Splitting the Baby: A Modern Judgment of Solomon
How Love, Fear, and Societal Pressure Shape Parenting in the Age of Gender Ideology
Watching the Skrmetti v. United States rally earlier this month brought me back to the mothers I met while organizing a “gender-diverse” support group years ago. One memory stands out: a mother nervously glancing at her trans-identified son during a local news interview, her red nose hinting at recent tears. Desperate to say the ‘right’ thing, her words were cautiously chosen and shaped by guilt and a deep fear of losing her child. That image has stayed with me—a stark reminder of how love and fear often intertwine for parents navigating these uncharted waters.
Parenting under societal scrutiny is hard. For families raising transgender-identified adolescents in the deeply traditional Southeast, the challenges are compounded by cultural norms, religious pressures, and community expectations that scrutinize every choice parents make. Unresolved guilt, societal pressure, and homophobia create a faultline in parenting, where a deep, love-filled fear of losing their child to suicide often drives unquestioning affirmation.
This landscape is now under a spotlight with Skrmetti v. United States, a case questioning the legality of banning gender-affirming medical interventions for minors. The case raises fundamental questions about medical autonomy, state intervention, and children’s rights. Regardless of the outcome, families will still need guidance to navigate gender distress, trauma, and medical ethics with compassion and clarity.
A State of Inconsistency
At the state level, these debates expose glaring contradictions. Georgia House Speaker Jon Burns recently supported banning trans-identified boys from competing in girls’ sports, citing fairness for female athletes. Yet he rejected further restrictions on gender-related medical interventions. Despite legislation like SB 140, which limits cross-sex hormones and surgeries for minors, puberty blockers—known to cause bone density loss, cognitive impairment, and sterility—remain unrestricted. Youth who began cross-sex hormones before July 1, 2023, were also “grandfathered” in, exempting them from the law.
How can we claim to prioritize children’s well-being while ignoring the dangers of these experimental treatments?
The mothers I met trusted doctors and therapists while trying to protect their children in a confusing and polarized cultural environment. As advocates for children’s well-being, we must extend compassion to these parents, whose affirmation often stems from a desperate hope to keep their children alive. Restrictions on youth medicalization are necessary to protect vulnerable children and ensure care that addresses the deeper causes of their distress.
A Modern Judgment of Solomon
In the biblical tale of Solomon, two women claimed the same infant. Solomon proposed splitting the baby to resolve the dispute. The true mother, overcome with compassion, pleaded for the baby’s life, while the false mother agreed to the division. Solomon’s wisdom revealed the real mother’s love and the false mother’s apathy.
Today, we face a similar judgment involving vulnerable boys and girls. One “mother”—gender medicine proponents—pushes medical interventions, wielding scalpels and syringes while promising relief but delivering harm. The other “mother”—parents trapped by conflicting advice and societal pressure—seeks to protect their children but faces threats of self-harm from their child and condemnation from professionals profiting off their distress.
The splitting is heartbreakingly literal. Children face medicalization, including puberty blockers like Lupron, which carry risks such as bone density loss, sterility, cognitive decline, and sexual dysfunction. Parents are pressured to comply, told that failure to affirm will lead to tragedy. These narratives exploit parents’ deepest fears, turning their love into coerced compliance.
“Transition or suicide” has become a devastating mantra. Therapists often frame the choice as: “Would you rather have a live [wrong-sex child] or a dead [correct-sex child]?” For parents desperate to keep their child alive, this false binary leaves no room for nuance or exploration.
As a UK feminist lawyers’ group aptly put it: “Any strain of gender identity theory that threatens self-harm if its demands are not met, or encourages self-harm as protest, is unquestionably not ‘worthy of respect in a democratic society.’”
While gender-distressed youth often face serious mental health struggles, these challenges are multifaceted. Compassionate, comprehensive care—not oversimplified, irreversible interventions—is what these children need. Framing transition as the sole solution obscures deeper issues like trauma, social isolation, and internalized homophobia.
Internalized Oppression and Societal Pressure
Rigid gender binaries amplify the struggles of gender-distressed youth. For some, adopting a transgender identity offers a perceived escape from feelings of alienation, discomfort, or trauma. Yet this solution often reinforces the very stereotypes it seeks to challenge.
Children who experience family breakdowns, violence, or instability may turn to new identities as a way to regain control or seek validation. Parents, burdened by guilt or fear of rejection, often feel pressured to affirm these identities, believing refusal will harm their child. Gender ideology preys on these vulnerabilities, presenting a false choice: affirm or risk irreparable harm.
These challenges are further magnified in the Southeast. On one side, traditional values rooted in cultural and religious norms reject gender nonconformity outright. On the other, progressive demands for unquestioning affirmation create an opposing pressure. This polarization replaces thoughtful, evidence-based dialogue with ideological extremes, leaving families feeling trapped and unsupported.
Families need localized, culturally informed solutions that prioritize children’s health and safety without ideological bias.
Protecting the Baby: A Call to Action
Nikki M. Johnson, MD, offers this wisdom:
“Parents, it is your privilege and duty to tell your children, ‘NO.’ If you take a privilege or refuse to grant one and they call you mean or tell you they hate you, wear that like a badge of honor.”
Saying “no” to medicalization is not rejection—it is love. Transition does not heal trauma; it obscures it. Children who bind their bodies, take cross-sex hormones, or undergo surgeries are not escaping their pain—they are trading it for irreversible, lifelong consequences. Boundaries and compassion are essential to guiding children through these struggles.
As detransitioner Clementine Breen wisely said:
“…there is no right way to be female, and if I hate myself for being female, that doesn’t mean there is something physically wrong with me that I needed to buy a cure for.”
These words should resonate with any child—and parent—grappling with gender distress. The answer lies in addressing the roots of discomfort with empathy and evidence-based care, not irreversible medical interventions.
A Defining Moment for Children’s Health
The Skrmetti v. United States case is a defining moment. Whether the Supreme Court upholds or overturns bans on medical interventions for minors, the work must continue. Advocacy, education, and policy reform are essential to protecting children’s health and addressing the root causes of gender distress.
As activists, we must show compassion to parents under immense pressure. Their affirmation often reflects a profound, fear-driven love—a desperate attempt to keep their child alive. By recognizing this struggle, we can engage more effectively, fostering understanding while advocating for care that truly supports children’s long-term well-being.
When they say, “Protect trans kids,” it should mean safeguarding their mental, emotional, and physical health—not subjecting them to irreversible procedures for the sake of adults’ validation.
Choose to be the true mother. Protect the baby. Stand firm so one day you can see your child grow into a healthy, whole adult—grounded in the truth that they are, and always have been, enough just as they are.