Republican Judge Roger Benitez Strikes Down Democrat Mandated Lying And Tax-Funded Abuse of Parents2

Welcome to the Republican Professor. I am your host, Dr. Lucas J. Mather. Today is Thursday, 29 January, 2020, six years after Jesus. We are back in Mirabelli versus Olson, St. Benitez, Roger Benitez, on the district court striking down the commandment, the rule, in Democrat California, that Democrat K through 12 personnel, basically anybody in K through 12 has to lie to parents about so-called transgender issues in school. It's an evil, evil thing that was policy in the state of California, right up until this Republican judge pointed by George W. Bush, but a stop to it. We're going to have a reading today, where our minds right dedicate this time to the Lord, reading from Psalm 65, and the King James version of this time. Let's go ahead and pray. Lord, thank you for this time. Thank you for Roger Benitez. Thank you for the wisdom that you brought to his mind. Thank you for the fact that you illuminated his mind to see the truth here, and the courage and the conviction to put a stop to this horrible harm in California. Lord, we ask that you would give us the wisdom or how to move forward, step by step, to make California better, much better than it has been, and to heal it of the problems of maladministration and injustice. Give us that hope and conviction and courage. Give us the way forward in our minds, illuminate our minds, strengthen our wills. Give us good friendships to encourage us along the way. In Jesus' name, amen. Psalm 65, and the King James version, praise, waiteth for thee, O God, and sigh on, and unto thee shall the vow be performed, O thou that hearest prayer unto thee shall all flesh come. Iniquities prevail against me, as for our transgressions thou shalt purge them away. Verse 4, Psalm 65, King James version, blessed is the man whom thou choosest and causest to approach unto thee that he may dwell in thy courts. We shall be satisfied with the goodness of thy house, even of thy holy temple. By terrible things in righteousness thou will answer us, O God of our salvation, who art a confidence of all the ends of the earth, and of them that are far off upon the sea. Verse 6, which by his strength set us first, the mountains being girded with power, which stilleth the noise of the seas, the noise of their waves, and the tumult of the people. They also, that dwell in the uttermost parts, are afraid at thy tokens. Thou makeest the outgoing of the morning and the evening to rejoice. Verse 9, Psalm 65, King James version. Thou visiteth the earth and waterest it, thou greatly enricheth it with the river of God, which is full of water, thou preparest them corn when thou hast so provided for it. Thou waterest the ridges thereof abundantly, thou settleest the furrows thereof, thou makeest it soft with showers, thou blessed the springing thereof. Thou crownest the year with thy goodness and thy paths drop fatness. They drop upon the pastures of the wilderness and the little hills rejoice on every side. Verse 13, and this is the final verse. The pastures are clothed with the flocks, the valleys also are covered over with corn. They shout for joy, they also sing. Psalm 65, King James version, a moment of reflection. Okay, we are in the United States District Court Southern District of California. Filed 22 December, 2025 years after Jesus, this is what it looks like and these are the cigars I smoked when I was reading it and celebrating and studying it. And somewhere in the middle there, I did another work through and this is where we're at. We're on page 10. I'm going to share my screen, feel free to call me Sharon because I'm sharing my screen. We're in Roman numeral two on line seven page 10, the class, the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment now a lot of you guys are not familiar with this. How this looks and so you're getting a nice look here. This is a federal district court in California. Signed by Roger Benitez. Roger Benitez, as I said, was confirmed by the Senate after George W. Bush pointed him and we are very happy with Roger Benitez. He's a man of integrity and knowledge and wisdom. So let's listen to what he has to say on this issue here. We continue. This is Walt. This is part two. For part one, you want to go back to December 30, 2025, where we started this. The class action plaintiffs seek summary judgment and declaratory and injunctive relief from the state defendants and that would be the Democrat California. Class claims numbered one, two, three, six and seven and eight are addressed in reverse order from strongest to weakest beginning with the class claims of parents and ending with the class claims of teachers. Applicable law. Roman numeral three. Federal rule of civil procedure 56. That's fourth, the well known standard for summary judgment is explained by a trio of Supreme court cases. And you can take a look at those. The standards are not disputed here. Under these standards, summary judgment may be entered where there are no genuine issues of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The state defendants do not contend that genuine issues of material fact are present that require trial. They do not contend that. So California, excuse me. California is saying there's no issues of fact here that need to be