back to top
Monday, June 24, 2024
8.6 C

Monica Doumit: Cancel culture cancels parents

Most read

Gender dysphoria can have disastrous lifelong consequences. In NSW, parents acting from love in the best interests of their children can be increasingly overruled by official policy without any scientific, psychiatric or medical basis. In other places, such policies would be described as no better than superstition mixed up with witchcraft. Photo: Rosemary Ketchum/

Radical gender activists and ideologues are increasingly successful in getting at children. Now, if you support parental rights in relation to kids you’re out of step with the law

Should schools be able to recognise a student as transgender without advice from medical experts or the child’s parents or legal guardians?

Or should students under the age of 18 be able to change their name at school without the consent of their parents?

Do you think that kids in high school should be able to play in sporting teams outside of their biological gender?

- Advertisement -

How about toilets and change rooms and dormitories and excursion accommodation? Should biological male students be allowed in the girls’ toilets and vice versa?

And should school counsellors be able to speak to children about gender transition without liaising with parents and relevant medical professionals?If you answered “no” to any of the above five questions, then you are out of step with the NSW Government.

Transgender Bathroom Sign
A sign protests a US state law prohibiting transgender rest room access in a hotel. PHOTO: CNS/Jonathan Drake, Reuters

Last week, the Government rejected a bill that would have required parents and medical experts to be consulted by a school before the school allowed a student to transition their gender.

It also vetoed provisions that would have allowed separation of high school sporting teams, toilets and other facilities on the basis of biological sex.

The recommendations that the government turned down were made by a parliamentary committee looking into the Education Legislation Amendment (Parental Rights) Bill 2020, introduced into NSW Parliament by the indefatigable Mark Latham.

An online questionnaire relating to the bill revealed that a majority of the 41,000 respondents wanted the bill passed, with 83% of respondents saying that parents should be primarily responsible for guiding their children in matters of gender and sexuality.

Despite the views of the Committee and the overwhelming response from the public, Education and Early Learning Minister Sarah Mitchell said the proposals may lead to targeted discrimination against students who identify as transgender.

It’s a troubling stance. By rejecting recommendations about sporting teams and usage of facilities, the government is prioritising transgender rights over the rights of other students.

Female students who do not want to compete against post-pubescent males in school sport are on their own.

The NSW Government is saying that, sometimes, teachers and school consellors are in a better position to know what is in a child’s best interests than their mum and dad.”

So are girls who would rather not change their clothes in front of their biological male classmates.

In dismissing proposals that parents and medical professionals be involved in any conversations with or about a student who wishes to transition at school, the NSW Government is saying that, sometimes, teachers and school counsellors are in a better position to know what is in a child’s best interests than their parents.

That “teachers know best” isn’t limited to a child who might be experiencing gender dysphoria, but extends to what a child is taught.

Currently, the Education Act 1990 allows parents to exempt a child from a part of a course that conflicts with their religious beliefs.

In its response to the committee report, the Government rejected proposals to expand the rights of parents to pull their children from lessons that conflict with their “core values”.
The government said this concept would be unworkable in practice because it “would provide parents with a general discretion to excuse their child from any aspect of the NSW curriculum or teaching”.

I can see the point, but the government shouldn’t have just dismissed it out of hand. An increasing number of parents object to gender fluidity and other ideologies because they are unscientific and potentially dangerous to children, not on religious grounds. The concerns of these parents should be listened to, and a solution for them must be found.

The proposal to broaden the ban on teaching “religious dogma” to include “political and ideological dogma” was rejected as well.

an increasing number of parents object to gender fluidity and other ideologies because they are unscientific and potentially dangerous to children.

The government reconfirmed the Education Act requirements that teaching must be “non-sectarian and secular,” but didn’t want to touch the ideological dogmas increasingly present in schools.

Instead, they said schools are provided with “a suite of resources that have been developed by curriculum experts.” Because “curriculum experts” aren’t ever dogmatic, right?

Only three weeks ago I used this column to report that both the NSW Government and Opposition voted against a bill to ensure people of faith could no longer be refused service in NSW. In doing so, they rejected the recommendations of another parliamentary committee that supported its passage and the response of the overwhelming majority of participants in an online survey.

Twice already this month, the supposedly conservative Government has preferred to side against its own parliamentary committees and the majority of constituent responses.

Instead it has delivered the outcome most preferred by vocal LGBT activists. People of faith and those who hold traditional values might well be asking when they might get a turn.


Gender Differences: Going the (Emotional) Distance
Monica Doumit: False narratives hide the activists’ agendas

- Advertisement -
- Advertisement -