Parent Discovers One Weird Trick to Protect Trans Kids

Local parent revolutionizes child welfare by voting for candidates promising to eliminate their son's healthcare access. Child development experts hate them!

In a stunning display of what George Orwell would call "protective rejection," a parent has bravely shared their innovative approach to safeguarding their trans daughter: actively supporting politicians who view her existence as a threat to Western civilization. Move over, helicopter parents - there's a new sheriff in town, and they're here to protect their kids by... checks notes... voting for people who want to legislate them out of existence.

The author, writing for Parents with Inconvenient Truths about Trans (PITT), wants us to know they're not worried about Trump's policies harming their "trans identified daughter”. (Those quotation marks doing a lot of heavy lifting there, like a parent using air quotes while introducing their "child" at a family gathering.) No, they're actually MORE hopeful now that someone's in charge who'll help their daughter "become more in touch with reality."

Because nothing says "I love you" quite like "I'm hoping the government will confirm you're delusional."

The Breathtaking Logic of "Love Through Legislative Harm"

Let's appreciate the spectacular mental gymnastics on display here. The author claims Trump's policies "do not threaten trans-identified people" and don't "deny their existence" - a fascinating assertion given that Trump's stated policies literally include defining transgender people out of federal civil rights protections, banning them from military service, eliminating healthcare coverage for transition-related care, and mandating schools out trans students to their parents [1]. But sure, Jan. Nothing threatening about that.

The author's friends - described as "raging liberals" (which in 2025 apparently means "people who think trans folks deserve basic human rights") - dared to ask if they were concerned about their son under Trump. The answer? Not only no, but they'd be MORE concerned if Harris had won. Because apparently four more years of their son having access to healthcare is scarier than four years of a president who thinks she shouldn't exist in public life.

The ROGD Red Herring (Or: "My Daughter Liked Dresses, Therefore She Can't Be Trans")

Here's where we need to get serious for a moment, because the author trots out the thoroughly debunked "Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria" (ROGD) narrative [2]. They insist their son "is not and has never been gender non-conforming" because she was a "girly girl who implored me to wear dresses."

This reveals such a profound misunderstanding of trans identity that it's almost impressive if it were not so sad (or desperate). The author apparently believes that trans people must perform their "true" gender from birth, that any conformity to assigned gender negates trans identity, and that their son couldn't possibly have been performing femininity to meet expectations. It's like saying someone can't be gay because they dated someone of a different gender in high school. Gender expression and gender identity are not the same thing [3]. Many trans people, especially trans women, perform their assigned gender extensively before coming out - often as a survival mechanism [4].

The Cass Review Catastrophe

The author name-drops the Cass Review like it's their trump card (pun intended), but here's the inconvenient truth: the Cass Review has been extensively criticized for cherry-picking evidence, ignoring positive outcomes from existing research, applying impossibly high standards to trans healthcare while accepting lower standards for other pediatric treatments, and failing to adequately consult with trans people themselves [5].

Major medical organizations worldwide continue to support gender-affirming care based on decades of research [6]. But hey, why let medical consensus get in the way of a good rejection narrative?

The "What About Women's Sports" Deflection

Right on schedule, the author pivots to concern about "female athletes who are losing to men competing as women" - because nothing says "I'm worried about my daughter" like bringing up a completely separate issue affecting a tiny number of elite adult athletes [7]. This is textbook deflection. When confronted with their rejection of their own child, they immediately pivot to fearmongering about prisons, shelters, and sports. It's like responding to "are you concerned about your daughter's well-being?" with "but what about the bathrooms?!"

The author even manages to work in concern about "women's loss of the ability to refer to themselves as women" - which is particularly rich coming from someone who can't even refer to their own son as a such, and has to use scare quotes.

The Ultimate Irony: "Follow the Science"

Perhaps the most jaw-dropping moment comes when the author accuses Democrats of not following the science on trans issues while citing... checks notes again... exactly zero peer-reviewed studies supporting their position. They compare gender-affirming care to lobotomies and thalidomide, apparently unaware that those procedures were abandoned because science proved them harmful, while gender-affirming care has decades of research showing positive outcomes [8].

