Gender Transitioning and the Agony of Parents – Part 1

A documentary featuring the anguish of parents suffering because of the “gender transitioning” of their children against best parental judgment, and the hostility of professional counselors and educators as parents struggle to prevent their children from embarking on the irreversible mutilation of their bodies, ought to receive widespread attention. But communication can be a problem in contemporary society, since many media services want ideas critical of the Left’s prevailing cultural narrative taken off the table. This particular documentary, “Dead Name,” was taken off the Vimeo platform in January. It remains available from its filmmaker, Tyler Reece, and it is a moving portrait of a society that has gone mad because it has accepted the ideology of self-determination over both science (biology) and common sense.

Three parents, identified by first name only, spoke during the documentary, and in one case, a father believes that cross-sex hormones contributed to his son’s death. In all three cases, a young child or adolescent declared themselves “trans,” wanted or assumed a new name appropriate for the opposite sex, with the child’s given name discarded as a “dead name” (although in one case, identification with the natural sex remained in living with the objecting parent). It is well worth watching, but also reviewing in detail.

A Recalcitrant Child

The first parent who spoke, Amy, recounted that her daughter claimed to be “trans” at age 15, and said “I need a new name.” Amy told her “your father and I thought really long and hard for your name, and it means something.” Amy said she “didn’t push back immediately” and “went along with the [new] name.”

Before her daughter declared herself “transgender” Amy said she had been the easiest of her children to manage. But after announcing her transgenderism, she started wearing “preppy androgenous clothes.” On entering middle school, she stayed in her room much of the time. Her attitude changed. “She was not very nice to us anymore.”

Her daughter then “started hanging out with a friend of hers.” Through social media, Amy found that this friend had medically “transitioned.” Neither she nor her husband had time to process what was happening, but were simply told the right course of action. There were long arguments with both her daughter and her husband, with her daughter threatening that if she committed suicide, it would be her mother’s fault. Amy said she now sees how “scripted” these conflicts were (apparently by transgender activists and medical personnel who develop gender transitioning programs and talking points). She also now sees that her daughter’s behavior “wasn’t organic, it wasn’t something that came out of her.” The transgender phase of her daughter’s life “simply came from somewhere, and swept her away.”

Amy pointed out to her daughter that a decision to “transition” would be irreversible for the rest of her life. She was willing for her child to hate her “because I will not fall for this. I will not accept this. This is illogical. This is a crime against humanity. Where does our species go, if you can cut up your body parts like this?” On seeing a counselor who deals with “gender non-conforming youth,” Amy was told that her daughter seemed definite in her decision, and she needed to accept that. Her daughter then moved out of their home to live with another person. She and her husband were then in conflict about her daughter’s transitioning. A group counseling session “led by a trans individual,” was similarly committed to transgenderism. Everyone there thought she should accept her daughter’s belief. Her relatives likewise believed Amy should accept it. Amy said she felt “alone” and “powerless.”

When she tried to talk about the past with her daughter, and things that they enjoyed doing, and that her daughter seemed to enjoy, her daughter did not want to talk about them. Amy cried and said her daughter had had a beautiful voice, but her daughter did not want to hear a recording of it. Nevertheless Amy knows “you can’t get away from yourself … How are we getting so far away from reality?” (This writer would comment that it’s the natural result when self-will – in this case, the desire to be a member of the opposite sex – is the supreme judge of what is right and true). Amy said that she has faith that transgender children will all “reverse.” With her own daughter, instead of “transitioning” to a new “gender” resulting in happiness for her daughter, she finds instead that her daughter has gotten “more withdrawn.”

Amy believes that it is important to be a parent, which she doesn’t see much happening in our society. She said it is easy to find people who will push one onto the transgender “train,” and hard to find “people on the other side.” After a year’s agony, she found a parent support group critical of transgenderism.

There is no greater love than that of a parent for his/her child, Amy believes. (This agrees with the words of Jesus, as parents will put the child’s life before their own). She said that her own parents love her and support her, and whether her daughter sees the same things in Amy, she nonetheless loves and supports her.

A Compliant Child in Two Worlds

Another parent, Helen, always recognized the natural sex (male) of her son (Jonas) from birth, and didn’t “do this ‘no gender’ thing.” After that, she and her spouse “broke up in the fall of 2014.” It was seemingly about this time when she received a phone call from the director of the daycare center that provided care for Jonas, saying that he now identifies himself as a girl. She remembers being “shocked and confused,” but nevertheless took a “whatever” approach. She seemed to indicate that she thought that this was child’s play. “Maybe tomorrow he’ll say he’s a fish.”

