EU Finnish parents lose custody of child for refusing sex change treatment

[GoldRanger]

Finnish parents lose custody of child for refusing sex change treatment

A Finnish couple has lost custody of their 15-year-old daughter after they refused to allow her to undergo hormone therapy to “correct her gender”.

voiceofeurope.com

A Finnish couple has lost custody of their 15-year-old daughter after they refused to allow her to undergo hormone therapy to “correct her gender”.
Two years ago, when the family had relocated from Finland to another country in the European Union, the teenage girl told her parents that she thought she was in the wrong body and demanded hormone therapy, Finnish broadcaster Yle reports.
“She was only fifteen years old, we couldn’t agree that she started using hormones,” said the mother.



After refusing to bow to their daughter’s demand, she became angry and just a few weeks later one of her friends contacted the police and filed a criminal report against the mother and the father. Shortly after, the government of the unnamed European Union country decided to take away the parent’s custody of the young girl.

 

[Terthna]

Her parents should have been paying more attention to the sort of person they were raising. That aside, I wonder what's going to happen to the girl now? Nothing good, I'd assume.

 

[LifeisTiresome]

Meh, she is 15. Don't give a shit if she wants to have herself pumped with chemicals at this point.

Of course, citizen taxes will be used for this. Lol

 

[Cherico]

when Europe runs out of other peoples money its going to be ugly.

 

[The Name of Love]

Imagine. Gay marriage was made into law not too long ago. Within my lifetime, in fact (and I'm twenty-three years old). And now? We have people being forced to chemically castrate their children, drag queen story hour, child drag queens performing in a strip show, pedophilia being considered as a sexual orientation by academics, and the state of New York criminalizing people who don't use their pronouns.

"But we just wanted equal rights!" LOL

If you want to understand the mindset of these people, I'd suggest reading this blog post, among others by eminent philosopher Edward Feser.

To sum up, I'll paraphrase Edward Feser: the more ass-kissing you do to homosexuals and their ilk, the more ass-kicking you'll receive.

 

[Erwin_Pommel]

"Hey! Let's pump a child still going through puberty with untested chemicals and put them through severe surgical changes that cannot be reversed just because they said so!"

"Aw, mate, best idea ever."

Eugh. This is a plague and needs to be removed full-stop.

But you sure gotta love how the majority of transgender's these days are kids fresh from school rather than those who were born in the 80's or such and go on so much about their forced life in the closest. It's almost as if this isn't about helping those with mental health issues but rather forcing an evil ideology down peoples throats! Of course, I'm just stating the obvious at this point.

 

[The Name of Love]

These ideas have their roots in the academy and are the results of deconstruction, a literary theory, being applied to biological realities like gender. The reason these activists push this "evil ideology" as @Erwin_Pommel put it is because they see it as the only alternative to the traditionalist view of gender, which they see as oppressive. I suggest everyone read this blog post explaining the philosophy behind controversy. I'll summarize what it says below.

The activists in question believe what liberal philosopher Daniel A. Kaufman calls "identificationism." According to this worldview, a person is whatever he takes himself to be. So if I were to "identify" as a woman, then I am a woman. Kaufman then goes on to show how the entire exercise undermines a lot of modern liberal projects such as gay rights.

Suppose Pat is biologically male, having male chromosomes, male sex organs, and so forth. The traditional or commonsense view of sex would be that Pat is a man, full stop. Suppose that Chris, meanwhile, is biologically female, having female chromosomes and female sex organs. The traditional or commonsense view would be that Chris is a woman, full stop. And suppose also that Chris is sexually attracted only to other women. Then common sense would say that Chris is a lesbian – since, as Kaufman writes, “until about five minutes ago, everyone knew what a lesbian is, namely a homosexual woman.”

But now suppose that Pat “self-identifies” as a woman, but also as a woman who is sexually attracted only to other women. Then Pat too, despite being what common sense would regard as a man, is also a lesbian! Suppose also that Chris is in no way sexually attracted to “lesbians” like Pat, and indeed finds distasteful the idea of being romantically or sexually involved with them (given that they have male sexual organs, etc.). Then, according to the identificationist transgender activists criticized by Kaufman, Chris is guilty of “bigotry” against Pat. On the activists’ view, for Chris to refuse to treat people like Pat the way she would treat any other lesbian is a kind of unjust discrimination.

In effect, these activists are claiming that it is wrong for Chris (who, common sense says, is a woman) not to be sexually and romantically attracted to people like Pat (who, common sense says, is a man). But this sort of claim, Kaufman points out, “used to be the exclusive province of religious fundamentalists and other assorted social conservatives and reactionaries”! In short, the identificationist transgender activists are in Kaufman’s view undermining the whole point of the gay liberation movement, which was to validate preferences like Chris’s.

