Eric Gay/AP
Cynthia M. Allen
Sat, January 7, 2023
If one word could encapsulate the mood of social (and often mainstream) media in 2022, it might be misinformation.
It was the primary insult lobbed at anyone who shared anything contrary to the prevailing (usually politically liberal) narrative.
And it was the charge, we now know, used to keep many people from participating on social media platforms such as Twitter, even when their “crime” was sharing data, science or opinions that have since been vindicated as fact or at least deemed uncontroversial.
As is often the case with such “crimes,” conservatives — or simply non-progressives — were the victims.
But that doesn’t mean that conservatives aren’t sometimes responsible for propagating bad information on social media, even in cases that are harmful to their own political ends.
Such has been the circumstance with the recent reporting on the case of Jeff Younger, whose petition to prohibit his ex-wife from moving with their two children to California was just denied by the Texas Supreme Court.
The move is significant because California has just enacted a law to provide “refuge for trans kids and their families” from other states’ restrictions on child gender modification.
Younger has been embroiled in a longtime dispute with ex-wife Anne Georgulas over the future and care of their twins. Georgulas contends that one of them identifies as a trans female called “Luna.”
Younger, who ran unsuccessfully for Texas House last year, disputes this, saying his child acts and wishes to be treated as a boy in his presence. He’s been fighting his ex-wife in court to protect the child from possible medical transition. (So far, the child has only been socially transitioned.)
Younger previously lost custody of his children, but a Dallas court granted he and Georgulas joint conservatorship and equal share in authority in making decisions about their child’s medical care.
However, Younger’s fear that California’s new law would open a loophole allowing the mother to pursue gender transitioning care for their child, prompted him to file a writ of mandamus — a kind of legal last resort — demanding that the Texas Supreme Court act to prevent his wife and children from moving to the state.
His fear is understandable.
Despite the prevailing narrative in the U.S. that gender transition is wholly good and necessary for youth experiencing gender dysphoria, there is plenty of evidence to the contrary.
Several European nations have recently dropped their “gender-affirming” approach to youth transition.
And earlier this year, England’s National Health Service shut down the country’s only youth gender clinic after a scathing review of its practices and concerns over safety data, including the long-term effects of hormone blockers and therapies on adolescents.
But back to Younger’s case.
After the court denied his request, Younger called the state “an empire of child abuse, led by Texas judges.”
Poorly reported stories of the court’s decision circulated and were retweeted by high-profile conservatives on social media, many of whom offered disparaging commentary about the decision.
“Woke judges!” they claimed.
But it seemed clear in almost every case that the tweet purveyors hadn’t bothered to read the decision. Otherwise, they would have realized that Younger’s characterization of Texas judges and the related stories were, if not misinformation, at least bad information.
The court states quite plainly that Younger has already secured a binding lower court order that prevents Georgulas from procuring medical transition therapies for their child (even out of state) and that she has further represented that she does not intend to use California’s new law to do so.
“This Court cannot intervene based on tenuous speculation about what other courts might do in the future at the request of a party who may never ask,” Judge Jimmy Blacklock explained in his decision on behalf of the court. “The only court to have acted so far has preserved Father’s right to withhold consent to gender-transition therapy for his son. That right is enforceable in California, where Mother lacks the legal authority.”
Two footnotes in the decision deserve attention. The first notes that Younger, who is representing himself in this case, would be wise to seek counsel. His misunderstanding of the law is clearly a disservice to his case, and consequently to his child.
A second footnote expresses concern over Younger’s refusal to see either of his children in over a year “despite abundant opportunities to do so.”
Clearly, this case (and family situation) is very complicated.
By my reading, the court’s decision was simply good jurisprudence.
And last time I checked, judicial restraint like that represented by the Texas Supreme Court was called “conservatism” — not activism and certainly not woke.
As conservatives, we should want judges who are measured and, most importantly, stay in their lane. The court has done this without putting Younger’s child in any peril.
More importantly, we should want to spread accurate information, especially before we begin eating our own.
No comments:
Post a Comment