A three-year-old throws tantrums and begs his mother not to go to daycare. Worried, she goes in unannounced and what she sees shocks her.
“No, mommy, no!” Johnny threw himself on the floor and started screaming. Marla Evans sighed. Not again! She looked at her watch. If he threw a full tantrum, she would be late yet again.
She gazed at her three-year-old with exasperation. Johnny had been going to daycare for two years and always loved it. For the last week, out of the blue, he’d been making a scene, begging Marla not to take him.
For illustration purposes only | Source: Unsplash
She’d spoken to her pediatrician, and the doctor had told her that toddlers often went through the ‘terrible threes.’ “Stop it!” Marla heard herself scream, then she saw the look of fear in her son’s eyes. Something wasn’t right.
Marla sat down on the floor next to Johnny and coaxed him into her lap. He sobbed, pressing his little face against hers. Marla decided this was more than a tantrum, but what could be wrong?
“Honey,” Marla said gently. “I’m sorry. Mommy didn’t mean to snap.” She rocked him until he stopped crying and asked gently, “Why don’t you like daycare anymore?”
Raising a child is about setting and respecting boundaries.
Johnny shivered in her arms and whispered, “I don’t like!”
“But why, sweetie?” Marla asked. “Are the other kids mean?” But Johnny wouldn’t answer. Marla sighed. “Baby, mommy needs to go to work, but I tell you what… I’m going to come and get you from daycare early today, OK?”
For illustration purposes only | Source: Pexels
Johnny sat up in her lap. “No lunch?” He looked up at her anxiously. “No lunch, mommy?”
Lunch? The worried mom frowned. What was happening with her son?
Marla dropped Johnny off after promising she’d fetch him before lunch. He walked into the daycare quietly but threw Marla a pleading look that left her heartbroken.
She went to work and asked her boss for the afternoon off to deal with a personal issue. Thankfully, her boss was a mom too and understood!
Marla was determined to get to the bottom of Johnny’s reluctance to go to daycare. She decided to drop in — not before lunchtime as she promised Johnny — but during the meal.
Johnny’s daycare didn’t allow the parents into the children’s playrooms or the dining room, but each door of the facility had a large, clear glass window. Hopefully, Marla would be able to see what — if anything — was going on.
When she arrived, the receptionist told her the children were having lunch. Marla walked to the dining room and peered in. The kids were all sitting at their tables, eating.
For illustration purposes only | Source: Unsplash
A teacher or an assistant supervised each table. Marla quickly spotted Johnny. There was a woman Marla didn’t recognize sitting next to him.
As Marla watched, the woman picked up Johnny’s spoon, scooped up a portion of mashed potatoes, and pressed it against his lips. “Eat!” she cried. Johnny shook his head violently, his mouth firmly closed, tears running down his cheeks.
“Open your mouth and eat!” the woman said angrily. Johnny was looking deeply distressed. The woman cried, “You are going to sit here until you clear your plate!”
Marla saw a small portion of mince, mash, and vegetables left on Johnny’s plate, and she knew her son. Johnny was not a big eater; she never pushed it when he told her he’d had enough.
Johnny opened his mouth to protest, and the teacher quickly pushed the spoon in. Marla saw her son choke and sputter. She’d had enough! She opened the door and stormed in.
“Get away from my son!” she cried.
For illustration purposes only | Source: Pexels
The woman looked up, and her mouth hung open. “Parents aren’t allowed in the dining room!” she cried.
“Then they should be,” Marla said, reining in her anger. “Can’t you see Johnny’s had enough? He’s a healthy boy, but he is not a big eater. As an educator, you should know how traumatic force-feeding a child can be.
“Being forced to clean up the plate is an old-fashioned notion. You should be aware of the statistics and the causes of obesity and eating disorders in children.
“And one of them is making food an issue! My little boy is an active child, and if he feels he’s had enough, you need to respect that and not force him to eat.
“As for shoving food into a child’s mouth in that way, it is reprehensible! You should certainly know better. These children are not puppets for you to manipulate at will!
“They are little people with needs and a will of their own. If you don’t respect their boundaries, you teach them they don’t deserve respect. I don’t think that is a message you want to pass on!”
For illustration purposes only | Source: Unsplash
The teacher flushed a bright red and got to her feet. “I never…” she cried.
“That’s a pity,” Marla said crisply. “Because if this happens again, I will ensure you are out of a job! I’m not sending my son to daycare to be brutalized!”
