Vendors of the Faith

Ok, it's got to the stage I think you deserve to know - that shiny, shit and flimsy facade of valid human rights campaigning has cracked. It’s been fucked for ages, and I know you still get the flashy headlines and that, but it’s a consensus made of platitudes, fearful repetition and zombie autopilot. Cling on if you want, but I'd be keeping an eye on the looming shit storm you are inciting. You might lord it over the hallways of power now but we are the ones who collect and file evidence, we expose the lies. Not with the grand libraries and ceremonial flourish you do, and with far fewer assassinations. Still, it will stand alone without lies, forced perspective, compelled speech.

Let's tap into that famous imagination of yours; close your eyes and picture;

Prince Andrew struts around his palace, boasting he set the record straight in that TV interview, and people know just how firmly he stands against sex trafficking, and the awe which they have for the incredible bravery he displayed during his decorated military career. How he proved all allegations fallacious; we believed him entirely. How he regaled us with the story of how his sweat glands took the hit as a tactical decision in battle, leaving him with dry hands and brow to save our boys! "I know one is considered to be a hero viciously slandered by the gutter press, guilty of only association in my attempts to strengthen British enterprise" he says to his staff, chest puffed out and dripping in medals earned via nepotism and heredity. "The British public have never loved nor needed me more, and they see I am the victim of a scurrilous crusade". The servants are a little rigid with awkward disquiet, but they hold it together, only exchanging glances when he has left the room, and only gathering the courage to talk to each other after hearing the Queen, Prince Philip and the rest increasingly bluntly refer to him as arrogant, imbecilic, delusional, a liar, a cretin. A few ex courtiers may speak out in the press, but no one knows their names and the palace dismiss them with stone-faced dignity. But once enough do so they will gain a name all of their own, they will become a force, momentum will gather. The integrity of the royal family is creaking. Bits fall off, cracks appear. What was once a treasonous heresy only uttered in secrecy is now being shouted in the street. The crown has slipped.

That, guys, is you. You've an air of the unassailable about you, but only because the charade, the social status you gained through propaganda, assassinations and insidious force. We have for years been stunned at your power and influence; how on earth you are deemed worthy of such celebration and power; how, why, anyone would take you so seriously as a moral arbiter or guardian of truth? 

But you can only hold court for a limited time when those emporers' clothes are seen day after day, when the sweat begins to trickle off and reek. Even the most obsequious, sycophantic, pageantry obsessed royalist will one day realise they're being treated like clueless, simpleton plebs. Even they will lose the script (and the plot) when their children return with missing parts, broken with shell shock and denounced as traitors. It's an unsustainable path when the grandiosity is so clear, the atmosphere so contemptuous and dishonest and authoritarian. 

The critical mass of those who refuse to play the game becomes overwhelming. All the neutral figures finally sidle up and take a position they've long held in their sights. In all the years of bullshit, aggression, violence and authoritarian decree those knives get sharp, closer at hand and, my goodness, hasn't it got dark?

Under all of those gaudy mottos, your misogyny is flapping in the wind. Opportunist pigeons roost in the formerly impenetrable edifice, and make close inspection a risky affair. No one enjoys being shat on by cooing illiterates who knock all the pieces over and fly back to their flock, boasting of their delusional success. All the hangers-on seeking shelter under your name, the ones you invited, or, with complicit laziness, allowed in, they eventually catch wide attention. You can claim no association if you want, but when they return night after night your word is meaningless. 

Which is why you shout, from loudhailers mounted up high, from radio stations, TV studios and headlines, with a flourish of trumpets.

The words you use mean nothing and you cannot logically defend any of it. It requires faith, and faith requires more comfort than you can provide. No one actually understands the language you use, and the seal of approval and endorsements held back criticism for a while, but eventually people realise meaningless phrases written in the most artful calligraphy are still meaningless. 

So you make those demands louder, hammer that anthem into their heads and don't leave pause for questions. Incorporate military regalia and teach them by rote. 

Better still, all that noise, all the undesirables you foster, keeps everyone but the ordained back, it looks imposing and unimpeachable. 

