Sfdebris.net

Admiral X wrote: ↑Fri May 03, 2019 6:04 pm Meanwhile in Canada...

OK, first of all, this is a larger topic that had next to nothing to do with the topic at hand where this was originally posted. So here's one to discuss it.

From other articles (one, another), it's fairly clear that the father in this case was not arrested. The father in this case has received a restraining order to stop him from attempting to persuade the teen from abandoning treatment, addressing the boy by his birth name or with the wrong pronouns, and from talking with anyone else about this matter. Said father shared private information with the media (including The Federalist), which has exposed the child to degrading public commentary.

Dick move, but free speech doesn't let you send hate mobs against your kid. We have restraining orders for a reason, because some people just won't get the message and stop being dicks.

Worffan101 wrote: ↑Sat May 04, 2019 12:15 am Dick move, but free speech doesn't let you send hate mobs against your kid. We have restraining orders for a reason, because some people just won't get the message and stop being dicks.

What was a dick move? The way that sentence is formatted, it seems you're saying the court made a dick move.

BridgeConsoleMasher wrote: ↑Sat May 04, 2019 12:43 am

Worffan101 wrote: ↑Sat May 04, 2019 12:15 am Dick move, but free speech doesn't let you send hate mobs against your kid. We have restraining orders for a reason, because some people just won't get the message and stop being dicks.

What was a dick move? The way that sentence is formatted, it seems you're saying the court made a dick move.

Ah, sorry. I meant that it's not technically illegal, just a dick move, because any reasonable description of free speech includes misgendering someone. It's basically like insulting someone, it's hurtful language, you can't legally restrict that but it's nasty and if you do it enough you can get slapped down with a restraining order.

Worffan101 wrote: ↑Sat May 04, 2019 12:46 am

BridgeConsoleMasher wrote: ↑Sat May 04, 2019 12:43 am

Worffan101 wrote: ↑Sat May 04, 2019 12:15 am Dick move, but free speech doesn't let you send hate mobs against your kid. We have restraining orders for a reason, because some people just won't get the message and stop being dicks.

What was a dick move? The way that sentence is formatted, it seems you're saying the court made a dick move.

Ah, sorry. I meant that it's not technically illegal, just a dick move, because any reasonable description of free speech includes misgendering someone. It's basically like insulting someone, it's hurtful language, you can't legally restrict that but it's nasty and if you do it enough you can get slapped down with a restraining order.

Well I mean he was trying to keep it confidential.

I feel like we can ignore any protections of "free speech" in this case. It'd be nice if we could mute provisions of free speech for maybe like a year(?) to see if we get anywhere with anything.

This part here though is just blatantly false imo:

“This is extreme and dangerous,” she said, arguing that the court was forcing Clark to embrace a “delusion” about his daughter’s gender and her “abuse” at the hands of doctors, or else be arrested.

BridgeConsoleMasher wrote: ↑Sat May 04, 2019 12:48 am
Well I mean he was trying to keep it confidential.

I'm pretty dubious on that. Dude's a Canadian man sending info to a disreputable American news outlet most noted for stirring the pot? This is a sufficiently predictable outcome that I think Hanlon's Razor no longer applies.

This case makes me happy, mostly because I know I've seen reference to a few american cases that were the exact opposite: judges placing kids with transphobic parents on the specific reasoning that allowing them access to trans care was disqualifying (although I don't have news links so feel free to take that with a grain of salt if you want.)

Although really just the fact the boy was able to figure this out in his early teens, when the damage from wrong puberty would be minor, is pretty laudable in itself. But that's part of a larger discussion on how truly damaging the "we shouldn't let kids makes these decisions!!" rhetoric is. Yes, making kids go through 6-8 years of body horror and an unpredictable set of dysphoric symptoms that may cause lasting trauma in themselves only to look forward to years of surgery waitlists to possibly reverse all the unwanted changes is surely a better option than pausing puberty and 99.99% of the time starting up a better one on the slim chance that preserved reproductive function is something they want.

CmdrKing wrote: ↑Sat May 04, 2019 1:33 am

BridgeConsoleMasher wrote: ↑Sat May 04, 2019 12:48 am
Well I mean he was trying to keep it confidential.

I'm pretty dubious on that. Dude's a Canadian man sending info to a disreputable American news outlet most noted for stirring the pot? This is a sufficiently predictable outcome that I think Hanlon's Razor no longer applies.

I wasn't really appealing to Hanion's Razor but attributing the outcome to something that was beyond his control subsequent of taking reasonable precaution. The last part there is indeed dubious with respect to what you're saying; I wasn't really clear about just who it was he talked to.

Then that leads of course to the notion that the school was making these decisions without the parent's awareness. Assertive speculation of transphobia aside, I'm personally not comfortable with the idea that schools just take it upon themselves to start physical conversion therapy.

Eh, depends how involved the school was. If they just have contact info for therapists or similar professionals and help students get in contact with them upon request that’s an excellent resource. It would be a bit much of they were sending kids straight to the endocrinologist or recommending therapists unprompted though sure.