Marla walked over to Johnny and tenderly wiped his mouth. “Come on, honey,” she said gently. “Mommy promised you a treat this afternoon!”
Marla had a long talk with Johnny, and there was no tantrum the next morning. Over the next few weeks, she popped into the daycare at lunch times just to keep an eye on things.
The teacher never forced Johnny to eat again, and the boy recovered his good humor and enthusiasm.
For illustration purposes only | Source: Pexels
What can we learn from this story?
- Children and their boundaries should be respected. Johnny’s teacher was teaching him that adults had the right to impose their will on children against their welfare.
- Raising a child is about setting and respecting boundaries — theirs and ours. A child whose boundaries are not respected is insecure and has low self-esteem.
Share this story with your friends. It might brighten their day and inspire them.
If you enjoyed this story, you might like this one about a little boy who learns all about love by watching how his father treats his mother.
This piece is inspired by stories from the everyday lives of our readers and written by a professional writer. Any resemblance to actual names or locations is purely coincidental. All images are for illustration purposes only. Share your story with us; maybe it will change someone’s life.
These Passports Are Now Prohibited in the U.S. Following Donald Trump’s New Gender Executive Order
Upon his return to the White House, Donald Trump promptly began reshaping federal policies. In just a matter of hours, numerous executive orders were signed, overturning crucial decisions made by the previous administration. One of these directives, particularly controversial, concerns gender recognition.
A novel decree enforces a rigid binary definition of gender across all federal documentation. Non-binary and transgender individuals now encounter limitations on passports, legal records, and other official paperwork. The swift execution of these changes has left many in a state of confusion, scrambling to comprehend the repercussions and explore legal remedies.
Aside from passports, the order carries broader implications, influencing legal documents, penitentiaries, and federal policies pertaining to gender identity. Advocacy groups are mobilizing, lawsuits are being prepared, and affected individuals are seeking out alternatives ardently. Grasping the full extent of these alterations is imperative for those directly impacted and anyone with a vested interest in the future of gender identity rights in the United States.
Alterations in the Executive Order
Trump’s executive order, titled “Defending Women From Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government,” enacts a sweeping rollback of gender identity recognition in federal records. This order enforces a strict sex definition based on biological characteristics at birth, effectively negating previous policies that acknowledged gender diversity.
During the Biden administration, Americans had the option to choose a non-binary X gender marker on their passports, aligning with a growing number of international practices. The first U.S. passport with an X marker was issued in October 2021, with officials hailing it as a step toward inclusivity. Jessica Stern, the former U.S. Special Envoy for LGBTQ+ Rights, remarked: “The addition of a third gender marker propels the U.S. toward ensuring that our administrative systems account for the diversity of gender identity, gender expression, and sex characteristics among U.S. citizens.”
Trump’s new order reverses this advancement, stipulating that all official documents must now only reflect male or female designations based on biological sex. Secretary of State Marco Rubio reinforced this shift in an internal memo, informing State Department employees: “The policy of the United States is that an individual’s sex is not changeable. Sex and not gender shall be used on passports and consular reports of birth abroad.”
Beyond documentation, the order significantly modifies policies related to incarceration. In the past, transgender women could be placed in women’s prisons under certain circumstances, but the new directive mandates that all federal prison housing assignments strictly adhere to biological sex.
This ruling has sparked safety concerns, as transgender advocacy groups argue that placing trans women in men’s prisons heightens the risk of violence and abuse. The executive order also curtails gender-affirming policies across other federal institutions, indicating that agencies which previously acknowledged gender identity in legal cases, healthcare records, and workplace protections may now revert to binary sex classifications.
Impact on Passports and Impacted Individuals
Trump’s executive order has resulted in an immediate suspension of all passport applications requesting an X gender marker, leaving countless non-binary, intersex, and gender-nonconforming individuals in legal uncertainty. This decision impacts future applicants and those requiring passport renewal or updates.
The X gender marker was introduced under the Biden administration as part of broader efforts to broaden recognition of gender diversity in federal documentation. The first U.S. passport with an X designation was issued in October 2021, marking a historic shift toward inclusivity. This decision aligned the U.S. with countries such as Canada, Germany, Australia, and New Zealand, which already offered non-binary gender options on official paperwork.
Jessica Stern, former U.S. Special Envoy for LGBTQ+ Rights, hailed the introduction of the X marker as “a momentous step,” stating, “The addition of a third gender marker propels the U.S. forward toward ensuring that our administrative systems account for the diversity of gender identity, gender expression, and sex characteristics among U.S. citizens.” Now, that progress has been eradicated.