Similarly, progressive philosopher Kathleen Stock is worried about the harm done to women by this identificationist extreme.

Stock worries that identificationism threatens to strip concepts like “woman” and “female” of any clear meaning, and that this will undermine efforts to deal with the unique problems faced by women. She writes:

[Women] face… a heightened vulnerability to rape, sexual assault, voyeurism and exhibitionism; to sexual harassment; to domestic violence; to certain cancers; to anorexia and self-harm; and so on. If self-declared trans women are included in statistics, understanding will be hampered. A male’s self-identification into the category of “female” or “women” doesn’t automatically bring on susceptibility to these harms; nor does a female’s self-identification out of those categories lessen it. In a sexist world which often disadvantages females, as such, we need good data.

Furthermore, Stock argues, allowing anyone who self-identifies as a woman into areas traditionally reserved for women (changing rooms, women’s prisons, etc.) is bound to increase the incidence of violence against women. Like Kaufman, Stock is also concerned that identificationism makes the concept “lesbian” so fluid that the self-understanding of those traditionally classified as lesbians, as well as their “special protections as a discriminated-against minority” and their “access to special sources of charity funding,” will be threatened.

In short, just as Kaufman worries that identificationism threatens the gay rights movement, Stock worries that it threatens feminism.

Now why would these activists, who fashion themselves to the premiere progressives, do such a thing? The answer, Feser claims, lies in the difficulty of finding a liberal middle ground between the hyper-progressive identificationist position and the reactionary natural law position. Moderate liberals want to be able to say "things like sex, race, etc. exist as material realities that are relevant, but they do not have any legitimate moral or political valence in a modern, democratic society." They want to have to embrace reality but reject drawing conclusions from reality that would undermine the modern liberal project.

The problem lies in how difficult it is to characterize biological features except in functional terms. How can one describe an eye without referring to its function of seeing, or the heart without making reference to its pumping of blood? This is as true with sexual features as any others. Now, the existence of blind people doesn't undermine the claim that the function of eyes is to allow us to see. A blind person's eyes still have seeing as its function; it's just that their eyes are dysfunctional. If one were to apply this to sexuality, and you'd come to the conclusion that sex has a heterosexual function and that homosexuality is a disorder not unsimilar to blindness. And that's hardly politically correct.

Feser brings out the logical conclusion of this.

It seems, then, that the identificationist is on to something. The movement for gay rights effectively severed a person’s self-identified sexual orientation from biology, and the identificationist is pointing out that if we are going to do that, then to be consistent we will have to sever one’s self-identified sex from biology. If appeals to biological function cut no ice in the one case, neither do they cut any ice in the other.

[…]

As I suggested in my posts on Byrne, the reason that identificationists take the extreme position they do is that they perceive that the distinction between sex and gender is not in fact a sharp one. The more robust the biological distinction between the sexes is, the less plausibly fluid gender is. The more fluid the distinction between the genders is, the less plausibly robust the biological distinction between the sexes. Hence if you are going to insist on fluid gender differences, you are going to have to deny robust biological sex differences. The identificationist transgender activists can plausibly say to Kaufman: “We are not the ones positing a radical Cartesian divide between persons and their biology; you are! It is precisely because we see persons and their biology as continuous that we conclude that, since gender is socially constructed, so too must the biology of sex be socially constructed.”

If this is right, then the identificationist is not, after all, committed to a kind of Cartesian divide in human nature, but rather to a kind of biological anti-realism or social constructivism. The natural law tradition, meanwhile, is committed to a robust realism about human biology. So, who are the ones positing a radical Cartesian/Lockean/Kantian divide in human nature, then? Defenders of the middle ground liberal position like Kaufman, Stock, and Byrne, that’s who!

The problem for liberals is how they uphold the modern liberal project. There is nothing within the old natural law position or in the identificationist position with which he can do so. And until moderate liberals do come up with such a position, the only options are revolution or reaction; that is, either believing in what @GoldRanger would call "theocratic" or "authoritarian" views (which are oh-so-spooky, don't you know?) or taking away kids from their parents to have them castrated in the name of "LGBT rights."

 

[GoldRanger]

These ideas have their roots in the academy and are the results of deconstruction, a literary theory, being applied to biological realities like gender. The reason these activists push this "evil ideology" as @Erwin_Pommel put it is because they see it as the only alternative to the traditionalist view of gender, which they see as oppressive. I suggest everyone read this blog post explaining the philosophy behind controversy. I'll summarize what it says below.