Helen said that after Jonas’ declaration of his transgenderism, his preschool sent an announcement to the parents of the children at the school that “one of our students is now Rosa, and we would love you all to come and celebrate and support her.” About a week later she found the name “Rosa” written on all Jonas’ spaces at pre-school. Helen said she felt that it was as if she was “invisible.” Jonas was her child, but she was “completely helpless.”

About a month later there was a crusade of “everybody has to use the right pronoun.” Helen said that “he was four years old. I didn’t even know if he knew what a pronoun was.” The pre-school staff never took a “we need to talk about this, Helen” attitude. It was rather “edicts by e-mail about what the child wants.” It seems more likely that it was not about what the child wanted, but about what the child was being coached by the pre-school staff to say (and then want). It was always about “me having to accept this – that this is what Rosa wants.”

To deal with her crisis, Helen thought it would be a good idea to see professional therapists. She thought she could explain the basic things that were happening with her son, and that the Jonas was not experiencing “classic gender dysphoria.” She apparently believed that the therapists would help her to find the real reason for Jonas’ distress. Instead, the therapists urged that Helen “accept and celebrate” Jonas’ transition. But Helen responded that Jonas’ sexual confusion was nothing to celebrate. Why should she celebrate that Jonas will never have a normal sex life and be medicalized for life, she asked. Jonas was told about “sex reassignment surgery” in kindergarten, and he panicked, believing that the surgery (i.e., castration) was imminent at only six years old. Helen then learned about puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and sexual anatomy altering surgery. This made things worse, “because now I knew … that there could be physical changes to my son that could never be turned around, and he could be permanently harmed.” She said that “you feel like you’re insane.” 

Her son’s current situation is that he must be two persons – a boy named Jonas when he lives with her, and a girl named “Rosa” when he lives with her ex-spouse. She asked how it could be good for a child to have a split identity. Helen said that Jonas’ “well-being and his mental health has been sacrificed.” She indicated that she would like to know how he really feels but “he has learned to navigate this world by not saying anything, and by telling people what they want to hear.” She has told him that she knows that having two identities is difficult, and she wants to get him out of the situation as soon as possible. The most important thing, she told him “is to be honest and truthful and loving.”

Helen also found a group of supporters, one of whom worked with Jonas and  assured her that Jonas is not a “transgender girl.” Other people would regard her as “transphobic” and “unsupportive” for speaking the truth. With Helen, Jonas plays with boys as he is growing up. He plays soccer, explores the woods, etc. Nevertheless, the boys he plays with all call him “Rosa” and “she.” Helen said “it’s like the emperor has no clothes.” But she said that “he’s over time becoming who he is” (a boy).

Helen said that she “was in litigation for two years” and that there was a “six day trial.” It was difficult to find an attorney, she said. Once a gender clinic has determined that a child is “transgender,” the burden of proof is likely with the objecting parent(s) to show otherwise. The judge maintained that there are a hundred genders . She had to fight the entire surrounding culture where she lived – therapists, polity, and (above all) ideology. Her witness, psychologist James Cantor, was able to show the judge that there is no firm scientific knowledge in the area of transgenderism. (At least insofar as self-determined identity is thought a reasonable challenge to biology, it should be added). While the “affirming” approach (accepting a child’s claimed sexual identity without question) is one kind of treatment for gender dysphoria, a “wait-and-see” approach is another (since the majority of dysphoric individuals grow out of their identification with the opposite sex). In the court battle, she was able to show that she and the quarreling former spouse could not co-parent, and she was more open to different outcomes for her son (although it is a philosophical, not scientific commitment to hold anything other than biological sex proper to one’s identity). Helen got sole legal custody of her son, but not sole physical custody. As a result, Jonas must live in two worlds, really as two different persons. Amy could not prove that the ex-spouse is abusive, because in the contemporary culture, it is not considered abusive to encourage gender transition.

Helen feels that her son is leading a “tortured existence” between her and her ex-spouse, with two different identities. How will he “turn out” with “no sense of self?” Will he be depressed, will he kill himself, have a drug problem, or be a manipulator?

The experiences of a third parent, whose child died in the course of “gender transitioning,” will be reviewed in a subsequent article, along with concluding comments.