008) found:
‘Only 2.5% to 20% of all cases of GID in childhood and adolescence are the initial manifestation of irreversible transsexualism.’
An analysis of 10 published studies can be seen here.
The most recent study in this group, published in 2013, confirms that gender dysphoria does not persist in most children past puberty”
https://www.transgendertrend.com/children-change-minds/
So it turns out with proper screening and therapy and gender-affrming care kids don’t get pushed into unnecesary treatments after all. Good work all round.
You loons are doing your best to deny them that. If you succeed the “persistence” will predictably go up just like the incidence has.
I’m sorry, who is passing laws to prevent kids from accessing the type of proper care that would come with the screening and the therapy? You loons, is who.
Only complete cretins think they can get away with calling puberty blockers and cutting off breasts and penises “proper care”.
Why? Because girls and boys are first and foremost sex objects, and anything that makes them less of a sex object in your eyes is bad?
It takes a total jackass to assert that the only reason to not cut off breasts and penises is to preserve the victims’ status as “sex objects”.
But you are that.
Since that’s the proven treatment, and it’s done with consent, and has been shown to work, the only reason not to do it is to appease something in you, who has nothing to do with it. Your obsessive outrage is focused on their sexual characteristics being altered, what else is there to conclude?
Puberty usually makes things worse for kids with gender dysphoria. It acentuates the difference between their sense of their gender and their body. It can be torture.
Actually, the research clearly says that about 80% of the time, gender dysphoria goes away by the end of puberty. Granted, the majority outcome is it being replaced with homosexuality, but that’s still the dysphoria resolving even when that happens.
Gender dysphoria in adolescence: current perspectives
“Evidence from the 10 available prospective follow-up studies from childhood to adolescence (reviewed in the study by Ristori and Steensma) indicates that for ~80% of children who meet the criteria for GDC, the GD recedes with puberty.”
Note that gender dysphoria prior to puberty is very strongly associated with a whole raft of other psychiatric problems, (According to that referenced study.) rather than being an isolated issue. These are seriously messed up individuals, and the ones who stay gender dysphoric are the most messed up of all.
But that’s not even the point. Sometimes puberty blockers are indicated, sometimes not. Guess who decides whether they should or shouldn’t be used? The kid’s medical practitioner! Not randos on the internet! Why do they use them? Because they work and produce postive outcomes for the kids!
And for the careers and incomes of the quacks.
This would be just as true for appendectomies and hip replacements, it’s not much use as an argument.
If only appendectomies and hip replacements wouldn’t cause problems for the doctors if the removed appendices and hips turned out to be perfectly healthy the surgeons would have the same incentives as the gender dysphoria quacks.
Satisfaction ratings for hip replacements are way below those of trans treatments. Perhaps you should start a crusade against them.
That the claimed “satisfaction ratings” for fixing actual problems are lower than those claimed for these crazy and dangerous and unnecessary surgeries is precisely the proof that these are akin to “Dear Leader” voting that I already pointed out.
Also already noted: The bogus stats are also disproved by the suicide stats. If your surgery fixes your problems you don’t kill yourself.
No studies show anything else. You’re groundlessly disparaging them because you don’t want to believe them. They don’t accord with your irrational prejudices.
The stats refer to satisfaction with the treatment, nothing else. Somehow the hate and stigma and relentless lies told about them manage to take a toll.
See my response to Nelson. It of course merely repeats what I’ve already said to you. But saying it again to you is obviously utterly pointless.
NO, it is the point.
You mention practitioners internet , kids but not the parents.
What is a positive outcome if the parent doesn’t think so.? It’s crap.
Okay but that begs the question of whether the trauma of puberty has to do with this at all because all kids are confused at that age. YOU would just be giving them an answer that is no answer.
Brett: where is your medical degree/and or law degree from that qualifies you to make such a definitive statement on what constitutes medical malpractice? What years of medical and legal experience have led you to form this opinion? Where are your peer reviewed articles on the standard of care?
Maybe you should ask the authors of the paper I cited that question, instead.
Well you were the one who said it, and we all know that you think your engineering degree makes you an expert in every discipline under the sun.
The paper you linked also doesn’t say that it is “just medical malpractice” to “do anything” before puberty:
It criticizes emerging trends and then suggests an appropriate standard of care. But that is not the end-all-be-all of what constitutes the standard of care for gender dysphoria. Indeed they acknowledge this is a somewhat complicated question:
“Reports of the outcomes of puberty suppression treatment in adolescents have shown reasonable safety and good outcomes regarding patient satisfaction and psychosocial functioning, but research is still scarce. Nevertheless, puberty suppression is not indicated in a considerable proportion of gender dysphoric minors because of several reasons, for example, severe psychiatric comorbidity, considerable instability of psychosocial support or onset of GD later during puberty and diagnostic uncertainty; nevertheless, more follow-up data even from patients who are fulfilling the criteria for “the Dutch model” are still needed.”
So keep doing dangerously insane things to kids until the doctors who profit from them are convinced that they can’t get away with it any longer?
They’re not dangerous. Not providing treatment is dangerous.
“They’re not dangerous.”
That claim is utterly idiotic.
Only in the sense that it’s been shown to be the case by multiple studies.
By the same class of docs who claim patient post-removal happiness with dickectomies?
Are you familiar with the replication crisis?
Or maybe Climategate?
What a concatenation of nothing.
No, nothing is what you are trying to use as an argument and for a brain,
Lol at Climategate.
Ex-transgenders tell US Supreme Court: It’s ‘abuse’ to affirm gender confusion
Nige says a lot that sidelines actual people with regret and experience.
“It’s well documented that it usually resolves during puberty”
If it’s so well-documented, you could share some of that documentation with us, right?
“so doing ANYTHING about it prior to that is just medical malpractice.”
