What’s Wrong with the World

The men signed of the cross of Christ go gaily in the dark.

About

What’s Wrong with the World is dedicated to the defense of what remains of Christendom, the civilization made by the men of the Cross of Christ. Athwart two hostile Powers we stand: the Jihad and Liberalism...read more

Ontario--Parents who don't affirm LGBT agenda at risk of losing their kids

I realize that the title looks like clickbait, and I put the phrase "at risk of" in there deliberately as a qualifier, but what has just happened in Ontario is highly alarming for the reason stated in the title. Under a recently passed law, parents who are not gay-affirming or transgenderism-affirming, whose own children decide to identify with these ideologies, may lose the kids for that reason.

Bill 89, or the Supporting Children, Youth and Families Act, 2017, repeals and replaces the former Child and Family Services Act that governs child protection services, and adoption and foster care services.

It adds “gender identity” and “gender expression” as factors to be considered “in the best interests of the child.”

At the same time, it deletes the religious faith in which the parents are raising the child as a factor to be considered, and mandates child protection services consider only the child’s own “creed” or “religion” when assessing the best interests of the child.

Bill 89 retains the provision in current law that a child who is suffering or “at risk of suffering” mental or emotional harm and whose parents do not provide “treatment or access to treatment” is in need of protection under the law.

But while the former law said the Children’s Aid Society should take the “least disruptive course of action,” Bill 89 adds “including the provision of prevention services, early intervention services and community support services," according to an ARPA analysis.

Treatment? You mean like this kind of treatment?

“The implication is that intervention should not be presumed to be more disruptive than non-intervention,” the ARPA report adds.

Quite.

Lest you were in any doubt about what all this means, we have the word of the very person who introduced the bill, who is also Minister of Child and Family Services (!), to explain:

Coteau, who introduced the bill, told QP Briefing he sees questioning teenagers’ self-identification as LGBTQI or telling them to change as abuse.

“I would consider that a form of abuse, when a child identifies one way and a caregiver is saying no, you need to do this differently,” he said.

“If it’s abuse, and if it’s within the definition, a child can be removed from that environment and placed into protection where the abuse stops.”

Got that? They can consider it abuse if your child "identifies" one way and you say, "No, you need to do this differently," and on that basis they can remove the child from the "environment" in which you are not affirming that identity and place the child into "protection where the abuse stops"--aka a home that will affirm the transgender or homosexual "identity" of the minor. Considering the amount of straightforward, real abuse that children in foster care often suffer, it is truly bizarre (but not surprising) that Coteau would consider it better to take a child from parents who love him and give him to strangers who are being paid to take care of him than to leave the child in a non-gay-affirming environment. But ideologues are not open to such piffling prudential arguments.

Needless to say, Bill 89 will also be used to block out would-be foster parents who affirm normal, sane views on matters of sexuality and on questions like whether boys can turn into girls, girls can turn into boys, and unicorns bring rainbow-colored piles of money to all true believers.

Speaking of foster and adoptive parents, the State of Illinois, not content to let our neighbors to the north get too much of a jump on us, has just passed detailed new regulations for foster parents, demanding that they explicitly affirm leftist gender ideology.

Dissenting voices, such as employees, volunteers, and foster parents who rely on science and common sense, are not welcome in trans utopia. The new DCFS policies warn staff members that they must “[p]rovide supportive and affirming care regardless of one’s personal attitudes, beliefs, preconceptions and/or judgments, if any, surrounding matters of sexual orientation, gender identity, and gender expression.”

If that proves to be a hard swallow, then “[i]ndividuals who have difficulty meeting this standard for personal reasons should seek assistance from supervisors and the LGBTQ Coordinator,” who will be happy to re-educate the noncompliant. Jobs are on the line—staff members will be “disciplined” and risk “discharge” if they “impose personal, organizational or religious beliefs on LGBTQ children, youth and families” or if their “personal beliefs impact the way individual needs of children/youth or families are met.”

Even placement decisions—including placement with “kin or fictive kin”—are subject to an ideological test that measures the caregivers’ “attitudes and beliefs” about sexual orientation and gender identity, and assesses whether they are sufficiently “LGBTQ-affirming[.]"

