Reversal: Texas judge rules father CAN fight to stop his transgender son, 7, transiting to a girl after he argued the child's mother made him grow up wearing dresses and constantly told him 'monsters eat little boys'

A judge has ruled that a father fighting to stop his seven-year-old son from transitioning to a girl will be allowed to have a say in future medical decisions related to his child.

Jeff Younger has been battling his ex-wife Dr Anne Georgulas in a Dallas family court as part of their bitter custody fight over whether their child James has gender dysphoria.

Judge Kim Cooks ruled on Thursday that the divorced parents will have joint conservatorship over their child. It means they will have to make joint medical decisions regarding their child, which includes whether James should undergo hormone replacement therapy to transition to a girl.

They will also have to jointly agree on haircuts for the child, as well as dental and psychiatric care. 

The decision comes after a jury ruled earlier this week in favor of giving sole managing guardianship of James and twin brother Jude to their mother

Georgulas, who is a pediatrician, has argued that James is transgender and wants the child to transition to a girl named Luna.

Her ex-husband, however, doesn't believe James has gender dysphoria and that his child is just experiencing some confusion with gender. He has accused Georgulas of forcing James to socially transition into a girl by making the child wear dresses.

Just moments before the judge's decision was handed down, Younger told DailyMail.com outside court that he didn't expect the proceedings to go in his favor. 'I'm not anticipating a good result for my son,' he said. 'I think I'm not going to be able to stop the social transition of my son, which will probably lead to his medical transition.'

The judge put a gag order on both parents during the proceedings, which means neither can speak to media going forward.

As part of the judge's ruling both Younger and Georgulas will have to attend counseling. 

The bitter court battle began when Georgulas filed a court request last year to change their joint custody arrangement to include a requirement that Younger start calling their child by the name Luna.

She said three mental health professionals had diagnosed James with gender dysphoria and that therapists had recommended they start using the name Luna instead of James.

Younger, however, filed his own request with the court to obtain sole custody of the twins to prevent the gender transition.  

Georgulas and Younger married back in 2010 when they were members of the Orthodox Church.

They went through IVF to have the twins and requested their gender be male before they were born in 2012.

The couple annulled their marriage several years later.

Arguments over their child's gender began when Georgulas took James to see a gender therapist at the Children's Hospital Center.

She claims she had noticed James requesting girl-themed toys, that the child was imitating female Disney characters and had been asking to wear dresses.

The therapist recommended James start social transitioning by wearing dresses to school and going by the name Luna.

Their child currently identifies as a girl at school and is called Luna by her teachers.  

Younger claims his ex-wife has been forcing the transition ever since their divorce and has accused Georgulas of starting to manipulate their child when James was just three years old.

He has accused Georgulas of locking James in the bedroom and telling their child that 'monsters only eat boys'.

Younger also claims Georgulas has been forcing the child to wear dresses. 

In a podcast interview earlier this year with Christian political consultant Luke Macias, Younger insisted that his child is not a girl and that she 'violently refuses to dress as girl at my house'.

Younger went on to publicly accuse his ex-wife of sexually abusing their child.

'I want you to imagine having electronic communication with you son on FaceTime, and imagine that your ex-wife has dressed him as a drag queen to talk to you. He has false eyelashes and makeup. His hair has got glitter in it. He's wearing a dress,' he said.

'Now imagine how you would feel seeing what I believe is actual sexual abuse - I believe this is not just emotional abuse but is the very, most fundamental form of sexual abuse, tampering with the sexual identity of a vulnerable boy. Every. Single. Day.

'You have to see your son sexually abused, and you have to maintain your calm... because the courts are not going to be fair to you. And the only way you can survive this and get your son through this alive is to calmly allow your son to be tortured right before your eyes and outlast the opposition. That's what it's like.'

Separate from the custody court battle, Younger has been campaigning to prevent his child's gender transition.

Websites and Facebook groups called 'Save James' have been set up and there is a GoFundMe page with about $40,000 in donations to help with Younger's court costs.

As part of the judge's ruling, the websites will now have to be shut down. 

SOURCE  





It's Back On: Christian Ministry Appeals 'Hate Group' Defamation Lawsuit Against SPLC

In 2017, the Christian ministry D. James Kennedy Ministries (DJKM) filed a defamation and discrimination lawsuit against the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) and Amazon after Amazon booted DJKM from its charity program (Amazon Smile) due to the SPLC accusation that the ministry is a "hate group." Last month, an Alabama district court dismissed the suit, but on Tuesday DJKM announced it would appeal the decision, breathing new life into a key legal battle.

