Red Mosquito

2 years

Patriot Front up to no good.

How long until we have an Elian Gonzales style photo with the CHP hauling a child away to get "gender affirming care"?

simple schoolboy wrote:
How long until we have an Elian Gonzales style photo with the CHP hauling a child away to get "gender affirming care"?

Close:

Bi_3 wrote:

simple schoolboy wrote:
How long until we have an Elian Gonzales style photo with the CHP hauling a child away to get "gender affirming care"?

Close:

If the court took custody away from the kid's father because he supported affirming care, would that be better? There's no win in that scenario. It's not a tragic tale of state overreach. It's a tragic tale of a broken family.

B wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:

simple schoolboy wrote:
How long until we have an Elian Gonzales style photo with the CHP hauling a child away to get "gender affirming care"?

Close:

If the court took custody away from the kid's father because he supported affirming care, would that be better? There's no win in that scenario. It's not a tragic tale of state overreach. It's a tragic tale of a broken family.

She did a podcast interview with another organization a few months before to “talk about safeguarding children from trans ideology.” In it, she said “I think I am kind of the example of how you can do everything right that is within your power, and still end up with a transgender child. Because there are a lot of things a child stands to gain socially from being transgender.” She’s in the middle of a libraries tour for her anti-trans organization when she sits down for the interview.

She goes on to admit that her now 15 year old child has to date not pursued medical transition, but is waiting until they’re older to make that decision. So it’s not about blockers or hormones or surgeries or any of that…at no point was reconciling with her child important enough for her to just not actively and publicly reject a self-identification.

This child wasn’t making any permanent changes to who they were. They simply identified themselves in a particular way, and were happy to accept themselves that way. It could well have been something they changed their mind on years later…and then, so what? Or, if they didn’t change their mind, then that just means it’s who they are. It’s who they are. That’s what she couldn’t accept about her child. Who they are.

Given that she has spent the intervening years advocating against what her child is, including founding an organization, and given that her summary of it above is basically “I’m an example of how you can be the perfect mom and still end up with a clunker,” and given that the child was upset enough about the way she spoke about transgenderism at home that the custody and court system agreed, and given that she’s broadcasting her child’s photo and name out on conservative media at a time of extraordinary political violence and intimidation, I’d propose that any reader look past whatever ideological sympathies you might have and consider that this is just not a parent whose primary concern is safeguarding her child.

...

OK, maybe that case was decided perfectly.

B wrote:...

OK, maybe that case was decided perfectly.

In what appears to be an unfortunate trend, McP's arguing a different thing than the one presented.

The case itself is easy to sum up: parents had nasty divorce, mom gets custody, dad wants custody, psychotherapist stepmom helps child realize they are trans and realize they feel unsafe around the mother, dad weaponizes to get custody from Mom, Mom has mental breakdown over it.

The sympathies should be with the child who it appears was exploited by the dad/stepmom to punish the Mom. Children are often used by divorcing parents to punish each-other without regard for the safety of the child. The reason it's relevant at all is not that the mom is being a hateful shit, it's that Schoolboy mentioned a scenario in which the state uses force to take a minor because a parent refused affirming care, and while there are no cops directly involved, the state preventing the mother from contacting her child isn't far off. Now it's perfectly possible the child is trans. Entirely possible (the mother doesn't think so, but it's not her choice, it's the child's). And if so, then maybe the right result was ultimately achieved. But that's not the point ... and, again this is why it's relevant and it's context in the quoted post matters, the point is the actions of the state. Like the Elian case isn't really unique outside of the actions of the state, neither is this. But because the state has involved itself by creating a scenario where the rejection of affirming care is treated like child abuse, it's opened a Pandora's box of potential custody issues that will hurt children, trans children in particular, like the Elian scenario did for the violent deportation of minors.

Do you have this level of knowledge about everyone?

Is there a law that says families have to provider gender affirming care, or did a family court judge hear this case and decide that misgendering and publicly shaming this, particular child was grounds for loss of custody?

B wrote: Is there a law that says families have to provider gender affirming care, or did a family court judge hear this case and decide that misgendering and publicly shaming this, particular child was grounds for loss of custody?

California has a proposed bill that does just that, and makes the state a sanctuary state for minors seeking "gender affirming care".

B wrote:Do you have this level of knowledge about everyone?

You'll be amazed at what you can learned by simply taking a single step back from the right/left binary.

The case itself is easy to sum up:

No case is easy to sum up based on one side’s description. Especially when divorce is involved. That’s stupid.

parents had nasty divorce, mom gets custody, dad wants custody, psychotherapist stepmom helps child realize they are trans and realize they feel unsafe around the mother

What evidence is there of this? That the father and his wife first decided they wanted sole custody, then hatched a carefully crafted plan to manipulate the child (during their one day a week) into “discovering” that they are trans? How did this never get uncovered by the investigation, if you can see it all the way from here?