Here's the money quote:

If a child or youth is known to be LGBTQ, the caseworker is responsible for determining prior to placement, the caregiver’s attitudes and beliefs regarding sexual orientation, gender identity/gender expression. In no instance should LGBTQ children/youth be placed with a non-affirming caregiver who is opposed to sexual orientations that differ from the caregiver’s own. Nor should LGBTQ children and youth be placed with caregivers who are unwilling/unable to support children and youth whose gender identity or gender expression differs from traditional expectation…If a caregiver is found to be non-affirming or is otherwise in violation of the nondiscrimination requirements in Appendix K, the youth’s DCFS caseworker must take immediate action to intervene and take appropriate corrective action and contact the LGBTQ Coordinator. (302- Appendix K, section e).

Even though this policy concerns only (!) children who are already in the care of DCFS, the resemblance to the Ontario law and the possible ramifications for biological children are troubling. As if it weren't enough that all fostering parents in Illinois must now affirm gender ideology, consider what this could potentially mean for a child seized unjustly or hastily by DCFS. (Yes, that could happen.) Since the policy says that "in no instance" shall a young person whom the department deems "LGBTQ" be placed with a "caregiver" who doesn't affirm this ideology, couldn't that be used to block reunion with the biological parents from whom the child was taken in the first instance? I don't claim to be an expert in the legal aspects of this, but DCFS already has a lot of draconian power when it comes to what people need to do in order to get their kids back, even if the grounds for seizing them in the first place were dubious. With this kind of extremely strong policy in place in Illinois, why should we not think that, "You must affirm our gender ideology" would be one of the requirements after children were seized? It is undeniable that DCFS would use this policy to decide, for example, whether or not to place a child with a non-parental relative. If Grandma doesn't affirm the child's "gayness," then Grandma isn't going to get to look after him. He'll go to a stranger who says shibboleth instead. It's difficult to avoid, then, the conclusion that Mom and Dad themselves may never get Junior back again from the State of Illinois if they won't say shibboleth.

Considering that public schools can apparently now start giving at least some minors in some states transsexual hormone treatment without parental consent, this all raises the following all-too-believable possibility: Child is encouraged by a public school to consider himself "transgender." Child complains that his parents won't affirm his identity. Illinois DCFS declares that this constitutes a need to remove the child from the home, even though the law doesn't explicitly give them the power to do so. They seize the child, who is then "in their care." Once the child is "in their care," their new policies expressly apply to him. Illinois DCFS then cites written policy to refuse to return the child to his parents. If you think this is far-fetched, you are willfully blind or naive. Or you just want to play the old game of, "It will never happen, and when it does, you bigots will deserve it."

This is, then, another argument for home schooling or at least sending your child to a truly conservative Christian school, which doesn't necessarily follow from being a Catholic school. (Search "Jesuit" in this post.)

We live in dark days, and I wish I could say that the populace is totally opposed to these totalitarian invasions of parental rights. I think many are, but there is also a surprising amount of apathy and confusion, even within Christian circles.

Later I will very likely put up a post that includes more quotations from Whittaker Chambers's letters to William F. Buckley, and this one will no doubt appear again. For now it seems a fitting closing to a post about the increasing darkness. Just remember that, as parents, you have a special role to play in the work of preservation.


The enemy—he is ourselves. That is why it is idle to talk about preventing the wreck of Western civilization. It is already a wreck from within. That is why we can hope to do little more now than to snatch a fingernail of a saint from the rack or a handful of ashes from the faggots, and bury them secretly in a flowerpot against the day, ages hence, when a few men begin again to dare to believe that there was once something else, that something else is thinkable, and need some evidence of what it was, and the fortifying knowledge that there were those who, at the great nightfall, took loving thought to preserve the tokens of hope and truth.

Comments (14)

I have a five month old, so these legal developments hit close to home for me. Of course, I don't expect or want any child of mine to suffer with same sex attractions or gender confusion. Yet that is possible, and either way, I intend to explain what is wrong with those things and will not affirm them. As I understand it, by Ontario or Illinois standards that would be child abuse if they classify junior as lgbt.

This raises a question for me, and not that these laws are not alarming or draconian enough as it is, but is there anything stopping them from calling non affirming parenting child abuse even if the children are not LGBT?

It seems to me that is where the logic of this goes. I can't think of any other example of child abuse that is only abusive to some children and just fine for others.

This raises a question for me, and not that these laws are not alarming or draconian enough as it is, but is there anything stopping them from calling non affirming parenting child abuse even if the children are not LGBT?

I think the best hope would be that one's "deviant" beliefs would fly under the radar if the children did not identify in this way. But that's pretty iffy, especially since all sorts of counselors can *suggest* to children that they "are" homosexual or transgender and then identify them as such. Suppose, for example, that one were fostering a child who had some kind of other special needs, and that the DCFS had required him to receive some kind of one-on-one therapy. All it would take would be for the therapist to make suggestions to the effect that maybe the child really "is" transgender, etc., for the ball to be kicked off.

