...

The fight for custody is entirely about enabling the child's gender non-conformity.

What's being discussed with regards to trans issues, by the so called "experts" flies in the face of almost all modern psychology when it comes to children, especially ones that young.

Positive reinforcement, encourages that behavior. Negative reinforcement, discourages it. There is a third option, acknowledge the feeling, but don't reinforce it, yet.

The father also received a gag order. The corrupt judicial system in America is stopping this "war veteran", who was dishonorably discharged, from speaking the truth about the mother!

This man is so credible, that the military gave him the equivalent of a felony conviction. "A dishonorable discharge is considered the highest level of punishment and is reserved for actions that are inexcusable, such as murder, manslaughter, sexual assault and desertion."

So no actual evidence then

I'd have a lot more respect for you, if you did not ignore things, then repeat the narrative over, and over again. There is evidence, and I pointed at a single immensely telling piece.

The mother is going to court to further her support of gender non-conformity, for a 7 year old. The father is, and what he says, irrelevant to that aspect, or the point I'm making.

So, the custody suit is evidence? Even though the mother already won custody?

Who won, or lost, custody, or what either party says, is relevant to the point. The simple act of fighting in court to enable gender non-conformity of her seven year old child is evidence of my point you questioned, initially (if she was not supportive, or non-committal, she would not fight for custody on these grounds).

And before you come back saying he was discharged for homosexual misconduct, he's been going around explaining his dishonorable discharge as protecting his friend or something along those lines and it more or less sounds erroneous. There is just so much evidence that points to him being manipulative and fabricating lies about the mother. He's lied about almost everything in his prenup, including being a Marine veteran that went to war in Iraq (stolen valor), yearly income, education (claimed to have two degrees but has no college education), and past marriages(had two but said he had one) to name a few, which ultimately got their marriage annulled and led to sole custody to the mother.

The only thing he really has going for him is the video evidence of the boy when he was 3 saying his mother said he was a girl. But I will also mention that professionals have diagnosed the boy with gender dysphoria and all that we know for sure that is happening is social transitioning. It would be nice to hear a public statement from the mother but for whatever reason, she is choosing not to speak, probably to avoid bringing traumatizing media attention to the child. Either way, this is going to be a long fight for both of them and I'm sure we'll be hearing about this a lot more in the future.

I am personally not 100% sold on puberty blockers and anything other than social transitioning before ages 14-16. Since gender dysphoria is not necessarily a life long condition and gender dysphoria in children can lessen or go away completely as one gets older, people can change their minds about transitioning later on. But I also can't say I'm 100% against it.

The narrative surrounding how to deal with a 7 year old who might, or might not be trans, is not based on any understanding of how children learn. It will lead to significantly more false positives.

The father is completely irrelevant to the point I'm making. The mother is only tangentially related.

You have no evidence that the child in question is being conditioned in any way by the mother, only that she is following the advice of her doctors. On the other hand, we DO have evidence that the father is engaging in negative conditioning with regards to his child's choice, hence the courts granting full custody to the mother.

You have no evidence. You are wrong.

You have now repeated the narrative twice, and have yet to contend why a mother would fight a custody battle over gender non-conformity, if she was anything other than supportive. And, that really does not matter. You folks do this, you get backed in the corner when it comes to a clear issue with how these issues are addressed, and you focus on irrelevant tidbits, so you don't have to contend with stuff like Operant conditioning, which is the main point I was making. Besides, your argument is we have no evidence the lady does not positively reinforce gender non-conformity, which is the claim I am making. So, you don't think she is positively reinforcing these things, and you constantly pointing back to the APA, and others on how to deal with this issue, as some sort of vindication of what she was doing is based on a hunch she is doing the right things?

She fought a custody battle over a father who was trying to take custody away from her. The FATHER petitioned the court for full custody, not the mother, and he lost, giving sole custody to the mother. You don't even know the very basic aspects of the case, yet proclaim that I am the one repeating a narrative?

You haven't done even the minimal amounts of work to discuss this and want to claim victory. You are a joke.

+1

If the parents agreed on the trans issue, he'd be fighting it for a different reason, and we would never know about it. You keep going though. How about addressing the point I'm making....instead of this bullshit.

You have no evidence that the mother is engaged in any type of conditioning. You have no evidence that if the child began asking to be called James again that the mother wouldn't comply. You have vilified this woman who has done what her trusted doctors have told her is best for her child. Its sickening. What makes you think you have any right to have a say in their lives?

Of course he shouldn't, because that will make him look foolish and do him no social good at all. It would only happen if the parent or parents were determined to impose their own strange notions on the child.

The only thing this proves is that the father is involved in negative conditioning, yet, surprise surprise, you seem to have no ****ing problem with that.

I wonder why that might be.

How would it affect the child's social standing? Most kids who aren't raised by bigots are pretty ok with going with the flow and understanding things that are explained to them. Also, Luna began presenting as female before school age, so at school she would have always gone by Luna. How would her social status be hurt exactly if this wasn't being thrown in front of the press by the father?

Also, do you think all girls dressed in girls clothes look foolish? Most 7 year olds have no pubescent signs of gender. Do you think if there were ten seven year olds in a line up in androgynous dress and haircuts that you could separate them by sex?

The fourth time. What you think is, or is not evidence, is completely irrelevant to me, and this discussion. It's a 100% deflection.


This completely misses the point of positive reinforcement.



You have no evidence indicating this women is doing what's best for the kid (which incidentally revolves around positive reinforcement, according to the experts, yet claiming she is not doing this, but you think she is listening to the "experts"). Yet, you are convinced of it. Suck it, with your contradicting reasoning.

Yes, yes I do. We have a health board who has specifically stated in professional literature that the behavior of the mother is what is best for the kid.

Its like the literal definition of evidence. I don't have any intent of being mean here, but are you ASL? Do you not understand what evidence actually means?

So, you would agree she is providing positive reinforcement when it comes to gender non-conformity, i.e. she is following the "experts". We are pointing to the same behavior, and you insist there is no evidence of it occurring, then turn right around and say it's occurring.

It seemed like you were making assumptions about the mother based on the accusations of the father. Maybe it was an incorrect assumption. People do come in barking every day about it, so please excuse this assumption.

Anyone who's owned a dog could tell you about positive and negative reinforcement.

For those children who go through transitioning, there will be a portion that it will benefit and a portion that will regret it. What percentages each encompasses is not currently known. There will also be cases where supportive parents will encourage a child who will later regret transitioning, as well as, cases where a child is disallowed from transitioning that would have benefited from it. This is not black and white. Children do not have perfect parents. I think you need to understand this point.

While there is an argument to be made about how a parent should talk to a child about transitioning, I do not see the harm in allowing a child social transitioning if they so choose. Not that it should stop anyone from discussing it, but I don't even think one could disallow someone else's child and their consenting parent(s) to wear certain clothes, granted it follows the schools dress codes. You hold the opinion that social conditioning at 7 is bad, therefore you believe positive reinforcement of that "bad" behavior is negative, I disagree with the premise of that opinion. I think it would be important to understand your position, so I'll ask, at what age would social transitioning be appropriate for you?

Yes, because it's a silly experiment that says more about the researchers than about the monkeys or indeed other human beings. Many toys, from teddy bears to Lego, appeal to both boys and girls. Many other toys are things that monkeys just can't understand. If you're reduced to putting model trucks and princess dolls in front of domesticated monkeys to try and prove something, you're just being silly.