Yes, I noticed that in the professional ethics guidelines for doctors, as well as the massive number of malpractice cases that doctors have lost. Oh, wait …
Reallynot – did you miss the part about the long sordid history of the mental health professions of discredited fad diagnosis for the last 300 years, all which were considered the gold standard of the day.
You and nige embrace the last mental health profession fads because you lack the basic knowledge of biology.
I responded above about implanted sexuality and implanted memories. They’re not a thing.
Repressed memory is more controversial, especially in the context of testimony against alleged abusers.
But gender dysphoria and homosexuality aren’t in that category, are they? They appear to be largely biological. Here’s a twin study on the topic.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8494487/
The people who actually undergo the treatments are overwhelmingly positive about them. Its only people like you, who are working off a religious and/or sexual aversion to transexuals, that claim otherwise.
You cited a study that is exceptionally weak. The weakness has been pointed out to you multiple times, yet you persist in presenting a study that any person with a elementary level of due diligence would recognize the weakness.
I cited a study. You cited fuck-all. Because no study has ever even hinted at anything different.
“You cited a study that is exceptionally weak.”
Than you can use any of the other ones I posted above in its place. They all reach the same conclusion.
Sorry Joe. Nige and Nelson have posted like 10 studies. You’ve posted nothing but BS.
Randal
You might read those studies before praising them. They happen to be especially weak social science. You, Nige and Nelson should have noticed the deficiencies
1) short follow up period
2) combining pre & post surgery participants as if they are the same
3) low response rates, most response rates below 50%
4) High bias due to methodology admitted by the authors.
other than the obvious deficiencies, they are credible
And where are your high-quality studies to refute them?
But they all miss the point , you included, maybe especially you. Do people post complaints that their heart ailment was cured, their depression has lifted, their prosthetic arm is working…but the ex-transgender sites are booming.
It’s a real thing because of the empirical, clinical evidence of likely hundreds of thousands, if not over a million Americans who have gender dysphoria, and for whom the most common successful treatment is to live their life consistent with their gender identity.
If you mean by having their Dick/Balls/Ovaries/Tits cut off/out, just say it.
Here is first class Bullshit, arguing trans surgery to alter your genitals on the basis of a mental problem. Gender dysphoria is no more a greenlight to chop your body up into some Dylan Mulvaney ugliness than DT’s are a sign you really should have another drink.
The Trump indictment and Fox shellacking have knocked Prof. Volokh and the other Conspirators entirely off their game.
Most of the Conspirators are speechless; Prof. Volokh has retreated into a defensive position, mumbling from a figurative fetal position about drag queen-transgender bathroom-Muslim-persecuted white male Christian-gay/grooming fears.
How are these guys going to handle Trump’s next couple of indictments, or the financial and reputational devastation to be visited upon Fox consequent to revelation of its knowing, partisan lies masquerading as journalism?
Stay tuned!
Kirkland — https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4xmckWVPRaI
This is the calm before the storm — and before a really bad storm, there is an eerie, unworldly calm.
This is not going to end well, I fear.
You — like the other culture war casualties — will continue to comply with the rules established by the modern American liberal-libertarian mainstream.
You get to whine and whimper about it as much as you like — especially at the Volokh Conspiracy — but losing at the marketplace of ideas and getting stomped into irrelevance in the culture war have consequences.
OK, we get it Jerry, you were definitely the “Giver” in your transactions with your “Student Ath-uh-letes”
Nothing here that a Logic tutor can even put in a syllogism. It is gas released at the wrong end.
It’s shocking how the story about Donald Trump’s indictment has been covered up.
It is being covered, often to a fault, elsewhere.
But it is being ignored — with several other prominent developments that are inconvenient to movement conservatives and their delusions of adequacy in the culture war — at the white, male, polemically partisan, hypocritical, right-wing Volokh Conspiracy.
This country was founded by White, Male, Right Wingers.
As were most of civilizations advancements (I know, George Washington Carver, pretty sure we would have discovered Peanut Butter sooner or later, anyway, it’s not exactly Kitty Hawk 1903)
OK, I’ll give you “Rap” (Seriously, you can have it) Disco, Platform Shoes for men, and Jheri Curls (You can give them to your Cellmates)
Frank
George Washington Carver is supposed to have found some peanut uses, but not peanut butter or anything actually useful.
You mean he didn’t die Insane and Penniless, trying to play a phonograph record with a peanut?? (HT E. Murphy)
Right-wingers! The founding fathers were the left-wing fringe of their day.
You are a loon.
And a transcendentally ignorant loon, btw.
I’ll totally take ignorant loon over your brainwashed goon.
Anyway I’m right. The founding fathers were the progressives of their time. In fact I feel like that’s real obvious.
Of course, the debate shifts over time so that today’s conservatives are to their left, but that’s always the way. Your great-grandchildren will probably be conservatives to my left.
I’d bet anything that you are white and male, you are certainly partisan etc. THis is a classic mental problem BTW
I don’t know that Eugene has a particular dog in the Trump fight, but one certainly does wonder what possible nexus to his scholarship the present case has, other than to rile up the usual suspects. The comments are rather predictably vile.
The right-wing law prof
tossing the same old red meat
to his bigot fans
This is outrageous. The care, custody, and control of one’s children has been allowed to be washed away by state laws and made-up doctrines. It’s a fundamental federal right, dissipated by the extension of every abstention, immunity, deference, and avoidance by the lazy and generally communitarian federal judiciary, including absurd interpretations of Rooker-Feldman. Let’s hope the current Supreme Court does better, and we get a sensible President in to keep adding people like Gorsuch to reverse this outrage.
Sputtering, antisocial, deplorable fans of child abuse are among my favorite culture war casualties.
And no problem replacement won’t solve.
the “Jerry Sandusky Replacement Theory” ladies and Gentlemen, give him a hand!!!!!
Frank, do you not notice that Rev never posts positively about how to stop child abuse or even says positive things about children. you are on the wrong track. He is a classic self-hate case.