The reason it's regarded as abuse *for* that particular child is because, according to the fiction, not to affirm that identity causes harm to the child who so identifies. Presumably one could argue that it doesn't cause at least the same kind of alleged harm to a child who has no such ideas.

I do consider that fostering or attempting to adopt brings one's entire family under greater scrutiny and results in a loss of privacy.

In all honesty, I strongly suspect that parents now looking to foster in Illinois will be asked outright about their beliefs in these areas, even when no particular child is in view.

As for biological parents, the best bet is just not to place the children in an environment where this sort of identification is going to be encouraged by someone else.

All it would take would be for the therapist to make suggestions to the effect that maybe the child really "is" transgender, etc., for the ball to be kicked off.

It wouldn't even have to be a therapist. A meddlesome teacher, a pederast, a former romantic interest--anybody with the right blend of ideological commitment and personal malice could get the ball rolling on "proceedings" against the parents.

This is also Exhibit 3,678,956 for the case against that seductive assurance of the libertine left (and right) that under their rules, everybody gets to live as they wish and will be left alone to raise their families so long as they don't go about looking for a fight. Societies just don't work that way, because officialdom has to take positions on certain basic aspects of reality, and whatever those positions are will have profound consequences for public standards of morality. Those standards in turn have a powerful conditioning effect on people's willingness to accept state coercion in a given area.

As for biological parents, the best bet is just not to place the children in an environment where this sort of identification is going to be encouraged by someone else.

For those able to make the sacrifices necessary, this is increasingly imperative, although it's of course not proof against the power of hostile neighbors and people in positions of formal authority to make trouble.

Let's say that I'm an atheist, morally liberal parent. I think gay sex is perfectly fine, transgenderism is perfectly coherent and moral. Heck, my best friend is a transgender man who is in (an ostensibly) homosexual "marriage" (with a real man). But, I think that, given the fluidity of sexual attraction and of transgendered feelings in young children and teens, in light of the high suicide or STD rates of transgendered or gay people, that my child should wait before they get 'gender confirmation surgery', dress as the opposite gender, or whatnot, or engage in gay sex. Would I be in risk of losing my child?

I mean, "I" affirm that whole moral view they do. But maybe "I" don't do so wholeheartedly enough.

Of course, I doubt there are too many people who would fit such a description - maybe four, five. It seems most they lose sight of even prudential concerns in pursuit of "tolerance."

This is also Exhibit 3,678,956 for the case against that seductive assurance of the libertine left (and right) that under their rules, everybody gets to live as they wish and will be left alone to raise their families so long as they don't go about looking for a fight. Societies just don't work that way, because officialdom has to take positions on certain basic aspects of reality, and whatever those positions are will have profound consequences for public standards of morality.

Absolutely right. It isn't enough for QGTBLKNZXRTs to live with the person they want to live with, "loving" them and getting their preferred minister to "marry" them, they had to get THE STATE to say they are married, and via the state, to get everyone else to agree. There is no neutral ground here for them, they will not accept neutrality. Same with trans idiocy. The writing is already on the wall about this.

The only hope I have is that the trans idiocy succeeds in taking the stupidity a step too far: there are just too many ways in which reality will not be gainsaid, will not cooperate, will not be avoidable. And there will be - even on the liberal side of things - too many people who can't stomach denying all those ways in which one must reject reality to go along. For example, I gather that at a major medical establishment, they stopped doing gender reassignment surgery because they could see the results directly, and the results were not that they were making these poor souls happy. Far from it. I think that within 15 years (hopefully less), even the liberal establishment will turn its back on this form of insanity and say no.

The problem is that in the meantime, they will absolutely wreck the lives of normal good people, the same way the French mobs destroyed perfectly sane decent people in the French Revolution before it burned itself out.

But, I think that, given the fluidity of sexual attraction and of transgendered feelings in young children and teens, in light of the high suicide or STD rates of transgendered or gay people, that my child should wait before they get 'gender confirmation surgery', dress as the opposite gender, or whatnot, or engage in gay sex. Would I be in risk of losing my child?

I mean, "I" affirm that whole moral view they do. But maybe "I" don't do so wholeheartedly enough.

Of course, I doubt there are too many people who would fit such a description - maybe four, five. It seems most they lose sight of even prudential concerns in pursuit of "tolerance."

