woman loses residency of son she was raising as daughter

[BombadierFritz]

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3859618/You-caused-son-great-harm-insisting-raising-girl-Boy-seven-sent-live-father-mother-raised-daughter.html

hmmm. ok so its daily mail reporting but I am conflicted
perhaps good if child was being pushed into something he wasnt
but wtf with the boringly stereotypical insistance on the type of toys played with

Yes, the judge wasn't saying that spongebob = boy.

It was the mother insisting the child would only do 'girly' things and saying that meant he is a girl. So the judge pointed out that, when not under the influence of the mother and with his peer group, the boy actually gravitated to 'boy' things.

That doesn't mean that boys should do 'boy' things, or that liking spongebob means you must be a boy. But it does mean that the mothers' insistence that the child must be transgender because he only likes stereotypically 'girl' things, is looking very dodgy.

Having read the judgment, I think the judge did the right thing to protect the child. Para 74 of the judgment seems to be the crux of the decision to place the child with the father:

"My experience in the Family Division leaves me with little doubt that some children, as young as 4, 5, 6 years of age may identify strongly with their opposite gender. Such children can experience rejection and abuse arising from ignorance both on a personal and institutional level. Though none of the parties referred me to it, I have read the House of Commons Select Committee report 'Transgender Equality', dated 14th January 2016, which investigates the challenges in securing sensitive NHS care and accessing affirming educational environments for transgender adults and children. It is important that such children are listened to and their views afforded respect but, to my mind, they are ill served by premature labelling. What they require, as F has so capably demonstrated, is the opportunity to develop their identity in which ever way it evolves. J was not only deprived of that space and opportunity by his mother, he was pressed into a gender identification that had far more to do with his mother's needs and little, if anything, to do with his own. "

From the outset it appears the various authorities appear to have been sucked into the 'but he's a girl' story of the mother, without there being any actual evidence. "There was no independent or supportive evidence that J identified as a girl at all, indeed there was a body of material that suggested the contrary."

Also, the mother's behaviour as recorded in the judgment appears to be both concerning and highly inappropriate.

And, to be even clearer, there's no suggestion that the child SHOULD like 'boy' things. He was clearly moving from one context (life with his mother) where he was pressurised into pink unicorns, into another (school) where the pressure was towards nerf guns. Ideally, we would want our children to be able to play with unicorns, nerf guns, spongebob et al without anyone speculating on their gender identity or telling them there is something wrong with them. The person who gets the best write-up, the father, is the person who - according to the judge - is most relaxed about letting the child choose his own activities and his own gender identity.

Sorry, Hells, when I said 'to be clearer' I was referring to my own previous post. Yours was beautifully clear

Yes I did read the judgement. It was a lazy decision.

But why, Elendon? What do you think the judge should have done?

I think the judge made the right decision.

The statements made about the mother match what I've seen of trans activism on here. She hasn't become that way from living in a vacuum; her behaviour has been influenced by what's going on more generally.

The judge's assessment of the child after moving in with the father and his partner are based mostly on things that have nothing to do with gender at all, which is how it should be.

It does sound like a weird case of Munchausen by proxy, doesn't it?

The judge did seem to buy into the "boys toys" trap, but seemed broadly sensible, and at least didn't go the whole hog of being a crusty old fart who couldn't understand gender noncomformity. And it's very possible the kid is kicking against what he's been forced into, and is deliberately (if unconciously) choosing "boy's toys" - or rather, toys he has seen other boys prefer, since there's no such thing as an actual "boy's toy" - as an assertion of this, rather than the possession of a penis meaning he will naturally have an affinity for toy tractors, or whatever. (And the mother seemed to equally buy into the "girl's toys" thing, too.

Mermaids is a disgrace. They may have started out as well-meaning at some point, but at this point their weird insistence that any gender non-conformity (or in this case assertion of a parent of gender non-conformity) means the child must be trans, is like some form of cult.

'However what struck me forcibly, both then and indeed at this final hearing, was that M spoke of J only in the somewhat opaque and convoluted argot of social work and psychology. She offered an impressive, intense and highly articulate evaluation of the problems faced by children with gender dysphoria but she conveyed no sense of J's personality, temperament or enthusiasms, notwithstanding frequently being encouraged to do so. Repeatedly she struck me as a professional witness giving evidence about somebody else's child.'

This is the impression I get in most cases where people discuss gender identity. I think it's a wider ideology this family have ended up massively caught up in, and it is really sad.

That was interesting, almond, I agree. It's like a script.

And back on Mermaids - since this kid says he is a boy, and since Mermaids are supporting the mother who says he is a trans girl, and since misgendering is a horrible, terrible crime which literally kills people, are Mermaids going to launch a campaign against themselves for their terrible bigoted transphobia?

I think this is an extremely thoughtful judgement and boys toys etc seems to form little or no part of it.
The judge says all children are "ill served by premature labelling. What they require, as F has so capably demonstrated, is the opportunity to develop their identity in which ever way it evolves"

He acknowledges the good and bad in both parents and focuses on the needs of the child.

Interesting to see the brief line mentioning the mother had also had a little obsession about the child's weight, and his hearing.

She sounds rather troubled.

Bloody hell, I've only read about a quarter of the judgment but so far I wouldn't have left a gerbil in the mother's care, let alone a child. Smoking skunk at home, making false accusations of DV against the father, isolation of J....

As for Mermaids, they're a fucking disgrace.

I think this is hugely telling from the baiili transcript. Essentially, no one in children's services challenged the mother despite lots of concerns raised from school and other professionals. The "orthodoxy" simply blinded them to any alternative views.

"Transgender equality has received a great deal of attention in recent times. I believe that in this case the profile and sensitivity of the matters raised by the mother blinded a number of professionals from applying their training, skills and, it has to be said, common sense. They failed properly to investigate M's assertions, in part I suspect, because they did not wish to appear to be challenging an emerging orthodoxy in such a high profile issue."

Nowhere in that judgement does it say that the DV was a false allegation. The judge just commented that it was minor and involved poor behaviour on both sides.

The sad thing is, thousands of people will just read the newspaper headlines and decide either that the judge was transphobic, or that a sensible judge decreed that it is cruel to children to let them express an unorthodox gender identity. Just hearing what they want to hear, and very few troubling themselves with the nuanced reasoning on bailii.

Sorry, she made several allegations that were false, and one that involved bad behaviour on both sides. My mistake.

I would be very very surprised if this is not the first of many such cases. I think there will be an enormous backlash against parents who got involved in transing their children, in many cases by those children. Ditto against organisations such as the Tavistock, Mermaids and Gendered Intelligence.

I agree RiverTam. There are too many detransitioners coming out of the woodwork now for that not to be true. If I was involved as a professional who had helped and encouraged children to trans, I would be anticipating spending time in court in the fairly near future

ThirtyRock

Another one agreeing with these comments. I would have said I'd rather be a boy at this age and was a right Tom Boy until about 12.
I enjoy being a girl/ woman

I really hope this, along with those speaking out about the detransing, is the beginning of the end of the trans madness.

🙏🏻

I don't know where that square came from

Poor kid. He's been through so much. It really does sound like his mum had her own agenda. Hope he does better with his dad.

Thanks for posting the full judgment - quite scary, though I feel as if the child has a potential chance at a good life now.

How can a pre pubescent child have much of a concept of their sex anyway. They have a bit of hormones and the genitals but that's it. It looks like the mother was disturbed.
If the child wants to explore other things when he is post puberty then fine but it is awful to impose something on a 7 year old.