Father Arrested After Continuing To Call His Child”She’s” After Court-Ordered Gender Transition Treatments

There is an astonishing case out of British Columbia where a dad called as CD was detained after he continued to consult with his own biological 14-year-old daughter (known as AB) as”she” and his”daughter” later he transitioned to a male sex.  CD opposed the transition as the parent but he was overruled afterwards physicians at BC Children’s Hospital that chose the girl should get testosterone shots. The father continued to defy gag orders, including a pub on his attempting to convince with his child to wait until making such a shift.
We have discussed how such pronoun disputes (known as”misgendering) lead to criminal identification in other nations including Great Britain.
The Canadian courts withheld the dad’s name but he’s gone public in meeting and contains a GoFundMe site under his real name.
Formerly, in a 2019 decision, Justice Gregory Bowden rejected the parent’s opinion as largely immaterial:

In light of the established law concerning the utilization of a mature minor to consent to medical therapy and the examinations of a variety of physicians that A.B.has capacity to agree as well as the proof of his health care providers which the proposed therapy is at A.B.’s highest interests, there is not any serious question to be tried.
A.B.’s dad has not shown that a refusal to grant the injunction would negatively impact or irreparably harm him.
After that decision, there was a gag order put into place that barred the father from trying to convince his son to change his thoughts:
“[1] AB, a 14 year old transgender boy, applies for a protection order to restrain his father, CD, by publishing, speaking or giving interviews concerning this case or about AB’s personal and medical information.
“a) CD will probably be controlled from: i. attempting to convince AB to depart treatment for gender dysphoria; ii. Addressing AB by his birth ; and iii. Speaking about AB as a girl or with female pronouns whether to AB right or to third parties;
“b) CD shall not directly, or indirectly through a broker or third party, print or share information or documentation pertaining to AB’s sex, gender identification, sexual orientation, physical or mental wellness, medical status or remedies.”

The day of the Bowden’s decision, CD talked to the Federalist and said”since she’s a girl. Her DNA won’t change through all the experiments that they perform.” He further added:

“I had a perfectly healthy child a year before, which perfectly healthy child has been changed and destroyed for absolutely no good reason. She can never go back to being a girl from the healthy body that she must have had. She’s going to permanently have a lesser voice. She’ll forever need to shave because of facial hair. She won’t be able to have kids… Sometimes I only need to shout so other parents and people will… jump into, understand what is happening. There’s a child–and not just mine, but in my case, my child out there with her life ruined.”

This led to a conviction of the father for”family violence” in April 2019.
Later YouTube interviews with the father were eliminated.  In addressing a few of those interviews, Justice Michael Tammen of the British Columbia Supreme Court ordered that Laura-Lynn  Thompson to pull her interview and, when she didn’t, he sent police to her home.
The decisions reject any substantive weight given parental rights. I have opposed an absolutist position against parental rights in areas such as diplomatic with minors. The use of criminal penalties against this dad only magnify those concerns.
Personally, I disagree with the father in the usage of the pronoun if his son has made this selection. I’d yield to the kid’s preference on how the youngster is referenced (as opposed to decisions concerning medical treatments or procedures for young kids ). On the other hand, the question is whether the nation should play such a coercive and significant role in a household.  Asking a parent to not talk to his child about the issue or persuading him for referring to the kid’s biological sex raises quite serious parental and free speech rights in my view.    I realize that many experts feel that conflicting such gender transition is both abusive and harmful. I don’t discount that view. But, that is a position best left to persuasive rather than coercive means. We can debate this question and many can oppose using such pronouns too violent.  Yet, arresting a parent for continuing to oppose this type of transition or referring to the incorrect pronoun is terrifying. There is an absolute disregard of this countervailing interests and rights of parents in these decisions.