Over the weekend I wrote about new guidelines in Illinois disqualifying those who believe anatomy determines gender from being foster parents.
Apparently that’s the modern equivalent of being a flat-earther.
Well, it turns out Illinois isn’t the only one heading this direction.
The government of Ontario Canada recently passed Bill 89 which authorizes the government to remove children from the home of a caregiver if they feel gender is fixed.
The money quote is from Michael Coteau, the Minister of Child and Family Services, who introduced the bill. “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,” Coteau explained. “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.”
Set aside the absurd assertion that the truth about gender is abusive and consider the precedent being established and how it could affect you and your family, even if you aren’t foster parents.
The argument goes, “It is abusive to tell a child their anatomy determines their gender. Therefore, children can be removed from the homes of caregivers who tell their children that.”
The obvious follow-up question is, “why would we tolerate abuse anywhere?”
If it is abusive, what sense does it make to allow biological parents to “abuse” their biological children?
The path from here to removing children from any home is very short.
There’s another layer to this Canada story, however, that places this in the category of “truth is stranger than fiction.”
In April of this year, foster parents in Ontario sued the Hamilton Children’s Aid Society for removing children from their home.
The parents claim the children were removed because they refused to tell the children that the Easter Bunny was real. “We have a no-lying policy”, Derek Baars, the foster dad, told the National Post. The Baars recounted a meeting with a social worker who told them they were required to affirm the existence of the Easter Bunny and Santa Clause to the children, 4 and 2, in their care.
Mr. Baars said, “We said that we would neither confirm nor deny the existence of these two mythical creatures but were not prepared to lie.”
This seems too strange, even for progressives.
My suspicion is that the Baars refusal to affirm the existence of the Easter Bunny simply tipped the case worker off to the fact that this family is Christian, which is their real concern.
That being said, there is something oddly consistent about being required to deny the connection between biology while also being required to affirm the existence of the Easter Bunny.
For some, reality really is unimportant once they are convinced a fantasy will make their audience feel better.