You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘Children’ tag.
The rapid proliferation of gender ideology over the past decade—especially the surge of adolescent-onset gender dysphoria—stands as one of the clearest examples of social contagion in modern Western societies. A clinical framework once reserved for a very small number of adults with persistent, childhood-onset dysphoria was transformed into a cultural mandate through the convergence of three forces: institutional capture, algorithm-driven identity formation, and activist-driven medical practice.
Between 2015 and the early 2020s, referrals for gender services exploded—driven overwhelmingly by teenage girls with no prior history of dysphoria. Peer-group clustering, sudden identity shifts following intense online exposure, and the complete inversion of historic sex ratios all point to a socially transmitted phenomenon rather than a newly discovered biological one. Yet under the “affirmation” model, minors were placed on puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and permanent surgeries despite limited evidence, poorly understood risks, and a professional culture that increasingly discouraged clinical skepticism.
The hardest obstacle to unwind, however, will not be the institutions that enabled this shift. Policies can change, clinics can be restructured, and professional bodies can revise guidelines—as they already have across parts of Europe. The most immovable barrier will be parents. Many acted from compassion, social pressure, or a sincere desire to be “supportive,” but they now face an excruciating truth: they approved irreversible medical interventions on psychologically vulnerable teenagers during a developmental window historically marked by transient distress, identity confusion, and social sensitivity.
Double mastectomies on minors, lifetime fertility loss, and surgeries with complication rates exceeding anything considered acceptable elsewhere in medicine are not abstract debates. They are lived consequences. For parents, acknowledging error would require confronting a moral reality few can bear: that they were active participants in harming their own child. The human mind is built to avoid that revelation at all costs.
As a result, the detransition wave—real, growing, and increasingly documented—will face its fiercest resistance not from clinics or activists, but from within families. Parents will cling to the “lifesaving care” narrative long after the institutions that encouraged it have quietly retreated. They will reinterpret events to preserve psychic stability, even if doing so deepens the suffering of the child who must now live with the consequences.
Reversing the damage will require more than policy reform or legal accountability. It will require a public reckoning with the psychological mechanisms of self-deception, moral injury, and sunk-cost loyalty that allowed an entire society to medicate and operate on distressed adolescents in the name of affirmation. That reckoning—private, painful, and unavoidable—is the hardest part still to come.
References
-
The Cass Review – Independent Review of Gender Identity Services for Children and Young People (Interim Report) — NHS-commissioned review (Feb 2022) by Dr. Hilary Cass. Sex Matters
-
The Cass Review: Final Report (April 2024) — Hilary Cass’s full independent review. BASW+1
-
NHS England: Public Consultation Analysis & Summary – Interim Clinical Policy on Puberty-Suppressing Hormones (Jan 2024) — analysis of feedback on proposed policy changes. NHS England
-
Commission on Human Medicines (UK) Report – Proposed Restriction on GnRH Agonists for Under-18s — recommendation to restrict puberty blockers. GOV.UK
-
Equality & Health Inequalities Impact Assessment (EHIA), NHS England — assessment of health-inequality risks from the policy change on puberty blockers. GOV.UK+1
-
Karolinska Institutet Systematic Review on Hormonal Treatment in Youths (<18) — finds that GnRHa treatment should be considered experimental due to lack of long-term data. Karolinska Institutet News
-
Karolinska Hospital Policy Statement (April 2021) — stops prescribing puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones to minors under 16 except in research settings. Feminist Legal Clinic
I’ve given the paper “Navigating Parental Resistance: Learning from Responses of LGBTQ-Inclusive Elementary School Teachers” a first read through. I’m quite thoroughly shocked as to how this paper made it publication, and even more dismayed at its content. My first reading response:
A Critique of Queer Pedagogy in Elementary Education
The article “Navigating Parental Resistance: Learning from Responses of LGBTQ-Inclusive Elementary School Teachers” by Jill M. Hermann-Wilmarth and Caitlin Law Ryan advocates for incorporating LGBTQ topics into elementary education, relying on critical theory and queer pedagogy. This approach, however, is fundamentally flawed. Teaching queerness—defined as opposition to societal norms—has no place in elementary classrooms, where the focus should be on factual learning rather than activism. The authors employ a motte-and-bailey strategy to conflate inclusiveness with queerness, misuse critical theory in an age-inappropriate manner, and dismiss parental concerns as mere resistance to be navigated. This essay will expose these weaknesses, demonstrating the destabilizing nature of queer pedagogy and the methods used to obscure its implementation.
