I signed, but did not share or donate. There is a bit more nuance to this case than at first appears. The emotionally charged words "chemical castration" are words any desperate father would use in that situation, but it evokes imagery of using chemicals to literally remove male genitalia, and I would agree with
@Laurenatx that any woman who would do such a thing to her own child, is mentally ill, if that were indeed what was happening. I think we can all relax a bit and put our guns away though, as sometimes the truth is somewhere in the middle. I must agree with
@rejoicinghandmaid though, that Feminism is what is behind all of this, though perhaps not for the same reason she is thinking.
Admittedly, I read through an article from left-leaning Vox to get the latest news on this:
https://www.vox.com/identities/2019/11/11/20955059/luna-younger-transgender-child-custody
If you can stomach the imagery of the transgender flag and all the references to "Luna" and referring to him as a "her", a few things stick out here that we should be aware of. The "chemical castration" characterization, appears to be hyperbole, and the situation is not as dire as one might think. This is why the government's hands appear to be tied when it comes to this case. The state of Texas would never allow a child to be mutilated that way, simply because he claimed that he was a girl. They have ordered CPS to look into it, but CPS is notoriously left-leaning. What the father appears to object to, is chemicals that will prevent the boy from naturally growing into being a man, and this whole notion of "affirming". The article claims that the father is taking a "wait and see" approach, but in reality, he is taking an "outright rejection" stance, which is in fact what I have done with my boys. Call me sexist, but I have emphasized male superiority with them by speaking in derogatory tones about the fact that girls like to play with dolls, and speaking in positive tones about the fact that boys like to play with cool toys.
This is where feminism comes into play. The mother appears to have been deceived by left-leaning ideology that has overrun our Medical profession. Her beliefs and research, from the left-leaning medical community, no doubt, have led her to conclude that it is harmful to not affirm the sexual identity that the child chooses, and she is apparently blind to the biases that have led them to their conclusions. Apparently, the chemicals in question, are intended to keep the boy from growing into a man. For decades now, within the Psychological community, there has been a discussion about nature vs. nurture, and whether the differences between men and women, have more to do with hormones, or with how society expects us to act. I take no chances with that, and have ensured, and will always take steps to ensure that my children have the nurture they need to ensure they identify as the gender they were born with. I also don't have my boys in a public school setting and the only preschool they have ever had, was with our church, or in the case of our older son, our former church. I don't want them to be exposed to any nonsensical "nurturing", that is nothing more than brainwashing them to believe they are something other than what God created them as.
The whole reason for this nurture vs nature discussion, is the "inequality" complaint we hear about so much from the left, and
@Keith Martin could probably explain much better than I could, how academia has been wrestling with the idea of how society got to this place, where men rule and women submit. In that regard, I think
@rejoicinghandmaid is spot on. We have become too intelligent for our own good. We were given intelligence in order to fulfill God's mandate that we "subdue" the earth, but in doing so, we keep trying to subdue the very thing God created within us. Rather than appreciate the beauty and design God gave us in our differences, academia has decided that there are other differences that exist, which in fact, these so-called "differences" are merely attempting to blur the lines of the real differences and distinctions between us. To think about this from the leftist POV, we are the ones who are causing harm to our children, by not allowing them to explore their "true sexual identity", but in reality, if we cannot really know what is a boy, or what is a girl, or what is a man or a woman, what is the point anyhow?
Anne Georglous has now been doxed. We don't like it when leftists do that to our leaders, and we should be careful about doing that ourselves. Her practice has apparently been vandalized, and she has been forced to shut it down, which in a sense, is a good thing and also a bad thing. I wouldn't want to take my children to a pediatrician who believes that way, but I probably already have done so, and will probably do so again, as this ideology has apparently overrun the medical profession. OTOH, we don't win the battle for hearts and minds, by making martyrs out of those whom we oppose. We win, by exposing the nonsense and bias of studies and groups performing those studies, when they produce such nonsense, exposing it to as many people as possible. The reason I didn't share this petition on social media, is because this case is hard to explain to people, who will pull out an article such as the one that I found here, and of course, I don't want to publicize this martyrdom that Anne Georglous is being put through.
Now a couple other things stuck out at me as well. Anne Georglous apparently has two teenage daughters from a previous marriage. We all know what the Bible says about divorce and remarriage, so no further explanation is necessary there. I'm not sure what to make of the whole "annulment" thing either, because I have only seen the left's portrayal of the father, and I'm sure that there is another side to that story. The other thing that stuck out at me, is how the other influences in this child's life, are also "affirming". If I were part of that jury, I would have insisted that the father have sole custody, and that he not be allowed to put that child in any public institution where that "affirming" could take place, and I would have insisted on a hung jury if I could not persuade the other jurors to go along with that, but you all here know how stubborn I can be when it comes to debating any issue that I feel passionate about.
Unfortunately, the judge who vacated the jury's decision, and decided instead for dual custody, was forced to recuse herself, because she had posted something on Facebook that revealed bias. The child will continue to have "affirming" influences around him, and the "rejecting" influence from his father, is unfortunately being portrayed in a negative light by the other care providers that he is exposed to. This child and his father, need lots of prayer.