brought out in trial in an adversarial procedure here. So Benitez is saying, OK, well, let's just take a look at the law and what it was a loss. Very easy. State defense do not contend that genuine issues of material fact are present that require trial. When asked at the hearing about what genuine issues of material fact were present in the case, the deputy attorney general that would be of California. But could not point to a fact issue instead explaining fundamentally and our view plaintiffs constitutional claims are not cognizable. They're not viable. So recognizing that this is a motion for summary judgment, I think that our view of it is that as a matter of law, these claims are not correct. Page 11 at the top. That was a direct quote hearing transcript 12526. As mentioned above, the state defendants, that's Democrat California, defend their parental exclusion policies. That's the that's the policy says you should lie to parents. If they outright ask you certain questions about their kids, like related to transgender stuff, OK, so called transgender stuff. As mentioned above, the state dependence defend their parental exclusion policies by relying on state created privacy rights. The state defendants see one source of those state created rights is flowing from the California Constitution article one section one of California Constitution provides quote all people are by nature free and independent and have an animal rights among these are privacy. Another source of student privacy rights mentioned by the state defendants is found in state anti discrimination laws primary statute is California education code section 220 section 220 permits discrimination by educational institutions in the following terms quote no person shall be subjected to discrimination on the basis of gender gender identity gender expression or any other characteristic that is contained in the definition of hate crimes. Hate crimes set forth in section 422.55 of the penal code unquote hate crimes. There are not any love crimes FYI only hate crimes so I'm looking at the footnotes here usually I skip the footnotes but let me take a look at footnote five. Again, I'm on the wrong paper. I also do want to point out that paper is important. I've got the paper and you should print it out. Make notes see for example I can quickly look at the footnote and I see I've underlined gender dysphoria I have a little check mark there that means I have something to say about it. So step like that you know you don't have to get all crazy here but it just helps keep your mind on track you're not distracted by a bunch of stuff on the internet or whatever kind of radio waves you got going on in your skull and your noggin. You don't want any competition for your focus when you're trying to understand this stuff. Here's footnote five the only potential issue of fact around bottom page 11 the state defendants identify in their briefing page 37 is whether or not respecting a student's social transition is medical treatment. The state defendants contend that social transitioning is not medical treatment. It's not a material fact essential to deciding the constitutional claims but if it were a material fact there is no genuine issue the night circuit has already decided that social transitioning is indeed a type of medical treatment for gender dysphoria. Okay so in do versus horn that's 115 in the fourth series of federal reporter at starting at page 183 at note 13 and that would be 2024 night circuit. He says and this is the appeals court that's right above him okay in California. Night circuit is already decided that social transitioning is indeed a type of medical treatment for gender dysphoria. So state defendants. What's up with that dude you're going to take you're going to take account of that here's a quote the goal of medical treatment for gender dysphoria is to alleviate a transgender patients distress. By allowing them to live consistently with their gender identity. This is a direct quote this treatment commonly refer to as quote transition unquote includes quote one or more these are quotes within the quote one or more of the following components one social transition including adopting a new name pronouns appearance and clothing and correcting identity document. And also correcting anybody who when they see you use normal pronouns instead of the ones that you just made up. Here's footnote six I included that last part. I don't think I've ever given anybody pronouns it's not appropriate and English usage for the speak for the listener to tell the speaker what they should think. The way it works is that the speaker who is competent in English I'm assuming that they were competent English speakers okay let's just assume that for a sake of argument. This is not a language class where you're learning how to speak English and where that would be where the listener tells the speaker how to speak. If we're already competent in the English language I don't need you to tell me which third personal pronouns to use or first personal pronouns or third second personal pronouns. I choose the ones that seem true to me to reflect reality and then I go from there. Now you can correct me if I'm wrong that's perfectly fine but I'd better be wrong it's not appropriate to correct somebody who's correct. And that's always how it's