The ministry announced it has filed a notice of appeal with the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals.

DJKM noted that U.S. District Judge Myron H. Thompson accepted the SPLC's argument that the "hate group" accusation is protected by the First Amendment "because it is essentially meaningless and cannot be proved right or wrong."

Specifically, the judge wrote that DJKM "cannot prove the falsity of the ‘hate group’ designation…Logically speaking, a plaintiff cannot prove what is not provable." He argued that definitions of the term "hate group" conflicted too much for there to be a clear standard of meaning.

"While the judge adopts wholesale the SPLC’s argument that the term 'hate group' means nothing concrete and thus cannot be defamatory, the news media, lawmakers, and Amazon, among others, have taken it as gospel," Frank Wright, president and CEO of DJKM, said in a statement. "The SPLC plays a disingenuous game, counting on a public connotation of 'hate groups' that brings to mind the KKK and neo-Nazis, while behind the scenes arguing that the term has no real meaning."

Indeed, Judge Thompson argued that DJKM should not bring a court action but instead challenge the SPLC accusation in the court of public opinion — an argument that seems to overlook the SPLC's privileged position and history.

Founded by prolific fundraiser Morris Dees, the SPLC gained its reputation by bankrupting the Ku Klux Klan in court. Its "hate group" accusations grew out of its work monitoring the KKK, and its list of "hate groups" includes a KKK section. When the SPLC accuses an organization of being a "hate group," it places that organization on a list that includes KKK groups — and targets that organization with an apparatus set up to destroy the KKK.

Corporations, Big Tech companies, the media, police, and the federal government have all used the SPLC as a resource, giving them a privileged position in the court of public opinion — a position the organization arguably does not deserve.

The SPLC cleaned house at the top amid a devastating sexual harassment and racial discrimination scandal this past March. After that scandal, former employees spoke out about being "part of the con," as the SPLC used its "hate group" accusations for fundraising. Many of the groups on the list are laughable — a blog run by one person and with no impact, a local store run by a Confederate sympathizer. It seems extremely unlikely the SPLC does not know this effort is deceptive.

Furthermore, former SPLC spokesman Mark Potok declared that the SPLC's "aim in life is to destroy these groups, completely destroy them." Indeed, the "hate group" accusations follow a clear liberal bias. The "hate" monitor has not condemned antifa or Students for Justice in Palestine, a group that enflames anti-Semitic harassment on college campuses. The SPLC routinely publishes reports about "Hate on the Right" or "Hate in the White House."

Just last month, House Democrats held a hearing calling for the IRS to remove the tax-exempt status of organizations the SPLC accuses of being "hate groups."

In 2012, a shooter broke into the Family Research Council (FRC), aiming to kill everyone in the building. He later told the FBI he targeted the organization because the SPLC had accused it of being an "anti-LGBT hate group."

While defamation is a high legal bar, at least one defamation lawsuit against the SPLC has succeeded. The far-left group accused Maajid Nawaz, an anti-terror Muslim reformer, of being an "anti-Muslim extremist." Nawaz sued and the SPLC settled, offering a very public apology and paying $3.375 million to his nonprofit.

Megan Meier, a partner at Claire Locke, the law firm that represented Nawaz, told PJ Media that "the SPLC’s 'hate group' accusation is a financial and reputational death sentence, effectively equating organizations to the KKK. No right-thinking person wants to be associated with the KKK, so the SPLC’s 'hate group' accusation is incredibly effective at shaming organizations and causing them to be shunned by donors, fundraising platforms, service providers, the media, and others. Shaming and shunning are hallmarks of what makes a statement 'defamatory' under the common law."

Meier admitted that the SPLC's free speech defenses have proven effective at times. "The SPLC has had some success in arguing that its 'hate group' accusation is protected by the First Amendment. It remains to be seen whether the SPLC will ultimately win the day on that question or whether organizations that have been damaged by false accusations will be given their day in court," she told PJ Media.

Wright, the DKJM president, noted that the SPLC's legal defense strongly undercuts the public credibility of its "hate group" accusations.

