Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Home
Catholic
Politics and Religion
“Jury refuses to protect 7 year old from forced sex-change” – what’s up with that?

“Jury refuses to protect 7 year old from forced sex-change” – what’s up with that?

Last updated on: October 22, 2019 at 9:05 am by Jane the Actuary

“Jury refuses to protect 7 year old from forced sex-change” – what’s up with that? 2019-10-22T09:05:41-06:00 Jane the Actuary

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:PFLAG_of_the_Lower_Shenandoah_07_-_DC_Capital_Pride_-_2014-06-07.jpg; Tim Evanson [CC BY-SA 2.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0)], via Wikimedia Commons

Here’s the story:

Divorced parents Jeffrey Younger and Anne Georgulas have been at odds over the treatment of their seven year old son, whom his mother insists is transgender and wishes to live as a girl, and whose father insists that, during the boy’s visitation periods to his father’s home, is perfectly happy being dressed as a boy, being called his birth name, and engaging in “boy” play, roughhousing, etc., with his twin brother. As Life Site News has been reporting, even the expert witnesses hired by the mother could not state with certainty that the child was transgender:

The expert witnesses, all of whom were paid by Georgulas to testify, and the state agency representatives admitted that James does not identify with only one gender.

Dr. Albritton told the court, “There is still some fluidity in his [James’] thinking.”

Ms. Zilca, from Dallas County Family Services, refused to call James by anything other than “Luna.” She told the court, “She [James] does not identify with only one gender.”

James’ counselor Ms. Ouer – who specializes in working with the “LGBT community” – told the court that gender fluidity means something different for each person. She also stated that James may not be transgender despite her having diagnosed him with gender dysphoria since there is some fluidity in his expression.

The father’s focus has been on emphasizing the risks and potential harm done to the boy by proceeding to puberty blockers and ultimately cross-sex hormones; at the same time, Life Site News reported that “Expert witness in trial of 7-year-old’s ‘transition’ downplays dangers of cross-sex hormone therapy” and that

Attorneys for the mother trying to force her ex-husband to go along with the gender “transition” she seeks for their seven-year-old son said in court yesterday the case is about parenting, not “gender transitioning.”

Anne Georgulas, a pediatrician, has been telling her son James he’s a girl since he was three. She and her ex-husband, Jeffery Younger, are in court this week as Georgulas seeks complete control over decision-making ability for James and his twin, Jude.

Georgulas’ attorneys, Jessica Janicek and Laura Hayes, argued that Younger is “insensitive, narcissistic, controlling, [and] unstable,” and that he refuses to follow the court’s orders. Meanwhile, Georgulas is “sensitive” and “empathetic,” and provides her son – whom she enrolled in kindergarten as a girl named “Luna” – a stable, loving environment while following court orders, they claimed.

All of which led to a jury decision yesterday:

With a consensus of 11 of the 12 jurors, the jury decided not to grant Mr. Younger Sole Managing Conservatorship over his two twin boys. They voted that the current Joint Managing Conservatorship should be replaced by a Sole Managing Conservatorship, but that Mr. Younger should not be that person. Judge Kim Cooks will read her ruling on possession, child support, and Dr. Georgulas’ other requests at 1:30 p.m. CST on Wednesday.

Now the whole thing is a bit convoluted, as there are remaining questions that a judge will decide, including visitation (the mother is seeking for the father’s visits to be limited and supervised) and child support, and this is slated for tomorrow.

But here’s the challenge: what does it mean that the jury found in favor of the mother?

Typically these “miscarriage of justice” situations are a matter of a single leftist judge or some crusading leftist politicians or bureaucrats. Here that’s not so. It was 11 out of 12 jury members. So there are, it seems to me, two possible explanations:

First, is it “not the jury’s fault” for one reason or another? Did the judge limit the evidence and expert testimony that the jury was allowed to hear? Was the deck stacked against Mr. Younger by rejecting witnesses testifying as to the risks of puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones, or the degree to which the child felt compelled to “be” a girl to please his mother or didn’t understand that a desire to play-act in dresses would cause adults to set him on this path? Did the mother’s prior “doctor-shopping” of pro-transition experts who were then deemed to have a relationship with the child doom Younger’s chances? Were witnesses testifying to the boy’s comfort level “presenting” as a boy likewise rejected? Did experts deceive the jury by means of claims that puberty blockers or cross-sex hormones were only a remote possibility rather than the likely path, when they themselves believe otherwise? Was the jury given instructions on how to apply the law that boxed them into finding in favor of the mother?

Or, second, is there simply more to the story? Were there issues with Younger’s behavior that Life Site News and other sites supportive of the father aren’t reporting because it would make him less sympathetic? Is it expected that the judge will mandate a middle path in which the mother will have custody but not the ability to unilaterally begin hormone/drug administration?

This is what is frustrating:

it is possible that the outrage simply isn’t justified, that we, as outsiders, don’t know the full story, that what seems to be a horrific path towards routinizing sterilization, hormones, and surgery for teens who need counseling, instead, in furtherance of an ideology that activists prioritize over the actual well-being of children, is really exaggerated by people with the opposite agenda. It is possible that in many such instances, the outrage isn’t justified, that there is more to the story. But at the same time, if we say, “I won’t let myself get taken in by the outrage machine; they’re just crying wolf” — well, what if outrage machine is right and the desire to withhold judgement means that by the time we realize this, it’s too late?

After all, remember back in the day when all the Smart People said that DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) was sufficient and it was really quite unnecessary to promote a constitutional amendment to prevent an eventual mandate of gay marriage? And remember when fears of mandatory affirmation of gay marriage were likewise deemed overblown because of course freedom of religion would be protected? — And now we have mandates that service providers provide their services and a threat that religious groups which do not affirm gay marriage will have their nonprofit status removed. (Incidental gripe: this is not just about whether or not donations are tax-deductible. This is about whether these organizations are themselves liable for tax, whether it be for their income or property tax on the property. The German heritage society where my kids attended German School for many years was constantly fundraising just to pay their property taxes until, it seems to me, they finally managed to get reclassified as a charity, perhaps because their membership had aged enough that they could claim they were providing social services to the elderly.)

So, readers, how do you find that balance?

Previous Post

October 17, 2019

Ugh. Just say no to (mandatory) national service

Next Post

October 24, 2019 Why are STD rates at all-time highs?

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Actuarial/Retirement Issues Politics Uncategorized

Select a Month September 2026 August 2026 July 2026 June 2026 April 2026 March 2026 February 2026 January 2026 December 2025 November 2025 October 2025 July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 February 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 December 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 August 2021 June 2021 April 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

Which book of the Bible contains the most direct prophecies about the Messiah?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Psalms Micah Zechariah Isaiah