Like the tower of London, we all know what it looks like but few ever go inside without a guide to steer us or areas roped off. It means the shite facade is never examined, never exposed to the public or the harsh light of normal scepticism. 

Those pigeons are overshadowed by ravens, wings clipped and dependent. Never gaining autonomy or the beauty of a full, adult ability. You can't let the public up too close, not without hazing them first, but the photo opportunities are fantastic. 

You claim the Olympian gold in victimhood, when the dirty secret is you're as safe as it gets, when your witch trials torture women and every mishap is some bitches' fault. 

The brave warrior history is long gone, swapped for seats in the Lords and pomp. You were surrounded in protection every day of your service, by nameless subjects of no importance. Wearing your fatigues and posing for the camera, out of shot were the people who really do the work.

Your only hope to maintain it is with relentless propaganda, more spectacles and fear. Making sure the devil is named, how you are hated for protecting your noble subjects, the enemies plot your demise, laugh at your tragedies and can muster evil of all kinds. 

Scheming and invading the souls of innocents, you can never be safe and if you fall so do we all. They are watched and reported on by neighbours. The paranoid plots run out of control, you hear their whistling everywhere, soon you won't stop washing those hands. The ceremonial executions warn and entertain the public, the charges are fantastical, and you make certain the children know the mantras and pledges in school.

Attack, dehumanise the enemy via any means possible. The logical fallacies of strawmanning, ad hominem attacks, appeals to authority (your authority), false dichotomy, circular arguments - you excell at every one. All because you have no argument that fulfils your desires, because your role as monarch and custodian of the fortress is a sham. 

You curse the media, but your press office has all the right numbers on speed dial. You fill our world with headlines on exclusion and erasure, the hatred and agony, the victimhood and annihilation - you keep us rapt with fear and pity. Even battered women, desperate of one, solitary, same sex space to heal, are monsters, bigots, bitches, dangerous, dried up whores. 

They manipulate the nation with their woes, spinning lies and everything is a coded attack. Meanwhile you, protected by laws against heresy and a corporate endorsed, social media speech-restriction and vilification campaigns sit on your throne of accrued wealth and fire off missives. 

Two women a week in the UK, 137 a day worldwide are murdered by family. Seven to eight thousand women and girls are murdered annually in Indian dowry disputes alone. But you, with a global three hundred and thirty-one martyrs, get thousands of headlines, days and weeks of recognition and have the veto on every public debate. 

You will not dignify the other side with a response, with argument. Let them bleat rape; One owns the spaces. All while spending millions of hours harassing, censoring and defaming the very same people. You incite violence and sit on your pedestal, winking with complicity and duplicitously issuing statements calling for decency and respect.

You claim spectacular moral supremacy, even when you kill more than you are killed, when even you mercilessly punish the faintest wrongthink and scour the land for wrong-thinkers.

You claim every hurt feeling as a treasonable act - an enticement to suicide, genocide, homicide. You misappropriate feminism, centre males in it, then make real feminists an evil, regressive subset of their own movement like the colonial invaders you are. 

You take the folklore of your colonies and have them spun into the best examples to tell the children; celebrate the diversity of more labels and subdivisions, get them all picketed into your hierarchy; they always have such big wide smiles and sing so happily, don't they? You send rape threats, death threats, sexually degrading harassment daily, form armed groups ready to terrorise the crones, and you call us dangerous to society. The snide, corporate-sponsored duplicity as you masturbate to your own image, flying flags and spit at women burning on pyres. You are to the vulnerable what Carter Pewtershmidt is to the working class.

Using taboo like an abusive priest, you try to censor discussion you'll never hear and blame the natives for savagery. How could anyone want to hear such blasphemy? You're frightened of everything you can't control, any conversations that go off-script. You must dominate all acceptable discourse and forbid anything outside of it. Everything must be yours and you, the wife-beater, singing 'I Will Survive' in the spotlight, requiring North Korean-standard applause, goose stepping minions in their own weird uniform. 