been in English you know I mean you can try. So for example if I use the word it to refer to you that would be incorrect because it is an impersonal pronoun you are a person. I don't care how you feel if even if you don't feel like you're a person you're still a person metaphysically that's what you are. So I can tell by looking at you and so it's appropriate for me to use the word it even if you disagree and even if you tell me no no call me it. I can feel free to disregard that because it's not true. In my case as the competent English speaker I'm the one that's in charge of how I talk not you. Especially when you're correcting me when I'm not wrong. So that's my position let's listen to more of what Roger Benito says but note six California penal code section 422.55 provides quote for the purpose of this title and for the purpose of other state law unless an explicit provision of law or the context clearly requires a different meaning the following shall apply a hate crime means a criminal act committed in whole or in part because of one of the four what one or more of the following actual or perceived characteristics of the victim. One disability to gender three nationality for race or ethnicity five religion six sexual orientation seven associated with a person or group with one or more of these actual or perceived characteristics. Eight crime includes but is not limited to violation of section 422.6 in turn. Penal code section 422.6 now we're on the bottom page 12 provides a will quote a person whether or not acting under color of law shall not by force or threat of force will fully injure intimidate and or fear with a press or threaten any other person. We exercise or enjoyment of a right or privilege secured by the Constitution or laws of this state or by the Constitution or laws of the United States in whole or in part because of one or more of the actual or perceived characteristics of the victim listed in subdivision a of section 422.55 Well that's really helpful so we got the definition of hate crime hate it's got to be a criminal act in whole or in part a hate crime I'd like to see the definition of a love crime. A love crime means a criminal act in whole or part because or one or more of the following actual perceived characteristics that you like about the victim. Yeah that would be interesting I love your nationality and then you know the murderer the murderer is saying I love your nationality and that would be a love crime as or you know as he's he's he's robbing a bank. And he loves he absolutely loves the little blue button that opens the door for the wheelchair he loves that and so that would be a love crime. All right let's keep going here. I have a very dry sense of humor as you can tell page 12 at the top y'all oh yeah what could possibly go wrong you know I back in the olden days back in my day back in my day the issue of crime was was much clearer. We didn't we didn't treat some victims better than others in the law in the scriptures you're not supposed to do that. So for example an Exodus chapter 20 here he goes again which is King James version yeah that's right. And an Exodus chapter 20 I'm just going to give you some of the criminal code here perhaps you've heard of it. Thou shalt not murder it doesn't say especially there's no especially dot dot dot you know thou shalt not steal. It doesn't say especially if it doesn't say anything about hatred at all. It doesn't say anything about love Kennedy's the criminal code in in my boy the common law it's on the bookshelf I'm a I got it I'm not going to get it down but in and justice homes the common law you know I will get it down what the hell but the heck. Yeah Christianize that don't don't say hell yeah I said heck the common law look at that Republican look at that mustache looks like William Klein at Denver Seminary. Oh my gosh except for Bill Klein always had a bow tie on. Well in this section of the common law which is a you know a large part of her heritage here in England it's not necessarily bad lecture two is the criminal law see that lecture to the criminal law and you'd be surprised how simple it is. It has to it's so simple there is such a thing as men's rare there's also a lecture on torts trespass negligence which we tend to hold into the criminal law fraud malice malice we also fold that into the common law then he goes into such things as you know possession and ownership contract. Um contract gets a lot of attention. Private law stuff but the public law here criminal law criminal law is is treated you know as a. It's not that hard it's not that complicated you know certain things are. Forbidden for everybody and every all victims are treated the same. What we've done with the so called hate crimes is we've we've acted like to be a victim of a crime when it's motivated by what is wrongly defined as hate. Sometimes hate just means in the according to these folks it just means disagreement. That's how it was defined in the in the prop eight debates back in 2008 hate just meant disagreement you disagree with me oh you hate me. Uh so they misdefined marriage and then they read misdefined hate they probably misdefined hate first and then marriage and then now they misdefined man and woman. And so the definitions of terms is very important here with the criminal code you don't need a hate