So it's as big a win for James' testicles as we could hope for. Relatively to that, the gag order against the father – he also needs to erase the savejames.com website etc. – looks like a detail.
It's entirely possible that the investigation of the case by the Texas governor that was launched shortly before the verdict "helped" the judge to disagree with the jury.
OK, the jury has previously voted 11-to-1 to take all the rights from the father, and allow the mother to do whatever she wants with James – who isn't even her biological son – including castration-like procedures that would make her "modern parenting" business more visible!
Many viewers explicitly wondered: Surely we're not being told the whole truth. It's impossible for 11/12 of a jury in such a conservative state to deliver this "progressive" verdict without some extra reasons that are being hidden from us, right? And be sure, there were about 66 such reasons as you can see in the comment by Hypatia2001 on Reddit.
They have greatly influenced most of the jury – as well as our Edwin. Before their marriage, the father untruthfully told Dr Mengele-Frankenstein that he was both a professor and a marine-veteran, he slept outside the bedroom, and he was harsh on some girls. Great, if those things are at least 50% true, the father is no saint. No doubt about it. It's pretty much obvious that some of these 66 hit pieces against the father were the actual reason why the jury has overwhelmingly voted in favor of the mother. I am almost certain that nothing else that is important is being hidden from us. The mystery of the vote is explained by that.
The real question is whether such a salvo of complaints or dirt against the father – and attorneys love to cherry-pick and accumulate this dirt, I learned, that's why they're a rather dirty occupation – should make a decent jury member vote in favor of the mother's plans. My answer is obviously a resounding No. And my point is that the Western society has evolved in such a way that an overwhelming majority of the people simply answer Yes to the very same question – and very similar questions that the life places on front of us every day.
The actual main point of mine is that all these 66 bullets are pretty much completely irrelevant for the actual topic of the lawsuit – the efforts of a person with a standing, namely the father, to protect the son's testicles from an urgent threat personified by his monstrous legal mother. The lawsuit wasn't about Jeffrey Younger's sainthood. Almost no man deserves to be saint – and although the Catholic Church would dispute it, most saints haven't deserved it, either. Mr Younger wasn't even running for the job of a saint. He was just trying to protect James' testicles – and perhaps his masculine dignity that he may lose and he may be upset about it once he starts to understand what has actually happened.
Any of Mr Jeffrey Younger's sins may be considered bad. Some of them could even marginally be sufficient for another lawsuit or even for taking the custody over the boys from him although I personally don't think that it is the case. But they just shouldn't have been the matter that decides about the verdict of this lawsuit which was about the right of the biological father to protect his son's testicles.
Again, the political correctness that has run amok – and I think that Edwin has also shown a diluted version of that – approaches the question differently. Edwin was thinking
"If the father truly is as bad as the court findings suggest, both the boy and the mother could be traumatized, making it more likely, I think, that the gender identity problems might be symptoms of another cause."The point here is that the father was painted as a "bad man" which is why "no one should ever rule in his favor". This is how the PC works and ruins the people. People are being character assassinated for some sins – often completely unspectacular acts that used to be basically completely normal just a few years ago – and the character assassination is so complete the the group think of the spineless people – which are becoming an overwhelming majority of mankind – just wants to do everything against such people. Anyone who is character-assassinated loses the basic human rights and dignity – and everyone, including little boys, who depends on these people declared non-humans loses the rights as well – and sometimes loses the balls, in this case literally.
If it's true that Mr Younger faked his being a professor (or a marine), it's bad. However, I know very many people – clueless semi-educated crackpots – who are pretty much exactly as fake scientists as Mr Younger but who are allowed to fake their being scientists by the system. From a moral viewpoint, I don't see anything worse about Mr Younger's fraud. Be sure that I am annoyed by those things. But such sins mustn't strip the man from his right to win legal cases where he's right!
Also, he may have behaved to some girls in an unpleasant way – which is also bad – although the absence of details makes me deeply suspicious about such apparently subjective and vague criticism.