It’s the apex of toxic masculinity and your celebrated martrydom tells us something critical about you; you know no victimhood. Victims do not see their vulnerability as a battering ram, it is not the most special, powerful thing they have, it gives them no protection or status. 

As the people, as feminists, built women's spaces, hostels, rape crisis and networks of support, what have you built? Nothing. You build nothing. You take the land and the names and set the rules and you put your fucking flag on top. 

You make children into soldiers to terrorise their own. You greedily appropriate everything you see. Like ancient art in the British museum, you know it best, you are the one to preserve and honour it. You are the guardian. You are the curator and arbiter of culture. You appear to a desperate press under orders, held back by velvet ropes, they're all you special correspondents. 

Shaking some hands and singing your hymns, your charity work is done. You can slink away with the aid of former soldiers and spies, their lifelong service is yours.

Enjoy it while it lasts, I see you've had a ball. It's an untenable luxury, however. While you gorge on the stolen riches, are massaged by pretty young slaves, the clock will keep ticking and the old guard are angry. The peasants are revolting and those natives know the landscape more than you ever could.

Trans-parents: Enbies, Theybies, 6 foot 2" 'Mama' Ladies

This is an important message from the Bullshit Broadcasting Corporation. Please, do not adjust your set. 

Trans women are women. Trans men are men. Non binary people are non binary and their identities are valid. Some people have the brain of one sex, in the body of another. There are more than two sexes. 

*Sex and gender will be used interchangeably until activation of the Gotcha Clause, where you will be put in your place with shrieking distain by a thoroughly dishonest fool, informing you that 'sex and gender are not the same. Ok, boomer?'

In the interests of building a progressive and inclusive society, we hope you join us as an ally. In the case you can not extend human dignity and show acceptance of trans people, we ask that you stay quiet. 

This is the time we must fight for our rights, and our lives. Tempers run high, change is desperately needed although frequently misunderstood by our cis counterparts. Therefore, if you can't support us, if you refuse education, do not speak about or for us. Even unwitting transphobia is lethal and any subsequent fallout is, unfortunately, on you. 

The cast-type of the transphobe is ready made. It comes in all sizes and can fit based on a single measurement. 

If you don't confirm that which we ask of you, you are an enemy, an anachronism, a bigot and unworthy of respect in polite society. You are heartless, illogical, backwards and, it has been shown, likely a fascist who delights at the suffering of other, innocent, people. 

When the Parent is Trans; Enbies, Theybies, 6'2" 'Mama' Ladies.

Ari Dennis is a mother of two, and says she is non binary.

Her Twitter handle is @Arinotsorry, and she reminds us she is not sorry everywhere. 

(UPDATE: 

93 posts

See new posts

Follow

Arlo Dennis

@ADBeyondBaggage

Consultant and educator on LGBTQ+ diversity and culture with a focus on queer and nonbinary identity

Ari is now Arlo Dennis)

Ari is from Florida, and made the news in the UK when she went full on publicist, introducing her baby (clearly a boy) to the the word as not a girl of a boy, or even a baby, but a 'theyby'. 

Their sex is secret, no one, not even grandparents, know - even though Ari's mother lived with the family for three months after the birth. Even the birth certificate says 'unknown'. Ari strongly supports this;

That's right - 'sex designations offer no clinical utility'. I don't know where birth certificates are relevant in clinical circumstances, but it sounds kinda authoritative, doesn't it? I think biological sex has multiple, acute indications in clinical settings, however. Still, she's even remembered to throw 'intersex' people under the bus so we mustn't doubt her credentials.

So, what's the point of this? Something to do with not assigning gendered expectations on this tiny child. Next time you're accused of conflating sex and gender, remember this.

Ari has a ten year old daughter who is also, she says, non binary. Now this baby is being upheld as a sex-and-gender mystery, a cocooned and expectation-free, unlimited-potential human. 

Ari's elder child burst free of all these harmful and irrelevant gender expectations at four years old. Which I'm sure was a spontaneous and organic decision. 

This is what motivates Ari to place her second child in a media-frenzied spotlight. 

This is positive, apparently. Maybe she's haunted by the four years her elder child spent 'living in the wrong body' / pronouns. My question; why make a spectacle of your child and their development? 