crime you should just punish crime because it's crime. So you add all this other stuff it doesn't it doesn't help anything all it does is confuse people that makes it look like there's certain classes of people that are more special if they're victims that's very dangerous very dangerous for a civilization. We're going to continue going here. Page 12 at the top however where state created rights run headlong into federal constitutional rights federal rights are supreme. Quote the supremacy clause supplies a rule of decision when federal and state laws conflict. So for example when a regulated party cannot comply with both federal and state directives the supremacy clause tells us the state law must yield that's martin versus United States 605 US starting at 395 at 409 2025. Roman numeral for analysis. This is where he goes into the parents 14th amendment substantive due process rights claim number seven I'm going to mute it and take a sip of cohe. All right. Parents of public school children assert that the states parental exclusion policies violate their substantive due process rights as parents. Substitute due process rights are rooted in the 14th amendment due process clause which provides heightened protection against government interference with certain fundamental rights and liberty interests. I'm skipping citations okay for a substantive due process right. Oh sorry for a substantive due process claim a courts analysis begins by carefully formulating the asserted right and adopting a narrow definition of the interest at stake next to court considers whether the right is deeply rooted in this nation's history and tradition and implicit in the concept of ordered liberty such that neither liberty nor justice would exist. Notice here that the role of natural law liberty and justice are governing this ordered liberty these are part of the natural law not merely the positive law. The right of parents to make decisions about their children including decisions on education medical care and religious training is long recognized and deeply rooted in American history the Supreme Court has long recognized the fundamental right of parents to make decisions concerning the care custody and control of their children. Page 13 at the top more than 75 years ago and Meyer diverse is Nebraska 1923 we held that liberty protected by the due process laws includes the right of parents to establish a home and bring up children and to control the education of their own. The liberty interest at issue in this case the interest of parents and the care custody and control of their children is perhaps the oldest of the fundamental liberty interest recognized by this court. The parental right is broad and encompasses both a right to direct the child's education and a duty to provide for the child's health care. States men's to me does this is a sake many ends to you does to me. The Supreme Court has specifically recognized that within the broader parental right to raise children lies a narrower right to decide when a child needs health care. In Param versus JR that would be 1979 the Supreme Court said and here's a block quote quote our jurisprudence historically has reflected Western civilization concepts of the family as a unit with broad parental authority over minor children. Our cases have consistently followed that course our constitutional system long ago rejected any notion that a child is quote the mere creature of the state unquote and that that's a quote within a quote. And on the contrary asserted that parents generally quote have the right coupled with the high duty to recognize and prepare their children for additional obligations unquote within this broader block quote. We're continuing with the block quote surely don't call me surely and it actually does say that surely this includes a high duty to recognize symptoms of illness. Oh, I got to take a deep breath after that after that. To hear a federal judge. Oh, thank you Roger Bonitas. Surely this includes a high duty to recognize symptoms of illness and to seek and follow medical advice. The laws concept of the family rests on a presumption that parents parents possess what a child lacks in maturity experience and capacity for judgment required for making life's difficult decisions more important historically it is recognized that natural bonds of affection lead parents to act in the best interests of their children. We've got some citations from Pierce versus Society of Sisters 1925 Wisconsin versus Yoda 1972 Prince versus Massachusetts 1944 Meyer versus Nebraska 1923. And simply because the decision of a parent is not agreeable to a child. Well, look at how basic this is guys guys Republican versus Democrat look how basic this is just in terms of maturity like a mature adult. Okay, listen to him and simply because the decision of a parent is not agreeable to a child or because it involves risks does not automatically transfer the power to make that decision from the parents to some agency or officer of the state. Page 14 at the top. Most children even in adolescence simply are not able to make sound judgments concerning many decisions including their need for medical care or treatment parents can and must make those judgments. So strong is the parental right to make health care decisions for a child that even the dissenting