"I hope that the media and the public will note well that the SPLC’s defense rests upon the notion that their ‘hate map’ is entirely arbitrary and artificial, and that it cannot be proved whether any group belongs on it or not," he said.

"The SPLC has admitted to a federal judge that their fear-mongering is based on nothing provable or concrete," Wright added. "Sadly, Judge Thompson has decided to let that continue. But D. James Kennedy Ministries will persevere in pressing, in the U.S. Court of Appeals, this legal battle on behalf of all the Bible-believing Christian ministries falsely labeled ‘hate groups’ by the duplicitous SPLC."

In addition to DJKM and Nawaz, the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS), Proud Boys founder Gavin McInnes, Baltimore lawyer Glen Keith Allen, and former heroin addict Craig Nelsen have sued the SPLC for defamation and various other claims. The CIS lawsuit was struck down because it attempted to shoehorn a defamation claim into racketeering, but it will likely be re-filed.

Mat Staver, founder and chairman of Liberty Counsel, a Christian nonprofit branded a "hate group" by the SPLC, told PJ Media that more than 60 organizations are considering their own lawsuits against the SPLC.

In the Nelsen case, a judge allowed the plaintiff to enter the discovery process, giving the former heroin addict access to SPLC documents. The SPLC had falsely claimed that Nelsen "wasn't convincing anyone" that his drug recovery program was open to men of all races.

When DJKM files its appeal, it will have to bolster certain arguments about the SPLC's meaning of the term "hate group," using the SPLC's history against the KKK. Ironically, Judge Thompson ruled that "unlike the accusation of a crime, the accusation of being a hate group does not derive its meaning from 'commonly understood' social norms." The SPLC's history and broad cultural and political impact suggest otherwise — namely that opposing groups like the KKK is a "commonly understood social norm" such that a "hate group" accusation is a "reputational death sentence."

Most likely, DJKM will have to focus on the many more concrete accusations SPLC has made against them in the context of the "hate group" accusation. Nawaz, for instance, did not just complain about the "anti-Muslim extremist" label. His demand letter listed specific false statements the SPLC made about him, bolstering the case that the "anti-Muslim extremist" label and the other claims associated with it constituted clear defamation.

DJKM has a long road ahead, but the organization can prevail. The right to free speech does not include defamation of character.

SOURCE 





Trans Provocateur Loses Legal Battle to Force Women to Wax His Genitals

I would gladly wax his genitals -- with very hot wax

On Tuesday, Jessica Yaniv, a biological male who identifies as a woman, lost his legal battle to force women to give him a Brazilian wax. After multiple female estheticians refused to wax his genitals because of his male anatomy, he filed human rights complaints, claiming that they engaged in discrimination against him due to his transgender identity.

"Human rights legislation does not require a service provider to wax a type of genitals they are not trained for and have not consented to wax," the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal ruled.

The tribunal also ruled that Yaniv "engaged in improper conduct," "filed complaints for improper purposes," and concluded his testimony was "disingenuous and self-serving." Indeed, the ruling includes sections outlining the transgender provocateur's "use of deception," "financial motivation," and "racial animus."

Yaniv presented himself as a woman when he first reached out to estheticians. As for financial motivation, he filed 15 complaints against various estheticians in the Vancouver area, seeking as much as $15,000 in damages against each one. As for racial animus, he made numerous public comments condemning immigrants. At the hearings, he argued that immigrants use their religion to discriminate against transgender people because they refused to wax the male genitals of those who identify as women.

"Self-identification does not erase physiological reality," Jay Cameron, litigation manager at the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms, which represented the estheticians, said in a statement on the victory. "Our clients do not offer the service requested. No woman should be compelled to touch male genitals against her will, irrespective of how the owner of the genitals identifies."

The Justice Centre represented Blue Heaven Beauty Lounge and its Sikh owner, Sandeep Banipal, who has not been trained to wax male genitals and testified that she is uncomfortable with doing so. The center also represented Sukhi Hehar Gill, a Sikh woman who testified that it is "contrary to my faith" to provide waxing services to males. Gill was forced to shut down her business after Yaniv's antics.

The Justice Centre also represented Marcia Carnauba, an esthetician who cancelled Yaniv's appointment because she was suspicious of his behavior. She lacks the necessary training, tools, and comfort level to wax male genitals. Like Gill, Carnauba closed her business after Yaniv's complaint.

