7 ms·

Please don't compare overreach in IP enforcement to rejection of transphobia.

throwawaysea 5y ago
Please don’t compare a parent exercising their core parental rights (by questioning their immature and impressionable child’s beliefs, and by seeking to stop life altering procedures being applied forcefully to their child) to a “phobia”. Children are easily influenced by social trends, and are too young to consent to anything, and parents still ultimately control what is right and not right for their children. You either support their rights or you are against parental rights broadly and think children are the property of the state. But leaving that aside it is completely unethical, immoral, and authoritarian to prevent the father from calling his daughter as exactly that, or from bringing public attention to this absurd court ruling due to the court’s gag order. It’s the opposite of how any free society should operate, and the prevention of that speech is very similar to court-forced deindexing. Both are suppression of information.
grammarprofess 5y ago
He just wants the kid to wait until 18 to mitigate regret, remorse. This story is honestly very sad.
- Fogest 5y ago
  The UK had a similar problem where they let people under 18 get these surgeries and now they have cases of people suing the government because they regret the choices the government/parents allowed them to make before they were 18. It's pretty well-researched and understood peoples brains are not fully developed before 18, often not even in the early 20's. We already know you are not good at long-term decision making when young and not good at fully understanding long term consequences of actions. There are reasons why criminals under 18 are often treated much differently in the legal system and why that criminal history before 18 often doesn't extend past 18. We know kids do dumb shit and that's why there are legal protections in place for it. So it's insane to me how the government has tried to silence a parent for speaking out and has basically forced him to allow a child to do something like this and he gets no say. It's insane both how he is being silenced and how this is even happening in the first place. So I agree with this case being extremely relevant to the topic of website blocking. Because who is to say once a law like this in in place it doesn't start to get extended to infringing on other kinds of free speech and things the government doesn't like? From my understanding our free speech laws already are not as strong as America and I think we should all be opposed to anything that starts to breech what we do have, like these new laws.
- zaksoup 5y ago
  To be clear, what's not mentioned in that Federalist article is that the child does have the mother's parental consent, from whom the father is currently separated. > mitigate regret, remorse. There are any number of studies [0] of trans "Desistance" all of which overwhelmingly show the number one reason people regret transitioning is societal, familial, or workplace treatment. The remorse comes from things like, for instance, a father refusing to use the correct pronouns or refer to his child by their chosen name. This remorse rarely comes from an actual rejection of the gender identity the individual transitioned to. 0: https://www.stonewall.org.uk/about-us/news/dispelling-myths-around-detransition https://www.stonewall.org.uk/about-us/news/dispelling-myths-...
  - jokethrowaway 5y ago
    I think it's pretty obvious that the mother is consenting. I don't think consent is the issue. The problem is two-fold from my point of view: - Kids being subjected to hormone therapy and puberty blockers (while they can't even get a tattoo), which is pure child abuse - The silencing of opposing viewpoints
    - somebodythere 5y ago
      Delaying the effects of puberty until a child can make informed decisions about how their body should develop is the least abusive option compared to witholding intervention and forcing the child to undergo a puberty which is likely to cause significant psychological harm.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
captaincurrie 5y ago
I love people who think a 14 year old should have absolute power over their parents. It's your world now. I'm gonna sit back with my popcorn and watch.
peytn 5y ago
> Marzari stated that she was not overriding Clark’s “freedom of thought and speech.” “There is no requirement that [Clark] change his views about what is best for [Maxine],” she explained. “It is only how he expresses those views privately to [Maxine] and publically to third parties that is affected.” Sounds like they’re fine with his transphobia. He just can’t talk about it. Still, wow. Is this really how we want to do things?
- COGlory 5y ago
  >Marzari stated that she was not overriding Clark’s “freedom of thought and speech.” >“It is only how he expresses those views privately to [Maxine] and publically to third parties that is affected.” This does not compute.

Please don’t compare a parent exercising their core parental rights (by questioning their immature and impressionable child’s beliefs, and by seeking to stop life altering procedures being applied forcefully to their child) to a “phobia”. Children are easily influenced by social trends, and are too young to consent to anything, and parents still ultimately control what is right and not right for their children. You either support their rights or you are against parental rights broadly and think children are the property of the state. But leaving that aside it is completely unethical, immoral, and authoritarian to prevent the father from calling his daughter as exactly that, or from bringing public attention to this absurd court ruling due to the court’s gag order. It’s the opposite of how any free society should operate, and the prevention of that speech is very similar to court-forced deindexing. Both are suppression of information.

grammarprofess 5y ago

He just wants the kid to wait until 18 to mitigate regret, remorse. This story is honestly very sad.

Fogest 5y ago
The UK had a similar problem where they let people under 18 get these surgeries and now they have cases of people suing the government because they regret the choices the government/parents allowed them to make before they were 18. It's pretty well-researched and understood peoples brains are not fully developed before 18, often not even in the early 20's. We already know you are not good at long-term decision making when young and not good at fully understanding long term consequences of actions. There are reasons why criminals under 18 are often treated much differently in the legal system and why that criminal history before 18 often doesn't extend past 18. We know kids do dumb shit and that's why there are legal protections in place for it. So it's insane to me how the government has tried to silence a parent for speaking out and has basically forced him to allow a child to do something like this and he gets no say. It's insane both how he is being silenced and how this is even happening in the first place. So I agree with this case being extremely relevant to the topic of website blocking. Because who is to say once a law like this in in place it doesn't start to get extended to infringing on other kinds of free speech and things the government doesn't like? From my understanding our free speech laws already are not as strong as America and I think we should all be opposed to anything that starts to breech what we do have, like these new laws.
zaksoup 5y ago
To be clear, what's not mentioned in that Federalist article is that the child does have the mother's parental consent, from whom the father is currently separated. > mitigate regret, remorse. There are any number of studies [0] of trans "Desistance" all of which overwhelmingly show the number one reason people regret transitioning is societal, familial, or workplace treatment. The remorse comes from things like, for instance, a father refusing to use the correct pronouns or refer to his child by their chosen name. This remorse rarely comes from an actual rejection of the gender identity the individual transitioned to. 0: https://www.stonewall.org.uk/about-us/news/dispelling-myths-around-detransition https://www.stonewall.org.uk/about-us/news/dispelling-myths-...
- jokethrowaway 5y ago
  I think it's pretty obvious that the mother is consenting. I don't think consent is the issue. The problem is two-fold from my point of view: - Kids being subjected to hormone therapy and puberty blockers (while they can't even get a tattoo), which is pure child abuse - The silencing of opposing viewpoints
  - somebodythere 5y ago
    Delaying the effects of puberty until a child can make informed decisions about how their body should develop is the least abusive option compared to witholding intervention and forcing the child to undergo a puberty which is likely to cause significant psychological harm.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

captaincurrie 5y ago

I love people who think a 14 year old should have absolute power over their parents. It's your world now. I'm gonna sit back with my popcorn and watch.

peytn 5y ago

> Marzari stated that she was not overriding Clark’s “freedom of thought and speech.” “There is no requirement that [Clark] change his views about what is best for [Maxine],” she explained. “It is only how he expresses those views privately to [Maxine] and publically to third parties that is affected.” Sounds like they’re fine with his transphobia. He just can’t talk about it. Still, wow. Is this really how we want to do things?

COGlory 5y ago
>Marzari stated that she was not overriding Clark’s “freedom of thought and speech.” >“It is only how he expresses those views privately to [Maxine] and publically to third parties that is affected.” This does not compute.