Court Rules Seven-Year-Old Boy Can Transition To Female Against Father's Wishes

The Anchor

NES Member
Rating - 100%
17   0   0
Joined
Jan 18, 2013
Messages
1,037
Likes
340
WTF, and i thought MA treated single fathers like shit....

A jury of eleven has ruled against a father who was attempting to prevent his seven-year-old son from being administered puberty blockers by the boy’s mother and doctor.

Jeffrey Younger will also potentially have to refer to his son James as “Luna” in order to affirm the boy’s gender identity. The father has referred to the treatment of his son as “sexual abuse” by the mother, Anne Georgulas. Court documents show that James prefers to wear boy’s clothes while with him and to be referred to as a boy.


”I want you to imagine having electronic communication with your son on FaceTime, and imagine that your ex-wife has dressed him as a drag queen to talk to you,” said Younger.

“Now imagine how you would feel seeing what I believe is actual sexual abuse—I believe this is not just emotional abuse but is the very, most fundamental form of sexual abuse, tampering with the sexual identity of a vulnerable boy.”


James’ mother is seeking to have Jeffrey’s parental rights removed “for not affirming James as transgender” according to The Federalist and she is also seeking to have him pay the bills for therapy and hormone treatment.



While James is not currently being administered the drugs, he could face the potential of chemical castration if undergoing hormone treatment after the age of eleven.

“Every. Single. Day. You have to see your son sexually abused, and you have to maintain your calm. because the courts are not going to be fair to you. And the only way you can survive this and get your son through this alive is to calmly allow your son to be tortured right before your eyes and outlast the opposition. That’s what it’s like,” said Younger

Court rules seven-year-old boy can transition to female against father's wishes - The Post Millennial
 
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Mar 24, 2017
Messages
3,332
Likes
3,049
Location
Worcester, MA
While on it's face I find the premise disturbing, but I also find the reporting and conclusions to be highly suspect. The conclusion seemed focused on a potential outcome, not addressing the immediate issue of attending psychological counseling for gender dysphoria.

Call me cynically naive (not mutually exclusive), but I don't trust the accuracy of reporting on any debatable topic and I actually believe that people have more common sense than to subject a young child to the permanent effects of a choice he is too young to understand.
 

Prepper

NES Member
Rating - 100%
11   0   0
Joined
Apr 12, 2007
Messages
20,720
Likes
9,314
While on it's face I find the premise disturbing, but I also find the reporting and conclusions to be highly suspect. The conclusion seemed focused on a potential outcome, not addressing the immediate issue of attending psychological counseling for gender dysphoria.

Call me cynically naive (not mutually exclusive), but I don't trust the accuracy of reporting on any debatable topic and I actually believe that people have more common sense than to subject a young child to the permanent effects of a choice he is too young to understand.
It is good to be skeptical in general, but I don't see much opportunity for this to actually be good for the boy. If he really is obsessed with being a girl, counseling would be a less severe option. And he may want to be a boy for all we know... This could entirely be the so called mothers obsession and she doesn't care what the boy wants.

By preventing puberty, he doesn't become a girl. He becomes an asexual boy. No longer able to enjoy it as a boy or girl.
 
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Mar 24, 2017
Messages
3,332
Likes
3,049
Location
Worcester, MA
It is good to be skeptical in general, but I don't see much opportunity for this to actually be good for the boy. If he really is obsessed with being a girl, counseling would be a less severe option. And he may want to be a boy for all we know... This could entirely be the so called mothers obsession and she doesn't care what the boy wants.

By preventing puberty, he doesn't become a girl. He becomes an asexual boy. No longer able to enjoy it as a boy or girl.
That is what I was getting at. The boy will be doing the counselling. Hormone suppression is a possible outcome years down the road. The article makes the reader believe that the boy was ordered to undergo the suppression treatment right now, but that is not the case.
 

Prepper

NES Member
Rating - 100%
11   0   0
Joined
Apr 12, 2007
Messages
20,720
Likes
9,314
That is what I was getting at. The boy will be doing the counselling. Hormone suppression is a possible outcome years down the road. The article makes the reader believe that the boy was ordered to undergo the suppression treatment right now, but that is not the case.
OH I see.
 
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Dec 8, 2007
Messages
10,769
Likes
6,351
Location
Right behind you.
Honestly I'd probably just rescue my son and flee the country. Go move to some banana republic. Maybe he won't grow up with all the first world benefits we're used to here, but at least he'd not have to be chemically castrated and end up killing himself. For what the dad is pissing away futilely in legal bills he could probably set up a decent life on some island.