How is not only withholding gender (supposedly - pity Ari worships it so religiously) but the biological sex, the stone cold reality being there are two sexes, and every person on the planet is one or the other, a helpful tactic? And why invite the World and its whippet to watch?

Seems like you're grooming a child to be hyper-conscious of gender, to me, Ari. Seems like you are exploiting their development, their sense of themselves as a human, as if they were an art installation, a little social experiment of entirely your own making. 

Giving them a forced 'opportunity' to wonder what they might be, rather than un-self-consciously explore the world. Inviting the public to withhold their perception by way of extending a manufactured suspense as long as is possible, or as long as it takes to get the answer she wants.

Leaving your child to continually focus on this ridiculous, metaphysical / pseudo religious concept made not in reality but in stereotypical tropes and in the minds of Queer Theorists. They can score their enjoyment of certain clothes, certain books, media, fashion, and this, believes Ari, will help them discover their innate identity. 

But on what basis do they assess the masculine or feminine rating of these things? Ari says 'particular clothing or colours or toys or activities or genitals don't denote sex more than gender does'. So they have literally no grounding in biological truth, no framework to build on. 

They are suspended in time as a mystery to all, with apparently no definitions and no locus. All the while living against a backdrop of, well... in a household with a non binary mother who answers to 'Papa' and her polygamous partners, both appearing as trans women, Gwendolyn answers to 'Mama' and Bryniffer (nah, me neither) to 'Maddie'.

 

'Phwoar - look at the head tilt on that' said a friend. Another, especially cruel friend said 'say what you want about Brynnifer - which is not a real name - but he can take it on the chin'
'that's what Ari said, phnar phnar' 
We all laughed

One she is married to (probably Brynnifer, above) and she is in a relationship with the other. Every person in the home is trans, the adults have decided. More interesting still is, in Ari's interview with (an engorged-with-fury) Piers Morgan, Ari mentions Brynnifer and Luna as her co-parents. Not sure of the chronology here, and I failed to summon the fucks to look but either way within a short space of time, between baby Sparrow being 11 months and now three, one co-parent has been replaced with another. Ari also says Luna has nothing at all to do with the children now. Brilliant. 

And if these kids aren't isolated from their peers enough, using an alien vocabulary to the rest of the world and presumably being very well noticed in the community - they're home schooled. 

Asked how long each day her eldest studies, Ari says no more than one or two hours a day, the rest is 'child led'. Let's think of the queer theory shite Ari sees as central to everything, and then imagine her idea of education. She is, after all, a 'gender open' childcare educator. How is this not reminiscent of anti-science religious orders or cults? 

Have a gander at this advice to parents Ari shares on her page, from a page called 'Queer Little Family';

"Non-binary to kids? Easy-peasy lemon crocodile. Kids are accepting. Kids take everything in like a sponge. Now is the time to be teaching them... They take it all in, accept it and grow up with it "

So, that's great and not even slightly concerning...

"...[during a conversation with their four year old, 'Snappy'] - 

Me: "You know I'm not a girl or a boy don't you?" 

Snappy: "I know, you're both, mum told me." 

Me: "Exactly, and some people are neither and some people change."

Snappy: "I think I'm both." 

And then as I was saying good night: "You can be anything you want." 

"I want to be a girl and boy and a girl and a boy. I said that two times".... Gotta love the ego of a four year old. Must be doing something right... It's really not that hard. 

Don't be afraid to have these conversations. The sooner the better. They can handle it. Trust me. *Countless hashtags follow*

Why would a parent deliberately foster a potential clash of psychological and physical congruity in their child? What is it with these wannabe-celeb trans influencers and their total disregard for the privacy and dignity of their children? 

From Mimi Lemay writing 'A letter to my 5 year old son' as an article in the Boston Times, to the heartbreaking portrayals in Transhood, the constant stream of exclusives on Jazz Jennings to Charlize Theron unveiling her adopted seven year old as trans, there's a theme here and it's disturbing. 

