Before she decided to strip him of all custody over his son, Drew*—before determining that he would have no say in whether Drew began medical gender transition—California Superior Court Judge Joni Hiramoto asked Ted Hudacko this: “If your son [Drew] were medically psychotic and believed himself to be the Queen of England, would you love him?”The situation is much worse.
“Of course I would,” the senior software engineer at Apple replied, according to the court transcript. “I’d also try to get him help.”
“I understand that qualifier,” Judge Hiramoto replied. “But if it were — if you were told by [Drew’s] psychiatrist, psychologist that [Drew] was very fragile and that confronting him — or, I’m sorry, confronting them with the idea that they are not the Queen of England is very harmful to their mental health, could you go along and say, ‘OK, [Drew], you are the Queen of England and I love you; you are my child and I want you to do great and please continue to see your psychologist.’ Could you do that?”
“Yes,” Hudacko said. “That sounds like part of a process that might take some time, sure.”
“What process?” Judge Hiramoto said. “What is the thing that might take some time? Accepting the idea that [Drew] occupies an identity that you believe is not true?”
“The identity you just mentioned to me was the Queen of England,” Ted began. “I can tell him and I can affirm that to him, to reassuring him situationally; but objectively, he is not the Queen of England and that won’t change, and even the therapist in that case would know that.”
The then-54-year-old father of two teenage minor sons (Drew is the elder) felt that he was walking into a trap. ...
On June 24, 2020, following her discussion with Ted about the Queen of England hypothetical, Judge Joni Hiramoto granted Christine sole legal custody of Drew on a temporary basis ... Within just a few months, the court would definitively end Ted’s parental relationship. ...
This is gender ideology — the belief, not backed by any meaningful empirical evidence, that we all have an ineffable gender identity, knowable only to us. This identity has no observable markers, and it is immutable (until the moment we change our minds and reveal ourselves as “gender fluid,” of course). It is promoted by virtually every practitioner of “gender-affirming care,” it is unfalsifiable, and its hold on our legal system is gaining ground.
A few years ago this would have all been as crazy as a medieval court convicting a witch for witchcraft.
In America today, unless a parent has sole legal custody, family courts have the authority to intervene and order this sort of destruction. If the judge needs factual support, she can appoint a psychologist or lawyer advocate. Those professions are completely corrupt, and will do what the judge wants.
Here, the dad was trapped into saying that he would accept a psychologist's hypothetical advice not to confront his son about a false belief that he is the Queen of England. The dad's true opinion was probably that any such psychologist would be fired as a crackpot.
Update: Here is the Daily Mail article. It makes a point of saying the judge was biased and/or conflicted. Yes, that is true, but not the main problem. Judges should not have this power. The problem is with the law and procedures. See also the Daily Stormer article.
Update: The Shrier article is also published here.
Post a Comment