I try to write about every one of these cases that I can, no matter what country they occur in. Why? Because I think these cases do the best job of illustrating the hostility that the feminist culture has to male leadership in the home. It’s terrifying for men to see emotion-driven female judges, lawyers, teachers, social workers, therapists, etc. using the law as a weapon to overrule protective fathers.

Here’s the latest from Daily Signal:

A Texas father is fighting in court to prevent his ex-wife from subjecting their son to experimental transgender medical interventions after she moved to California, seemingly taking advantage of the Golden State’s “transgender sanctuary” law.

A California judge has taken the extraordinary step of hiding the entire case from the public in the lead-up to trial, and even preventing lawyers from accessing case documents.

“My ex-wife, Anne Georgulas, wants to castrate my son, James,” Jeff Younger, the father, told The Daily Signal in a statement Wednesday. James is 12 years old. “Judge Michelle Kazadi denied me access to my own case records. She illegally sealed my case with no public access.”

He also blamed Presiding Judge Shelley Kaufman and Judge Mark Juhas of abusing the system against his claims.

“Judge Shelley Kaufman’s court has misrouted orders to the wrong address,” he added. “Judge Mark Juhas denied me access to crucial evidence by setting a too-early trial date. I can’t even get an independent medical exam of my son.”

“The corrupt Los Angeles courts sealed my case to hide their corruption as they castrate my son,” Younger concluded.

Just like the case that I blogged about before from California, the problems were initiated by the wife that Younger chose:

Jeff Younger has been fighting to preserve the bodily integrity of his son, James, since 2018. That year, Georgulas filed a restraining order seeking to prevent Younger from entering James’ school and referring to James as male. A jury declined to give Younger or Georgulas full custody and required Younger’s consent for any medical procedures.

[…]Younger appealed to the Texas Supreme Court, warning that Georgulas intended to subject his son to irreversible transgender interventions. The court rejected Younger’s case after Georgulas told the court she did not intend to subject her son to those “treatments.” However, in February, she filed a motion in Los Angeles County Superior Court, aiming to dissolve the protective order preventing her from subjecting James to “gender-affirming care.” Georgulas’ motion cites the opinions of psychologist Brigid Mariko Conn, who stated that James “is interested” in “puberty blockers,” estrogen, and “bottom surgery,” i.e. the removal of his penis and testicles.

She promised not to trans the boy, but then she just changed her mind later. Did she do it to feel better about herself? Or to virtue signal to others about her cool new trans child, like women celebrities do? Or did she do it to get revenge on her ex-husband? Who knows. But the key point about these sorts of cases is that men looking on understand that regardless of who they choose to marry, there is a whole team of radical feminist lawyers, judges, social workers, therapists, teachers, etc. arrayed against male leadership in the home. And very often, the man-blamers in the churches are completely on the side of those feminists.

At the very least, traditional conservatives have very little to say about this, and I doubt they even see the common denominator in all these cases that interest men. The common denominator is the view that men should just be slaves who exist only to protect and provide, but they have no authority to lead on moral and spiritual issues. And also that men should not be allowed to have any standards or plan for relationships – they should just sign up to be slaves whenever a woman decides that she wants them to sign up. This is the same view that you find in the books of popular evangelical feminists and egalitarians. It’s held by some of the most pious and chivalrous pro-traditional marriage Christians.

On the one hand, evangelical feminists and egalitarians want to take the view that women are always the real leaders in the home. Then on the other hand, they expect men to sign up to pay all the bills and fight all the battles, but with no leadership role. Do they really think that men will take an offer like that? Do they really think that men are stupid, and can be shamed into being the victim of a system that hates traditional male roles? I don’t think it’s going to work.