Wut? Literally none of this applies to this. There are two parents. The family court has to make custody arrangements when they can’t agree. This has nothing to do with immunity or Rooker-Feldman or Gorsuch.
Trying to reason with disaffected culture war victims?
You might as well yell at a lamp.
Except that some new-fangled lamps respond to audible command, so . . . worse than yelling at a lamp.
Uh Oh, how you gonna keep Jerry Sandusky down on the “Farm” now that he’s got a “Clapper”??? (with bars, electric fences, and armed Guards obviously)
The court could let them have 50-50 shared custody, and let each express opinions.
You should share your insights with the court.
Wow, such insightful Legal Anal-ysis, which law school did you study at??? https://www.stcl.edu/???
The phrase that is doing a lot of work here is “mental abuse”. From a legal standard what exactly is “mental abuse” ? It strikes me as a sarcastrian turn of phrase that means exactly what the speaker needs it to mean in a specific conversation to arrive at the predetermined post-hoc conclusion.
Is it mental abuse to have to eat your vegetables or go outside and get some exercise ? How about “stop hitting your sister” or “it is wrong to steal candy from the local store” ? I suppose this explains a lot about the current state of childhood education.
What does the word “sarcastrian” mean? I looked it up on the internet and couldn’t find anything. (I’m serious.)
As argued by our very own “Sarcastro”. Flexible in meaning. Often employing motte and bailey techniques.
Recently Sarcastr0 explained that “reverse” discrimination was the original meaning of “no discrimination”. A “turn of phrase that means exactly what the speaker needs it to mean in a specific conversation to arrive at the predetermined post-hoc conclusion” is a pretty good description of THAT, so a lot of us recognize immediately what “sarcastrian means..
“From a legal standard what exactly is “mental abuse” ?”
Does calling your kid a tranmy count? How about making you child fear you? Sure, they only documented one physical attack on the younger son, but that just means he has cause to fear his father, right? Plus he watched his father’s treatment if his brother.
I’m not a lawyer, so I don”t know if that rises to the standard, but the father lost twice in court so I’m thinking it’s likely that it does.
His “brother”. LOL!
And, no, calling a tranny a tranny is just factual. It’s acquiescing in a female child’s self-destructive desire to be called a boy (or promoting it) that’s abusive and a derelection of parental responsibility.
But our sick courts are so dysfunctional that they get this backwards.
You could try reading the posts you comment on before asking stupid questions.
According to this court a reasonable father would encourage his daughter to start down a path to getting her breasts cut off
Our courts are by this measure getting more “reasonable” all the time.
Uh huh. Following doctors’ recommendations is now “unreasonable” to conservatives. And you think you’re in a position to call other people ignorant.
It’ll be interesting to see how long you guys keep chasing your own tails before you look up to see that the country has left you behind.
The fundamental pirpose of Pierce v. Society of Sisters and Meyer v. Nebraska was to prevent the state from interfering with what parents teach their children.
The State of Nebraska no doubt thought, and no doubt had some basis for thinking, that to teach children the enemy’s language in the middle of a war could inflict serious mental injury on them and lead to severe social problems. But Meyer v. Nebraska stands for precisely the proposition that the state cannot even interfere with parents, let alone take their children away from them, when they teach them cultural elements the state is opposed to.
And here we are, coming full circle. Pierce and Meyer have been pulled by their bootstraps into supporting propositions the Court thst decided them could not have imagined. And these propositions, ostensibly based on Meyer and Pierce, are then used to justify taking children away from their parents because the state does not like what the parents are teaching them, eviscerating exactly the right that Meyer and Pierce established.
It’s positively Orwellian.
What if the kid doesn’t want anything to do with their dad?
you mean “Kid”(s) you Tranny-Fobe (you were thinking “Woke” by saying “their”)
but since we’re supposed to “Follow the Science” I’ll ask it properly
“”What if the daughter doesn’t want anything to do with her Dad?”
and the answer is “Doesn’t matter what she thinks, she’s a minor and if he’s her dad, as long as he doesn’t go all Sleepy Joe on her”
pretty sure there’s plenty of “Cis” kids that don’t want to have anything to do with either parent, it’s called “Being a Normal Kid”
Frank
Kids don’t get to decide
Actually they do as they get older. Kids aren’t property, they are separate human beings with their own thoughts, feelings, and experiences. As they get older their views count a lot more for “best interest of the child” and if they don’t want to have a relationship with a parent there’s nothing you or the courts can really do about it.
But in this case the judge has an opinion and that’s all that matters: the judge likes his own personal worldview and doesn’t like the father’s.
He has that opinion because he listened to the kids who don’t want anything to do with their dad right now. And if that dad wants a relationship with his kids, something is going to have to change on his end.
Who needs a judge if the kid gets to decide for the judge? Awesome gig: just agree to whatever kids say and collect a nice paycheck.
He doesn’t have to simply do what they say. But as the kids get older he does have to take their thoughts and feelings into account. What they want and how they experience their father is highly relevant to the inquiry of what is in the best interests of the child. You wouldn’t argue if that we should ignore a kid if they testified to physical abuse, would you?
Kids aren’t property that parents have unfettered dominion over. They’re independent human beings. Judges have to take their thoughts, feelings, and experiences into account when determining what is in their best interest.
Lots of different situations would be different, yeah. As always.
But this is this situation. Listen to the father and the kid gets a chance to get past things and have a normal healthy life. Listen to the kid and the kid doesn’t get that chance.
You mean the Baphomet-shit crazy father who is a deluded, obsolete, bigot with negative parenting skills?
Good luck trying to find a modern society in which your assessment is valued.
Unless they want to get their dick cut off?? Did your mom have any kids who lived?
Your confusion is just a relatively normal part of being a culture war casualty. You should be accustomed to it by now.
Thanks Jerry, and your confusion is due to tertiary Syphilis, you should be accustomed to it by now.
