Annette Bening, the Sacrament of Woke Culture, and the Price Paid by Vulnerable Children

When Hollywood actress Annette Bening declared, “To have a transgender kid has made me much more interesting,” she likely didn’t realize she was exposing a larger and darker truth about today’s cultural obsession with transgender-identifying children—or, indeed, about herself. Her words are an almost textbook illustration of a disturbing dynamic where children are used to serve adult needs, their identities shaped and displayed for social validation.

What Bening articulated, perhaps unwittingly, is how being the parent of a trans child has become a kind of social sacrament—a means of signaling virtue and achieving cultural relevance in an era that prizes progressive credentials above almost anything else. But for many children caught in this dynamic, the cost of their parents’ virtue signaling is far more than symbolic. It is their bodies, futures, and very identities that are being sacrificed on the altar of an ideology that prioritizes affirmation over evidence and parental validation over genuine care.

In the context of Munchausen Syndrome By Proxy, now classified in the DSM as Factitious Disorder Imposed on Another (FDIA), a psychological disorder where caregivers fabricate or exaggerate a child’s illness to gain attention or validation, the parallels are glaring. While no one is suggesting that every parent of a trans-identifying child suffers from FDIA, the behavioral overlap is hard to ignore. And it was impossible to unsee at the Skrmetti v. US protest in Washington, DC, where we witnessed firsthand how many of the parents on the other side of the barricades seemed far more invested in their performance as “supportive” parents than in the wellbeing of their children.

The Cult of Wokeness and the Sacrament of the Trans Child

At the Washington protest, the scene was as revealing as it was heartbreaking. On one side were those of us who stood in opposition to the medicalization of children, joined by detransitioners, gender-critical parents, and advocates who recognize that most gender-nonconforming kids—if left alone—grow up to be gay or lesbian. On the other side were parents of trans-identifying children, holding signs and repeating slogans. But what stood out most wasn’t their words; it was their demeanor.

While many of the children appeared uncomfortable, withdrawn, or simply unaware of the significance of the event, their parents were animated, confident, and eager to engage. It was clear who the protest was really about. These parents radiated the energy of people who felt important, as though their child’s trans identity had elevated them to a new level of societal significance.

This aligns disturbingly well with what Bening expressed: Having a trans child makes these parents more “interesting.” It gives them access to a kind of social and cultural clout that few other identities afford. In today’s woke culture, where victimhood is currency, being the parent of a trans child is one of the most valuable forms of capital. It places the parent in a morally unassailable position, allowing them to claim the mantle of progressivism and bravery while insulating them from criticism.

But what happens to the child in this arrangement? What happens when a parent’s desire for validation and virtue signaling eclipses the child’s need for space, exploration, and natural development? This is where the parallels to FDIA become impossible to ignore.

When Parents Need a Diagnosis More Than Their Child Does

In traditional FDIA cases, caregivers often fabricate or exaggerate illnesses in their children, not out of malice but because they crave the attention and sympathy that come from being seen as a devoted and self-sacrificing parent. This behavior typically involves seeking unnecessary medical interventions, subjecting the child to treatments that serve the parent’s psychological needs rather than the child’s health.

In today’s cultural climate, the “illness” is gender dysphoria, and the “treatment” is social and medical transition. Parents are encouraged to view gender nonconformity not as a normal variation of childhood development but as evidence of an innate transgender identity. They are told that affirming this identity is the only way to be a good parent and that anything less is akin to abuse.

This narrative provides a clear pathway for parents seeking validation. By transitioning their child, they are cast as heroes, celebrated for their “bravery” and “allyship.” Social media amplifies this dynamic, turning these parents into influencers and spokespeople for the trans movement. In extreme cases, it creates a kind of moral imperative to transition the child, regardless of whether the child truly identifies as transgender or is simply exploring.

The child, in this scenario, becomes a vessel for the parent’s emotional fulfillment. Their identity is not their own but is shaped and displayed to serve the parent’s needs. This is the very essence of FDIA, and its consequences for the child are devastating.

The Price of the Sacrament

The cost of this dynamic is borne entirely by the child. For many, the pathway to transition begins with social affirmation—changing names, pronouns, and clothing. This is often framed as a harmless “pause button,” but research shows it is anything but. Social transition dramatically increases the likelihood that a child will proceed to medical interventions, including puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and surgeries. These treatments are irreversible and come with lifelong consequences, including infertility, loss of sexual function, and permanent medical dependency.

What makes this especially tragic is that most gender-dysphoric children—between 60% and 90%, according to 11 long-term studies—would naturally desist if left alone. The majority of these children would grow up to be gay or lesbian adults. But by pushing these children down a medicalized path, parents and clinicians are not affirming their true identities; they are erasing them.

This is why many gender-critical advocates describe childhood transition as a form of gay conversion therapy. A boy who might grow up to be a gay man is instead turned into a transwoman. A tomboy who might grow up to be a lesbian is instead turned into a transman. Their futures are rewritten to align with an ideology that prioritizes gender identity over sexual orientation, often at the expense of the child’s long-term well-being.

The Washington Protest: A Moment of Clarity

At Skrmetti v. US, the contrast between the two sides was stark. Our side was focused on protecting children from irreversible harm, ensuring they have the time and freedom to explore their identities without pressure or intervention. The other side, by contrast, seemed focused on the parents—on their courage, their sacrifice, their progressive values. It was a dynamic that felt less like advocacy and more like performance.

Watching those parents, we couldn’t shake the feeling that many of them were acting out a role, one that had been written for them by a culture that rewards woke virtue signaling above all else. Their children, meanwhile, seemed to fade into the background, their discomfort a silent reminder of who pays the price for this performance.

The echoes of Munchausen Syndrome By Proxy (now known as FDIA)  were undeniable. These parents didn’t appear to be malicious, but they were clearly invested in their own narratives—narratives that required their children to play a specific part. Whether consciously or not, they had turned their children into symbols of their own moral virtue, sacrificing their futures in the process.

Breaking the Cycle

If we are to break this cycle, we must start by rejecting the idea that having a trans child makes a parent interesting, virtuous, or brave. We must refocus the conversation on the child’s needs, not the parent’s validation. And we must recognize that most gender-nonconforming children will grow out of their dysphoria if we allow them the time and space to do so.

The parallels to Munchausen Syndrome By Proxy (FDIA) should serve as a warning, not an accusation. They reveal the dangers of a cultural moment that prioritizes ideology over evidence and performance over care. At its heart, this issue is not about affirming identities or fighting for rights. It is about protecting children from being used as pawns in a social and medical experiment—an experiment that too often serves the needs of adults rather than the best interests of the child.