In Ontario, you might very well be if they knew that you were standing in the way of things for your child. The reassignment surgery wouldn't be pushed until the person was eighteen, but increasingly hormone "treatments" *are* pushed, and aggressively. The idea is that the young person will have an easier time "passing" as the chosen gender if drug treatments are begun earlier, even prior to puberty (to prevent things like voice changing, etc.). And certainly clothing and "identifying" are pushed as the only way to affirm the person.

Prudence is out the window.

I don't have the link, but I even read about one doctor who was professionally persecuted because he *merely* affirmed the trans route for older teenagers but would not affirm it for little children--7-year-olds, for example. He felt that it was too early at that point to decide that the child really "was" transgender. And *that* hesitation was enough to get him in professional trouble.

Tony, I'm sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but it's going in the opposite direction. The institution you are thinking of is Johns Hopkins, but they have now seen the light and are going back to cutting off people's genitalia.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/long-shadow-cast-by-psychiatrist-on-transgender-issues-finally-recedes-at-johns-hopkins/2017/04/05/e851e56e-0d85-11e7-ab07-07d9f521f6b5_story.html

"The reason it's regarded as abuse *for* that particular child is because, according to the fiction, not to affirm that identity causes harm to the child who so identifies. Presumably one could argue that it doesn't cause at least the same kind of alleged harm to a child who has no such ideas."

If something can be regarded as abuse according to fiction in one case, nothing is stopping it from being regarded so in the other. I am just not exactly optimistic that Ontario and Illinois are as bad it can be. This seems to be yet one more step towards the rights of parents to make major life decisions for their minor children and guide their moral development being all but eliminated. Although, I dont doubt that in the Illinois and Ontario cases that this is a one way street...I doubt the authorities would intervene to ensure a teenager who became a Christian could be involved in a church community despite their atheist parents wishes (and I am not suggesting they should). Social workers also visit parents of newborns in the hospital. It would probably only take a change in policy to have those workers assess new parents of their lgbt affirming attitudes. Even if they could not intervene at that time, it could still be filed away and perhaps be a prompt to have the children of parents deemed insufficiently affirming be checked on.

"It wouldn't even have to be a therapist. A meddlesome teacher, a pederast, a former romantic interest--anybody with the right blend of ideological commitment and personal malice could get the ball rolling on "proceedings" against the parents."

This I believe is called hotlining, and anyone can hotline somebody else to report suspected abuse or danger. I believe states are legally required to respond and investigate.

I think that within 15 years (hopefully less), even the liberal establishment will turn its back on this form of insanity and say no.

The problem is that in the meantime, they will absolutely wreck the lives of normal good people, the same way the French mobs destroyed perfectly sane decent people in the French Revolution before it burned itself out.

I've been somewhat "optimistic," if it can be called that, that this is what we're going to see at some inevitable point in the not-too-distant future. We're bumping up against some hard limits that make continuing down this path unsustainable. The trans business in particular is about the liberal intoxication with power, and especially power over normal people to make them confess things that they do not believe. It may even work for a while, but I'm already starting to detect a quiet, unacknowledged creeping back from the brink on the part of a lot of my liberal acquaintances.

That intoxication is going to leave them (and us) with quite a hangover, but one has to hope that our children will be able to look back on it as the fit of ideologically-fueled madness that it is.

I am just not exactly optimistic that Ontario and Illinois are as bad it can be.

I'm not either. In terms of the explicit intent of the law, the Ontario law is already worse than the Illinois one. And in Norway children have been taken from their parents just because the parents were seriously religious Christians. Later (in the Norwegian case) the excuse was made that the parents had used corporal punishment, which is officially illegal in Norway (and in Delaware--trivia fact of the day), but initially the report was made on the basis of their being allegedly overly conservative Christians. There are European countries (Norway and Sweden come to mind) to which I would advise that parents not even travel temporarily with their children. I heard of one case, I believe it was Sweden, where a woman was visiting family with her children, and it came out in conversation with a native of the country that the parents ever used any form of corporal punishment, and she was almost reported to DCFS in the European country even though she was there only for a short time. She might never have been able to bring her kids back. She bluffed her way out by saying that she was an American and that the law didn't apply to her, and fortunately they didn't call her bluff.

