Texas dad blocked by court from stopping gender transition of 7-year-old son

A jury in Texas returned a verdict that will prevent the dad from interfering in the gender transition of his 7-year-old son.

Of course this family lives in the Dallas area.




Lifesite has commentary on it as well: https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/br...der-transition

A jury in Dallas, Texas has ruled against Jeffrey Younger, the father who is trying to protect his seven-year-old son, James, from chemical castration via a gender “transition.” This means James’ mother, Dr. Anne Georgulas, will be able to continue “transitioning” him into “Luna,” and now has full authority to start him on puberty blockers and eventually cross-sex hormones.​

And here's the kicker: The mom isn't even actually biologically related to their sons!

Dr. Georgulas testified today James and Jude are not actually biologically related to her. They were created through in-vitro fertilization and the couple used an egg donor.​

For those of you claiming Texas is never going to turn Blue, how do you explain this? We're talking about a jury of people here, not just a single judge.


Edit breaking news: It looks like only 2 days ago another judge put a block to the jury's decision
https://thefederalist.com/2019/10/25...er-treatments/

 

in-vitro means she is still the mom as far as I am concerned

that said, 7 is too young and this should be illegal, let the child decide for himself\herself when older

 

Agreed with the in-vitro. As to this child, any procedures will not be happening until they are much older. The fight is just happening now.

 

Gender transition should be like alcohol, restricted to adults.

The problem is not that the father lost the court case against the mother. Would still be the exact same problem if both parents agreed. The real issue is that parents are allowed to permanently mutilate their child's body in the first place.

 

Why introduce POLITICS into this transgender issue?

This is a LEGAL and PARENTING issue regarding a potential transgender child.

Speaking as a parent I would love my child irrespective of their gender or sexual orientation.

If the father truly loves his child he would want what was best and that would mean ensuring that if his child is transgender that he receives all of the love and support that he will need to make it successfully through what is obviously going to be a different childhood, adolescence and ultimately adulthood.

That he has taken this to court already indicates that this child would NOT receive that kind of unconditional love from him that the child deserves.

Sad!

 

One of the issues with this case is whether or not the child is transgender. Mind you, I am having to work with the limited presented material ATM from this thread, and one in my other debate site. From the one video I saw, the child seems to not like what mom is doing and yet said they think they're a girl. I need to watch it again to be sure. But if the mom is forcing this as opposed to allowing it, then there is a problem.

 

The surgical changes don't happen until adult, or at late teens when the individual can be shown to be able to make a reasonable decision. The hormone blockers are temporary in nature and will not cause long term negative effects.

 

I seriously doubt that artificially blocking your puberty has no permanent effects...and taking cross sex hormones definitely does (growing breasts for example).

 

People undergoing transition are not supposed to start taking the cross hormones until they are at an age to reasonably be able to consent, late teens to adulthood. Everything halted by hormone blockers will return upon stopping them, should the individual determine they were not actually transgender. Cite me otherwise, but from all I have read, this fight is not about what is happening now, but what is planned for the future.

 

Not exactly true.
If they start a very young kid off on hormone blockers before he ever reaches the stage of puberty, he'll be left with a micropenis for the rest of his life.

(should he later decide he doesn't want to go through with surgical gender transition, of course, and not all trans people do want to have the bottom surgery)

 

The question is, is there really a certain way to tell at that young age?

Heck, is there even a way to tell?

I remember when I was three years old I wanted to be the puppet Bert from Sesame Street, and insisted everyone refer to me by that name.

 

If we started offering kindergarteners surgical transitions to be like their favorite superheroes in comic book action films, how many of them would be totally on-board?

 

Went and look up a bit on this. You're not wrong but you're not right either. A lot seems to depend upon when the blockers are started. A micropenis is defined as 2.5 deviations shorter than average, which is about 5.5. so just over 3 in or shorter for adult males. So starting time can affect the micro status. Cross sex hormones will make the small size permanent, however, if not started too early or done for too long effects can be reversible.

Ironically enough, a smaller penis is detrimental to transitioning via bottom surgery. If the penis does not grow to a sufficient size, there is not enough material to make the vagina out of.

 

Truly tell no. Even adults need to go through therapy to ensure that it is not other conditions masking as such. However, listening to the kid and what they claim can tell whether they came up with it on their own or are being forced into it. Ultimately there is no real harm in allowing them to present how they wish. Note, present, not hormones or surgery. Once they have been through therapy and the doctor has eliminated other possible causes, then those things can be considered, but not till mid teens at earliest.

 

Its one thing when people allow little boys to have long hair, but this reminds me of the Bible saying people call right wrong and wrong right.

 

People can also cite the Bible as their justification in calling a right wrong, and a wrong right.

 

When I was kid there were some kids who looked a little androgynous but they didnt dress them up like girls or transvestites. People are calling good evil and evil good.

 

True, but some of the people who are calling good evil are claiming the bible is the source of their claim.

Also keep in mind that at one point all boys and girls from birth to a certain age were kept in dresses.

 

A lot of things people say in history books are somewhere in the middle and they omit and misstate things.

 

Lady friend doesnt have the distinctiveness of girlfriend. This has to do with what I said before about the mysticalness of even the vague abstract concept of gender.

 

Gender is NOT binary as in Male OR Female.

Gender is a SPECTRUM where those along the spectrum have varying degrees of both ends depending upon where along the spectrum they find themselves.

 

The intimacy of gender itself i think makes people even talking about gender binary identity or gender identity people advertising what they do in the bedroom. Not just because of the sexual or reproductive aspects of gender.

 

Do you truly believe it would be okay to turn a normal child into a hermaphrodite then?

 

Hermaphrodite is a born intersex condition, and falls under sex, not gender. Furthermore, as has been repeatedly stated, allowing a child to present as a given gender is NOT the same as physically and medically transitioning.

 

The ONUS is entirely on YOU to PROVE that the child in this instance is 100% "normal".