Neither Pierce v. Society of Sisters nor Meyer v. Nebraska involved disagreement between a child’s mother and father regarding child rearing. The dissolution of a marriage, combined with the inability of divorced spouses to reach a mutual accommodation regarding their child’s upbringing, gives rise to the state intervening as parens patriae to protect the child from harm from the discontinuity of the parents’ relationship.
No, it didn’t.
I understand the Act the Supreme Court invalidated referred to teaching modern languages generally prior to 8th grade, and was passed a few months after the Armistice and not before. I understand the primary aim was perhaps to ensure English was childrens’ mother tongue. That said, however, the Act the contained this language in Section 4:
“Whereas, an emergency exists, this act shall be in force from and after its force and approval.”
What do you think the emergency was?
ReaderY, I have to applaud the rare good posts on here.
People like the Rev will always turn disagreement that is moral into religious disagreement, something the Founders hated. But others turn it into free speech issues. Basically, this is nothing but the right and duty of parents to raise their children as they see fit. Will that allow some bastards to be bad to their children, of course it will. But the Hillary solution, to treat all deviations from perfection as legal issues is the wrong way to go.
JOHN ADAMS
The foundations of national Morality must be laid in private Families. In vain are Schools, Academies and universities instituted, if loose Principles and licentious habits are impressed upon Children in their earliest years.
This father’s conduct toward his children calls to mind Steven Weinberg’s observation that “Without [religion] you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.”
It is the woke social workers, judges, and others pushing for the sexual mutilation of children, not Christians.
So what’s the excuse of the social worker, judge, and mother?
There’s also a Religion Clause issue. I think the state csn enforce an agreement between parents about the religious education of their children even if one parent subsequently leaves the religion and has regrets. But it can’t impose its own views of what constitutes good or mentally healthy religious teaching.
Banning a reliigous doctrine because the state thinks it “mentally unhealthy” is no different from banning it because the state thinks it false or leads to eternal damnation. The state can’t establish mentally healthy religion any more than it can establish true or efficacious religion.
Religion does not improve bigotry or child abuse. Religion does not transform bigotry or child abuse into anything other than bigotry or child abuse.
This guy forfeited normal parental privileges. Let’s hope he learns from his mistakes and that his children overcome the obstacle of having a shitty father.
Judgement on a fathers relationship with his daughter from the “Dr. Phil” of Greene Correctional Facility, (Dr) Jerry Sandusky!!!!!
The kids will overcome the father, but not overcome the sexual mutilation that the mother and the judge are encouraging.
It’s not they put the severed Organs in Cryogenic deep freeze next to Ted Williams Head.
I did not observe any encouragement of mutilation from the court.
That might just be your on-the-spectrum delusions and bigoted, antisocial partisanship talking.
Could be,
and isn’t “On the Spectrum” a good thing??
and you know you’re doing good when Jerry Sandusky is criticizing you, want to really get under my skin?? Agree with me,
Like “Most Klinger Attorneys are embarrassed about where they went to law School and will rarely mention it”
so where was it Jerry “University of the Incarnate Virgin”?? “South Pennsylvania Technical Institute and Asylum”?? “East Ohio Chop Shop and Sanitorium”??
Frank
This is my guess as to why most people on here loathe the Rev– here he is calling somebody’s dad shitty but you can bet you couldn’t say a thing about Rev’s parenting. He is a low energy Hitler.
The Dad’s a piece of work, but if you took away his bizarre religious beliefs, would he be a reasonable guy and a good parent? It’s understandable for a parent to also struggle while their kid is struggling with their identity, but it’s their job to be supportive and help them through it and to find the right choices, not rant and rave about Baphomet.
The father is a dope, in way over his head, struggling to cope with the modern world and everyday life in general.
Prof. Volokh, on the other hand, knows precisely what he is doing as he lathers his bigoted fans with this stuff.
How much longer will legitimate law schools tolerate the Volokh Conspiracy’s abuse of their franchises?
What the judge imagines the “right choices” to be is a prime example of Bizarre Lefty Derangement Syndrome.
The judge is putting the child’s welfare first, you’re vomiting out catch-phrases.
Giving this child into the sole custody of her deranged-Lefty mother is not “putting the child’s welfare first”.
At this point I get that you fully support the father’s verbal abuse of the kid.
I support what he was trying to do and not your mischaracterization of it.
You’re awfully slow if you’re just figuring that out.
But I figured out how dim you are a long time ago.
Abusers usually claim they’re not abusing, they’re doing it for the victim’s own good. Enablers agree.
Non-abusers also say they’re not abusers and a fair reading of the evidence will agree. As it does here.
You appear to be an outlier in that regard. You’d watch an adult treat a child like that and shrug.
While Prof. Volokh exhibits wingnut Tourette’s syndrome — reflexively sputtering about transgender bathrooms, Muslims, drag queens, lesbians, white male grievance, gay grooming, etc. — there are some fascinating legal developments in the modern world.
Your Commutation “Package” made it to Senator S-S-S-S-S-S tuttering John Fetterman??? Wonder if the electricty for his Electroconvulsive Therapy came from “Green” sources??
“denied steering S. toward identifying as transgender but has actively supported S. by arranging for therapy and attending meetings of Parents, Families, and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (“PFLAG”)”
There seems to be some cognitive dissonance here.
“[He] has repeatedly communicated in person and through text messages homophobic comments and religious beliefs, causing mental injury…
And there’s the part of this judgment that goes completely over the line. It is a straight-up statement of opinion, not a finding of fact. The court is acting every bit as arbitrary as the person it is punishing.
If you want to claim mental injury in fact you need to base it on facts.
Not to mention that sincerely held religious beliefs are entitled to protection, even if they do “mentally harm” others.
That is the level of legal insight this blog is known for.
And the reason the Volokh Conspirators lack the respect of their mainstream colleagues and employers.
Having a convicted Pedofile as a regular commenter doesn’t help either.
Says the man who disrespects anyone who does not find him blindlingly brilliant.
