On February 18, a federal court rejected a mother and father’s claim that their parental rights were infringed upon when their 11-year-old child’s public school refused to inform them that their daughter had decided to identify as male and go by a male name and male pronouns, and that the school accommodated the child’s wishes.

In the 2021-22 school year, a 6th grade middle school girl spoke with one of her teachers about her feelings of low self-esteem and gender identity. The teacher informed her parents. The girl’s mother sent an email to school district officials and to the child’s teacher, saying, “I appreciate your concern and would like to let you know that her father and I will be getting her the professional help she needs at this time. With that being said, we request that you do not have any private conversations with [our child] in regards to this matter.” Shortly before or after, however, the child sent an email to her teacher and counselor informing them, “I am genderqueer” and that she was changing her first name to a boy’s name.

In response, the school began accommodating the child’s wishes to be recognized as “genderqueer” and to go by the boy’s name. In doing so, they were following the unwritten school policy to accommmodate a child’s gender identity and to not inform a student’s parents of such without the student’s consent. Remember, this is an eleven-year-old child who is required to give consent before the school can inform the parents of the child’s decision. The same child would not be allowed to attend a field trip, take upper level academic classes, or even attend that school without the parents’ consent. But she is capable of choosing her gender and to give herself a new name and new pronouns without the parents knowing about it.

Needless to say, the parents found out and sued the school district. They claimed that, in assisting the child to “gender transition,” the school was illegally engaging in the medical and mental health care of their daughter, making decisions about her mental and physical health without the parents’ consent. Now, I don’t know how it is in Massachusetts, but in Tennessee a school nurse can’t give a child tylenol without his or her parent’s consent. But a girl can say she’s a boy and be treated as such, and that’s fine in Massachusetts. Also, what’s up with the child being able to email her teacher and counselor without the parents’ knowledge? How is it legal, much less considered appropriate, for two adults to have private online communication with a minor without her parents knowing about it? Considering the fact that public school employees have one of the highest rates of child sexual abuse among professions, this is not okay.

The parents lost in federal court, and this week’s decision by the 1st Circuit panel affirmed the school district’s victory. The court was not convinced that assisting the child’s “gender transition” by using the child’s male name and male pronouns added up to providing medical care. The court said that the school’s actions did not violate the parents’ rights, because the only right parents have when it comes to the education of their child is to choose where to put their child in school. When a child is in school, the school rules!

The court ruled that the school’s unwritten policy of not informing parents of a child’s gender transition without the child’s consent “plausibly creates a space for students to express their identity without worrying about parental backlash. … By cultivating an environment where students may feel safe in expressing their gender identity, the protocol endeavors to remove psychological barriers for transgender students and equalizes educational opportunities.” So, in other words, the default position in the case of any child who is confused about his or her gender is that parents are the problem and the school staff is the solution, because the court didn’t say anything about backlash from the school staff. In this court’s mind, school staff care more about and are more invested in the well being of a child than that child’s parents. Also, the court is giving to schools, whose staff does not necessarily have any psychological training, the power to “remove psychological barriers” for girls who say they are boys, and for boys who say they are girls. Would the court say that schools own the same power to “remove psychological barriers” for Black kids who say they’re White, or White kids who say they’re Black, or for kids with two good legs who demand that they be accommodated in using a wheelchair? Because those kids exist, too. I bet they wouldn’t. Why is gender, which is coded into every cell of the human body, accommodated but race, which is far more the social construct, not?

The court went on to justify their decision: The district’s protocol “merely instructs teachers not to offer information—a student’s gender identity—without a student’s consent,” while the parents “remain free to strive to mold their child according to the parents’ own beliefs, whether through direct conversations, private educational institutions, religious programming, homeschooling, or other influential tools” (emphasis added). The use of merely accommodating a child’s gender identity without telling the parents, is telling. The court clearly doesn’t think this is a big deal. As is the use of the phrase “religious programming,” as opposed to “instruction” or “formation.” The use of “programming” makes me think that the judges on this court have a certain bias against faith formation. You program computers. You teach children. Unless you’re of a mind to think that religious instruction is tantamount to cultish programming.

The article I read doesn’t say if the parents plan to appeal. I hope they do. This is no less than another case of “experts” claiming to know better how to raise children than do parents, and the judges on this court agree. The rights of parents over their children is slipping away, and gender ideology is one of the tools teachers, therapists, and doctors are employing to take those rights away. The sooner this fantasy world is exposed and destroyed, the better, for parents, children, and society as a whole. We can not long survive playing make-believe.

Another point to be made regarding this case is how essential it is that parents cultivate a relationship with their children so that the children feel comfortable coming to them to talk about anything. And, I mean anything! The saddest part of this story is not necessarily that the parents lost in court, or the bad action of the school (the teachers were likely genuinely concerned about the child’s well-being, though terribly wrong about how to achieve that). The saddest part is that the girl felt that she couldn’t go to her parents to discuss her feelings of low self-esteem and gender confusion. Had she felt comfortable doing so, this case likely never would have played out as it did. How do parents cultivate such a relationship? First, start early. Father’s should be taking their children out on Daddy-Child dates beginning around the age of five. Just the two of them. Take the kid to dinner, then a movie or whatever fun activity, then out for dessert before heading home. If you start at five, by the time they’re fifteen, it’ll just be normal for them. What you’re doing is creating opportunities for communication. Mothers can do the same, of course, but most of the time kids feel more comfortable around their moms at home. Make time to talk, again starting early, around five years old. Do this while you’re playing at something – doing a puzzle, playing a game, making cookies. The point is, you want to be the one that your child comes to when he or she is confused about, upset about, or just questioning something. Be committed to making time to sit, or play, or eat with your child, one-on-one, at least weekly. By creating opportunities for them to talk with you, you’ll be surprised at how often they will.

Be Christ for all. Bring Christ to all. See Christ in all.