Supposedly the dad is claiming that the mom forces him to dress like a girl and will withhold affection from him unless he's dressing and acting like a girl. He claims the genesis of this all started because the little boy liked the movie 'Frozen'.
 

daekken

NES Member
Rating - 100%
6   0   0
Joined
Feb 5, 2015
Messages
4,807
Likes
5,145
Location
NH
There's a lot of conflicting/contentious info on this.
- Supposedly the "mom" isn't the biological one
- The father claims she withheld affection if the child didn't dress and act like a girl
- Reportedly the child decided to be a girl after watching Frozen and wants to be called Luna

Etc, etc. I've only really heard the dad's side / reports with a clear ideological bias.

On the flip side, a Texas jury sided with the mother...so there might be more than what meets the eye.

In the end, I think 7 is just too young to make these kinds of decisions. No matter the truth of the matter, I don't think it's the right time to make life altering, irreversible decisions like this.
 
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Jun 9, 2008
Messages
11,390
Likes
4,076
Jeffrey Younger will also potentially have to refer to his son James as “Luna” in order to affirm the boy’s gender identity. The father has referred to the treatment of his son as “sexual abuse” by the mother, Anne Georgulas. Court documents show that James prefers to wear boy’s clothes while with him and to be referred to as a boy.
Whiskey Tango Foxtrot. Over.

Help me try to understand this situation because I really must be missing something. The child (a biological male) prefers to wear boys clothes and be referred to as a boy and his mother is forcing him to take dangerous drugs to prevent puberty as well as referring to him as a girl and with a girl's name. In all this, the court is siding with the mother?
 

The Anchor

NES Member
Rating - 100%
17   0   0
Joined
Jan 18, 2013
Messages
1,037
Likes
340
from
"Jury refuses to protect 7 year old from forced sex-change" - what's up with that?
Here’s the story:



Divorced parents Jeffrey Younger and Anne Georgulas have been at odds over the treatment of their seven year old son, whom his mother insists is transgender and wishes to live as a girl, and whose father insists that, during the boy’s visitation periods to his father’s home, is perfectly happy being dressed as a boy, being called his birth name, and engaging in “boy” play, roughhousing, etc., with his twin brother. As Life Site News has been reporting, even the expert witnesses hired by the mother could not state with certainty that the child was transgender:

The expert witnesses, all of whom were paid by Georgulas to testify, and the state agency representatives admitted that James does not identify with only one gender.

Dr. Albritton told the court, “There is still some fluidity in his [James’] thinking.”

Ms. Zilca, from Dallas County Family Services, refused to call James by anything other than “Luna.” She told the court, “She [James] does not identify with only one gender.”

James’ counselor Ms. Ouer – who specializes in working with the “LGBT community” – told the court that gender fluidity means something different for each person. She also stated that James may not be transgender despite her having diagnosed him with gender dysphoria since there is some fluidity in his expression.

The father’s focus has been on emphasizing the risks and potential harm done to the boy by proceeding to puberty blockers and ultimately cross-sex hormones; at the same time, Life Site News reported that “Expert witness in trial of 7-year-old’s ‘transition’ downplays dangers of cross-sex hormone therapy” and that

Attorneys for the mother trying to force her ex-husband to go along with the gender “transition” she seeks for their seven-year-old son said in court yesterday the case is about parenting, not “gender transitioning.”

Anne Georgulas, a pediatrician, has been telling her son James he’s a girl since he was three. She and her ex-husband, Jeffery Younger, are in court this week as Georgulas seeks complete control over decision-making ability for James and his twin, Jude.

Georgulas’ attorneys, Jessica Janicek and Laura Hayes, argued that Younger is “insensitive, narcissistic, controlling, [and] unstable,” and that he refuses to follow the court’s orders. Meanwhile, Georgulas is “sensitive” and “empathetic,” and provides her son – whom she enrolled in kindergarten as a girl named “Luna” – a stable, loving environment while following court orders, they claimed.

All of which led to a jury decision yesterday:

With a consensus of 11 of the 12 jurors, the jury decided not to grant Mr. Younger Sole Managing Conservatorship over his two twin boys. They voted that the current Joint Managing Conservatorship should be replaced by a Sole Managing Conservatorship, but that Mr. Younger should not be that person. Judge Kim Cooks will read her ruling on possession, child support, and Dr. Georgulas’ other requests at 1:30 p.m. CST on Wednesday.

Now the whole thing is a bit convoluted, as there are remaining questions that a judge will decide, including visitation (the mother is seeking for the father’s visits to be limited and supervised) and child support, and this is slated for tomorrow.

But here’s the challenge: what does it mean that the jury found in favor of the mother?