The activists in question believe what liberal philosopher Daniel A. Kaufman calls "identificationism." According to this worldview, a person is whatever he takes himself to be. So if I were to "identify" as a woman, then I am a woman. Kaufman then goes on to show how the entire exercise undermines a lot of modern liberal projects such as gay rights.



Similarly, progressive philosopher Kathleen Stock is worried about the harm done to women by this identificationist extreme.



Now why would these activists, who fashion themselves to the premiere progressives, do such a thing? The answer, Feser claims, lies in the difficulty of finding a liberal middle ground between the hyper-progressive identificationist position and the reactionary natural law position. Moderate liberals want to be able to say "things like sex, race, etc. exist as material realities that are relevant, but they do not have any legitimate moral or political valence in a modern, democratic society." They want to have to embrace reality but reject drawing conclusions from reality that would undermine the modern liberal project.

The problem lies in how difficult it is to characterize biological features except in functional terms. How can one describe an eye without referring to its function of seeing, or the heart without making reference to its pumping of blood? This is as true with sexual features as any others. Now, the existence of blind people doesn't undermine the claim that the function of eyes is to allow us to see. A blind person's eyes still have seeing as its function; it's just that their eyes are dysfunctional. If one were to apply this to sexuality, and you'd come to the conclusion that sex has a heterosexual function and that homosexuality is a disorder not unsimilar to blindness. And that's hardly politically correct.

Feser brings out the logical conclusion of this.



The problem for liberals is how they uphold the modern liberal project. There is nothing within the old natural law position or in the identificationist position with which he can do so. And until moderate liberals do come up with such a position, the only options are revolution or reaction; that is, either believing in what @GoldRanger would call "theocratic" or "authoritarian" views (which are oh-so-spooky, don't you know?) or taking away kids from their parents to have them castrated in the name of "LGBT rights."

1) That's one hell of a false dichotomy.

2) They ARE spooky. More like terrifying. I don't want your arbitrary imposition on my actions as long as they don't immediately harm others, period.

 

[The Name of Love]

1) That's one hell of a false dichotomy.

I set up a trichotomy, actually. Find a liberal middle ground, embrace my position, or embrace the trans activist crazies' position.

2) They ARE spooky. More like terrifying. I don't want your arbitrary imposition on my actions as long as they don't immediately harm others, period.

Reality is frightening, but part of growing up is leaving the comforts of fantasy and confronting it. Only a child would wallow in a comfortable lie, hoping that nothing will ever challenge the fantasy-based status quo they've set up.

 

[Arch Dornan]

Cooey. My speculation has happened. A government seizing your kid for operations tantamount to castration.

 

[LordsFire]

1) That's one hell of a false dichotomy.

2) They ARE spooky. More like terrifying. I don't want your arbitrary imposition on my actions as long as they don't immediately harm others, period.

What do you define as theocratic or authoritarian?

 

[The Name of Love]

What do you define as theocratic or authoritarian?

Any kind of regulation of human sexuality, including things like bans on pornography. At least, that's what I've taken from his previous posts. Is that right, @GoldRanger?

 

[Shipmaster Sane]

Literally why having a gun is important.

 

[Marduk]

“From having dressed very provocatively and feminine just a few months before, she had now started to use more masculine clothes just like the others in her new gang of friends,” the mother said.

Seems like a textbook case of the Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria pattern.
Preceded by acquiring a "trans-trender" friend group, teenage, female to male, sudden and extreme.

 

[ShieldWife]

Literally why having a gun is important.

Yes, absolutely. Leftists sometimes say that we don’t need guns to protect ourselves, that we should look at Europe.

Yes, let’s do look at Europe, where they can take a children away from parents to castrate him or the female equivalent. Where thousands of underage girls can be forced into sexual slavery and the police actually aid and abet the perpetrators because they’re Muslims. People who complain can then get put in jail for hate speech. People over there should be rising up with guns, if they had them and the guts to use them.

Though really, the parents are in part to blame too. They weren’t suddenly handed a 15 year old, they raised that child or let other people do it for them. You put a child into public school from a young age with teachers indoctrinated at leftist universities, let them watch TV and movies made by leftist extremists, let them read leftist books and listen to leftist music, while surrounded by peers and friends similarly indoctrinated - then don’t be shocked when they grow into the adults that they were taught to be by the institutions that actually raised them.

Which is why home schooling is so important - another right that many Europeans are denied.