The guy engaged in bigoted conduct and/or expression.
That’s a fact.
Which the court found.
Which causes clingers to cry.
Trying to get all Literary, Jerry? (hey, that rhymes, Literary-Jerry)
well hears some Iambic Pentameter all up in yo’ Grill
“Jerr-y San-Dusk-Y doth hath charms to gird his loins”
“Too Bad Statue of Lim-i-tat-ions still ran”
“Now Jerr-y doth Scrub Floors In Greene P-A”
“And waits for ..
all eff it, Poetry sucks
Frank “There once was a man from Nantucket…
Another kid’s life destroyed by trans movement. Probably won’t live to see his 30th birthday.
Before the trans movement, a kid would have adolescent problems like most kids, then get past them. Now the only hope for such a kid is to somehow escape the enablers and the profiteering butchers.
These people should be gassed.
The kids?
Does it matter who hoppy meant?!?
Not really I suppose
It does to Prof. Volokh.
And, most likely, at least a few other Volokh Conspirators.
No. The groomers who make up the movement. In other words, your ilk.
Yeah yeah. You want to murder me, but don’t have the balls to do it. We get it.
You are a worthless piece of pond scum.
Better than being a whiney little dork with murder fantasies. At least pond scum contributes to the ecosystem.
The Nashville Murderer didn’t have any balls, didn’t keep her from killing.
What if they just stopped mutilating children for profit instead?
Why wouldn’t they choose to tell a 12-year-old to focus on school and regular 12-year-old stuff and leave sexuality issues for a later time?
Why rush to destroy any chance of a kid ever leading a healthy normal life? For profit? For their own narcissism? Just to destroy for destruction’s sake?
How many lives ended or destroyed is enough to satisfy them?
Because like LawTalkingGuy and the Rev. Kirkland, they seek to destroy the West for their own sick desires.
LawTalkingGuy probably volunteers for Little League so he can groom the boys in the locker room.
My only desire is to treat humans with respect and dignity and that includes recognizing that kids are independent humans with their own thoughts and desires and not simply extensions of their parents. I don’t think a sociopathy with violent murder fantasies is in a moral position to lecture anyone on what is a “sick desire.”
Do you warn the boys it might hurt?
This is super creepy. Please go to a therapist
Sort of,
he says “You’re going to feel a little Prick”
LOL!
“…with violent murder fantasies…”
If only cutting parts off of physically healthy adolescents for profit were merely a fantasy….
Instead it’s celebrated by people who think they’re The Good Guys.
You keep putting your own personal squeamishness over the needs and experiences of the people who undergo the treatment.
They “need” this surgery like they need a hole in the head. Do you and LawTalkingGuy run trains on middle schoolers?
You’re all basically pornographers, aren’t you?
These freaks are making bad puns and engaging in lurid descriptions of child sexual abuse.
Keynesian Pornographers
This is why I’m ok with religion being a big part of right-wing culture. It’s really the only thing restraining these nutjobs. We’ve got the cream of the crop probably here on Volokh and yet it’s this constant barrage of murder fantasies, vivid LGBTQ sex fantasies, lurid explicit descriptions of medical procedures, threats, dehumanizing language, and pedophilia.
Take hoppy for example. He would obviously be out raping kids and murdering Democrats if he weren’t afraid of God. He can’t understand what it’s like to be someone with a functioning moral compass, who’s well-adjusted and sexually fulfilled, and who doesn’t need religion in order to know right from wrong.
The right believes that anyone, of course, left to their own devices, would just be sociopathic all day every day, since that’s what they’d do. They don’t want to be too free, because they’re afraid they’d lose control. And they simply assume that is what’s going on on the left.
So let’s not try too hard to convert these guys. Placate and subjugate them sure, but for goodness’ sake don’t unshackle them from their self-imposed “traditional values” or they’ll go psycho.
It’s the judge that’s sociopathic.
“…they seek to destroy the West for their own sick desires…”
Some of the people on here only offer complaints about America, so yeah, it really seems like they’re hostile. LTG doesn’t fit that pattern. Kirkland was the first one everyone muted.
Complaints? America is fine, and getting better.
It’s the movement conservatives — half-educated misfits, superstitious bigots — who can’t stand modern America.
In Logic and Rhetoric (and in law school) teachers point out that arguments like yours have no basis.
You don’t say conservatives, you say movement conservatives so that no one can pin you down.
You say half-educated so that no matter what level of education of your disputant you can say it doesn’t matter.
You say ‘misfit’ so that whoever disagrees with is automatically a misfit
And you don’t say “America” you say ‘modern America” to avoid all Natural Law and FOunding Principles objections.
I see you with utter clarity
Huh? All the complaints about America are coming from you lot.
Yeah, its people like LawTalkingGuy and me against people like the Volokh Conspirators and their target audience in the culture war.
Spoiler: We will be pissing on the graves of their political preferences.
Sounds like Jerry Sandusky needs some Tamsulosin.
Does even one of the Volokh Conspirators have the courage or character to address the bigotry predictably unfurled here today (or any other day)?
Even one of you?
Cowards.
Hypocrites.
Losers.
Bigots.
Guess they’ve all been “Replaced”.
and you forgot the “Klingers”
Cowards.
Hypocrites.
Bigots.
Losers.
Carry on, clingers. Just so far as better Americans permit, though.
If you were on an atheist site you’d be hosting novenas.
Just out of interest, what is the normal procedure when the courts refer to people in court and in their judgements ?
In this case the judge has decided to call a child by a name that it has chosen, rather than its legal name, and refer to it as he/him etc, when as a matter of law, and fact, it is a she/her. And in a case in which its name and sex are at the root of the dispute between the parties.
If I were the Dad here, I’d be thinking that it was not the judge’s thumb that was on the scale, but the judge’s entire butt.
But anyway. Let us imagine a rape case, in which Alfonse Gregory Whistleweed (the name on the birth certificate), a man (the sex on his birth certificate, and in fact) is accused of raping Jane Doe, by inserting his penis (actual not prosthetic) into her lady parts, uninvited.