For the life of me, I cannot imagine soliciting so much attention on any child, much less one struggling with identity. It also completely scuppers the common claim that it's a potentially lethal act to 'out' previously closeted people.

These kids will never be able to escape it and are far too young to consent. But it's ok, it's about making the world a better place and Ari reads her kids carefully;

Ari's theory is that as her children grow, trying on different clothes and being treated as a girl and then a boy and then as someone who isn't easily unidentifiable, they will learn about their 'options'. So build your identity, your ego, your sense of self on what's most expedient, on how you are perceived through what you assume to be the eyes of others.

What a fragile existence. And let's not forget this androgynous quality will vanish, dramatically, by puberty. That is when the shit truly hits the fan and biological truth is inescapable. No doubt 'options' like puberty blockers are likely to be enthusiastically taken up and probably long ago raised as a possibility for her eldest child. 

The idea a four year old autonomously came up with the idea she is non binary, in this family, is laughable. It's a hideous, enraging, tragic shit show.

And, isn't being trans hard? What about the frequently cited suicidality in trans people? The oppressive and ever-present transphobia, the struggles and high rates of abuse we hear of all the time? Why, why on earth, would you be encouraging this? Why not be open about the child's sex and you, as the parent, do the hard work of protecting them from constraints built on discriminatory generalisation, sexism and homophobia? 

Repeatedly Ari mentions that the child has 'certain anatomy', she mentions genitals a lot. Even fake ones. Here's her idea of age appropriate sex education;

"Yes honey - I am a person with a 'front hole' so when I want to access mama's prostate I use this - but obviously it gets dirty!"

Presumably, Ari sees this as healthy, open and child led. 

I think it's a sea of red flags. 

Apparently genitals don't indicate the sex of a person. And we should all know exactly what she's telling her little girl about. But it's obviously had some great consequences, and these kids can be whatever they like - such japes!

No one wants to be seen as they really are in this family. Mum is Papa and the embarrassingly be-frocked Dad is Mama, another man is present as a woman and referred to as a co-parent, and is clearly replaced swiftly if he leaves. 

'We are doing this to enhance kids potential' says Ari: 'This can't go wrong' - she says that if gender is within us, it will out. How the fuck it is our side of the divide are accused of confusing sex with gender? Hey Ari, Brynnifer and Gwendolyn (interesting fact - the 'ladies' in this house appear too bear zero responsibility in the child raising) here's a pro tip:

Trans Fam II - When Mum Becomes Dad

We've seen the popular take now - brave, stoic and proud parents forge the way ahead for their trans children, with photogenic smiles and open hearts. They follow the beaten track of denial, conflict, bargaining, a creeping acceptance, epiphany, the conflict externalises and finally, the triumph.

The tale of the trans parent is less told, although it is growing. The trans parent has not only their own cross to bear, but that of their child. 

The message is that not being affirmative of gender identity is antagonistic. There's no way round it - it is hate-fuelled, ignorant and intolerant. Not accepting the parent as they see themselves is not just an act of hatred against them, but also their children.

Clearly, transition is often a painful process involving significant emotional toil, although personally I've no doubt that sometimes it involves a large portion of attention seeking and narcissism (see John Ozimek AKA 'Jane Fae' telling his child he was to transition the day before she sat her A Levels) 

Maybe it isn't always possible to put aching dysphoria aside. Maybe it is the best thing for some families. What I am interested in here is the media portrayal, what is shown and what is questioned.

When Mum Became Dad, on CBBC, follows Tilly, 12, a really lovely and very mature girl who's mum 'became dad' when she was seven. Tilly lives now with her mother as 'dad Jack' and a younger brother, Mal, 9. Dad Peter lives across road. 

In primary school Tilly experienced a lot of bullying. She has moved into secondary school now and is away from her best friend. The theme running through this is her fear of the reaction of her new friends, specifically as her birthday looms and she anticipates awkward questions when friends visit the house for her party.

In her quest for answers on how to address the upcoming party, Tilly arranges to meet Faith, who's mother also transitioned. How does she introduce dad Jack as in fact her mum, but who must still be called and recognised as a dad, a man?