Conflation of Inclusiveness with Queerness
The article repeatedly equates inclusiveness with queerness, a misleading comparison that masks its radical intent. For example, the authors quote a teacher, Linda, saying, “I like the language that [says] teachers … ‘teach inclusively.’ Because … it helps frame it for parents in a way that is more palatable for anybody who might have an issue” (p. 92). Here, “teaching inclusively” serves as a euphemism for introducing queer theory, which is not the same as general inclusivity. Inclusivity in education typically involves recognizing diverse backgrounds—such as race or disability—without delving into controversial topics like gender identity. By framing queer pedagogy as inclusivity, the authors retreat to a defensible position when challenged, while advancing a destabilizing agenda. Queer theory, as Britzman (1995) states, seeks to “disrupt the commonplace” (p. 95), a goal irrelevant to elementary students’ needs.
Inappropriate Use of Critical Theory
The reliance on critical theory, particularly critical literacy, further undermines the article’s approach. The authors describe critical literacy as involving “disrupting the commonplace” and “focusing on sociopolitical issues” (Lewison et al., 2002, p. 382), which they apply to justify their pedagogy (p. 91). They argue it allows teachers to “disrupt notions of deviance” and “lay bare” power relations (p. 91). Such concepts, however, are too abstract for young children, who lack the cognitive maturity to grapple with ideological frameworks. Elementary education should prioritize facts—reading, writing, and arithmetic—not activism. By embedding critical theory, the authors risk confusing students and diverting focus from foundational skills, revealing the activist intent behind their destabilizing pedagogy.
Dismissal of Parental Concerns
Most troublingly, the article sidelines parental concerns, portraying them as obstacles to overcome rather than valid objections. The authors note how teachers “invited parents into dialogue” but maintained their curriculum, offering only minor accommodations (p. 93). For instance, when a parent objected, the teacher allowed the child to work elsewhere but refused to alter the class curriculum (p. 93). The article suggests teachers justify their choices by “leveraging policy as a shield” (p. 92), a tactic that ignores parents’ worries about age-appropriateness and bias. This dismissal undermines parents’ role as primary stakeholders, reducing them to passive bystanders. The authors’ approach reveals a disregard for parental authority, a critical flaw in their framework.
Conclusion
In sum, Hermann-Wilmarth and Ryan’s advocacy for LGBTQ-inclusive teaching in elementary schools is misguided. By conflating inclusiveness with queerness, they obscure their radical aims. Their use of critical theory introduces inappropriate activism into a setting where facts should reign. Worst of all, they marginalize parental concerns, eroding the teacher-parent partnership. A balanced, age-appropriate education—one focused on foundational learning and respectful of parental input—is essential. Queer pedagogy, with its destabilizing goals, has no place in elementary classrooms.
As a parent, you want your child’s education to focus on facts, skills, and values that prepare them for life. But in some classrooms, teachers are introducing queer theory—a radical ideology that challenges traditional norms about gender, sexuality, and society. This guide will help you understand what’s happening, why it’s a problem, and how you can take action to protect your child.
What Is the “Motte and Bailey” Tactic?
Imagine a castle with a strong, defensible tower (the “motte”) and a large, less defensible courtyard (the “bailey”). The motte and bailey tactic is a trick where someone makes a bold, controversial claim (the bailey) but, when challenged, retreats to a safer, less controversial claim (the motte). In education, this looks like:
- The Bailey (bold claim): Teachers say they’re “queering the curriculum” to challenge norms and promote radical ideas about gender and sexuality.
- The Motte (safe claim): When parents object, teachers retreat to saying they’re just being “inclusive” or “teaching diversity.”
This tactic makes it hard to argue against without seeming like you’re against inclusion. But inclusion and queerness are not the same thing, and it’s important to know the difference.
Key Terms You Need to Know
- Inclusivity: Making sure all students feel welcome and respected, regardless of their background (e.g., race, religion, disability). True inclusivity is about kindness and fairness, not ideology.
