Who This Is For

This lesson is for parents who lean liberal or open-minded and find themselves tempted to compromise on ideological points in order to preserve the relationship or hold the line on medical interventions. It's especially relevant for parents who have already made small concessions — pronouns, names, clothing — and are noticing that the demands keep escalating rather than stabilizing. Whether your child is a teenager or a young adult, if you've been telling yourself "I'll give a little here so I can hold firm there," this article is for you.

Summary of Key Points

• Part of maturity is learning the difference between "is" and "ought" — between how the world should work and how it actually does
• Gender ideology offers a comprehensive set of fantasy "oughts" that are unfalsifiable and insatiable by design
• Well-meaning gender-critical parents often try to meet their child halfway by validating some ideological premises while rejecting others
• Each concession moves the baseline and trains the family to treat ideology as a legitimate negotiating partner
• There is a critical difference between accepting your child and colluding with an ideology — you can do the first without doing the second
• The ideology has no internal limiting principle; no concession will ever be "enough"
• Modeling the reality principle — grieving the world we wish we lived in so we can navigate the one we actually do — is one of the most valuable things a parent can offer
• Finding and holding your ground with love is more generous than pretending alongside your child

Article

Part of growing up is grappling with the reality principle — the difference between "is" and "ought." We can have all sorts of ideas about how the world and other people should be, but ultimately these only slow us down from discovering how things actually are, and why.

Gender ideology offers the ultimate set of fantasy "oughts."

But here's where well-meaning, open-hearted, gender-critical parents get mixed up: they feel they must give in or compromise a bit, meeting their kids halfway with their fantasy "oughts." This rarely leads to the middle ground they were hoping to find.

The Anatomy of a Fantasy "Ought"

Let's take a common example: the belief that people should be able to dress however they want and not be judged for it.

The reality part is that people should be — and indeed, already legally are — free to dress however they want. I've met very few people who'd argue against this legal right.

The fantasy part is the "…and not be judged." That's unrealistic. Your "should" doesn't stop what is. It's actually totalitarian to think one should be able to control others' minds and speech.

The mature position is that you can dress however you want, but you don't get to complain if what you choose to do with that freedom gets you funny looks or means you're rejected from jobs or dates you might have wanted. Freedom of expression is a two-way street. You're free to express yourself, and others are free to form impressions based on what you express. That's not oppression — that's society.

How Parents Slide Into Collusion

Liberal, gender-critical parents sometimes compromise and collude with an immature fantasy that we should live in a world where, magically, no one forms any conclusions about anyone no matter how bizarrely they present themselves. This process happens gradually, unconsciously, often driven by a desire to stay connected to a prodigal child or to create a compromise where health and bodily integrity are preserved.

And on the surface, it seems reasonable. You might think: I don't care about the pronouns or the clothes. I just want to keep my kid off hormones. If I give a little here, maybe I can hold the line there.

But each concession to a fantasy "ought" trains everyone in the family — including you — to treat ideology as though it has legitimate negotiating power. You're not actually meeting your child halfway. You're moving onto their playing field, where the rules are designed so that no concession is ever enough.

Why the Middle Ground Keeps Moving

This is the part that catches thoughtful, compassionate parents off guard. They approach gender ideology the way they'd approach any reasonable disagreement: with good faith, a willingness to listen, and an assumption that compromise is possible.

But gender ideology is not a reasonable negotiating partner. It is, by its very nature, not only delusional but also narcissistic, insatiable, and implacable. Every compromise becomes the new baseline from which further demands are made. You agree to a nickname, and now it's legal name change. You agree to new clothes, and now it's why won't you pay for a binder. The goalposts don't just move — they accelerate.

This isn't because your child is manipulative. It's because the ideology itself functions this way. It has no internal limiting principle. There is no point at which it says, "That's enough — we're satisfied now." The entire framework depends on the idea that any boundary is a form of violence, any hesitation is rejection, and any limit is proof that you don't truly love your child.

The Difference Between Acceptance and Collusion

There's a critical distinction parents need to make: the difference between accepting your child and accepting an ideology.

You can love your child completely while refusing to validate a worldview that is ultimately harmful to them. You can maintain warmth and connection without pretending that feelings override biology, that social contagion isn't real, or that irreversible medical interventions on developing bodies are simply "healthcare."

Acceptance of your child sounds like: I love you no matter what. I'm here. I'm not going anywhere.

Collusion with ideology sounds like: You're right, no one should ever judge anyone for anything, and if they do, that's a form of violence against you.

One of these keeps the relationship open. The other teaches your child that the world owes them an experience that the world will never deliver — and sets them up for a lifetime of grievance when reality fails to comply.

Growing Up Means Grieving the "Oughts"

Here's what's both painful and liberating about the reality principle: maturity requires grieving the world we wish we lived in so we can effectively navigate the one we actually do.

Every adult has had to do this in some area of life. We learn that hard work doesn't always get rewarded. That people we love can't always love us back. That fairness is something we strive for, not something we're guaranteed. These aren't cynical conclusions — they're the foundation of resilience.

When parents model this kind of maturity — when they demonstrate that you can hold values without demanding the universe conform to them — they offer their children something far more valuable than validation. They offer a way of being in the world that actually works.

Find Your Ground Again

If you've been slowly sliding into ideological compromise — telling yourself it's just pronouns, it's just clothes, it's just a name — take a moment to ask yourself honestly: Has giving ground actually brought us closer to resolution? Or has it just moved the line I said I wouldn't cross?

You don't have to be cruel. You don't have to be rigid. But you do have to be honest — with yourself and with your child — about where reality ends and fantasy begins. Your child is going to have to learn the difference between "is" and "ought" eventually. The question is whether you help them learn it now, in the relative safety of your relationship, or whether you let the world teach it to them later, with far less compassion.

Find your ground. Hold it with love. And trust that the most generous thing you can do for your child is refuse to pretend alongside them.

© ROGD Repair with Stephanie Winn

Share this article on X

Questions for Reflection