Faith is 14, and again is very mature. She says 'my mum's not she any more and thats good cos he's happy'. She struggled with the loss of her mother figure, and continues to go to bereavement counselling to cope. Tilly also misses having a mother figure. Rather poignantly, Faith says that the question 'who do i call mum now?' hung over her. It is patently obvious this is a significant trauma, but one that is depicted as necessary and downplayed as a stepping stone to true acceptance. 

Changing the attitudes of other people is now the girls' collective endeavour. I can't say it felt very constructive, just a cause in which to funnel their pain, to cram the prescribed slogans into their heads and kill any dissenting thought.

Little brother Mal is struggling. In school we're told another child was 'mean' when discussing a character in a book, who's mum was taken away. 'Your mum left you too, didn't she?' is the offending sentence. This leaves Mal very upset, and it's clear he doesn't share that with 'dad Jack' until much later on, apparently when Jack is driving back from the meeting with Faith. 

It's pretty startling at this point just how unengaged Jack seems to be. Tilly is the one giving affection. From the monotone voice and the standard 'how did that make you feel?' crap counsellor questions from Jack, who offers to go and speak to the teacher to explain why this upset him so much (how is it possible the teachers of this little boy don't know?) to Tilly seen hugging and comforting Mal later on, what we see is Tilly as the mother figure, she is the solid ground Mal reaches for when in distress. She is endlessly giving and mediating between a world of harshness (I'm far from convinced the other child was deliberately 'mean' - it's simply a statement of fact, and it has distressed him deeply, five years after it happened) and the love for her family. Clearly we don't see it all, but this is the way it is presented.

In the house one day, Tilly asks Jack when she began to transition. Jack instantly calls back "I don't like the word transition" and explains it implies a beginning, when her trans-ness was there all along. It's a curiously evasive answer, and it strikes me Jack is glossing over an extremely significant time in Tilly's life, one which she presumably revisits and needs to structure and order, compose. It's the remains of a landmine that blew while she was likely still too young to differentiate between fantasy and reality, that she needs to retrace and remodel. It's her family terrain, and leaving it in rubble, telling her the firm ground she once stood on was never really as she remembers, seems unfair and cruel. Jack was always Jack, a gestational father, and the landmine never really happened - it was just the brave light of honesty which illuminated their lives. 

This was not a choice, not a metamorphosis, just an admission and dropping of pretence. One that leaves children in bereavement counselling.

They sit down and look through old photographs, and Jack claims she lived as a boy for over a year when about seven or eight. The photos show pretty typical gender neutral 70's and 80's fashion, nothing you would say is unusual for a child of the era. Later we hear Jack say that when she decided to transition (seems, despite pulling Tilly up on the word before, she doesn't have a better word for it) she reached out to her sister and mum and asked that they be there for Tilly when she needs a female role model. 

They go to see Jo, Jack's sister. It seems she lives a long drive away. Jo struggles with saying she has two brothers now, when it was always a brother and a sister. She struggles with calling Jack 'Jack'. Tilly asks Jo if she ever expected Jack to transition. Jo said no, there was never anything that made her suspect her sister might be trans. It seems in stark contrast to the story of Jack living as Jim in childhood, for a whole year, but this is fluffy-feels tv and confronting an inconsistent narrative isn't on the agenda.

I wonder if Jack nominating out this maternal / female elder role to her mum and sister is good forethought, an example of thinking of Tilly's needs, or just abdication of a role that's not transferable, that can't be assigned to a new keeper. What are female role models? Someone who nurtures, someone who can guide a girl through puberty, periods, prom? I don't know why Jack is incapable of that, really. We keep hearing that it isn't that the person Jack was before is gone, but simply 'he is a happier version now'. 

We're up early, off to visit Nat, a boy who's mother transitioned, too. This is largely about how Mal can be counselled through what's been a really distressing time for him. Nat is, again, a really mature, compassionate and sensitive kid. We never see more than a glimpse of the dads of Faith and Nat, it's the kids and their world which I suppose is deemed appropriate for the audience. It doesn't help with the feeling that they are all on their own though.