 

[GoldRanger]

I set up a trichotomy, actually. Find a liberal middle ground, embrace my position, or embrace the trans activist crazies' position.


Reality is frightening, but part of growing up is leaving the comforts of fantasy and confronting it. Only a child would wallow in a comfortable lie, hoping that nothing will ever challenge the fantasy-based status quo they've set up.

What does this have to do with the topic?

 

[The Name of Love]

What does this have to do with the topic?

First, I'd like to comment on your reading comprehension skills. I find them to be rather poor. You should really look into fixing that.

Second, the trichotomy was my explanation for why these trans activist crazies do what they do. They think that they have to go down the route of castrating children to avoid admitting that the reactionary natural law position may be correct. You of all people should be able to understand their position; after all, you've called that position "terrifying," among other things. Can you blame the Left for going to extremes to try and avoid it?

Third, I imagine you are neither a leftist crazy nor a reactionary like myself, but a moderate liberal that just wants to be left alone with your e-porn. I suppose that's a respectable position to have in this day and age. But if you cannot form a principled justification for why your ideas and rights ought to be respected - if you cannot justify the liberal middle ground between the two extremes - then for consistency's sake, you will either join the revolutionary left or the reactionary right. And I have a hunch about which side you'll choose if you have to make that decision.

From your own words:

As an Israeli, fuck that (no pun intended). If I want to consume porn I have to log in my sexual preferences with an ISP? And that's because someone wants to impose on me the ridiculous view that "not enough religiosity" is bad for my family?

Nope, nope, nope.

You push me hard enough on the issues of religion and sexuality and I might just flip to the progressive side and so are millions of other secular center-right people who are currently horrified by the left's insanity. You have been warned.

 

[GoldRanger]

First, I'd like to comment on your reading comprehension skills. I find them to be rather poor. You should really look into fixing that.

Nope, I think I understand everything you say perfectly.

Second, the trichotomy was my explanation for why these trans activist crazies do what they do. They think that they have to go down the route of castrating children to avoid admitting that the reactionary natural law position may be correct. You of all people should be able to understand their position; after all, you've called that position "terrifying," among other things. Can you blame the Left for going to extremes to try and avoid it?

That's a ridiculous slippery slope. You yourself said that there's a middle position. Sane people basically stick to that. There's a sweet spot where you want to be. In the end, you and those leftists are essentially the same (horseshoe theory). You both want to impose your twisted will on free people for no reason other than your own arrogance.

Third, I imagine you are neither a leftist crazy nor a reactionary like myself, but a moderate liberal that just wants to be left alone with your e-porn. I suppose that's a respectable position to have in this day and age. But if you cannot form a principled justification for why your ideas and rights ought to be respected - if you cannot justify the liberal middle ground between the two extremes - then for consistency's sake, you will either join the revolutionary left or the reactionary right. And I have a hunch about which side you'll choose if you have to make that decision.

From your own words:

This has nothing to do with "justification", everything to do with balancing between the extremes, and "my enemy's enemy is my friend". Currently the left is the more dangerous side, so I will support the conservatives. If your ilk ever seize power, I'll switch sides to uphold my own values. Of course the best alternative is to simply cast my vote with likeminded moderates, but unfortunately, being less vocal and motivated by definition, they will tend to be drowned out by crazies such as yourself and the progressives.

 

[The Name of Love]

@GoldRanger, you have repeatedly misrepresented what I've said several times. I'm going to ask you to stop.

I have said three times now that I'm setting up a trichotomy, not a dichotomy. The problem is precisely that the moderate liberal position you hold has some serious philosophical problems, which I have already pointed out. You seem not to appreciate or care about these problems. What justification do you have for holding the moderate liberal position that you do? Because the justifications made by liberals much smarter than you or I have some serious flaws in them that need addressing if you want to save the liberal project. Your freedom to fap to e-porn is at stake here!

My point in talking about this is that, as the moderate liberal position becomes increasingly unstable and difficult to justify, people will gravitate towards revolution or reaction. Is there something about this that you don't understand?

 

[GoldRanger]

@GoldRanger, you have repeatedly misrepresented what I've said several times. I'm going to ask you to stop.

No, I'm going to ask YOU to stop. This is a derail, and everything you've said up to this point is nonsense. I don't owe you a "philosophical justification" for any of my beliefs. There's nothing particularly "philosophically better" about being an authoritarian shitface (I'm sorry, demanding that people stop consuming a form of media where nobody is directly harmed and enforcing that at gunpoint is authoritarianism and fundamentalism, no matter how pretty you dress it up). That's my last word on the matter.