Meanwhile, every major medical and psychological organization in the United States supports gender-affirming care: the American Medical Association [9], American Psychological Association [10], American Academy of Pediatrics [11], American Psychiatric Association [12], and the Endocrine Society [13]. But sure, it's the people following medical consensus who are ignoring science.

The Cruelty Is the Point

Let's call this what it is: the author is hopeful - HOPEFUL! - that their son will be denied healthcare, face discrimination, and have their identity invalidated by the government. They've convinced themselves that systematic rejection and legislative harm are actually forms of protection.

They celebrate the possibility of a bill that would ban funding for "ALL gender-transition procedures" (their emphasis, not mine). They're excited about an administration that will no longer "confirm her harmful delusion." They frame their son's identity as something that needs to be fixed by hostile government policy.

This isn't love. This isn't protection. This is a parent so committed to their own transmisia that they'd rather see their child suffer under hostile government policies than accept who they are.

A Message to Parents Who Actually Want to Protect Their Trans Kids

The author ends by claiming they can evaluate Trump's trans policies without commenting on his other policies. But here's the thing: you can't separate "policies that harm my child" from "politician who wants to harm my child." That's not being apolitical - that's being willfully obtuse.

If you're a parent reading this who genuinely wants to protect your trans child, here's what actual protection looks like: believing them when they tell you who they are, advocating for their access to appropriate healthcare, fighting against politicians who want to legislate them out of existence, and creating a home where they're safe to be themselves. Not hoping the government will "help them get in touch with reality" by denying their existence.

Because here's the ultimate inconvenient truth: parents who reject their trans kids aren't protecting them. They're just ensuring their children will have one more unsafe space in a world already full of them. And celebrating politicians who want to make that world even more dangerous? That's not just bad parenting - it's active participation in harm.

The author wants us to believe they're being reasonable, measured, even loving. But there's nothing reasonable about celebrating your child's loss of civil rights. There's nothing measured about hoping the government will validate your rejection. And there's certainly nothing loving about putting your own discomfort above your child's safety and wellbeing.

The author of this piece uses they/them pronouns throughout, which is apparently more respect than they're willing to show their own daughter son.

This is a satirical and fact-checking hybrid response to “Am I concerned that Trump's policies will harm my "trans" daughter? Nope Non, nein, nyet, newp, no way, no how” via pittparents.com on Jul 17, 2025

[1] National Center for Transgender Equality. (2025). Trump Administration Attacks on Transgender People. [Citation to be added]

[2] Ashley, F. (2020). A critical commentary on 'rapid-onset gender dysphoria'. The Sociological Review, 68(4), 779-799.

[3] American Psychological Association. (2015). Guidelines for psychological practice with transgender and gender nonconforming people. American Psychologist, 70(9), 832-864.

[4] Serano, J. (2007). Whipping girl: A transsexual woman on sexism and the scapegoating of femininity. Seal Press.

[5] [Citation needed for comprehensive Cass Review critique]

[6] Coleman, E., et al. (2022). Standards of Care for the Health of Transgender and Gender Diverse People, Version 8. International Journal of Transgender Health, 23(S1), S1-S259.

[7] Jones, B. A., et al. (2017). Sport and transgender people: A systematic review of the literature relating to sport participation and competitive sport policies. Sports Medicine, 47(4), 701-716.

[8] See 6 above.

[9] American Medical Association. (2021). AMA reinforces opposition to restrictions on transgender medical care. [Press release]

[10] See 3 above.

[11] Rafferty, J., et al. (2018). Ensuring comprehensive care and support for transgender and gender-diverse children and adolescents. Pediatrics, 142(4), e20182162.

[12] American Psychiatric Association. (2018). Position statement on treatment of transgender (gender diverse) and gender dysphoric patients.

[13] Hembree, W. C., et al. (2017). Endocrine treatment of gender-dysphoric/gender-incongruent persons: An Endocrine Society clinical practice guideline. The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism, 102(11), 3869-3903.