I think I can better explain the concern I have with policy that calls not affirming LGBT abusive to "LGBT" kids and how that can extend to normal kids. Even if the same policy never calls it abuse to be unaffirming of LGBT towards normal kids, if anyone...perhaps a teacher...catches on that junior's parents dont affirm LGBT that could be used as a reason to at least send a state agency to investigate. Just to make sure there is no actual abuse per their policy happening. It still opens another door for the government to pry into family affairs. It may even provide a route for a state worker to "educate" junior about all the LGBT affirming ideas all in the name of ensuring junior is not "LGBT" and so "abused" that junior hasnt talked about it. My previous comments may have been too far in the "they are coming to take all our kids if we dont affirm LGBT" category...that is not impossible, but I doubt it is likely. I think more likely it will be harassment and threats.

I agree, and confirming your instinct is this: "Q" in the zoo of letters is sometimes said to be "queer" and sometimes said to be "questioning." Insofar as children fall under these mandates if they are merely "questioning," all that is necessary is for activists to have enough influence with the child to create some degree of confusion. This needn't even be so radical a confusion as that the child thinks he "is" the opposite gender. Indeed, let's not forget that homosexuality is still involved here. It's proven surprisingly easy to suggest to young people that they "are gay," even easier than to suggest to them that they "are" the opposite gender. Any girl who is a tomboy, any boy who is (or feels like he is) insufficiently "manly," will be subject in today's society to a certain amount of plausible confusion, with the culture insisting rather loudly, "You might be gay!" This in itself could put the child within the scope of the Ontario law: "This child is sexually questioning, but his parents will not affirm him if he decides he is gay."

""This child is sexually questioning, but his parents will not affirm him if he decides he is gay.""

That is troubling, isn't "questioning" a broad enough category just about any kid could be placed in it? Al Mohler may have been on this as well, he said in his podcast about the Illinois policy that it basically mandates everyone involved in the foster care system treat all children as if they are on the "lgbt spectrum". If so this just seems like more reason to see this as a "heads we win, tails you lose" deal for non-affirming parents.

https://cfsa.dc.gov/page/when-child-welfare-investigates-your-family

That goes over Washington DCs social services polices, I doubt the basic rules are much different in any other state or jurisdiction. They must respond to any calls about suspected abuse. It looks like the social workers have a 72 hour window where they can pull the children from the home to investigate without court approval. They also can talk to children without parental consent. So, basically all the things a zealous lgbt affirming social worker would need to wreak havoc if they can operate per the policy in Illinois. What really caught my attention here is that child care workers are mandated reporters. I am not sure who counts as child care worker, but that could be very troubling for two working parent families who have no other options. Not only are public schools not necessarily safe, neither are child care centers. We take our child to a licensed in home day care. I am not sure if she counts as mandated reporter, but given that she is licensed I suspect she does.

On another note, I dont believe the no gender surgery for minors is sacrosanct. I cant find the link, but I know I read recently that some activists are openly questioning that policy and think minors should be able to get surgery. No reason to think their views will remain fringe. After all, as far as gender transitioning goes...the earlier they can start the more likely the kid passes as the gender they wish they were instead of the one they really are. As an aside, I wonder how the people who are pushing earlier transition, even just hormones if not surgery, think these kids should handle future adult relationships. Most people want to find a romantic partner after all. They clearly want the kids to have every chance to pass seamlessly as the sex they are not. Yet passing seems to me to create unique burdens for these kids. They can conceivably attract a normal person of the same sex who wants someone of the opposite sex. If they have to be honest with that person, then the whole transition is revealed to be the charade it really is. If not, then I dont how anyone could reasonably argue that if said relationship becomes sexual that their partner can truly consent (I think it is fair to call this rape). Even if it never becomes sexual it still manipulative and even abusive. All else aside, the very goals of these policies and the activists that support them just seem short sighted. By trying to "save" these kids, they may very well set them up for even worse experiences later on.

I agree, and confirming your instinct is this: "Q" in the zoo of letters is sometimes said to be "queer" and sometimes said to be "questioning."

I am pretty sure that "questioning" is a much later version. It certainly came from queer.

Best quote I saw recently: Don't try to remember the alphabet soup, the meanings are always changing.

Indeed. To kill thought, make words incapable of carrying a meaning; destroy the convention by which common meaning occurs. This becomes an explicit agenda item. Cf. Newspeak.

Post a comment


Bold Italic Underline Quote

Note: In order to limit duplicate comments, please submit a comment only once. A comment may take a few minutes to appear beneath the article.

Although this site does not actively hold comments for moderation, some comments are automatically held by the blog system. For best results, limit the number of links (including links in your signature line to your own website) to under 3 per comment as all comments with a large number of links will be automatically held. If your comment is held for any reason, please be patient and an author or administrator will approve it. Do not resubmit the same comment as subsequent submissions of the same comment will be held as well.