The law gets disastrously "woke" as judge stealthily adopts "Gender Ideology"
The law gets disastrously "woke" as judge stealthily adopts "Gender Ideology"
This could be horror science fiction, but it isn't....
One of the oldest and most crucial questions regarding administering the Law is the impartiality of the judge. “Impartiality” communicates the (assumed) capability of the bench occupant to treat all sides equally and without politico-social prejudices.
But judges are human and humans are rarely, if ever, “impartial.”
Even those who honestly believe themselves to be “unbiased” do carry experiences, family traces, education impacts, not to mention possible religious beliefs that contribute to the formulation of their opinions. The old adage reminding us of the “hanging judge” still communicates the message that such a man, or woman, occupying the bench, has a history of harsh sentencing as opposed to rulings by more “lenient” types.
With the recent billowing surge of “wokeness” and “gender politics” the idea of judicial impartiality has acquired commanding significance in deciding whether those who question the very biological stability of the two (and only) sexes have a case in law.
Only recently, allowing that a person possesses the “right” to declare his/her disagreement to his/her sex “assigned at birth,” and demand universal protected recognition of that “right,” was dismisses as a vile joke.
This earlier notion though could not foresee the political and social weaponization of the demands of tiny sexual minorities (homosexuals, transgenders, generally ‘queer,’ and/or ‘nonbinary’ persons) by left-leaning “progressives” in their war to destroy “criminal capitalism” and “racial oppression.”
The “progressives” pushing such battle tactics remain confident they can reshape, primarily Western, society into a construct where the crack of homosexual/trans “rights” whip will establish an unassailable New Liberal Totalitarianism.
This strategy invests heavily in very old tactics like public humiliation, social ostracisation, professional discrediting and destruction, and the use of pliable and/or “progressive” jurists in creating and expanding a legal culture of targeting the “non-believers” and crushing them with back-to-back judicial defeats.
So far, and particularly in the United States, this offensive bears alarming fruit—with Western Europe following suit with its own, albeit slower-moving, edition of a “Great Reset” aimed at outdated conservatism and its supporters whose “racialist gender identity” beliefs must be crushed forever.
The following nightmarish account of how a pro-trans judge can singlehandedly demolish a man’s family and destroy his life tells the story of this unfolding monstrous war upon all those who oppose an Orwellian “gender neutral” future and its socio-political terminal socio-political diseases.
Warning: This is a long, difficult, and often stomach-churning read.
Child Custody’s Gender Gauntlet
Transgender ideology has already achieved a powerful hold on our court system—and parents and children are paying the price.
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?”
“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. For Ted, precision is not merely a requirement for his job but almost a constitutional necessity. His recall of every fact, date, and filing of the complicated court proceedings involving him and his ex-wife is astoundingly accurate—the sort of feat you might expect from a brilliant lawyer, not a distraught father battling the legal system alone for his son.
But at this point in the child-custody hearings, Ted couldn’t understand what the judge wanted from him. His soon-to-be-ex-wife, Christine, then an executive at the investment firm BlackRock, had already agreed to shared custody of their younger son; no one—not even this judge—seemed to believe that he was anything like an unfit father.