However, if Alfonse chooses to call himself Debbie Whistleweed, identifies as a woman, and uses preferred pronouns she/her etc, would it be usual for the judge to refer to Alfonse as Debbie and to she/her him in court, and in his written judgement. Or would that be unusual ?
If it would be usual, then how far does this usualness go ? Would a judge feel bound to call Stacy Abrams “Governor” if she so self identified ?
If acknowledging the basic autonomy and dignity of a separate human who happens to be a kid is “putting a thumb on the scale” I’m all for it. Kids aren’t property. The law places many limits on what they can and can’t do for various good reasons, but they do in fact have a sense of their own unique self and identity apart from their parents.
If having a “legal name” doesn’t mean that it gets used in “legal proceedings”, what the hell does it mean?
People are referred to by nicknames in legal proceedings. A Matthew might be Matt. Or someone might go by their middle name. Etc. It’s basic human decency to accept people as they present themselves. If you tell me your name is Matt and I keep calling you Matthew, it is a dickish and disrespectful thing to do whether inside the court or out.
Surely you understand that, Brittney?
Surely you understand that calling Henry “Hank” in legal proceedings is not the same thing as calling Emma “Hank,” particularly when Emma’s belief that she is Hank is the root of the dispute between the parties.
There is no one so incapable of understanding as a “progressive” faced with reality.
So as I understand it, you would not expect the judge to refer to Alfonse as Alfonse, and you would not expect the judge to refer to him as a man ?
This “dignity” thing trumps actual facts, even in the law courts ?
I would expect the judge to treat the people in front of them with the bare minimum of respect which includes calling them what the prefer to be called. There is no legal requirement that a judge use a certain name. They can note that in a footnote for the record. The actual fact is that this person in front of the judge goes by Y. So you call them Y. It’s not that hard to understand unless you’re committed to being a dick for no reason, Lisa.
We’ll have to agree to differ.
1. Calling me “Lisa” in a formal legal proceeding, if my name actually is “Lisa”, is not disrespectful, by any stretch of the imagination. 2. If the judge’s opinion does not correctly identify the names and other relevant details of the actors, it is not an accurate record, which it ought to be. 3. If someone was born in Baltimore but is now ashamed of the connection, and now chooses to represent themselves as having been born in Boston, and the question of the someone’s place of birth has to be referred to, the judge should not be going along with the fiction. In court that is – what the judge does on a social occasion is up to him/her/xit. 4. What someone “goes by” could change often, particularly if they are a child. You could choose to “go by” a different name each time you’re charged with burglary. It’s not discourteous to record the actual name each time, so as better to keep track. 5. This applies a fortiori where the “dignity” item is a matter relevant to the dispute before the judge. If whether X is a “he” or a “she” is relevant, the judge should go with the legally correct designation.
A court is supposed to operate on facts. To the extent that politeness and respect are desirable, they have to give way to facts. In a legal proceeding.
In a group therapy session, the priorities may be different.
Major Life Events for the Average Liberal:
Age 4: Win first prize in anal sex lessons at Montessori Pre-K
Age 8: Dad comes out as gay; Mom’s first nervous breakdown
Age 10: Mom embarks upon 3 decade long addiction to prescription medication
Age 12: Lose virginity to local gang-banger hand selected by Mom, who watches
Age 13: First Abortion; Family reunites at Applebee’s to celebrate
Age 17: College visits; Inquire at registrar about courses in BDSM and holocaust studies
Age 22-24: The Starbucks Years; 13 more abortions
Age 25-32: Realize that abortions decrease food stamp and welfare payments, and have 7 children with 5 different men
Age 33: Sign up for an Obamaphone
Age 35: First fraudulent disability claim
Age 40: Navigate to Reason; register first account
Age 42: overcome disgust, marry soy boy, become birthing person, squeeze out non binary child
Age 45: Join Antifa, attack police
Age 47: Stage fake hate crimes, cry when caught
Age 51: Make false rape accusations, get hailed as hero by left
Your kind of stupidity isn’t welcome here.
You seriously misjudge the Volokh Conspirators. They cultivate and crave this stuff.
Your kind of stupidity isn’t welcome here.
That’s an exaggeration. Here’s a survey from Pew research:
https://wibc.com/108211/pew-study-white-liberals-disproportionately-suffer-from-mental-illness/
“White women, ages 18-29, who identified as liberal were given a mental health diagnosis from medical professionals at a rate of 56.3%, as compared to 28.4% in moderates and 27.3% in conservatives.”
56% were actually diagnosed, according to the survey. Seems like a lot. It was during pandemic though. Many are probably better now.
“I would expect the judge to treat the people in front of them with the bare minimum of respect which includes calling them what the prefer to be called.”
Until a point. Obviously the court should not refer to mom-royalty as Princess, someone who has never so much as enlisted in the military as General, etc. If a person over the age of 18 wanted to be referred to as a child, that would also be inappropriate. This isn’t a matter of acceding to someone’s wishes in a manner of a nickname; it is a deliberate misrepresentation of material fact (ie the child in question is a girl).
If you were the Dad here, you’d be just another bigoted, superstitious, obsolete loser learning about the imposition of adult supervision.
It’s indisputable that Obama and Biden were gay lovers in the Oval Office. The only question is, who was the pitcher and who was the catcher? Was Obama pitching his chocolate love deep into Biden’s bunghole, or was Obama grabbing the edge of the desk while Biden plowed him good and hard, leaving a massive load of creepy old man cream to drip out in front of Michelle?
When you allow Convicted Sex Offender Jerry Sandusky comment it’s hard to censor anyone else.
Ask Ted Cruz.
Or Eugene Volokh.
or Jerry Sandusky
Sounds like the mother is inflicting mental injury.
And physical injury too, when the daughter gets her breasts chopped off.
