Society/Culture Jordan B Peterson

[Suspense]

Thanks for not answering the question. I wonder why.

It was because you subsequently edited your post to add it.

I don't know the proportion - but it wouldn't be a meaningful statistic given that:

• an application is only required to the court if one or more parents are in dispute
• each decision would depend on the unique facts of the case.

What is clear, however, is that the court will permit an adolescent child to undergo treatment if the weight of evidence deems it to be in the adolescent’s best interests.

 

[mcnulty]

So Jordan Peterson is as important to you as Climate Change, and COVID cures? Well that is great.

It’s a footy forum, you colossal halfwit. People post on threads ranging from player lookalikes to craft beer. They do not necessarily rank their contributions on international significance.

Staggering that this would need pointing out. But here we are.

 

[yebiga]

It’s a footy forum, you colossal halfwit. People post on threads ranging from player lookalikes to craft beer. They do not necessarily rank their contributions on international significance.

Staggering that this would need pointing out. But here we are.

But this isn't the lookalikes and craft-beer thread.
You are an angry bugger who derails threads with putrid juvenile insults and zero content.
The Chief has rebuked me, overnight, for referring to the increasing presence of vermin in this thread. In my defence, I would like to present him/her/it with your last dozen posts.

And Jordan Peterson, I believe, would suggest that this mode of your posting is harmful, perhaps to others but more importantly and more certainly to yourself. These posts of yours, lashing out, expand the contentious and challenging world we all face unnecessarily into realms of phantoms.

There is no threat here. Yet, your posts here are akin to that of a wounded and cornered animal. Chemically this unnecessarily lowers your endorphin levels, whilst simultaneously increasing your flight/fight response. But as there is no real threat, you are confusing your autonomic systems. If you persist like this long enough, neither you nor they will recognise what is real. Every innocent encounter will seem malevolent, dangerous, a threat.

Looking at the state of our world right now. Don't you think Peterson is on to something?

 

[mcnulty]

But as there is no real threat, you are confusing your automatic systems

”Autonomic”.

You’re welcome.

 

[Noidenous]

It was because you subsequently edited your post to add it.

I don't know the proportion - but it wouldn't be a meaningful statistic given that:

• an application is only required to the court if one or more parents are in dispute
• each decision would depend on the unique facts of the case.

What is clear, however, is that the court will permit an adolescent child to undergo treatment if the weight of evidence deems it to be in the adolescent’s best interests.

It's absolutely meaningful.

If there hasn't been a single case of denial, then the law has been created solely for the purpose of shoehorning the child through the process and silencing opposition.

 

[Suspense]

It's absolutely meaningful.

The significance of continued judicial control over decision-making in this area cannot be underestimated. In terms of practical consequences, there is considerable expense, time and distress associated with applying to the Family Court.

...

Secondly, there remains uncertainty surrounding the decision that a court will actually make. In the cases to date, as discussed above, the Family Court will not necessarily find a child competent to make such a life-altering decision. Children, parents and lawyers would thus be unwise to proceed to a hearing of the application without being able to lay their hands on the further evidence needed to demonstrate that treatment is in the child’s best interests in the event that the claims about competency are not accepted. To prepare the case on a more limited basis could lead to a situation where, if a court finds a child is not competent to make the decision, a second application would need to be made.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/UNSWLJ/2015/15.html

It's not a meaningful statistic because those parties seeking authorisation for treatment ensure that they have a sufficient body of evidence to show that treatment is in the best interests of the child - before going to the expense and effort of making an application with the family court.

If frivolous applications were made to the court, we would likely see more applications denied.

If there hasn't been a single case of denial, then the law has been created solely for the purpose of shoehorning the child through the process and silencing opposition.

The law provides for checks and balances to ensure that any decision made is in the best interests of the child.

Opposition is not silenced. They are fully entitled to have their view put forward in family court cases. Once again, read the judgement and you will see that all opposing opinions are voiced and considered by the Family Court. Just because those opposing opinions lack any real credibility, and are therefore unable to convince the Family Court to deny treatment, does not mean they are not heard and considered by the court.