- Queer: Originally a slur, this term has been reclaimed by some to describe non-traditional sexual orientations or gender identities. In education, it often means challenging or rejecting societal norms.
- Queering the Curriculum: This means adding queer theory to lessons. Queer theory isn’t just about acceptance—it’s about questioning and destabilizing what’s considered “normal” (e.g., traditional family structures, biological sex). In elementary schools, this can confuse young children who need clear, factual learning.
Coercive and Deceptive Tactics Used in Schools
Some teachers push queer theory while dismissing parents’ concerns. Here are the main tactics they use:
- Hiding Behind “Inclusivity”: Teachers claim they’re just being inclusive, but they’re actually promoting queer ideology. For example, they might say they’re “teaching inclusively” to make it sound harmless, even though they’re introducing complex ideas about gender and sexuality.
- Using Critical Theory: Teachers use methods like critical literacy, which encourages students to question power and norms. This might sound educational, but it’s often a way to push activism instead of facts—too advanced and ideological for young kids.
- Ignoring Parents: When parents object, teachers might offer small compromises (like letting a child skip a lesson) but won’t change the overall curriculum. They dismiss concerns as unimportant or unreasonable.
- Leveraging Policy: Teachers use school rules or laws to defend their actions, even if parents disagree. This makes parents feel like they have no say.
These tactics are coercive because they force queer ideology into classrooms while sidelining parents. They’re deceptive because they hide behind feel-good words like “inclusivity” to avoid real discussion.
Why This Is a Problem
- It’s Not Age-Appropriate: Elementary students need to focus on basics like reading and math, not complex ideas about gender and sexuality.
- It Undermines Parental Authority: Parents should have a say in what their kids learn. Ignoring you breaks that trust.
- It Confuses Children: Challenging basic truths (like boys and girls) can unsettle young kids who need stability.
- It’s Activism, Not Education: Schools should teach facts, not push political ideas.
What Parents Can Do to Stop It
You have the power to protect your child’s education. Here’s how:
- Educate Yourself:
- Learn what queer theory is and how it’s used in schools. Look up articles or videos online.
- Ask for your school’s curriculum details—lesson plans, books, anything they’re teaching.
- Talk to Teachers:
- Ask clear questions: “What are you teaching about gender or sexuality? Why is this in the curriculum?”
- Stay calm but firm: “I’m all for kindness, but I’m worried about ideology in the classroom.”
- Engage with School Boards:
- Go to meetings and speak up. Bring examples of what’s being taught.
- Suggest focusing on core skills instead of controversial topics.
- Form Parent Groups:
- Team up with other parents who feel the same way.
- Share info and plan together—maybe write a group letter to the school.
- Monitor What Your Child Learns:
- Talk to your kid about their day. Check their homework or classwork.
- If something seems off, write it down and raise it with the teacher.
- Use Legal Resources:
- If the school won’t listen, talk to a lawyer who knows education law.
- Look up your state’s rules on parental rights.
- Advocate for Policy Changes:
- Push for rules that let parents approve or get notified about sensitive topics.
- Back school board members who care about parents’ voices.
- Consider Alternatives:
- If the school won’t budge, look into private schools or homeschooling.
- Find options that match your values and focus on real learning.
Final Thoughts
You’re your child’s best defender. Don’t let schools brush you off or confuse you with buzzwords. Demand clear answers and a focus on age-appropriate, fact-based education. By staying informed and active, you can keep your child’s classroom a place for learning—not ideology.
The Alberta government’s recent initiative to establish provincewide standards for school library materials, announced on May 26, 2025, underscores the critical role of parental input in ensuring that educational resources align with community values and developmental needs. The online survey, open until June 6, 2025, seeks feedback from Albertans to create consistent guidelines for selecting age-appropriate materials, particularly addressing concerns about sexually explicit content in K-12 school libraries. Parental involvement is essential because parents, as primary caregivers, have a vested interest in their children’s moral and intellectual development. They possess unique insights into their children’s emotional and psychological readiness, which standardized systems may overlook. By involving parents, the government ensures that library materials reflect the values and expectations of the families they serve, fostering trust and transparency in the education system. As Education Minister Demetrios Nicolaides emphasized, the goal is to create “guardrails” to protect students from accessing inappropriate content, such as graphic novels containing explicit depictions of sexual acts, molestation, or self-harm, which were found in some Edmonton and Calgary school libraries.