In an internal memo obtained by The Guardian, Secretary of State Marco Rubio instructed State Department employees and stated: “Suspend any application requesting an X sex marker. Suspend any application where the applicant is seeking to change their sex marker.”
Individuals with pending passport applications and X-gender requests will no longer be processed. The State Department has not provided alternative solutions for those affected, creating uncertainty about how they will navigate travel, employment, or legal identification.
While existing X-marker passports remain valid, concerns have been raised. Firstly, no guidance has been given on whether X marker holders can renew their passports. Secondly, individuals traveling with X-marker passports could encounter heightened scrutiny at customs in countries that no longer recognize the designation. Lastly, U.S. citizens with an X passport but other legal documents (such as Social Security records or state-issued IDs) marked as male or female may encounter challenges with verification processes in federal and international systems.
Reactions and Legal Disputes
LG/BT/Q+ advocacy groups have denounced the executive order, denouncing it as a direct assault on the rights of transgender and non-binary individuals. President of GLAAD, Sarah Kate Ellis, condemned the decision and remarked, “Transgender people are already serving in the military with honor and keeping our country and military safer and stronger. They meet the same rigorous health and readiness standards and continue to do so. The Trump administration’s inaccurate statements and rhetoric targeting transgender people are not based on facts.”
Legal experts anticipate a surge of lawsuits contesting the constitutionality of the executive order. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has already indicated intentions to file an injunction, arguing that the order discriminates against a legally recognized group of individuals.
Legal challenges to the executive order are expected to revolve around multiple arguments. Advocates contend that the policy infringes upon the Equal Protection Clause by discriminating against non-binary individuals and compelling them to misrepresent their identity on official documents. Another crucial legal contention involves administrative law, with opponents asserting that the State Department lacks the authority to suspend X gender passports without proper legislative oversight retroactively. Furthermore, human rights organizations have raised alarms regarding potential violations of U.S. treaty obligations, emphasizing that this policy shift may undermine identity protections recognized by international law.
What to Do If Affected
Passports issued with an X gender marker remain valid for the time being, but individuals may encounter challenges when updating or renewing them down the line. It is critical to monitor passport expiration dates, as currently valid passports can still be utilized for travel until they expire.
Those eligible for renewal should contemplate doing so at the earliest opportunity to avoid possible limitations if the policy becomes stricter. Staying abreast of legal developments is also crucial, as multiple advocacy groups and legal organizations are actively contesting the executive order, and forthcoming court rulings could impact passport regulations.
Individuals who applied for an X gender marker passport before the executive order went into effect should first reach out to the U.S. State Department to check the status of their application. Many applications may have been placed on hold or rejected due to the policy modification. Seeking legal counsel can also be beneficial, as groups like the ACLU and Lambda Legal offer assistance and guidance for those affected by gender-related documentation policies.
Non-binary individuals traveling with an X-gender passport may face hurdles due to discrepancies in U.S. policy and international recognition. Some countries might refuse entry or question passport validity, emphasizing the need to consult the embassy of the destination country before making travel arrangements. Airlines and TSA may demand supplementary verification if passport details do not align with official policies. Carrying supporting documentation, such as a state-issued ID or previous passport records, can assist in mitigating potential challenges. While U.S. consulates provide limited aid in cases of refusal at borders or discrimination, consular officers must now adhere to updated federal documentation rules.
The Future of Gender Identity Documentation in the U.S.
Trump’s executive order has revamped federal gender documentation policies, eliminating the X gender marker choice for passports and reinforcing a binary definition of sex. These adjustments impact numerous non-binary Americans, sparking worries about legal recognition, travel rights, and broader civil liberties.
Legal disputes are underway, with advocacy groups and civil rights organizations contending that the order violates constitutional safeguards and anti-discrimination statutes. Court decisions in the forthcoming months may determine the fate of the policy. The introduction of the X gender marker by the Biden administration in 2021 was viewed as a significant stride toward inclusivity, and its abrupt reversal underscores the profound political schism over gender identity rights in the U.S.
Beyond legal skirmishes, the new policy instigates uncertainties concerning future federal documentation regulations. If successfully challenged, passport choices may be reinstated; however, if upheld, similar restrictions could extend to other government-issued identification.
Feel free to SHARE this article with your loved ones!
Leave a Reply