Typically these “miscarriage of justice” situations are a matter of a single leftist judge or some crusading leftist politicians or bureaucrats. Here that’s not so. It was 11 out of 12 jury members. So there are, it seems to me, two possible explanations:




First, is it “not the jury’s fault” for one reason or another? Did the judge limit the evidence and expert testimony that the jury was allowed to hear? Was the deck stacked against Mr. Younger by rejecting witnesses testifying as to the risks of puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones, or the degree to which the child felt compelled to “be” a girl to please his mother or didn’t understand that a desire to play-act in dresses would cause adults to set him on this path? Did the mother’s prior “doctor-shopping” of pro-transition experts who were then deemed to have a relationship with the child doom Younger’s chances? Were witnesses testifying to the boy’s comfort level “presenting” as a boy likewise rejected? Did experts deceive the jury by means of claims that puberty blockers or cross-sex hormones were only a remote possibility rather than the likely path, when they themselves believe otherwise? Was the jury given instructions on how to apply the law that boxed them into finding in favor of the mother?


Or, second, is there simply more to the story? Were there issues with Younger’s behavior that Life Site News and other sites supportive of the father aren’t reporting because it would make him less sympathetic? Is it expected that the judge will mandate a middle path in which the mother will have custody but not the ability to unilaterally begin hormone/drug administration?

This is what is frustrating:

it is possible that the outrage simply isn’t justified, that we, as outsiders, don’t know the full story, that what seems to be a horrific path towards routinizing sterilization, hormones, and surgery for teens who need counseling, instead, in furtherance of an ideology that activists prioritize over the actual well-being of children, is really exaggerated by people with the opposite agenda. It is possible that in many such instances, the outrage isn’t justified, that there is more to the story. But at the same time, if we say, “I won’t let myself get taken in by the outrage machine; they’re just crying wolf” — well, what if outrage machine is right and the desire to withhold judgement means that by the time we realize this, it’s too late?

After all, remember back in the day when all the Smart People said that DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) was sufficient and it was really quite unnecessary to promote a constitutional amendment to prevent an eventual mandate of gay marriage? And remember when fears of mandatory affirmation of gay marriage were likewise deemed overblown because of course freedom of religion would be protected? — And now we have mandates that service providers provide their services and a threat that religious groups which do not affirm gay marriage will have their nonprofit status removed. (Incidental gripe: this is not just about whether or not donations are tax-deductible. This is about whether these organizations are themselves liable for tax, whether it be for their income or property tax on the property. The German heritage society where my kids attended German School for many years was constantly fundraising just to pay their property taxes until, it seems to me, they finally managed to get reclassified as a charity, perhaps because their membership had aged enough that they could claim they were providing social services to the elderly.)

So, readers, how do you find that balance?
 

MarkT

NES Member
Rating - 100%
39   0   0
Joined
Feb 16, 2013
Messages
4,833
Likes
1,852
Location
Earth
more and more as people flee CA for TX. TX will be lost within 10 to 15 years.

This country is not getting fixed without a civil war.
You beat me to it. California is ruining Texas like Mass is ruining NH and Maine. It is cancerous.
 
Rating - 100%
11   0   0
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
920
Likes
630
Location
Quincy
There's a lot of conflicting/contentious info on this.
- Supposedly the "mom" isn't the biological one
- The father claims she withheld affection if the child didn't dress and act like a girl
- Reportedly the child decided to be a girl after watching Frozen and wants to be called Luna
How is any of the above conflicting or contentious?

On the flip side, a Texas jury sided with the mother...so there might be more than what meets the eye.
Empanelment on a jury has a tendency to remove all common sense from people. Look at the $8 billion award as compensation for manboobs.
 
Rating - 100%
10   0   0
Joined
Dec 28, 2012
Messages
5,194
Likes
1,613
Location
Commie America
And probably not fixed in my lifetime. I do fear the world my kids (and someday) grandkids will be living in, it's going to absolute shit awfully quick.
 

SpaceCritter

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Jan 15, 2013
Messages
16,117
Likes
11,059
Location
In Orbit
You beat me to it. California is ruining Texas like Mass is ruining NH and Maine. It is cancerous.
Ugh - for the umpteenth time, it ain't Massatwoshits:
Don’t blame Massachusetts for New Hampshire’s Leftward Drift
The southern part of New Hampshire is where most Massachusetts transplants have settled, and it is now the most conservative part of the state. When I served in the New Hampshire legislature, I represented the towns of Salem and Windham – both of which border Massachusetts. In getting to know my constituents, I quickly realized they were shell shocked tax refugees. They escaped Massachusetts for the very reasons the UNH survey cited and the last thing they wanted to do on Election Day was turn New Hampshire into the high tax wasteland they fled.

So what is the cause of New Hampshire’s political leftward drift? The UNH survey also answered that question. The real culprits are residents from the Mid-Atlantic States: New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Delaware and Maryland. They move to New Hampshire to escape city life in exchange for rural our natural beauty. Unfortunately, they bring their big-government liberal philosophies with them. They have relocated to New Hampshire in similarly large numbers as Massachusetts transplants.
 
Top Bottom