I think its a boy who thinks he is a girl. [Not sure, this cult jargon gets confusing.]
So it won’t be breasts cut off.
You are mistaken. The elder child is a girl who thinks she is a boy. That’s why the impartial judge insists on calling her “he”, and “son.”
The younger child is a boy who thinks he is gay.
Any chopping will be happening to the girl. So it’s breasts off and lots of testosterone to give her that soft beard that will oh so definitely fool everyone into thinking she’s a guy.
There you go again begging the question as to what a “boy” is.
You are very welcome to use the word “boy” to describe girls, centaurs, artichokes or fish knives.
I was talking to Bob, who understands “boy” to mean “human child of the male sex.” And has been confused by the judge’s enthusiasm for using the word to describe a fish knife.
Bob and you are both begging the question, and the judge disagreed with your assumption.
No, they’re disagreeing with an idiot who some other idiots let become a judge.
It’s more of a slicing, like with Prime Rib, than a “Chopping”
and dating myself, but I can remember a day when we only removed Women’s Tits, I mean Breasts, for life threatening conditions.
I didn’t know Jerry Springer was still on? That’s what this sounds like…if the mom really wanted to be supportive though, she would try to find a bunch of LGBTQ “co-parents” for her kids, to further diminish the dad’s authority.
What’s there left to diminish?
That guy gets all the respect he deserves from his family, the courts, and the modern American mainstream.
He’ll be a miserable, disaffected loser until the moment he is replaced.
There may well be other facts supporting awarding custody of the child to the mother in this case. Bad relationships tend to manifest themselves in multiple ways, including ways straightforwardly open to courts to consider. But claiming the father’s teaching his religion damages the son’s mental health, and basing a decision on that, is a recipe for reversal on both Meyer v. Nebraska parental education rights grounds and Religion Clause religion rights grounds.
It’s not his religious beliefs, it’s his behaviour and its effects on the kid. Doesn’t matter if the behaviour is inspired by his religon or aliens.
It’s speech. Religious speech. It’s not behavior. The First Amendment makes a big distinction. It doesn’t matter if you or the judge think the father is leading his son into mental Hell and the son needs true mental religion to give him mental salvation.
You’re putting the child’s welfare second – the judge is not.
YOU and the judge are putting the child’s welfare second to your idiot ideology which claims that the father refusing to affirm the sick idea that his daughter is a boy is “transphobic” and causes “mental damage”.
No, it was the verbal abuse he subjected his kid to that caused the mental damage.
The father says it was the MOTHER who caused mental damage, and that’s the way it looks to me. Calling the damaged child a tranny happened AFTER the child had already been damaged into thinking she was a boy.
The father said that, but the record shows that it was the father who verbally abused the kid. Treating the kid as damaged goods and therefore justifying verbal abuse? Jesus, that’s nasty.
The kids ARE damaged goods and the judge is doing his best to prevent their repair.
Verbal abuse isn’t going to ‘repair’ them. Christ, this is grim.
It might even if it were “abuse”, which it isn’t.
Your inability to get beyond tedious repetition is what’s really grim.
The fact that I have to repeat it IS grim.
And if there was behavior separate from the religion, and there may have been, the judge could focus on that and not fill the opinion with quotes from the father’s supposedly harmful religious teachings.
Religion does not require one to behave in an abusive manner – that’s on the father.
Irreligion does not require you to lyingly call a father’s loving attempt to guide his daughter back from the precipice “mental abuse”.
Perhaps. But what this father did was verbal abuse.
What the father did was tell the truth. Yes, Lefty is to the truth as vampires are to garlic.
Vampires and Baphomet, both real and coming from your kids.
I’ve already told you that I’m irreligious and the fact that vampires don’t exist does NOT mean that Lefty is not to the truth as vampires are to garlic, popular culture references being perfectly OK.
Have you never noticed that when you try to be clever you merely look stupider?
The righty is to truth as Baphomet is to pentacles, or something.
ANOTHER attempt to be clever, to the same effect.
Baphomet Baphomet they’ve all got it Baphomet!
I found this case very interesting.
The court needed to determine the best interest of the child. At issue was essentially how the child felt about the father disagreeing with how the kids gender and sexuality issues were being handled.
As we are dealing with prepubescent kids, that is another layer to the whole thing.
So to determine what is “harmful”, he asks the kids. Which sounds reasonable. It is their experience, after all.
But….
That entire thing hinges on whether the mother’s encouragement of gender and sexuality changes is following the lead of the kids, or if she is leading them into these feelings.
The judge seems to completely avoid that question, and by going with “whatever the kids say” is defacto endorsing a doctrine of “whoever gets their hands on the kids and bends them to their will wins”.
One could equally see the counterfactual where the dad retained primary custody, cut mom out as much as possible, and involved the kids in extensive youth programs at his very conservative church. This would leave mom to send texts telling them that the church is a cult and that her son is actually a girl.
Now the shoe would be completely on the other foot.
This seemingly even-handed approach actually boils down to completely punting and going with supporting the manufactured status quo.
In your hypo, unless Dad was homeschooling, he wouldn’t have the option of cutting Mom out, because the school would be pumping out Mom’s message 24/7. And keeping it from Dad.
“That entire thing hinges on whether the mother’s encouragement of gender and sexuality changes is following the lead of the kids, or if she is leading them into these feelings. The judge seems to completely avoid that question…”
There doesn’t appear to have been any evidence before the court that the mother was “leading them into these feelings.” We are told that, “Father told the social worker over the telephone that Mother has influenced their children to believe that they are transgender and gay by taking them to pride parades…” That’s not the same thing as the father making the same statement in court, where he could be cross examined. And even if you ignore the heresay rule, the father’s statement strikes me as inherently implausible. I believe that it might be possible for a mother to convince her child to identify as gay or trans even if the child is not. I don’t believe that attending a few pride parades could have that effect.