justices in parham took time to describe the necessity of a shield from state interference or the parent child relationship. Here's another block quote guys the rule in favor of deference to parental authority is designed to shield parental control of child rearing from state interference. This is the dissent in that case arm case the rule cannot be invoked continuing the block quote the rule cannot be invoked in defense of unfettered state control of child rearing or to immunize. From review the decisions of state social workers the social worker child relationship is not deserving of the special protection and deference according accorded to the parent child relationship and state officials acting in local parent and not be equated with parents look how basic this is. It's like you don't even have to know Latin to know what he's saying makes perfect sense on a common sense level. The state officials acting in local parent can not be equated with parents yeah so basic holy crap it's it's sick that he has to say this it's sick but I mean on the second amendment you guys in the second amendment context he has to do the same thing he has to point out like really basic stuff. Like you shouldn't criminalize innocent conduct below hello innocent not criminal don't make it criminal by fiat in the positive law that's wrong that'll always be wrong. Hello. At the same time that is the end of the quote here's a bonitas again at the same time the constitutional rights of parents are not unlimited or unbounded the supreme court is upheld a state prohibition on child on children selling a Jehovah's Witnesses watch tower magazine. The state sorry the supreme court has upheld a state prohibition on children selling a Jehovah's Witness watch tower magazine on public sidewalks over a parents first and 14th amendment rights noting neither rights of religion nor rights of parenthood are beyond limitation. I was 1944. Okay and you know mentions blood transfusions we had to talk about that in bioethics when I did my graduate degree in bioethics. I had to take health care law. Okay the state defendants do not disagree in principle how could they. Oh you don't understand bonitas they could they they could. How could they the state defendants disagreement is not about the recognition of parental constitutional rights the state defendants disagree over where to draw lines in this case. The parental the parent plaintiffs seek a modest drawing of lines now you guys you have to understand how gentle bonitas is being with this democrat state here he's being very gentle but he's got a few whoppers here coming up you're going to be interested. The parent plaintiffs okay so they want a modest drawing of lines that they're not asking for the moon here. The parent plaintiffs want accurate information about the children from school staff that's what they want the parent plaintiffs want accurate information about their children from school staff that's. That's what's an issue here. They reasonably contend that accurate information is necessary to carry out the right and duty to direct their children in religion in medical care. And in life. What a concept the state defendants draw lines differently. Oh man. Oh man. The democrat California state defendants I inserted democrat California the the democrat California state defendants argue that their policies do not amount to government chorus. Government coercive or restraining conduct. We do not offend the Constitution. But unlike in this case in in that case they're citing the footcase for circuit 2025 there was no allegations suggesting that when the parents tried to speak with school officials about the student the officials misrepresented the name the student had chosen for in school use. That's a first first circuit case that's being it's pretty recent. So if you don't know that case it wouldn't help you right there. Don't worry about it. We'll keep going here. And while the court was sympathetic. We we are sympathetic to the parents interest in having as much information as possible to their child's while being and behavior in school reveal to them. It drew the lines drew the lines differently and concluded that this cannon does not require governments to assist parents in exercising their fundamental right to direct the upbringing of their children. That's a first circuit case so it's not precedent for him. And you'll see how that plays into this. Now closer to home. We're on line 19 page 15 closer to home. The night circuit has recognized that there is an absence of presidential rulings on the subject within the circuit. But it would be error to not decide these issues in the first instance instance simply because of a lack of precedent. I agree with that. Okay. The parent plaintiff class in this case do not ask schools for assistance in caring for their child. Instead, we're on page 16 at the top. Line three. Instead, they ask schools not to erect barriers and to simply permit accurate communications about the well being of their children. They want an end to use the words of the Supreme Court of substance of substantial interference from the state public school system. Parents main concern about whether their child might be expressing gender in congruity is because of the relationship to a medical condition known as gender dysphoria. Left untreated