You may have heard a rumor: Governments everywhere are taking children away from their parents, because the kids say they want to change their gender, the parents object, and the government decides the parents are wrong and shouldn't have a say.
When we hear narratives like this, we should immediately challenge them and dig a little deeper. Imagine, for example, the child in the story is gay, and the state has removed the child from parents who don't approve of the child being gay. What details might we fill in to help ourselves understand what's going on? We might guess that the parents are extremely homophobic and inflict severe punishments on the child, causing physical and psychological damage, to an extent that the state has to intervene. That seems plausible. It's one possibility. It would be an explanatory reason for the state's action. If we really wanted to know the answer, we'd ask: What was going on in that situation? We'd learn the relevant facts.
But for some reason, when the child is transgender — by which here, in this immediate context, I mean that the child has expressed a transgender or nonbinary identity, or that they commonly "crossdress," etc. — people are more likely to assume that the parents were having calm and reasonable conversations with their child, whose well-being they always supported, and that the state took the child away "for no reason" except to impose a postmodern queer agenda on faithful Christians.
When we hear a story in which the state got involved with the welfare of a trans child, the first thing we ought to remember is that the best interests of the child are what matter most. Every child is unique, and if we don't know this child nor anything about their family situation, we aren't equipped to know what's in this child's best interests. And so we might quell our curiosity and drop our inquiry there, as perhaps the family's situation is not our business.
But if we are inclined, we might look to see what details of the case are publicly available. Here's a court opinion, M.C. v. Ind. Dep't of Child Servs. (In re A.C.), dated October 21, 2022. The case summary says that the child had identified themselves as "a child in need of services (CHINS) pursuant to Indiana Code Section 31-34-1-6 (CHINS-6) because Child was substantially endangering Child's own health." The court goes on to review the facts: "on May 11, 2021, DCS received a report alleging that Mother was verbally and emotionally abusing then-sixteen-year-old Child by using rude and demeaning language toward Child regarding Child's transgender identity, and as a result, Child had thoughts of self-harm." Ten days later, "DCS received a second report alleging that the Parents were verbally and emotionally abusing Child because they do not accept Child's transgender identity, the abuse was getting worse, and the Parents were being mean to Child due to Child's transgender identity. A DCS family case manager (FCM) investigated these reports, met with the Parents, Child, and Child's siblings, and spoke by phone to a representative from Child's residential school." The investigator concluded that the child [emphasis mine]:
"had been suffering from an eating disorder for the past year but had yet to be evaluated by a medical professional; the Parents had withdrawn Child from school, and DCS was unaware of the family's intent to enroll Child in a new school for the upcoming school year; Child had been in therapy, but the Parents had discontinued it; Child did not feel mentally and/or emotionally safe in the home; Mother said things such as '[Child's preferred name] is the bitch that killed my son'; and Child 'would be more likely to have thoughts of self-harm and suicide if [Child] were to return to the family home due to mental and emotional abuse.'"
The mother was uncooperative with investigators and "refused to sign any consents so that DCS could verify any medical concerns or past therapy services."
Oh.
These are parents who are not getting their child the physical and mental healthcare they need and are not encouraging their child to attend high school.
Yes, a Christian magazine leads an article by describing the child as "trans-identified," the parents as "devout Christians," the core issue as "disagreements over their child’s gender identity," and the detail as "the parents’ refusal to use their son's self-declared female name and pronouns after he decided to start identifying as a girl." That framing is sympathetic to the parents, and the information is incomplete.
The Christian Post does note: "The case has also inspired legislation in Indiana, with House Bill 1407 aiming to prevent courts from removing trans-identified children from parents who refuse gender-affirming care. However, the bill did not pass."
Trans kids are not only trans. They are unique individuals who might also have common healthcare problems like eating disorders. They are human beings who deserve to be cared for; they have a right to be taken to doctors and psychotherapists. When there is an issue involving a trans kid, the issue might also involve some other thing. It might be a complicated or private thing.
(By the way, this is why it's harmful to treat "trans" as a synonym for "fake," as Peter Boghossian explicitly does. When trans kids are assumed to be fakers and liars or to be deluded, it predisposes adults not to trust them on other issues that affect their lives.
Were this an issue between divorcing or separated parents, they could write their values in a parenting plan, and they might go to trial if they couldn't reach agreement.
However, people who are not involved in that child's life or court case are not people who are positioned to make a decision about that child's life.
In this case, it appears that the parents have the time and energy to take their case to the U.S. Supreme Court, yet they originally couldn't find the resources to take their anorexic child to the doctor. So, yes, there is a dispute that goes beyond the parents not wanting to call their child by the child's preferred name and pronouns, and someone will examine the facts and make a decision about what's right for this teenager.
At this time, the parents seem to have updated their thinking:
"...the parents say they’re willing to treat the eating disorder, just not affirm the child’s trans identity. The court said ... sending this particular child back while the conflict over gender is ongoing would risk a relapse of her eating disorder..." — Evan Urquhart, Assigned Media
(Incidentally, this kid is approximately right now a legal adult and will soon begin making decisions for themselves.)
So, yes, in this case, the parents object to their kid being transgender and the state took the kid away. But that is not a full and accurate characterization of the story. Here, the word "and" is not "therefore." The parents' values about gender may have contributed to the outcome, but it was not the full reason. This characterization is so incomplete that it's misleading.
The parents are acting as if the eating disorder is entirely separate from the gender identity, and the court is saying: Look, it's the same kid. The same kid is happy or unhappy, eating or not eating, having her gender or having the gender someone else wants her to have. For her, the issues do not separate, and the family history is complicated.
If you hear a rumor that a parent refused to change their child's pronouns, and the state took the child away, please question that narrative. It is likely not the whole story. Just like any other kid, a trans kid is a full human being with complex family relationships and narratives. There is no need for strangers to simplify a trans kid's story by concluding that the parents are being persecuted by the state simply for being "devout Christians."
I am asking everyone to please reduce your anxiety over the idea of trans kids. Thank you.
Also in Indiana
Hemant Mehta tells us on December 22, 2023: "Months after courageously announcing that transgender women would be considered for admission beginning next fall, Saint Mary’s College, an all-women’s Catholic school in Indiana, has reversed course..."
Indiana Republicans want to re-write the law to eliminate the word “gender”, LGBTQ Nation, January 17, 2024
No comments:
Post a Comment