Conservative Woman readers

In response to Caroline Farrow: What chance do these brave parents have against the transgender thought police?,
Gary Laconic Jr. wrote:

What chance against the thought police? In this case, none whatsoever. As Caroline observes, it is painful to witness this slightly bewildered couple being denounced on national television for the crime of sincerely opposing a fashionable cause.
Unfortunately, the Rowes’ claim of discrimination against their Christianity misguidedly allows this case to be caricatured as wacky religious superstition pitched against cool logic, reason and understanding. The irony being, of course, that it is transgenderism which has suddenly become the unchallengeable doctrine – an inversion which, from the pulpit of ITV’s This Morning, allowed interviewer Phillip Schofield to scold the blaspheming Rowes: ‘It’s you that have the problem.’

Personally, I preferred Schofield as stooge to Gordon the Gopher. For him and others interrogating this hapless couple, the questions of whether a six-year-old can be sufficiently mature and competent to redefine its gender, and whether a school should blithely accept such an assertion and insist that everyone accommodate it, are evidently already unassailable.


  1. If Schofield had a five year-old who came home from school saying, “There’s a child in my class who never eats vegetables. I’m never going to eat vegetables again”, I expect he would see it as his parental duty to guide his child to the true path of healthy eating. But apparently small children are capable of deciding for themselves what gender they are.

  2. “It’s you who have the problem” says Schofield. Answer “Yes, my problem is that on a fashionable whim wrapped up in moral and scientific certainty my child’s school is promoting a position on gender outside of reason and established scientific proof. As such they are using their authority to wrongly enforce this position to vulnerable children including my child and the one who is having has imagination and not reality promoted.”

  3. The problem I have with this is not the fact that the child dresses this way, it is whether the child at 5 actually made a decision to do so because he actually wanted to identify as a girl? Or, is it more the case that he has whacky right on parents who have decided that they are going to be gender neutral and therefore provide him with clothes that he really has no concept about and is therefore an unwitting participant in their personal social experiment.
    How are these ideologically driven parents any less whacky than theologically driven parents who wish to bring their children up in the way they choose?

  4. Here’s a thought experiment:
    If a single mother who either had some fringe political views or was suffering from mental illness, decided that she always wanted a girl and therefore treated her boy as a girl and only dressed him as a girl and in the extreme forced him to transition(some form of munchausen); would the establishment even now question whether the child was suffering from abuse or that the parent was suffering from some form of delusional behaviour?

  5. There have always been people who saw themselves as having the wrong body sex. I recall April Ashley introducing me to Turendot in her home just off the King’s Road in the mid-70s.

    Such instincts in the young used to be ruthlessly suppressed – in much the same way as homosexuality.

    It seems to me that now the tables are turned and it is all too easy for the young to embark on the path of sex change (for some reason obscured to “gender reassignment”).

    I don’t think young boys/girls should be allowed to adopt the other’s dress in early primary school. If they are still determined to change as they approach puberty a decision must be made as conversions done later will be far less effective.

    It is all very well for slightly build asian men to become the ladbyboys but if european men “pass” it is generally due to the politeness of others.

Comments are closed.