Reader comments · LGBT foster parents condemned for ‘dressing boy in girl’s clothes’ · PinkNews

Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.


LGBT foster parents condemned for ‘dressing boy in girl’s clothes’

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. bearshaped 12 Sep 2011, 3:55pm

    this really isn’t a story yet as there are no details. Why is PN publishing this pish?

    1. Garbage in, garbage out, in Pink News defense, maybe you get crappy news because it reports on crappy people, the news will always report on the shocking, bizarre, stupid, and controversial… if you want better news then go to gay alternative sites.

      Some of the articles are quite entertaining but mostly revealing, and sometimes revolting about people in our community.

      This couple has basically screwed up the image of decent gay foster parents who do not engage in such strange behavior nor taunt the child’s gender.

      1. Hey pepa who are you to judge “Crapppy people” When did you meet this couple ? You only have scant details to make your judgement are you really that PERFECT ?

        How foolish you are !!!

      2. Staircase2 14 Sep 2011, 2:33am

        Well seeing as how there are practically no details all you have to go on are the prejudices inside your head (of which clearly there are many…)

        I just wish youd shut the fvck up if you dont have anything positive to say about anyone….

  2. There seems to a great lack on detail. We don’t know the context in which the boy was dressed as a girl. It could have been a party, he could have got into the foster parents closet and run around in their clothes.

    This seems to assume he was made to dress as a girl by the foster parents. No doubt the Daily Mail will have their own take of this.

    1. Unfortunately they do. It’s disgusting.

  3. It makes me so angry to read this. The sub-text is that the parents are attempting to turn their son gay.

    Walk into any nursery around where I live, and you can see that boys are not discouraged from wearing pink, or dressing up in dresses / fairy clothes.This isn’t about ‘political correctness’, it’s about allowing children to experiment, and not forcing gender stereotypes on them. It’s not children who think that ‘boys shouldn’t wear dresses’. It’s adults. Kids learn the rules.
    Has anyone every attempted to get a six year old to wear a dress? Believe me, if they don’t want to wear one, they won’t! So perhaps the boy chose to wear ‘girls clothes’. And maybe he is lucky enough to be with parents who allowed him to experiment.

    We don’t know the context of this story. But already, the parents are being judged. If they’ve made an error, it’s allowing the content to be posted on facebook – either where less sympathetic friends have made the information public, or their profile is open.

    1. It makes me so angry to read this. The sub-text is that the parents are attempting to turn their son gay.

      As we do not have the details, maybe they are trying to impose on the child… who knows… but of course if the parents were to impose instead of a dress, maybe a cross of Jesus or something like that, you bet the gay loons of the far left will be hammering “child abuse.”

      So by that logic any imposition on the child’s natural upbringing is child abuse, hence what this couple is doing is in fact abuse.

      1. Oh pepa you are a tad foolish in your remarks …

        Why look to the dark side of life ?

        The MAYBE the WHO KNOWS the IF just go to show how FOOLISH you are

        As you have said “We don’t have the details”

        So just shut up and wait till we do have the details

      2. Staircase2 14 Sep 2011, 2:35am

        @Pepa – why dont you fvck the shut up?…

      3. friday jones 14 Sep 2011, 6:57am

        A cross of Jesus? You mean that dressing in clothing that the other half of the human species is expected to wear daily is just as bad as wearing a symbolic representation of a device used by the Romans to murder thousands by torture? I suppose if Jesus had been hung to death, we’d be expected to accept a hangman’s noose as a symbol of love, right?

    2. you so rite, placing gender lables makes it hard for kids to figure out who they are, this sort of labling leads to transgender children being deprived or confused from living the life they want to deal with, give the kids back, if it was a straighr couple it wud befine, but no, there lgbti so because there gay they must be trying to make there chil gay!

      1. What?

        Had to read that about six times and slowly. I don’t do text speak.

  4. Maybe the boy was wanting to dress in a dress younger kids wear their families clothes to play in when i was younger my brother used to dress in dresses as a dare or for halloween…

  5. My friend has a son who though now, at aged 8, is a happy “normal” boy… who likes boy things… had an obsession for make-up and nail polish and all things feminine when he was much younger. She even bought him a pink dressing table for Christmas one time because that’s what he asked for. She allowed him to flourish in whatever way made him happy. He’s content, settled, progressing in school, happy, welcoming, warm young man. Very well rounded. Oh, and at his current age, he’s obsessed with girls now… Bit of a charmer too I might add…

  6. Hodge Podge 12 Sep 2011, 5:52pm

    ‘The circumstances of why the child was dressed in girl’s clothes are not clear, although the newspaper called the image “humiliating”.’

    It wasn’t humiliating until some bigots decided to humiliate the child.

  7. You can bet there’d be nary a ripple, or not much of one, if a straight couple had done it. Cross-dressing children were ever part of party fun and it never gets picked up on except with a priori fears and prejudices. Ironically, it only seems to cause anxiety when stereotyped sex-roles are radically questioned (as in the West during the last century). In super-patriarchal Ancient Macedonia the young prince Alexander (yes, the future ‘Great’), would entertain his parents and their guests dressed and made up as a girl, dancing, singing and playing the lyre. It was entirely expected.

    1. Yer but he was gay in the end wasn’t he?

      1. Not really as we’d know it, no.

        1. I thought he had a boyfriend on the side?

  8. Is it just me who reads stories like this and thinks FFS. The usual suspects [Express / Mail] will have a field day with this.

