Court Orders Father not to Impose a 'Male Identity' on His Son - Granite Grok

Court Orders Father not to Impose a ‘Male Identity’ on His Son

confused change transition

The concept of a contentious divorce proceeding has taken us down a whole new hole. Jeff Younger says his son James is a happy boy when he is with him. But his ex-wife says “her” name is Luna and he should be transitioned to a girl.

Jeff and his former spouse Anne Georgulas are trying to resolve a parental dispute over their son, James. Anne insists that James identifies as a girl, calls him Luna, and envisions hormone therapy and eventually sex-change surgery in the future. Jeff rejects the idea and says his son is perfectly comfortable being a boy in his presence. The pair are fighting a legal battle, with a court temporarily ordering Jeff not to impose a male identity on the child.

The court has not prohibited him from calling him James or using male pronouns in his home. It has made it clear what he cannot do.

“…What I’m prohibited from doing right now is trying to convince him that he’s actually a boy,” he said.

The court’s ruling means that Jeff, who is a religious Orthodox Christian, has to be careful when discussing his faith with his son, he said. He is also cautious about teaching James how to behave decently, so that his words cannot be interpreted as imposing a male gender identity.

According to the report James just wants to make both his parents happy so he is content to be a boy at his dad’s and a girl at his mom’s. So, he’s been diagnosed with gender dysphoria.

My question is, did mom want a little girl and is that the source of these issues? If he’s happy being a boy with boy biology, the pressure to make him behave like a girl seems unfair and unkind. And it matters.

In New Hampshire, his mom could use state law against the father. No one is permitted to “counsel” someone out of gender transition even if, as in the case of James, that individual is perfectly content to be their biological sex when not pressured to act any other way.

The point of the law in New Hampshire. To make sure any doubts cannot be reversed even when that might be in the best interest of the individuals long-term physical and mental health.

But don’t worry, that’s not Democrat advocated, state-sanctioned mind control or anything. And they’d never try to do that for anything else. Like sensitivity classes, sexual harassment training, the entire modern university, and public-school curricula. 

Just a coincidence, I’m sure.

| RT

>