 

[Noidenous]

The significance of continued judicial control over decision-making in this area cannot be underestimated. In terms of practical consequences, there is considerable expense, time and distress associated with applying to the Family Court.

...

Secondly, there remains uncertainty surrounding the decision that a court will actually make. In the cases to date, as discussed above, the Family Court will not necessarily find a child competent to make such a life-altering decision. Children, parents and lawyers would thus be unwise to proceed to a hearing of the application without being able to lay their hands on the further evidence needed to demonstrate that treatment is in the child’s best interests in the event that the claims about competency are not accepted. To prepare the case on a more limited basis could lead to a situation where, if a court finds a child is not competent to make the decision, a second application would need to be made.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/UNSWLJ/2015/15.html

It's not a meaningful statistic because those parties seeking authorisation for treatment ensure that they have a sufficient body of evidence to show that treatment is in the best interests of the child - before going to the expense and effort of making an application with the family court.

If frivolous applications were made to the court, we would likely see more applications denied.


The law provides for checks and balances to ensure that any decision made is in the best interests of the child.

Opposition is not silenced. They are fully entitled to have their view put forward in family court cases. Once again, read the judgement and you will see that all opposing opinions are voiced and considered by the Family Court. Just because those opposing opinions lack any real credibility, and are therefore unable to convince the Family Court to deny treatment, does not mean they are not heard and considered by the court.

Applications through the court get denied all the time, for everything. This is naive bullshit.

 

[Suspense]

Applications through the court get denied all the time, for everything. This is naive bullshit.

You are entitled to your opinion. It has little effect on the operation of the Family Court - which will continue to allow adolescent children to undergo treatment for Gender Dysphoria when they deem it to be in the best interests of the child.

 

[Noidenous]

You are entitled to your opinion. It has little effect on the operation of the Family Court - which will continue to allow adolescent children to undergo treatment for Gender Dysphoria when they deem it to be in the best interests of the child.

So all you have to say on statistics is that it's supposedly meaningless while offering none?

 

[FireKrakouer]

The significance of continued judicial control over decision-making in this area cannot be underestimated. In terms of practical consequences, there is considerable expense, time and distress associated with applying to the Family Court.

...

Secondly, there remains uncertainty surrounding the decision that a court will actually make. In the cases to date, as discussed above, the Family Court will not necessarily find a child competent to make such a life-altering decision. Children, parents and lawyers would thus be unwise to proceed to a hearing of the application without being able to lay their hands on the further evidence needed to demonstrate that treatment is in the child’s best interests in the event that the claims about competency are not accepted. To prepare the case on a more limited basis could lead to a situation where, if a court finds a child is not competent to make the decision, a second application would need to be made.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/UNSWLJ/2015/15.html

It's not a meaningful statistic because those parties seeking authorisation for treatment ensure that they have a sufficient body of evidence to show that treatment is in the best interests of the child - before going to the expense and effort of making an application with the family court.

If frivolous applications were made to the court, we would likely see more applications denied.


The law provides for checks and balances to ensure that any decision made is in the best interests of the child.

Opposition is not silenced. They are fully entitled to have their view put forward in family court cases. Once again, read the judgement and you will see that all opposing opinions are voiced and considered by the Family Court. Just because those opposing opinions lack any real credibility, and are therefore unable to convince the Family Court to deny treatment, does not mean they are not heard and considered by the court.

It's humorous how you continue to provide evidence that refutes your own positions. Shard monkeys gon' shard monkey!

 

[Suspense]

So all you have to say on statistics is that it's supposedly meaningless while offering none?

Just because no applications have been denied - does not mean there is no scope for an application to be denied. The children in the cases brought before the court have documented a history of Gender Dysphoria and the medical and clinical evidence presented, supports court authorisation for treatment.

