It takes a village but the village is nuts

[WLJ]

 

The warrant was issued by a judge for the arrest of a father after calling his biological female child his "daughter," and referring to her with the pronouns "she" and "her." He was found to be in contempt of court.

Father jailed after referring to biological female child as his daughter
https://thepostmillennial.com/rob-hoogland-canada-prisoner-of-conscience

Canadian father who ‘misgendered’ his child reportedly held in contempt of court
https://twitchy.com/brettt-3136/2021/03/18/canadian-father-who-misgendered-his-child-reportedly-held-in-contempt-of-court/

[RocketMan]

Father jailed after referring to biological female child as his daughter
https://thepostmillennial.com/rob-hoogland-canada-prisoner-of-conscience

Canadian father who ‘misgendered’ his child reportedly held in contempt of court
https://twitchy.com/brettt-3136/2021/03/18/canadian-father-who-misgendered-his-child-reportedly-held-in-contempt-of-court/

Just a matter of time before this becomes a regular occurrence on this side of the border.

[MechAg94]

Hoogland is a father to a gender non-conforming biological female 14-year-old who identifies as transgender and prefers the use of male pronouns. Hoogland has repeatedly called this person his daughter, though the court has forbade it.

…

[Robert] Hoogland opposes his child’s undergoing “gender affirmative” medical procedures, and has stated this opposition again and again, in the hope of saving his child from irreversible harm. The Canadian medical system, the legal system, and the child’s mother press ahead with social and medical transition of the child.

Sounds like a mess. 

[Hawkmoon]

He should hold a memorial service for the loss of his daughter (may she rest in peace).

[Boomhauer]

He should hold a memorial service for the loss of his daughter (may she rest in peace).

There’s a 41% chance he will be holding a real one...

[MillCreek]

I don't know what the laws are in Canada, but in most states of the USA, once a child reaches a certain age, they have the right to provide consent for behavioral health care, and the rights of the parents in the process can be minimal or non-existent.  If there is a conflict, the Courts generally tend to support the rights of the teenager over the parents.

[RoadKingLarry]

Hoogland is a father to a gender non-conforming biological female 14-year-old who identifies as transgender and prefers the use of male pronouns. Hoogland has repeatedly called this person his daughter, though the court has forbade it.

…

[Robert] Hoogland opposes his child’s undergoing “gender affirmative” medical procedures, and has stated this opposition again and again, in the hope of saving his child from irreversible harm. The Canadian medical system, the legal system, and the child’s mother press ahead with social and medical transition of the child.

What do you bet that dear ole dad still gets stuck with the bill?

[TommyGunn]

I don't know what the laws are in Canada, but in most states of the USA, once a child reaches a certain age, they have the right to provide consent for behavioral health care, and the rights of the parents in the process can be minimal or non-existent.  If there is a conflict, the Courts generally tend to support the rights of the teenager over the parents.

So if a 15 year old daughter wants to be refered to as "son"  her/"his"  43 year old father either complies or is jailed?


      

Uh,   when does Civil War 2.0 start? 

[WLJ]

So if a 15 year old daughter wants to be refered to as "son"  her/"his"  43 year old father either complies or is jailed?


      

Uh,   when does Civil War 2.0 start? 

It won't be civil

[MechAg94]

So if a 15 year old daughter wants to be refered to as "son"  her/"his"  43 year old father either complies or is jailed?


      

Uh,   when does Civil War 2.0 start? 

In court at least. 

[MillCreek]

So if a 15 year old daughter wants to be refered to as "son"  her/"his"  43 year old father either complies or is jailed?


      

Uh,   when does Civil War 2.0 start? 

I read the source article and saw that the father was deliberately not complying with the court orders, no doubt for what the father thought was good and sufficient reason.  It is a fairly common legal principle that judges do not like people flagrantly violating court orders, and if you do so, consequences will likely follow.  So in this case, the father is taking a stand and accepting the consequences.  I admire him for standing up for his principles.

[Ben]

I read the source article and saw that the father was deliberately not complying with the court orders, no doubt for what the father thought was good and sufficient reason.  It is a fairly common legal principle that judges do not like people flagrantly violating court orders, and if you do so, consequences will likely follow.  So in this case, the father is taking a stand and accepting the consequences.  I admire him for standing up for his principles.

There is a concern that there can be court ORDERS forcing someone to refer to another person as "he" or "she". I should be able to refer to anyone I want as "Hey Jackass" without fear of being thrown in the pokey.

[Perd Hapley]

So refusing to affirm the person's actual gender is called being "gender-affirming," and referring to a person's actual gender is called "misgendering." That is some of the most lefty left-speak I have ever heard.