Here’s how Cooper describes the process in the video: “They did a seven month investigation. I had psychological testing. So did my ex-husband. Hours and hours of interviews. We each had home visits, and they did interviews with other people who had observed my daughter and me together.”

At the end of all of that, the conclusion was that the child was better off with the father while they attended court ordered family therapy. And whatever the therapist’s opinion was after those sessions, it must not have looked good for Cooper, because she signed custody over. I'll say again: she signed custody over. To spare the child further litigation, is what I'm told.

a scenario in which the state uses force to take a minor because a parent refused affirming care

Unless I'm mistaken, the initial claim wasn’t that mom refused to permit gender affirming care (and I'll note again, there's been no pursuit of medical transition care in particular), but rather that the way she talked about transgenderism at home made her child feel unsafe. Due to "awakening awareness of self," they no longer felt "mentally and emotionally safe" in the house. And as far as I can tell, the only reason you have to believe this claim was unfounded is that the person who was accused of it is telling you so. The same person putting her child’s face and name out there for an audience of bigoted, angry Daily Caller readers.

I'll say it again: putting their name and face in the public eye on a hot button topic that has a lot of people very worked up. Would you do that to your child? To specifically the audience that is most angry about what they are? As a means to generate sympathy for your side of the story? Is that something you would do?

It demonstrates, as far as I can tell, that we should be prepared to consider that there might be a very good reason this child didn't feel safe with mom. It demonstrates that maybe those long evaluations did provide the many professionals involved cause for concern. She made a choice to expose her child's identity and story to an unsafe audience. And she has devoted her life to rejecting the story the child has told for themself. She'll give up custody to spare the child further litigation, but then hold their photo up for an anti-trans audience. That's someone whose word I am not prepare to take over the child's, father's, judge's and risk assessment team's in combination.

Yesterday, she put up a blog post comparing Point of Pride's financial assistance for Black trans people to the Tuskegee experiments. In May, she compared providing gender affirming care to "walking kids to the gas chamber." She described herself as an example of how you can "do everything right" and "still end up with a transgender child."

Those are her words. They are public demonstrations...by her....that give you every reason to reconsider that maybe the many, many adults involved in the very lengthy evaluation process saw or heard things that gave credibility to the child's discomfort. That illustrated a risk of psychological harm from being under this person's care and authority.

That it is folly to say "the case itself is easy to sum up" based on one side's declaration of victimhood. That is what I'm saying.

I am not saying the child was manipulated. It was the mom in the video that implied that. The mom in the video does not believe children are born trans. I am not the mom in the video. I am not claiming the child is or is not trans. I am not defending this women by posting this. I am not endorsing her behavior with regards to her child. I am not endorsing her viewpoint on trans rights. I am not endorsing the website that hosted that original post or their viewpoints either.

I'll say again: she signed custody over.

Cooper claims she signed the custody order to block medical transitioning without her written permission.

In return for giving up her ability to spend time with her daughter, Jeannette negotiated for a legal commitment that Sophia will not medically transition without a court order or Jeannette’s written permission.

If you have a better source, I am happy to read it.

simple schoolboy wrote:

B wrote: Is there a law that says families have to provider gender affirming care, or did a family court judge hear this case and decide that misgendering and publicly shaming this, particular child was grounds for loss of custody?

California has a proposed bill that does just that, and makes the state a sanctuary state for minors seeking "gender affirming care".

That's not this case though. That's an entirely different thing.

Does it dissolve parental custody?

B wrote:

simple schoolboy wrote:

B wrote: Is there a law that says families have to provider gender affirming care, or did a family court judge hear this case and decide that misgendering and publicly shaming this, particular child was grounds for loss of custody?

California has a proposed bill that does just that, and makes the state a sanctuary state for minors seeking "gender affirming care".

That's not this case though. That's an entirely different thing.

Does it dissolve parental custody?

It puts the kids in Foster care, so at least for the duration?

Edit:
Which seems pretty shitty for the kid, even if transition is what's best for that particular kid. So the good news is you're getting the hormones and surgeries you want. The bad news is you're getting it through MediCal and uh, good luck not getting raped in the Foster home we stick you in.

Bi_3 wrote:

B wrote:...

OK, maybe that case was decided perfectly.

In what appears to be an unfortunate trend, McP's arguing a different thing than the one presented.

The case itself is easy to sum up: parents had nasty divorce, mom gets custody, dad wants custody, psychotherapist stepmom helps child realize they are trans and realize they feel unsafe around the mother, dad weaponizes to get custody from Mom, Mom has mental breakdown over it.