Ensuring age-appropriate materials in school libraries is paramount to safeguarding children’s well-being and supporting their developmental stages. Young students, particularly in elementary and junior high schools, are at formative stages where exposure to graphic content—such as nudity, explicit sexual acts, or themes of molestation—can be confusing or harmful. The Alberta government’s survey highlights specific concerns about four graphic novels, including Gender Queer by Maia Kobabe and Fun Home by Alison Bechdel, which contain explicit content deemed inappropriate for K-9 students. Age-appropriate materials should align with cognitive and emotional maturity, providing resources that educate without overwhelming or exposing children to mature themes prematurely. School libraries must balance fostering a love for reading with ensuring content is suitable for the intended age group, as outlined in the government’s call for developmentally appropriate resources to meet diverse student needs. This approach not only protects students but also supports teachers and librarians in curating collections that enhance learning while respecting parental expectations.
Critics often argue that restricting access to certain materials constitutes censorship or a “book ban,” potentially limiting students’ exposure to diverse perspectives, especially on topics like 2SLGBTQ+ identities. This perspective, voiced by the Alberta Teachers’ Association (ATA) and others, suggests that such standards could disproportionately target marginalized communities and stifle students’ ability to see themselves represented in literature. While diversity in literature is important, this argument overlooks the distinction between censorship and age-appropriate curation. The Alberta government explicitly states that the initiative is not about banning books but about establishing consistent standards to ensure materials are suitable for specific age groups. For instance, Nicolaides clarified that content related to 2SLGBTQ+ themes is not the target; the focus is on graphic sexual content, regardless of subject matter. A book on astrophysics with explicit imagery would face the same scrutiny, demonstrating that the policy aims to protect, not exclude. Moreover, existing school board processes, like those in Edmonton and Calgary, already include mechanisms for reviewing content, suggesting that standardized guidelines would enhance, not replace, professional judgment.
Another common counterargument is that restricting access to certain materials could hinder students’ ability to access information about sensitive topics, such as sexual abuse, which may be critical for their safety. Some, including voices on social media, argue that libraries provide a safe space for students to explore topics that parents might not address at home, citing cases where books helped children identify and report abuse. While this concern is valid, it does not negate the need for age-appropriate standards. Libraries can still provide educational resources on sensitive topics, such as body safety or abuse prevention, without including graphic depictions unsuitable for young readers. The government’s survey asks who should determine appropriateness—options include teachers, librarians, parents, or students—indicating a collaborative approach that values professional expertise alongside parental input. By setting clear standards, schools can ensure that resources on critical topics are accessible in a manner that respects developmental readiness, thus maintaining a balance between safety and education.
In conclusion, the Alberta government’s survey on school library materials reflects a commitment to balancing parental input with the need for age-appropriate resources, ensuring that school libraries remain safe and supportive environments for students. By involving parents, the government acknowledges their role in shaping educational content that aligns with community values and protects children from inappropriate material. While critics raise concerns about censorship or restricted access to vital information, these arguments fail to account for the nuanced approach of setting consistent, transparent standards rather than outright bans. The initiative, set to inform policies for the 2025-26 school year, aims to create a framework where professional judgment, parental concerns, and student needs converge. Albertans’ participation in the survey will be crucial in shaping a system that prioritizes both educational freedom and the well-being of young learners.
There are positive stories of people overcoming this toxic ideology. Let’s try and have more of these moments – the ones where we don’t destroy children’s futures in the name of the gender religion.
“So, what is the takeaway from this analysis? The single biggest observation is that, contrary to what has been asserted by advocates of youth transition, most adolescents with a GD diagnosis will not have this diagnosis within as few as seven years, during the period of rapid identity development. The single most important implication is that there is no empirical basis for assuming that most adolescents presenting with GD are destined to live as gender-transitioned adults. This further suggests that the GD diagnosis presents a dubious basis for offering teens life-altering interventions with permanent impacts on health and functioning.”
We end up hurting the most vulnerable people in society when we turn away from empirical evidence and the real world. Listen and enumerate the damage being done to children in the name of ‘combating systemic racism’.
bleatmop
Mystro
The Arbourist
Dead Wild Roses 
Your opinions…