gender dysphoria is a serious condition which can develop into anxiety depression and even suicidal ideation. The night circuit recently described the condition flawlessly and prichard versus blue cross blue shield of Illinois. That would be November 17, 2025. This is a block quote quote someone's gender identity. This is the night circuits November 17, 2025. Someone's gender identity is their inner sense of belonging to a particular sex like male or female. Most people are cisgender and their actual sex matches the sex they are assigned based solely on the appearance of their external genitalia or transgender people. However, their gender identity and sex do not match as the again, this is the night circuit. This is not Benitez. This is the night circuit November, 2025. As the American Psychiatric Association has recognized this gender in congruence in and of itself. Does not constitute a mental disorder. However, a transgender person can suffer from gender dysphoria. If the marked incongruence between their experienced expressed gender and assigned gender causes clinically significant distress or impairment and social occupational or other important areas of functioning. Without treatment, gender dysphoria can lead to anxiety, depression, suicide, and other mental health problems. Continuing the block quote, health care providers can treat gender dysphoria using counseling, hormone therapy, surgery, and other forms of gender affirming care. Providers adapt the treatments used to the medical needs of each patient, not all patients need each treatment. Page 16 at the bottom. Now we're on page 17 at the top. Dr Nathan Sandsberg MD is a double board certified psychiatrist with 40 years of experience. I don't know how to say that. Sorry, it's S Z A J N B E R G. If you know how to say that, go ahead and say it and spell it out in the comments. And don't just spell the name. Okay, that's not that helpful. Sanberg testified that gender dysphoria is a specific medical diagnosis. Dr Sanberg explains that gender identity issues can percolate through and the child does fine or it can transform into gender identity disorder. If it does, we now know from the literature they are its replete with other serious psychiatric diagnoses like major depression, autism, and so on. That's that's a direct quote from the transcript from that witness at page 100. Consider these three examples. Benitez continues. Roger Benitez the judge in Regina. The child was 11 years old and in fifth grade. She began to feel depressed and anxious likely due to her mother's breast cancer and her grandfather's passing. The school counselor addressed issues of gender identity and sexuality with the child. Within a few months, the child began to express she felt like a boy and this is what I love about Benitez. He's very subtle and he's actually very gentle. He's very gentle, even though some of the things he says are just bracingly. Here's some maturity for you immature people. That's my interpretation of it. I might be wrong. I think oftentimes Democrats are the children of American politics and Republicans are the adults. Generally speaking, I think that's pretty fair political phenomenology. Feel free to disagree with me. Tell me in the comments if you do. If you're a Democrat, you probably won't express disagreement like a mature person, just FYI, which goes along with what I said. And so you'd be adding to the political phenomenology if you engage in that kind of conduct, FYI. Okay, so within a few months, the child began to express she, did you catch that, felt like a boy and wanted a new name and pronouns. Like that's how it works. I mean, who told this kid? This is how it worked. The counselor related the name pronoun decision decision. Excuse me. To her teacher and see to her teacher and eventually other school personnel. Late in the school year, the child told her grandmother who in turn told the child's mother. Regina let her child know that she supported her and would assist in her transition if that's what she wanted. Importantly, the mother also arranged for counseling to discuss the depression and anxiety. Yeah. That's an important thing right there. Over the spring and summer, the child's feelings about being a boy subsided. According to Regina, the child identified as a girl again. And remained in counseling for depression and anxiety. Amazing how that works. The mother continued to be uninformed about her students gender non conformity at school. The child would not have known of or benefited from her mother's support. Her mother was able to arrange for counseling, which of course, an 11 year old could not do on her own. For counseling, her underlying issues of depression and anxiety are being treated and her child's mistaken feelings. About her gender are not complicating the treatment. That's that's so good. I'm going to read it again. Thank you for the courage of the Republican appointed Roger Benitez from a Cuban heritage family. They know what totalitarian government is. They fled Cuba. Lord, thank you for this man. Thank you for his courage and wisdom and insight. We ask, Lord, that you would raise up quality wise, good, courageous people. For when he retires, Lord, that we would have a continuing stream and flow. For the sake of flourishing in California, for the sake of these kids