The High Court of the United Kingdom has decreed that social services cannot remove a four-year-old boy who identifies as a girl from a couple who have let “him” transition after sending the child to school in a girl’s uniform.
The unnamed council had argued that the anonymous couple had “acted in a precipitate manner in relation to perceived gender dysphoria”. It withdrew its case in the face of glowing reports from experts about the couple’s parenting skills.
However, the couple demanded a public judgment be delivered so that there would be no “cloud of suspicion hanging over them”.
This is thought to be the first time a judge has sanctioned gender transitioning at such a young age. Mr Justice Williams praised the couple as “attuned and careful” parents who were dedicated to the welfare of their children.
Gender specialists told the judge that the child, who was named “H” in court records, behaved in a way “consistent with a diagnosis of gender dysphoria”. This expert advice “provided clinical justification” for the couple’s approach to H’s gender identity. In the judge’s opinion, “H” clearly identified as a girl and seemed to be “a content, alert and socially engaged little girl”.
No doubt this couple are good parents — if being good parents consists of dutifully following the current “trans” orthodoxy that says children know that they have been born into the wrong body, an orthodoxy now being taught to those children in school.
It is easy for courts to hire “experts” they know will agree with them, while ignoring a wealth of evidence showing that the vast majority of gender-confused children adjust to their biological sex if allowed to go through puberty without having perfectly healthy sexual organs surgically removed and being pumped full of artificial hormones. This is a “treatment” with its own risks that they will have to continue for life just to maintain the illusion that their bodies align with their distorted mental self-image.
In addition to ignoring the minor matter of a lack of scientific evidence that males can change into females and vice versa, the judge relied on stereotypical views of girls and boys that would nowadays be condemned as sexist.
It should be obvious that boys are still boys even if they play with dolls — that girls are still girls even if they play with cars and trains.
Nonetheless, Justice Williams said that “H” had suffered no harm as a result of her “complete transition into a female occurring at a very young age”, and that the evidence did “not support the contention that it was actively encouraged rather than appropriately supported”.
It seems that such childhood fantasies must now be taken seriously and “appropriately supported”, but what about invisible friends, the ability to fly unaided, and to drive despite not having had any lessons and being too short to reach the pedals? What about the self-cleaning child who has no need to resort to soap and water or for that matter, toothpaste?
Parents deal with and defuse these mundane fantasies every day, and there will be no “glowing reports” of their “attuned and careful” efforts to teach their children cleanliness and good manners.
Now their attempts to guide their own children, based on common sense and their own experience of childhood fantasies endured and survived, may be hampered by threats to curb their authority by outlawing smacking.
Scotland and Wales are experimenting with such bans, and yet recently we were told that childhood obesity could be prevented if only parents exerted more authority.
Just to complicate matters, the couple involved in this “trans” case are foster parents. It is not clear whether “H” is their child or a foster child, although that clearly has a bearing on his psychological well-being, since he might be suffering from being removed from his own family, or experiencing difficulties of adjustment in being brought up alongside a succession of foster children.
The outcome of the case will have a bearing on this couple being allowed to continue fostering children, but the ruling will also serve as a legal precedent for similar cases, including cases in which parents will not accept their child self-identifying as “trans” and are threatened with that child being taken away by social services.
This is already happening in this country, as earlier this year teachers reported the parents of a 15-year-old girl to government services for refusing to support her decision to live as a boy.
In a similar case, parents of a 15-year-old boy were told their son might be removed from their care after they stopped him from going to the Tavistock clinic, the NHS’s gender clinic for children, fearing the potential side-effects of sex hormones. They suspected that autism may have been responsible, at least in part, for his sudden decision to become a girl.’
Similar scenarios will become increasingly common now that the High Court has ruled that a four-year-old may be allowed to self-identify as male or female. Such children may be placed in foster care – perhaps even with the parents of “H” — so it is convenient that the High Court has established how wonderfully well such cases turn out.
After all, it would be embarrassing if the State care industry went against the new orthodoxy pursued by the governing classes at the behest of the “trans” campaign.
Sadly, governments now jump on any bandwagon if they think it will make them look modern but also compassionate.
But the “trans” campaign’s insistence that four-year-olds can decide against all scientific evidence that they are a member of the opposite sex, is not at all compassionate, and their ideology – sacrifice the weakest on the altar of your own obsession – is as old as the hills.
So is the tendency of dictators to force those in their power to lie and otherwise act against their consciences. Now, for the first time we are seeing morality sacrificed on the altar of sexual diversity by the amoral, driven by the immoral.
And by the time that poor confused “H”, mangled, mutilated and psychologically messed up, realises that he has made a terrible mistake it will be too late to reclaim his real identity and his peace of mind.
Ann Farmer lives in the UK. She is the author of By Their Fruits: Eugenics, Population Control, and the Abortion Campaign (CUAP, 2008); The Language of Life: Christians Facing the Abortion Challenge (St Pauls, 1995), and Prophets & Priests: the Hidden Face of the Birth Control Movement (St Austin Press, 2002).
Interested in republishing?
Republish this article for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons licence. Most, but not all articles on MercatorNet are Creative Commons.