VICTORIA, B.C. — A justice with the Supreme Court of British Columbia has granted a teen’s request for a protection order against her father, stating that the man’s rejection of his daughter’s identification as a boy, and his continued references to her by her birth name and with female pronouns — both privately and publicly — constitutes “family violence.”
According to the ruling, the teen, who is only being identified in legal documents as A.B., had requested an order that her father be prohibited from “publishing, speaking or giving interviews about [her] case or about [her] personal and medical information.”
The father, who is only being identified as C.D., says that he should be able to speak as the case is important, both in regard to his personal rights as a parent and to society as a whole.
The court had previously prohibited C.D. from interfering with doctors’ wishes that the child receive testosterone injections at B.C. Children’s Hospital. It also ruled that the girl may apply to have her legal name changed on her birth certificate without the consent of her parents.
“Attempting to persuade A.B. to abandon treatment for gender dysphoria; addressing A.B. by [her] birth name; referring to A.B.as a girl or with female pronouns whether to [her] directly or to third parties shall be considered to be family violence under … the Family Law Act,” the February ruling also stated.
C.D. expressed his disappointment in the decision, as he believed that his rights as a father were being usurped by both doctors and the courts.
“The government has taken over my parental rights,” he said, according to The Federalist. “They’re using [Maxine] like she’s a guinea pig in an experiment … Is B.C. Children’s Hospital going to be there in 5 years when she rejects [her male identity]? No they’re not. They don’t care. They want numbers.”
The teen’s mother sided with doctors, stating, “If [A.B.’s] treatment is put on hold, I am terrified that A.B. will conclude there is no hope and will take [her] life.”
The girl then moved for an order of protection against her father, stating that she did not want him to discuss the case in the media any further or on social media.
On April 15, Justice Francesca Marzari granted the request, opining that A.B. is being harmed in that her father is “publicly rejecting [her] identity, perpetuating stories that reject [her] identity, and exposing [her] to degrading and violent commentary in social media.”
The high court justice pointed back to the previous ruling surrounding “family violence,” stating that the “definition encompasses psychological abuse in the form of harassment or coercion, and unreasonable restrictions or preventions of a family member’s personal autonomy.”
She then stated that, specifically, the categorization “includes attempting to persuade A.B. to abandon treatment for gender dysphoria, addressing A.B. by [her] birth name, and referring to A.B. as a girl or with female pronouns, whether to A.B. directly or to third parties and publicly.”
“I find that his father’s expressions of rejection of AB’s gender identity, both publicly and privately, constitutes family violence against A.B.,” Marzari reiterated. “Finally, I find that C.D.’s conduct in this regard is persistent and unlikely to cease in the absence of a clear order to restrain it.”
“This court’s declaration that this conduct is harmful to A.B. and constitutes family violence has not been enough to restrain C.D. from engaging in that conduct,” she continued. “I consider that the continuation of this conduct must therefore be restrained in the protection order.”
The father is also specifically prohibited from sharing any information about “A.B.’s sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, mental or physical health, medical status or therapies” with the public or third parties as it is against A.B.’s wishes.
“Unfortunately, the gag order on [C.D.] makes it difficult to report his reaction to this new development in his case,” notes The Federalist. “In the meantime, his appeal of the court’s original ruling regarding testosterone injections is set to be heard on May 14.”
As previously reported, while some view transgenderism as a medical condition, Christians view the matter as a spiritual issue — one that stems from the same predicament all men face without Christ and the regeneration of the Holy Spirit.
The Bible teaches that all are born with the Adamic sin nature, having various inherent inclinations that are contrary to the law of God, being utterly incapable of changing themselves.
Jesus outlined in John 3:5-7 that men must be regenerated by the second birth, and be transformed from being in Adam to being a new creation in Christ, or they cannot see the kingdom of Heaven.
“Jesus answered and said unto him, ‘Verily, verily, I say unto thee, except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.’ Nicodemus saith unto him, ‘How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter the second time into his mother’s womb, and be born?’ Jesus answered, ‘Verily, verily, I say unto thee, except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Marvel not that I said unto thee, ‘Ye must be born again.’”
“By nature, we do not love the laws of Christ’s spiritual kingdom. … [W]e have no love to them and delight in them. It is not our meat and drink to do our father’s will,” Anglican preacher J.C. Ryle also once explained. “Oh no, by nature, we love our own way and our own inclinations, and that is our only law. We bring forth fruit unto ourselves, but not unto God. Our own pleasure and our own profit take up all our attention, and as for Him who made us and redeemed us, too many do not give Him the every leaving of their time.”
“To be born again is, as it were, to enter upon a new existence, to have a new mind and a new heart, new views, new principles, new tastes, new affections, new likings and dislikings, new fears, new joys, new sorrows, new love to things once hated, new hatred to things once loved, new thoughts of God and ourselves and the world and the life to come, and the means whereby that life is attained.”