[MillCreek]

There is a concern that there can be court ORDERS forcing someone to refer to another person as "he" or "she". I should be able to refer to anyone I want as "Hey Jackass" without fear of being thrown in the pokey.

i don't disagree, but if your wife or co-worker got a court order forbidding you to do that, you violate the order at your own risk.  In my legal journals, I have heard of a related concept occurring in divorce cases.  Party A gets a court order for Party B to stop denigrating Party A. If Party B keeps on with the denigrating, the judge can get unhappy and take whatever action they deem appropriate.  Usually this is in the context of 'parental alienation' in which one parent is bad-mouthing the other parent.

[zxcvbob]

There is a concern that there can be court ORDERS forcing someone to refer to another person as "he" or "she". I should be able to refer to anyone I want as "Hey Jackass" without fear of being thrown in the pokey.

Seems like a First Amendment issue, don't it?    (BTW, "Hey jackass" might be acceptable because it's gender-neutral)  Although this wasn't in USA, was it?

[HankB]

Seems like a First Amendment issue, don't it?    (BTW, "Hey jackass" might be acceptable because it's gender-neutral)  Although this wasn't in USA, was it?

Actually, jackass refers to a male donkey, so it's not actually gender-neutral. 

[zxcvbob]

Actually, jackass refers to a male donkey, so it's not actually gender-neutral. 

True, but it's not all *that* gendered of a reference, and the girl wants to be called a male anyway so she should be pleased.     (how about "Hey, ahole!")

[TommyGunn]

It won't be civil

The first one wasn't, either. 

[TommyGunn]

I read the source article and saw that the father was deliberately not complying with the court orders, no doubt for what the father thought was good and sufficient reason.  It is a fairly common legal principle that judges do not like people flagrantly violating court orders, and if you do so, consequences will likely follow.  So in this case, the father is taking a stand and accepting the consequences.  I admire him for standing up for his principles.

Well, good for him I suppose.  He's a good myrmidon - - - ooops,  I mean martyr. 

It's still nutzo.

[HankB]

I'm beginning to think tarring and feathering is too good for some public officials. 

[T.O.M.]

i don't disagree, but if your wife or co-worker got a court order forbidding you to do that, you violate the order at your own risk.  In my legal journals, I have heard of a related concept occurring in divorce cases.  Party A gets a court order for Party B to stop denigrating Party A. If Party B keeps on with the denigrating, the judge can get unhappy and take whatever action they deem appropriate.  Usually this is in the context of 'parental alienation' in which one parent is bad-mouthing the other parent.

I have, many times, ordered parents to not denigrate the other parent in the presence of their children.  I don't care what they say to friends, co-workers, etc., but no kid needs to hear one parent speak in nasty terms of the other parent.  Yes, I have held people in contempt for this.  Usually, saying that gets the point across.  I have issued a few fines.  Never had to jail anyone.

[Ben]

I have, many times, ordered parents to not denigrate the other parent in the presence of their children.  I don't care what they say to friends, co-workers, etc., but no kid needs to hear one parent speak in nasty terms of the other parent.  Yes, I have held people in contempt for this.  Usually, saying that gets the point across.  I have issued a few fines.  Never had to jail anyone.

My "hey jackass" comment was more about in public. I guess people don't do decorum anymore, but I was taught to wear a suit to court and address people properly and the judge respectfully.

In public, "hey jackass" should not have legal consequences. Maybe "punch in the nose" consequences (and we don't do enough of that anymore thanks to lawsuits).

Regardless, I will simply never be able to process that addressing a female as "she", in court or otherwise, is grounds for jail. I don't see how you can denigrate someone by stating a simple fact.

[T.O.M.]

My "hey jackass" comment was more about in public. I guess people don't do decorum anymore, but I was taught to wear a suit to court and address people properly and the judge respectfully.

In public, "hey jackass" should not have legal consequences. Maybe "punch in the nose" consequences (and we don't do enough of that anymore thanks to lawsuits).

Regardless, I will simply never be able to process that addressing a female as "she", in court or otherwise, is grounds for jail. I don't see how you can denigrate someone by stating a simple fact.

I've got to say, I struggle with that as well.  Saying " her wife " or "his husband"  is like nails on a chalkboard to me.

[kgbsquirrel]

I read the source article and saw that the father was deliberately not complying with the court orders, no doubt for what the father thought was good and sufficient reason.  It is a fairly common legal principle that judges do not like people flagrantly violating court orders, and if you do so, consequences will likely follow.  So in this case, the father is taking a stand and accepting the consequences.  I admire him for standing up for his principles.

Prior restraint on speech.  Some court orders are never valid, and jailing someone for violation them is nothing more than kidnapping and false imprisonment under color of law.

[lee n. field]

I've got to say, I struggle with that as well.  Saying " her wife " or "his husband"  is like nails on a chalkboard to me.

As a related aside, over the (many) years I've run into a couple of women who would always refer to their off-scene significant other as "my spouse",  not "my husband".  Always made me wonder if that was a lesbian partner.