Meaningful conclusions cannot be drawn from the statistics for two reasons:

1. There is a small sample size of cases due to:

• It being an emerging area of healthcare
• Gender Dysphoria affects a very low proportion of the population
• Of all clinical presentations of adolescent Gender Dysphoria, only those where a parent/s dispute treatment go before the court
• Some clinical presentations of adolescent Gender Dysphoria do not end up before the court - due to the cost and effort required for a court application

2. Due to the cost and effort associated with an application to the court, parties seeking authorisation for treatment ensure that they have a sufficient body of evidence to show that treatment is in the best interests of the child - before making a court application.

If you believe that all cases are simply 'shoehorned in' without any consideration for what is in the best interests of the child, then I challenge you to find one (just one) frivolous application, in which there was no such documented history of Gender Dysphoria, and where court approval was still granted.

 

[Noidenous]

Just because no applications have been denied - does not mean there is no scope for an application to be denied. The children in the cases brought before the court have documented a history of Gender Dysphoria and the medical and clinical evidence presented, supports court authorisation for treatment.

Meaningful conclusions cannot be drawn from the statistics for two reasons:

1. There is a small sample size of cases due to:

• It being an emerging area of healthcare
• Gender Dysphoria affects a very low proportion of the population
• Of all clinical presentations of adolescent Gender Dysphoria, only those where a parent/s dispute treatment go before the court
• Some clinical presentations of adolescent Gender Dysphoria do not end up before the court - due to the cost and effort required for a court application

2. Due to the cost and effort associated with an application to the court, parties seeking authorisation for treatment ensure that they have a sufficient body of evidence to show that treatment is in the best interests of the child - before making a court application.

If you believe that all cases are simply 'shoehorned in' without any consideration for what is in the best interests of the child, then I challenge you to find one (just one) frivolous application, in which there was no such documented history of Gender Dysphoria, and where court approval was still granted.

Is that official?

There's been ZERO denied cases out of how many?

 

[Suspense]

Is that official?

There's been ZERO denied cases out of how many?

As of 2017:

Between the judgement of Re: Alex in 2004 and Re: Jamie in 2013, there are no reported cases where a child was denied authorisation to commence Stage 2 treatment. Further, between Re: Jamie on 3 July 2013 and 16 August 2017, of the 63 cases the Family Court dealt with involving applications to commence Stage 2 or 3 treatment, treatment was authorised in all but one case. In the case where treatment was not permitted, there was insufficient evidence before the court and the child was one month from turning 18.

I don't know the current statistics - but there is an example of a case where there was insufficient evidence, and the court, therefore, denied treatment.

 

[Noidenous]

As of 2017:

Between the judgement of Re: Alex in 2004 and Re: Jamie in 2013, there are no reported cases where a child was denied authorisation to commence Stage 2 treatment. Further, between Re: Jamie on 3 July 2013 and 16 August 2017, of the 63 cases the Family Court dealt with involving applications to commence Stage 2 or 3 treatment, treatment was authorised in all but one case. In the case where treatment was not permitted, there was insufficient evidence before the court and the child was one month from turning 18.

I don't know the current statistics - but there is an example of a case where there was insufficient evidence, and the court, therefore, denied treatment.

Holy ******* anomaly, Batman.

That means there has been zero precedent set for dismissal. Do you understand how decisively lax that is?

Psychiatric patients get misdiagnosed all the ******* time, but in this matter we're supposed to believe they've gone through due diligence nigh on 100% of the time?

 

[Suspense]

Holy ******* anomaly, Batman.

That means there has been zero precedent set for dismissal. Do you understand how decisively lax that is?

How can there be zero precedent for dismissal - when I just cited a case where treatment was denied?

Psychiatric patients get misdiagnosed all the ******* time, but in this matter we're supposed to believe they've gone through due diligence nigh on 100% of the time?

That is Australian law. Most Family Court judgments are publicly accessible - so you can check for yourself as to whether the court assessed the validity of evidence in support of the application - in determining whether to grant or deny authorisation for treatment.

Any luck finding a court application, where there was no evidence or no documented history of Gender Dysphoria presented, and where court approval was still granted?

Didn't think so.

 

[Noidenous]

How can there be zero precedent for dismissal - when I just cited a case where treatment was denied?


That is Australian law. Most Family Court judgments are publicly accessible - so you can check for yourself as to whether the court assessed the validity of evidence in support of the application - in determining whether to grant or deny authorisation for treatment.