and these parents and these teachers, like Jessica Topia, who was fired, fired by the Democrats, because she was a Republican and she said, I can't lie to parents. That's wrong. Thank you, Lord, for people like Jessica Topia. Help us, Lord, make the world a better place. Help us not add to the trauma, but to help people heal from it. Help us be a safe presence in the midst of these very difficult emotions and thoughts. In Jesus' name, amen. Line 23, page 17. Through counseling, her underlying issues of depression and anxiety are being treated and her child's mistaken feelings about her gender are not complicating the treatment. In effect, Regina did what parents normally do. She supported her child in an emotionally difficult time and arranged expert help for their child. In this case, social transitioning may have mistakenly masked a more serious mental health challenge. Page 18 at the top. The state defendant's expert, Dr. Brady, tells the second story of another child. An autistic boy who liked the color pink. Oh, man. And mistakenly, this is why I love Roger Bonita's judge. Thank you. He does the same thing in second amendment cases too. He, he, he throws just, he just says it like it is, man. Dr. Brady tells the second story of another child, an autistic boy who liked the color pink and mistakenly concluded that he must be a girl. Lord have mercy. The patient had autism, autism spectrum disorder and because of this, his cognitive rigidity, he thought that if he liked pink, he must be a girl. Dr. Brady described it this way. So in that particular case, this is a quote from Dr. Brady. The patient presented to me because of the questions that they were asking themselves. And so our time together was spent on exploring why they felt that way and how they came to conclude that they were female identified. And this is really clunky. And during that time, this is Dr. Brady still. I did affirm the patient and use appropriate name and pronouns that he had chosen at that time. Oh, Lord have mercy. But we, how do you know you should use that pronoun? We, did you ask them? Oh no, you're just going by standard correct English usage. What a concept. But we explored that some more and she came to understand that colors. This is a direct quote. Okay, this is not my use. Are not necessarily gendered and it was more expansive and her ability to, I'm sorry, at the end of therapy, he was using he again. But in his ability to kind of understand gender more fully, unquote, that was all a quote. Lord have mercy is the only note I have in the margin of my printout. Again, I highly suggest you print it out. Get rid of all the ads. Just, you know, I just say Lord have mercy. Lord have mercy on us. Man, this is intense, but then again, everything is either outdoors, out inside or intense. Wow. The boy, the boy, after a time of support of counseling came to understand his innate male gender. Doctor Brady noted, quote, at least at the time we terminated therapy, he had come to a place where he was identifying as male, but identified he had feminine qualities. And then there is a, there is an error here and I will point out the error. It's on line 15 of page 18. It's supposed to be an unquote there, but there is missing an unquote and shame on you clerk of the court. Just kidding, I'm not, I'm not really saying shame, I just, I'm kind of kidding, but there is an error there and I'm really excited when I find errors because I, I found one in Harvard University press book a couple days ago. And I got all excited and I started screaming and throwing things like like a chimpanzee. Because of counseling with Doctor Brady, the boy who liked pink is living a healthier, more self-aware and integrated life. The counseling with Doctor Brady would not have taken place without the boy's parents being informed about his gender questioning. Because the parents were informed, they did what parents usually do and sought expert advice. The boy could not have arranged for counseling with Doctor Brady by himself had the parents been unaware of their boy's new gender expression. The boy, the boy may have continued through his years mistakenly thinking he must be a girl and suffered from all of the dysphoria that may have followed. The third case study is a cautionary tale. How many more of these case studies can we take here, Doctor Benetus of Judge Benetus? I think we might want to stop here. I think this, we're going to stop here because this, the third one's a good place to stop. Bottom page 18. We're going to stop right here. Okay. Just make a note to myself here. This is where we're stopping right here. Line 24 page 18. And apparently I need more. Okay. Well, thanks for joining me on the Republican professor podcast. I've been your host. Doctor Lucas J. We've had interesting discussion today. Going from page 10 to page 18 at the bottom. On this Thursday, 29 January, 2026 years after Jesus, it's a Thursday. Okay. We've been interacting with Mirabelli versus Olson United States District Court Southern District of California. Judge Roger Benetus issuing summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs and granting a permanent injunction filed December 22, 2025. Ending Democrat abuse of parents in the state of California. We'll catch you next time. We'll begin with bottom of page 18. Line 24. Take care.