Make no mistake about it: in combination, I consider the combined list of 66 sins by Mr Younger to be less serious than for someone to be castrating boys and making profit out of it. The very fact that the number of sins was written to be high – 66 – is something that only idiots may be impressed by. Of course human lives are rather long and you may organize an adult man's sins into 66 bullets. And what? It still has nothing to do with the beef of this lawsuit which is the protection of James' testicles against a rogue pediatrician. You can't beat the boys' right to keep their balls – despite the manipulation in their childhood – by the fact that 66 is much greater than 1.
Many people are being character assassinated much like Mr Younger – often way more saint people than Mr Younger – in many situations. And they are being stripped of their basic human rights, their right to win any dispute or lawsuit, they are being de facto liquidated by people resembling this jury that have been manipulated and probably love to be members of mindless herds of sheep. Such people preemptively think "who will be dehumanized by the PC herd" and they think how to act so that they place themselves inside such a herd – as close to the center as possible. In this way, the decision making of juries and committees and sometimes even Parliaments is becoming increasing herd-like and increasingly irrational. Such a decision making becomes a tool to amplify some emotions that are likely to result from some whining. What actually keeps most totalitarian regimes together isn't some excessive violence that is used against the opposition but the excessive cowardliness of a majority of the population.
Again, the mechanism that enables this "power of the PC insanity over the Western society" is all about the amplification of some emotional reactions to minor sins – or totally innocent acts labeled as sins – which completely overrule the things that matter, such as the basic human rights of the citizens. The amplification occurs because of a self-fulfilling prophesy. People believe that there may be an overwhelming vote of some "emotional majority", think what it would mean for them to end up in the minority, and that's why they actively try to be in the majority and because irrational and unfair sheep themselves. Majorities often vote in insane ways because they may imagine that this will happen and it would be wrong for them to be on the "wrong" side – and that's why they vote in this way even though almost no one "really" believes that it's the right way to decide.
In this atmosphere, one actually needs some nonzero courage (but I don't think it's necessarily "huge" courage) to end up as a member of the minority. But the courage of most people has been decreasing so even this modest courage is rare. But without this courage – especially the courage to stand on the side of some people who are likely to become target of some hysterical whining and character assassination – one can't really restore the healthy atmosphere in the society or the fairness of similar juries and committees.
So if and when you're inclined to vote against a person just because you expect him or her to be "universally believed to be a bad man", then you are obviously a part of the deep problem that is increasingly ruining the Western society in recent years.
Also, Edwin suggested that James had the sexual identity problems because of the trauma from both suboptimal parents. I think that this is an unscientific claim of the PC type, too. You just don't want to ruin your organs just because your parents aren't great. More importantly, we actually know – and the jury should have known – the much more persuasive explanation why the boy "wanted to be a girl". He was being locked in a dark room by the "mother" and told that a monster is waiting somewhere to eat the little boys. He's been clearly manipulated by the "mother". It's common sense. She doesn't share the DNA with James – but she is clearly encouraged to do similar unusual things by her "modern parenting" business. Even if James has said that he was a girl, in a way that he really seems to believe it, it must be considered totally legally irrelevant for kids who are between 3 and 7 when they say such things. It's always some reflection of their environment's influence or manipulation and their own fantasy.
And while the father may have done other things we don't praise, it's clearly the "mother" who was heavily manipulating James' perception of his sexual identity.
When it seems so obvious why an apparently totally healthy and regular boy like James says that he is a girl, why would you invent alternative explanations that it's "due to the trauma with the father"? Because the father has been dehumanized, turned into a witch, so he's responsible for cancer on Earth as well as "global warming", too. That's how it works when actual witch hunts start. Just like we see tons of witch hunts against non-PC people everywhere, this father has clearly become a witch in the optics of the jury – and lots of things, including James' alleged confusion about his sexual identity, are being blamed on the father. In this case, it's even the so wise Edwin who did it. I am sorry but it's just unscientific and malicious hogwash. The confusion about James' sexual identity is clearly and overwhelmingly a result of his fantasy directed by the "mother" – not by the imperfect but otherwise "normal" behavior of the father.
And given the fact that the cases of gender dysphoria and sex-changing surgeries skyrocketed (more than one order of magnitude just in recent 5 years), it is clear that this condition is largely cultural in the contemporary world.