- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Jury rules against dad trying to save his 7-year-old from gender ‘transition’
Posted on 10/22/19 at 3:50 pm to AggieHank86
Posted on 10/22/19 at 3:50 pm to AggieHank86
quote:Go to page 72 of this transcript of the father's attorney questioning the mother.
“Findings of Fact” are.normally drafted by the prevailing party and a draft is presented to the judge for revision and/signature. They are always somewhat biased.
The court appointed an amicus attorney to represent the child, and his questions of the witnesses seem to be largely aligned with the father’s desires.
Here and here and here are pretty good summaries of two days of expert testimony, from a website largely sympathetic to the father’s position. A good read.
Interestingly, there was near-unanimity among the experts that the child should not commence medical reassignment for another three or four years. There was also near-unanimity that the child currently remains “gender fluid,” meaning that he has not settled completely on one gender or the other.
The mother fully admits that she believes her 6 year old is capable of making THE DECISION about his gender, and that she believes she is supposed to abide by his decision.
She suggests he emphatically knows his gender and that going against the 6 year old's feelings would harm him.
That's some awful shite right there. It's either bonafide proof she is unfit to be his mother, or she is lying to the court just to get what SHE wants, which is simply more proof that she is unfit to be his mother.
In no rational or reasonable world should an adult let a 6 year old make this kind of decision.
Not to mention, the kid's belief structure is already compromised because we know for a fact she had been brainwashing him since he was at least 3.
James, himself at age 3, stated on video that his mother told him he was a girl.
So clearly, she's a liar and has zero credibility. SHE made this decision. SHE forced this on him.
But you go defending it like the sick clown you are.
This post was edited on 10/22/19 at 3:52 pm
2
Posted on 10/22/19 at 3:53 pm to AggieHank86
You are not an attorney..... pathological liar, probably.
Posted on 10/22/19 at 4:01 pm to SSpaniel
quote:Texas Family Code defines the term as follows:
Explain to me how castrating a 7 year old isn't child abuse, please. I mean, you can't, but give it your best shot.
quote:Let us be clear, here. There was no suggestion at trial that mother would be castrating a 7yo, whether chemically or otherwise. Her own testifying experts indicated that puberty blocking hormones are not even on the menu for another three or four years.
physical injury that results in substantial harm to the child, or the genuine threat of substantial harm from physical injury to the child, including an injury that is at variance with the history or explanation given and excluding an accident or reasonable discipline by a parent, guardian, or managing or possessory conservator that does not expose the child to a substantial risk of harm;
With that being said, it may well reach that point in a few years, but I just cannot justify using that terminology to describe an established medical procedure ... administered in a good faith (if erroneous) belief that such procedure is in the best long-term interest of the child.
Posted on 10/22/19 at 4:06 pm to BeefDawg
quote:In a case like this, I frankly do not much care from a substantive perspective what either party believes about the science. I want to hear from the practitioners and the experts.
The mother fully admits that she believes her 6 year old is capable of making THE DECISION about his gender, and that she believes she is supposed to abide by his decision.
She suggests he emphatically knows his gender and that going against the 6 year old's feelings would harm him.
This testimony DOES raise questions about the mother’s fitness, if she thinks a child has the capacity to be making such decisions alone.
Posted on 10/22/19 at 4:06 pm to AggieHank86
Hank has the child's best interest at heart.
Posted on 10/22/19 at 4:07 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
“wrong decision with honest motivation”
Why do you keep implying child abuse requires intent?
Posted on 10/22/19 at 4:07 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
physical injury that results in substantial harm to the child,
First sentence
Thanks for confirming
Posted on 10/22/19 at 4:08 pm to mouton
quote:
Why do you keep implying child abuse requires intent?
Especially when he most certainly knows it doesn't
Posted on 10/22/19 at 4:09 pm to ShortyRob
It doesn't matter, he said he has the child's best interest at heart.
Posted on 10/22/19 at 4:09 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
This testimony DOES raise questions about the mother’s fitness, if she thinks a child has the capacity to be making such decisions alone.
And. To repeat
There is exactly ONE reason that this particular niche skipped past this obvious truth
LIBERALS
Posted on 10/22/19 at 4:09 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
Correct
That’s enough internet for today I think...
Posted on 10/22/19 at 4:10 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
want to hear from the practitioners and the experts.
A field that exclusively employs loons and removes dissent from practice.
See Dr. Zucker
Posted on 10/22/19 at 4:10 pm to Jorts R Us
quote:
No
Although we are getting a very strange roundabout justification for why the legal system coming to this decision is OK.
I'm not even going to ask what their "logic" is. Anyone that thinks mutilating a child is a good idea is a evil or insane.
Posted on 10/22/19 at 4:11 pm to Turbeauxdog
quote:
you don't think chemically castrating a seven year old is child abuse???
Hank's response:
quote:
Correct
Posted on 10/22/19 at 4:14 pm to AggieHank86
Not only does he state that he does not believe this to be abuse, he actually defines it as an established medical procedure administered in the best long term interest of the child.
quote:
an established medical procedure ... administered in a good faith (if erroneous) belief that such procedure is in the best long-term interest of the child.
Posted on 10/22/19 at 4:14 pm to AggieHank86
AggieHank86 what about an actual sex change operation? Would performing a sex change operation on a seven year old child constitute child abuse in your world?
Posted on 10/22/19 at 4:15 pm to DeusVultMachina
He also inserted few weasel word modifiers in there, just so he has some wiggle room to tell us he "doesn't really believe that"
Posted on 10/22/19 at 4:16 pm to BeefDawg
quote:Let’s look at an analogous scenario. Child is terminally ill with XYZ. There exists an experimental procedure which has a 5% chance of a complete cure. Whether successful or not, the procedure will give the child indescribable, screaming agony for six months or until death, whichever is longer. Otherwise, XYZ brings a peaceful and completely painless death
But you go defending it like the sick clown you are.
Should the State mandate that procedure, such that every child with XYZ must endure it, in hopes of saving 5%?
Should the State prohibit the procedure, in order prevent ANY child from having to endure six months of agony?
Or should the State allow the parents of each child to make that decision on behalf their own offspring?
If the latter and the parents disagree, should we handcuff a judge with some general, statutory solution, or should we allow the jusge to use best judgment in each case, based upon the facrs as presented at trial?
Posted on 10/22/19 at 4:16 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
Let’s look at an analogous scenario.
No thanks, pierre. Lets look at this scenario.
Posted on 10/22/19 at 4:28 pm to mouton
quote:unlike some states, Texas does not have a statute addressing the question of medical abuse. The sort of thing that would apply to Munchhausen by proxy. so you have to try and shoehorn those cases into statutes for which they were not really designed, such as the family code section cited above.
Why do you keep implying child abuse requires intent?
Texas has common law exceptions for a “good faith“ acts as the almost all torts, so one would think that those types oof exceptions would apply to that statute as well.
For instance, if a parent consented to an appendectomy on a child with a good faith believe that the appendectomy was necessary, it is difficult to imagine that said parent would be guilty of “child abuse“ for doing an injury to the child in the form of the incision (which IS an “injury), regardless of whether the appendectomy turned out to be necessary, once the surgeon got inside and took a look around.
Page 28 of 45
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News