Any luck finding a court application, where there was no evidence or no documented history of Gender Dysphoria presented, and where court approval was still granted?

Didn't think so.

Pffft. Documented evidence from a politically corrupt sector. Even divorce cases sometimes go the way of the 'defending' party. There hasn't ever been a documented misdiagnosis before, eh?

Someone took a case to court a month before they'd be legal to go through with it unhindered. Doesn't take a neurosurgeon to work out why that was rejected.

 

[sdfc]

My point is that an adolescent child cannot legally undergo treatment without either:

• the consent of both parents/guardians - both of whom are over 18
• court authorisation - determined by a judge who is over 18

It is erroneous to suggest that Australian law permits underage children to begin treatment for Gender Dysphoria - without the authorisation of adult/s entrusted to act in their best interests.


Australian case law has a legal standard, known as Gillick competence, to determine whether a child is able to consent to their own medical treatment, without the need for parental permission or knowledge. This standard was established in 1985 and ratified in Australian case law in 1992.

Although there is no one-size-fits-all criteria for determining the Gillick competence of an adolescent child, these are the factors that have been considered in recent cases:

1. Able to comprehend and retain both existing and new information regarding the proposed treatment;
2. Able to provide a full explanation, in terms appropriate to their level of maturity and education, of the nature of treatment;
3. Able to describe the advantages of treatment;
4. Able to describe the disadvantages of treatment;
5. Able to weigh the advantages and disadvantages in the balance, and arrive at an informed decision about whether and when they should proceed with treatment;
6. Able to understand that the decision to proceed with treatment could have consequences that cannot be entirely foreseen at the time of the decision;
7. Able to understand that treatment will not necessarily address all or any of the psychological and social difficulties that they had before the commencement of treatment;
8. Being free to the greatest extent possible from temporary factors that could impair judgment in providing consent to the procedure.

The court or parents, neither of which has any expertise in the area, would be mere facilitators. The child makes the decision.

A big decision for a child to make.

 

[Suspense]

Pffft. Documented evidence from a politically corrupt sector.

You are entitled to your opinion.

I'm glad that such opinions are not taken seriously by the persons actually entrusted with ensuring that the best interests of adolescent children are upheld.

Even divorce cases sometimes go the way of the 'defending' party. There hasn't ever been a documented misdiagnosis before, eh?

Is your argument that - because clinical misdiagnoses occur - expert medical evidence should never be relied upon by a court?

Very odd take.

Someone took a case to court a month before they'd be legal to go through with it unhindered. Doesn't take a neurosurgeon to work out why that was rejected.

In the one case where an application was dismissed the child was 17 years and 11 months at the time of the hearing and the application was not supported by evidence that would allow the court to make a positive finding that the child was Gillick competent.

 

[Suspense]

The court or parents, neither of which has any expertise in the area, would be mere facilitators. The child makes the decision.

A big decision for a child to make.

The child is the driving force behind the decision to transition - but they cannot legally undergo treatment unless they have the consent of both their parents or (in the event of a dispute) the Australian Family Court.

A big decision for the parents of any gender dysphoric adolescent child.

 

[Noidenous]

Is your argument that - because clinical misdiagnoses occur - expert medical evidence should never be relied upon by a court?

Very odd take.

No, and only a dishonest type could misconstrue it so badly.

That not one case could be argued against on the basis of incompetence or misdiagnosis is a savage anomaly. It reeks of social engineering.

 

[Suspense]

No, and only a dishonest type could misconstrue it so badly.

That not one case could be argued against on the basis of incompetence or misdiagnosis is a savage anomaly.