Nat says his new 'dad' made him feel comfortable. He doesn't appear as fragile as the others. His advice again seems to reinforce the mother-status Tilly holds. He says she needs to be a rock for Mal, and he has some good advice about how the kids who say the 'wrong' things are doing so to be mean. They don't get it. Nat says if this happens again, to call him. It’s bitter-sweet stuff. I think this is the elephant in the room, how do children have the capacity to process such complex, painful, confusing changes? Surely, surely this isn't 'good because he's happy now' but actually a serious trauma, a huge change that leaves these kids in desperate uncertainty over who they are, who their family is, and what else might change?

Maybe the transition of a parent is inevitable sometimes and it really is better to be done and get the angst of living as your born sex over. It just isn't obvious to me that the parents fully appreciate it, or that anyone does. It seems to be distilled into a clash of us and them, good people and transphobes. Everything would be so much easier if others would see people as they do, as we should. Of course having to traverse this seismic shift and then suffering bullying is horrific, and I can't overstate that. Of course the bullying is deeply hurtful and damaging and wrong, it's intolerable. It just isn't necessarily at play when one nine year old says to another that 'your mum left you too, didn't she?' That seems more like a clumsy, unwanted reminder of truth. That it distressed Mal so deeply, five years later, is heartbreaking.

One of Nat's words of wisdom was to remind Tilly and Mal that they might avoid the truth at times but they must never lie. His sister did - she told her school friends that her mum was away. This went on for a long time, until it became agonising, stressful and unsustainable. 'You have to come to terms' with what's happened, he says. I find it all very painful to watch.

Tilly and Nat decide to do a talk at Mal's school to help with his year's understanding of trans issues. Tilly is excitedly organising for it and asks Jack if she can share some photographs in her presentation to help her little brother. Jack's not ok with that. It just seems somewhat staggering to me that Jack is there with these boundaries when Tilly is so determined to make life easier for her brother, for Jack's son. He won't be present, the audience are nine years old, both kids have felt victimised in school and are scared and even with this act of optimistic, proactive bravery, Jack has her guard up and is unwilling to give Tilly what she feels will help. At the presentation, Nat explains that when someone transitions they only change on the outside, not inside. They are still the same person. This isn't true though, is it? What has changed for these kids - their mother's looks, clothes and name? 

It's much more than that for these children. They lose the one they call mum; their lives are irrevocably changed; there are taboo words and times and photos; they have to smooth the path ahead for siblings and themselves and deal with a parent who is in the middle of an artificial metamorphosis. It's not just appearance for these kids, and god bless them they all seem entirely motivated by aiding others. Like little rainbow warriors. 

After Nat, Tilly explains she felt wobbly, she needed reassurance after the news her mum was transitioning. Metaphors of landmines and earthquakes fill my head. Nat was just seven - the same age as Tilly was - when his 'mum became dad'. He explains how being disrespectful about the trans parent hurts them. Use preferred pronouns, it's about being kind and respectful. 

Jack seems to me to have abdicated roles and identity of a mother while those children were still very small. I find it difficult to imagine Jack as her previous self without picturing a woman desperate for escape, for new boundaries to erect which forbid certain demands, that reinvents her body as a distinct from the children she bore, that re-asserts her will. It feels closer to a kind of abandonment than resurrection to me

The children are quite possibly a rebuke to everything I've said here, as they are all kind, caring, mature and smart. I hope it's that they've been so well supported they return it, that their needs are well met, that they display the wish to help others because they themselves are propped up in times of despair. It feels a little like they were betrayed, to me. That one desperate search to be something else, when their children were so young they saw themselves as an inseparable being from their mums, has wreaked terrible harm. 

These precocious, empathetic, sweet little allies are somehow fully 'the child of the trans dad'. Where is the anger? It isn't spoken of and I have no idea how they will eventually manifest this. It's a fundamental part of grief, and an important, ego-saving, life-defending response to being hurt. We never see this. It is entirely about moving forward with brave slogans and new concepts and righting the world. It seems a million miles away from child-centred.