The tribunal ordered Yaniv to pay these women $2,000 each in damages.

While this ruling is a welcome victory for women's rights and for freedom of conscience in Canada, the damages awarded seem rather small compared to the harm Yaniv caused. Worse, a publication ban had identified the provocateur only as JY for most of the proceedings until the estheticians got it lifted.

Yaniv has been accused of sexual harassment against young girls. Tragically, Twitter banned Canadian journalist Meghan Murphy for merely identifying Yaniv as the provocateur in the case. Transgender activists have also gotten the Wikipedia page about Yaniv's attempts to force women to wax his genitals scrubbed from the internet.

Yaniv does not represent all transgender people, but his antics serve as an important reminder that transgender activism leaves women vulnerable to biological males invading their spaces — and even forcing them to handle their genitals.

As the Justice Centre noted in its news release on the ruling, an expert in genital waxing testified that estheticians who have not been trained to wax male genitals should refuse any such requests, as untrained attempts to wax male genitals pose "the risk of serious injury to the customer." Furthermore, "the necessary prolonged manipulation of a client's [genitals] often results in sexual arousal and a request for sexual services."

In other words, this is not just a training issue or a religious freedom issue, but also a sexual assault issue — if that were not abundantly clear already.

SOURCE 






Australian butcher targeted by militant vegans trying to cripple his small business explains why they actually HELPED him - as he trolls them with a VERY witty comeback online

Militant vegans trying to ruin a small butcher shop by protesting outside actually helped the business by giving it publicity, the owner has told Daily Mail Australia.

Protesters lined up outside Tenderwest Meats in Perth's Belmont Forum on Sunday and shouted at passing customers with a megaphone. 'They never wanted to die for you,' the group's leader yelled while his followers held up signs showing animals in slaughterhouses.

The group was trying to stop people buying and eating meat - but the protest  backfired.  'In terms of publicity the protest has been much better for me than it has been for them,' said Mike Fielder who owns and runs the small, independent shop.

'Since the protest I have received hundreds of messages of support,' he added.

The protesters posted a video of their stunt on the Facebook group Direct Action Everywhere - and Mr Fielder chimed in with a sarcastic response.

He commented on the post with a picture of some pork cooking in an oven, and wrote: 'Here's a piece of the very same pork cooking for my dinner right now. 'Please let me know when you're coming again and I'll put more on for you. Cheers.'

Explaining why he decided to fight back, he told Daily Mail Australia: 'I just thought I'd troll them a little bit.

'They are coming for me because I'm a small, independent business and an easy target. 'I don't have lawyers or large finances behind me so they target me instead of a big company like Coles or Woolies.

'But they are totally misguided - everything I sell is free range and of the highest quality.' 

Mr Fielder said the protesters had come for him once before. On that occasion he knew they were coming and put up cloths to cover the meat displayed in the windows.

'That took the wind out of their sails and they left pretty quickly, he said. 'But this time they ambushed me and they got to make their little scene.'

During the protest, the group's leader, wearing a white T-shirt, told customers: 'We are here to shine a light on an inherently cruel industry.' 'They never wanted to participate in this, they never wanted to die for you,' the leader said of the animals killed.

'They died in a gas chamber at six months old - and all they died for is for your simple meal, your simple pleasure, needlessly.'

Personifying the animals, the leader added: 'There are thousands of babies just around this city being driven to a slaughterhouse.

'Animals do not have to die for us to survive - we don't have to be doing this.'

The leader then shouted 'it's not food' and the protesters chanted back in unison 'it's violence'.

He yelled: 'What do we want? and his supporters replied 'animal liberation'. 'When do we want it?' he asked, before the vegans replied 'now.'

The video was taken by an activist who narrated the action. She called the display cabinets a 'display of death' and said the butchers 'have no shame in what they do.' The protesters then laid flowers under the display cabinets to 'remember' the animals.

'We are here to bring light to the lie that animals can be killed and exploited and somehow this is humane,' said the narrator. 

SOURCE  

******************************

Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the  incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.

American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of  other countries.  The only real difference, however, is how much power they have.  In America, their power is limited by democracy.  To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already  very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges.  They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did:  None.  So look to the colleges to see  what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way.  It would be a dictatorship.

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH,   EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS and  DISSECTING LEFTISM.   My Home Pages are here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here.  Email me (John Ray) here. 

************************************