There would need to be some evidence of incompetence or misdiagnosis on the part of the medical practitioner. The court assesses the evidence supporting the diagnosis, as well as any evidence to the contrary, and makes an appropriate decision as to the following factors:

The diagnostic criteria for Gender Dysphoria in Adolescents and Adults contained in the DSM-5 at 302.85:

1. A marked incongruence between one’s experienced/expressed gender and assigned gender, of at least six month’s duration, as manifested by at least two of the following:
   1. A marked incongruence between one’s experience/expressed gender and primary and/or secondary sex characteristics (or in young adolescents, the anticipated secondary sex characteristics).
   2. A strong desire to be rid of one’s primary and/or secondary sex characteristics because of a marked incongruence with one’s experienced/expressed gender (or in young adults, a desire to prevent the development of the anticipated secondary sex characteristics).
   3. A strong desire for primary and/or secondary sex characteristics of the other gender.
   4. A strong desire to be of the other gender (or some alternate gender different from one’s assigned gender).
   5. A strong desire to be treated as the other gender (or some alternative gender difference from one’s assigned gender).
   6. A strong conviction that one has the typical feelings and reactions of the other gender (or some alternative gender different from one’s assigned gender).
2. The condition is associated with clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning.

In my view, the fact that the Family Court is almost always convinced by the evidence that supports a diagnosis of Gender Dysphoria is fairly logical for two reasons:

• it is unlikely that many applicants would bother with the cost and effort for court authorisation on the basis of a flimsy diagnosis lacking in evidence
• the counter-arguments, not unlike those put forward in this thread, are usually pretty dumb, lack evidence, and are just generally unconvincing.

When the counter-arguments are so bad, it's not surprising that they cop a thrashing in the courts.

It reeks of social engineering.

You are free to theorise and speculate if it provides you some comfort.

 

[Noidenous]

There would need to be some evidence of incompetence or misdiagnosis on the part of the medical practitioner. The court assesses the evidence supporting the diagnosis, as well as any evidence to the contrary, and makes an appropriate decision as to the following factors:

The diagnostic criteria for Gender Dysphoria in Adolescents and Adults contained in the DSM-5 at 302.85:

1. A marked incongruence between one’s experienced/expressed gender and assigned gender, of at least six month’s duration, as manifested by at least two of the following:
   1. A marked incongruence between one’s experience/expressed gender and primary and/or secondary sex characteristics (or in young adolescents, the anticipated secondary sex characteristics).
   2. A strong desire to be rid of one’s primary and/or secondary sex characteristics because of a marked incongruence with one’s experienced/expressed gender (or in young adults, a desire to prevent the development of the anticipated secondary sex characteristics).
   3. A strong desire for primary and/or secondary sex characteristics of the other gender.
   4. A strong desire to be of the other gender (or some alternate gender different from one’s assigned gender).
   5. A strong desire to be treated as the other gender (or some alternative gender difference from one’s assigned gender).
   6. A strong conviction that one has the typical feelings and reactions of the other gender (or some alternative gender different from one’s assigned gender).
2. The condition is associated with clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning.

In my view, the fact that the Family Court is almost always convinced by the evidence that supports a diagnosis of Gender Dysphoria is fairly logical for two reasons:

• it is unlikely that many applicants would bother with the cost and effort for court authorisation on the basis of a flimsy diagnosis lacking in evidence
• the counter-arguments, not unlike those put forward in this thread, are usually pretty dumb, lack evidence, and are just generally unconvincing.

When the counter-arguments are so bad, it's not surprising that they cop a thrashing in the courts.


You are free to theorise and speculate if it provides you some comfort.

Sure, a new law that creates nothing but 100% effectiveness with no instances of insufficient evidence.

People can get away with murder in the same court system, but no, gender dysphoria is an absolute pearl of a process that couldn't possibly have any political gerrymandering.

How convenient.

 

[yebiga]

This was posted on JPs website and Youtube on Thursday, 25th of March
It is an interview on the Trans-Gender phenomena with Abigail Shrier who published a book on the subject.

"Irreversible Damage: The Transgender Craze Seducing Our Daughters"
Would be fascinated by anyone's critique of the interview/book

The reviews on Amazon of this book makes for interesting reading.

 

[Gough]

For such a polymath Peterson spends a sh*t load of his time worrying about gender.

 

[Noidenous]

For such a polymath Peterson spends a sh*t load of his time worrying about gender.

I see you're still as disingenuous as ever.