The sympathies should be with the child who it appears was exploited by the dad/stepmom to punish the Mom. Children are often used by divorcing parents to punish each-other without regard for the safety of the child. The reason it's relevant at all is not that the mom is being a hateful shit, it's that Schoolboy mentioned a scenario in which the state uses force to take a minor because a parent refused affirming care, and while there are no cops directly involved, the state preventing the mother from contacting her child isn't far off. Now it's perfectly possible the child is trans. Entirely possible (the mother doesn't think so, but it's not her choice, it's the child's). And if so, then maybe the right result was ultimately achieved. But that's not the point ... and, again this is why it's relevant and it's context in the quoted post matters, the point is the actions of the state. Like the Elian case isn't really unique outside of the actions of the state, neither is this. But because the state has involved itself by creating a scenario where the rejection of affirming care is treated like child abuse, it's opened a Pandora's box of potential custody issues that will hurt children, trans children in particular, like the Elian scenario did for the violent deportation of minors.

The court didn't do it because the mother wouldn't provide gender affirming care. They did it because she was a bad mother. The daughter felt unsafe in the house.

Bi_3 wrote:I am not saying the child was manipulated. It was the mom in the video that implied that. The mom in the video does not believe children are born trans. I am not the mom in the video. I am not claiming the child is or is not trans. I am not defending this women by posting this. I am not endorsing her behavior with regards to her child.

When schoolboy posed the question “How long until we have an Elian Gonzales style photo with the CHP hauling a child away to get "gender affirming care,” you put THIS story up and wrote

Bi_3 wrote:close.

You then summarized the case as

Bi_3 wrote:parents had nasty divorce, mom gets custody, dad wants custody, psychotherapist stepmom helps child realize they are trans and realize they feel unsafe around the mother, dad weaponizes to get custody from Mom.

You went on to say

Bi_3 wrote:The sympathies should be with the child who it appears was exploited by the dad/stepmom to punish the Mom.

These are tacit acceptances of the mother’s claims of victimhood and state overreach. I don’t know how many different ways I can tell you that the issue I have is your willingness to not only accept these claims based on only her side of the story, but to do so while she is victimizing her child with public exposure to an unsafe target audience, full stop. While she is demonstrating to you that she might, in fact, be the unsafe emotional place the child, father, and court system all found her to be. She is publicly presenting examples of why it is important not to draw conclusions based on only her side of the story, and you posted her story here in response to speculation about the dangers of government overreach and trans care.

Juxtapose these two statements for a moment, please:

Bi_3 wrote:I am not saying the child was manipulated. It was the mom in the video that implied that.

Bi_3 wrote:The sympathies should be with the child who it appears was exploited by the dad/stepmom to punish the Mom.

One promises a distance that the other does not demonstrate.

What I am saying is that in order to watch the mother’s story and conclude that…

Bi_3 wrote:the state has involved itself by creating a scenario where the rejection of affirming care is treated like child abuse

….one must first reject the child’s claims of being psychologically unsafe, as well as the conclusions of the investigation and family therapist at a minimum. One simply cannot perceive this as government overreach without first rejecting a child’s claims of feeling unsafe. And you fundamentally should not be prepared to do that solely on the words of a mother who is risking harm to her child now.

Leatherhead wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:

B wrote:...

OK, maybe that case was decided perfectly.

In what appears to be an unfortunate trend, McP's arguing a different thing than the one presented.

The case itself is easy to sum up: parents had nasty divorce, mom gets custody, dad wants custody, psychotherapist stepmom helps child realize they are trans and realize they feel unsafe around the mother, dad weaponizes to get custody from Mom, Mom has mental breakdown over it.

The sympathies should be with the child who it appears was exploited by the dad/stepmom to punish the Mom. Children are often used by divorcing parents to punish each-other without regard for the safety of the child. The reason it's relevant at all is not that the mom is being a hateful shit, it's that Schoolboy mentioned a scenario in which the state uses force to take a minor because a parent refused affirming care, and while there are no cops directly involved, the state preventing the mother from contacting her child isn't far off. Now it's perfectly possible the child is trans. Entirely possible (the mother doesn't think so, but it's not her choice, it's the child's). And if so, then maybe the right result was ultimately achieved. But that's not the point ... and, again this is why it's relevant and it's context in the quoted post matters, the point is the actions of the state. Like the Elian case isn't really unique outside of the actions of the state, neither is this. But because the state has involved itself by creating a scenario where the rejection of affirming care is treated like child abuse, it's opened a Pandora's box of potential custody issues that will hurt children, trans children in particular, like the Elian scenario did for the violent deportation of minors.

The court didn't do it because the mother wouldn't provide gender affirming care. They did it because she was a bad mother. The daughter felt unsafe in the house.

Failure to provide gender affirming care definitionally makes you a bad parent in the eyes of the state.

Notice the safetyism language. Trying to smuggle in disagreements as psychic harm.

How many trans IDing 15 year old natal females desist? Lots of that going on.