Furthermore, even if the mother were “leading them into these feelings,” the Court hasn’t been asked to do anything to stop the mother from doing that. So the judge was entirely correct to avoid the question. His role is to resolve disputes between the parents, not to weigh in on issues where there is no dispute, or even evidence of a problem.
Furthermore, even if the mother were “leading them into these feelings,” the Court hasn’t been asked to do anything to stop the mother from doing that. So the judge was entirely correct to avoid the question.
The mother “leading them into these feelings” is directly relevant to the father’s position that “these feelings” are not true manifestations of the children’s own feelings, and that the children are mentally assisted, rather than mentally injured, by him putting a contrary view to those of the mother.
The father’s feelings are irrelevant, he’s an adult and supposed to be capable of self-control, especally in how he deals with his kid. He didn’t just put a contrary view, he engaged in what amounted to verbal abuse.
To Lefty any contradiction of his religion is a crime punishable by banishing a father.
The ‘crime’ was verbal abuse.
You’re a broken record, but wrong every time.
A broken record is right if it’s repeating the actual record of the court.
The judges opinion is not the “record”.
And repeating the judge is not “right” if the judge is wrong.
Yes it is, the opinion is part of the record, as is the evidence of the abuse that the judge based their opinion on. You just think the abuse was fine.
“A broken record is right if it’s repeating the actual record of the court.”
You inability to distinguish between evidence and opinion you agree with is unsurprising. In you.
The evidence of his behaviour is right there.
Kenneth Almquist: “There doesn’t appear to have been any evidence before the court that the mother was ‘leading them into these feelings.’ We are told that, ‘Father told the social worker over the telephone that Mother has influenced their children to believe that they are transgender and gay by taking them to pride parades…’ That’s not the same thing as the father making the same statement in court, where he could be cross examined.”
Opinion: “The court then reiterated its question about whether Father communicates with S. on other topics ..Father again admitted that his relationship with his children is “pretty contentious because of what I would consider to be a concerted effort on their mother’s part to pit one child against a parent” and to “purposely steer my son into this arena, because it’s to her liking.” He admitted to calling the police when Mother took the children to the Pride Parade, after which he called the Crisis Hotline and then Legal Aid.”
Sure sounds to me like his statements were subject to and subjected to examination. That the court was doing it rather than an exercise in cross is I assume a peculiarity of Family Court in that State. And I suspect on the evidence that the court was being as oppositional to him as the wife’s lawyer would have been. That the treatment of him was unfair and politically and religiously biased is not unexpected.
prepubescent
I don’t know when you went through puberty but 12 and 15 are not “prepubescent.” 15 is straight-up post-pubescent for lots of kids.
I keep having to remind myself that puberty is happening earlier now than it was back in the 60’s.
No, nothing hinges on that, it hinges on the father’s verbal abuse of the kid, nothing else.
“The court found by a preponderance of the evidence that Father “has repeatedly communicated in person and through text messages homophobic comments and religious beliefs, causing mental injury to N.”
That the court judged the father’s religious beliefs unacceptably “homophobic” goes way out of his proper lane.
Whether the homophobic views were driven by his religious beliefs or anything else is irrelevant – what is relevant is the manner in which he subjected his child to homophobic abuse. Verbal abuse isn’t just ok because it’s religious-flavoured verbal abuse.
Telling your daughter that she is a girl and not a boy isn’t “abuse”.
Neither is telling her that homosexuality is haram. That’s religion, not “religious-flavored abuse”. And in this country bringing up your children to believe what you believe is called religious freedom. Because it is.
Accepting your child’s idea of themselves isn’t abuse. Ranting and raving at them about Baphomet in response, is.
You are a totalitarian, and you should be treated accordingly.
You support the verbal abuse of children. This isn’t some bad-faith inference or broad reflexive accusation. This is shown in your comments right here.
I support fathers’ right to teach their children the tenets of their religion. You don’t.
No, you support verbally abusing a child.
I absolutely support a father’s right to teach his children the tenets of his religion no matter how repetitively you mischaracterize that.
Anyone who has taught their children the tenets of their religion without being abusive would be disgusted.
When S. told Father that he identified as transgender, Father “opposed” his decision and refused to call him by his preferred name. S. subsequently engaged in the self-harming behavior of “cutting.”
1: Mother completely screws up her daughter by twisting her into having the currently socially big problem
2: Fatehrm who is sane, refuses to play along.
A sane court would immediately terminate the mother’s custody.
She (“S”) is not a “he”, is not Napoleon, joan of Arc, Mother Teresa, or any other insane delusions. She was born with a vagina and is therefore a she.
Encouraging her to think someone contrary to reality is child abuse.
On March 4, 2022, Father sent the following text messages to S.:
What is your email address? I’m sending you an email and I’m copying your mother and my lawyer. I’m t[ir]ed the BS manipulations. Your grandmother doesn’t call you S[.] and neither does either one of your aunts and uncle up here and for some reason my Christian beliefs are being attacked, so the intent is for a trial, so that everyone can understand what your mother that has manipulated a wedge after you and I had already came to an agreement [to call you a shortened version of your given name]. Thanks[.]
Anyone who calls that abusive, and grounds for removing parental rights, is a psychotic monster.
The reckoning on this is going to be enormous
I hope the federal courts take up and reverse this clear free-exercise case.
Since the father is not attempting to bully his children, a question of free exercise on their part does not arise.
Like the Rev here you misstate things by trying to force it into a religious format. Why would the court not take the same view of eating your vegetables, doing your chores, doing homework, going to bed at a decent time.
In my experience most Jews and Christians who are converts thought homosexuality an abomination on pure secular reason grounds. Rev’s argument that gay is good is really the same argument he opposes, but he knows no logic. It’s like “My value judgement is that your value judgement is just a value judgment”
Notice too that the Rev steers always away from whether early sexual activity is wrong. That would destroy his argument because then the father commenting on the gay things would not be targeting homosexuality but inappropriate and early sexual activity