    1. David Waite 12 Sep 2011, 11:09pm

      Dan I usually love your logical and reasonable coments but I have to call you on this one, although I suspect you of being amusing in this comment. You couldn’t possibly recall whether there was a furore over Winnie’s childhood drag; you’re too young. I’m too young to recall it. Queen Elizabeth II is too young to recall it. That being said, your point (if it is your point) is apt; in some ways we English speakers have actually regressed culturally.

    2. In those days, all babies wore dresses, & boy toddlers until being toilet trained did too – think about “ease of access”, & it makes total sense. Of course, the long curls some boys suffered didn’t: it was considered a nod to female sensibility to tacitly allow them to baby their children as long as possile (Because, after all, it might keep her mind off wanting to have a career of her own!)

  9. They should have adopted girls instead of putting a young boy through this humiliation. This is child abuse.

    TIme to put an end to SINGLE PARENTING and the FATHERLESS SOCIETY. which is the greatest injustice to ever happen on society.

    The UK riots highlighted this.

    Some people should never be allowed to have children. Time to LICENCE people to have children.

    1. girl from down under 13 Sep 2011, 6:52am

      Children being dressed up, for whatever reason is perfectly normal. You can not blame this on single parenting or fatherless children. Some children are better off having a mother as a single parent if their father is abusive and vice versa. Just because a couple is gay or single or disabled in some way should not restrict their ability to have children. A child needs love, compassion, stability and happiness in their lives, whoever can provide this should definitely be allowed to have childen- whoever they are.

    2. Single parents families had nothing to do with the riots!!! Its just the mentality of certain people… take take take and give nothing back for it. Its a shame we’ve got ourselves into this state, and the only way to curtail that, is to have a proper hard on police approach, dealt with via penalties other than a paltry fine or referral orders.

      I’ve seen it a number of times where children have been running round in supermarkets and the young mother is desperately trying to control them, yet they disobey. A licence for children? Go one step further and have the policy of One Child as per China. Any more, and you pay a fee. None of this 13 kids in one family begging for a bigger house and £30,000 a year in benefits. And decent sex education in schools too.

    3. Jock S. Trap 13 Sep 2011, 11:38am

      Actually without details it’s too soon to comment but I do give the following questions.

      What child doesn’t like dressing up? I recall my childhood and how me (I must have been about 5), my brother and few of the kids on the estate where I live dressed up, myself in mums old clothes. I also know there is a picture somewhere of those happy days of us being children.

      Now my parents were at the time quite strict christians, one mother and one father but never once stopped their children having fun.

      Now the question is whats the difference? Before we all jump to conclusions did any one of us never like to dress up when we were young? What child doesn’t for pity sake?

      Not knowing the facts, so at a guess this sounds like classic discrimination Just because of who the parents are, yet the children, if they were just dressing up are just doing what all children like to do.

  10. Leigh Hayes 13 Sep 2011, 4:51am

    How many kids when there young dress up in the opposite sexs clothes! But because this was a gay couple it must be them trying to turn the child gay, this story has no weight to it what so ever, what a pathetic piece of news to report on.

  11. The sexism in the newspaper’s judgment is at least as bad as their gay-bashing: would they consider it humiliating for a GIRL to be dressed in BOY’s clothing? Says a LOT about how society views women, doesn’t it? & yet no one questions!!

    1. Well said, Susan! Absolutely true.

  12. I find this very funny because if you look in your attics you will find pictures of young boys being dressed up as girls going back hundreds years, being dressed up by straight Christians mothers and fathers.

  13. Reading the story I was surprised by what it insinuated, but as I read on there were no details. It is good to see many replies also recognized this and cautioned against over reaction about facts that are not clear as to why this actually happened.

    My biggest concern is even if there was valid reason for removing the child from the home it also fuels lack of details, but! also plays into the hands of every group that will now use this as media fodder to fight same sex couples adopting or fostering.

    We know we make good parents! I cringe at where the media and groups famous for their hysteria will take this story in the next few days.

  14. Pink New’s transphobia shows once again:

    “The foster parents have been referred to as a lesbian couple, although […]”

    Yes, “although”. The Pink News writers and editors clearly don’t accept people’s gender identity ; otherwise this comment would not have been necessary.

    1. It might also be simply that there’s doubt as to which is the more accurate report.

  15. It’s more shocking that they are soo eager to put photos of their foster kids, vulnerable children in their care, on facebook.

    1. Quite right.

  16. Miguel Sanchez 13 Sep 2011, 3:28pm

    At age 6, a boy knows what he wants to wear weather is boy’s or girl’s clothes. What I do find totally upsetting is that these 2 “parents” would put their child’s photo on facebook.

    I think removing the children until a proper investigation can be carried out is best. Remember, it’s the children and their well being that have to come first.

  17. If you read the court transcript, you’ll find the telegraph story has almost nothing to do with the facts.

    This child was beaten, abused, tortured and forced to eat vomit by their parents.

    A lesbian couple were given temporary custody while a more long-term location was being found. They let him play “dress up” once. That’s it. This wasn’t even mentioned in the case.

    The transcript is at

    This is a deliberate hit-piece, not just a beat-up.

  18. Oh yes – and retired magistrate Holborow wasn’t involved at any time in the proceedings. She has nothing to do with the case, she’s 81 for goodness’ sake…

  19. The real problem, as a couple of commenters have already pointed out, is that they put the photo up on FB. It really doesn’t matter if the photo shows the child cross dressing or not – it is forbidden to publicly identify children in care in this manner. Children who are fostered are, by definition, in care. All foster parents would have been aware of this. And yes, it can constitute a breach of trust so grave that it does warrant removing the child or children from the care of the foster parents.

These comments are un-moderated and do not necessarily represent the views of PinkNews. If you believe that a comment is inappropriate or libellous, please contact us.