Jury (!) rules against man opposed to 7 year old son's "transition"

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron

A jury 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.

Something else must be going on. The mother sounds like a crazy bitch, and yet a jury - not a lone judge - ruled in her favor.

Here's the story in the Examiner:


I guess the end moral of the story is: don't have kids with a crazy bitch.

Aside, this is why when you mens hurk "I'd hit that!" regarding some crazy bitch who happens to have big fake boobs and a professional makeup artist, I curl my lip at you. Right before I send up a prayer to the karma gods that you get your wish.
 

limblips

Well-Known Member
PREMO Member
SMH. There is no way that a 7yo has determined that he is gender dysphoric. This is an adult mentally abusing a child. What is really disturbing is that a JURY decided this. How did they assemble that many nutjobs?
When I was discussing this with my wife she made the point that as a child, occasionally she would wish she was a boy. She wasn't gender confused, she just wanted to do whatever her brothers were doing at the time. She liked wearing jeans because "when I fell while roller skating or riding my bike, I didn't scrape up my knees, not because I wanted to be a boy." Every child exhibits some gender fluidity in their pre-adolescent years, not because they are trans but because it fits the situation at the time.
 

MiddleGround

Well-Known Member
The ex-husband has no rights to change the fact that the child's mother can proceed with a gender transition on the 7 year old child... BUT

YOU BET YOUR SWEET A$$ that he's gotta keep making those support payments!!!
 

Hijinx

Well-Known Member
I cannot imagine getting a jury so packed with sick individuals to rule in such a manner.

And in Texas yet. It's a sick world.
 
Reactions: BOP

RoseRed

American Beauty
PREMO Member
This is FUBAR. It appears that the mother is a Doctor of Pediatrics. It seems to me that she is conducting some sort of experiment on her male twin boys. At the cost of the one being turned. At the very least, she should have her license yanked and turned into a man - against her will.
 

black dog

Free America
PREMO Member
The ex-husband has no rights to change the fact that the child's mother can proceed with a gender transition on the 7 year old child... BUT

YOU BET YOUR SWEET A$$ that he's gotta keep making those support payments!!!
Guess he should have taken better care and corralled those fish he shot upstream.
Please post your ex's attorney's name, for one to be that angry about making support payments they must have broken you over and above the standard mathematical equation....
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
Guess he should have taken better care and corralled those fish he shot upstream.
I would say he should have chosen a better person with whom to procreate as well.

But, I think the issue related in the original post is that the court system is wrong for allowing this mother to chemically castrate her 7 year old son, that it's beyond shocking a jury would agree with the mother, and the quote you posted I think was with respect to fathers seemingly not having any rights compared to mothers.

While your statement is 100% accurate, I would suggest that it implies that only fathers are responsible for the birth of children (when your statement is provided in this context, anyway). Since women are equals in all meaningful, legal ways, it seems the two of them should have known better, not just him.
 

Chris0nllyn

Well-Known Member
Something else must be going on. The mother sounds like a crazy bitch, and yet a jury - not a lone judge - ruled in her favor.
I agree, and it's hard to tell when this story is only showing up on clearly biased sites.

How I feel about the choices of the mother aside, in 2016 the father signed an order agreeing that the mother had "exclusive" rights to the "psychiatric and psychological" treatment of the children.

The mother chose to take their kids to Rebekka Ouer who happens to specialize in LGBT and trans people.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/therapists/rebekka-n-ouer-dallas-tx/93136

The father doesn't like Rebekka and was trying to violate a court order to do so.

The father asked for a jury trial to rule on him having sole custody only. The jury ruled that the mother should have sole custody. The judge will rule, tomorrow, on possession, child support, and other matters.

My only thought is the jury took the doctor mother at her word and their expert witnesses and ruled that the father was going against the kid's wishes which is psychologically detrimental to the kid. Who knows, but the jury only ruled on one portion of the case.
 

MiddleGround

Well-Known Member
Guess he should have taken better care and corralled those fish he shot upstream.
Please post your ex's attorney's name, for one to be that angry about making support payments they must have broken you over and above the standard mathematical equation....
This seems to be a hot button topic for you. I see that you provided your standard "I have no balls and it's never the woman who should be held accountable for HER actions" response. By the by...

The point was that it is yet another example of the father having zero rights or input on decisions once the child pops out..... other than financial responsibility of course.
 

MiddleGround

Well-Known Member
I would say he should have chosen a better person with whom to procreate as well.

But, I think the issue related in the original post is that the court system is wrong for allowing this mother to chemically castrate her 7 year old son, that it's beyond shocking a jury would agree with the mother, and the quote you posted I think was with respect to fathers seemingly not having any rights compared to mothers.

While your statement is 100% accurate, I would suggest that it implies that only fathers are responsible for the birth of children (when your statement is provided in this context, anyway). Since women are equals in all meaningful, legal ways, it seems the two of them should have known better, not just him.
Well put... :yay:
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
[T]he father signed an order agreeing that the mother had "exclusive" rights to the "psychiatric and psychological" treatment of the children.
That's interesting. What about physical? Seems chemical castration is at least as much physical as it is psychological.

The father asked for a jury trial to rule on him having sole custody only. The jury ruled that the mother should have sole custody.
:sshrug: Seems pretty normal, the previous order notwithstanding, for parental rights arguments in court to continue even after a decision previous.

[T]he father was going against the kid's wishes which is psychologically detrimental to the kid.
I'm assuming you find this an abhorrent decision? Unless we are ready to offer age of majority to 7 year olds, going against a child's wishes is a common, daily, normal and necessary part of being a parent.
 

black dog

Free America
PREMO Member
This seems to be a hot button topic for you. I see that you provided your standard "I have no balls and it's never the woman who should be held accountable for HER actions" response. By the by...

The point was that it is yet another example of the father having zero rights or input on decisions once the child pops out..... other than financial responsibility of course.
I've never posted shes not accountable, Its just with you the man is always the one paying support.. Hummmm, why is that?

Its a hot button when one of the parents ( and with you its always The Father ) that is paying support is crying about there financial responsibility to take care of there child or children. Be a Parent, dont sign away " Your Rights".... Pay your support.

And as far as parental rights, Like Chris posted above, it appears Mr Younger signed away some of his " Rights"

Dont want to have custody of your kids and pay support Daddy, dont bust up in there......

Like Master Chief said many times to his children,, You didnt cry when it went in, don't cry when it comes out.
 

MiddleGround

Well-Known Member
I've never posted shes not accountable, Its just with you the man is always the one paying support.. Hummmm, why is that?

Its a hot button when one of the parents ( and with you its always The Father ) that is paying support is crying about there financial responsibility to take care of there child or children. Be a Parent, dont sign away " Your Rights".... Pay your support.

And as far as parental rights, Like Chris posted above, it appears Mr Younger signed away some of his " Rights"

Dont want to have custody of your kids and pay support Daddy, dont bust up in there......

Like Master Chief said many times to his children,, You didnt cry when it went in, don't cry when it comes out.
And, just like countless times before.... seems that you never remember. Alzheimers setting in?

I don't have any kids. All of your little Freudian childish barbs don't apply to me. Now, go take some Ginko and try again :yay:
 
Top