Question: How many trans activists does it take to change a lightbulb?

Answer: The same number that it takes to have an article questioning trans ideology erased from a major newspaper –- one.

The Melbourne Age ran an opinion piece on its website Sunday in which a mum expressed reservations about her daughter’s desire for a sex change.

But less than an hour after trans activist and La Trobe University lecturer Yves Rees complained that the paper was “peddling transphobic nonsense” — by which she meant a parent’s sincere concerns for her child –- the paper issued a public apology and promised to delete the piece.

Age editor Gay Alcorn wrote: “I apologise Yves … given the sensitivity in Melbourne due to the recent death of a young trans woman, I am having it removed from our site.”

And just like that, The Age newspaper, aping Pravda, disappeared the viewpoint of a caring parent for ideological reasons.

One wonders if The Age will now submit all its content to the LGBTQ crowd for approval before publication.

What is the point of a free press if it makes itself subservient to the heckler’s veto?

The “transphobic nonsense” that Yves Rees found so offensive was a mum expressing concern that health professionals seemed too ready to affirm her teenager’s claim to be transgendered.

The mum, who had consented to testosterone treatment for her daughter, wrote that she worried about “a relentless motion towards permanent medical changes” when it was unclear to her whether the child might change her mind about changing her sex.

A posse of hysterical rainbow bullies took to Twitter to deride the mum as being nasty, vindictive, hateful and harmful. Her article was “crappy writing by a crappy parent,” they said, outraged that she had referred to her daughter as “she”.

“Anyone who misgenders their own child should have them removed from their care,” thundered one activist.

Well if a parent can’t express doubt about their child embarking on a series of body-altering treatments that are in many cases irreversible, when in all other areas that same child is not granted the capability to consent, then children may as well be wards of the state.

ABC radio presenter Patricia Karvelas called the article a “truly bewildering piece”.

“My god … I imagine this is what parents were writing about gay kids once,” she said, forgetting that if your “gay kid” later decides he is not gay, no harm done. But if your trans kid later decides he is not trans, well good luck unscrambling that egg.

Alcorn’s decision to vanish a woman’s honest account of her experience trying to find appropriate treatment for her daughter’s dysphoria did not save her from the mad ravings of the sex-change-happy Twitter mob. 

They insisted that such articles might lead trans people to commit suicide. They were outraged that it had been published so soon after the body of a missing trans woman was found in bushland in East Kew. Police have said they were not treating her death as suspicious.

“Cancelling my subscription to The Age. Absolutely vile to publish this hateful crap at any time, let alone today,” tweeted one unhappy reader.

“It’s repugnant opinion like this that drives trans people to kill themselves,” warned another.

“The recent passing of this human being can, in part, be attributed to irresponsible ‘journalism’ like this. Never ever post transphobic shit again, blood is on your hands.”

All of which begged the question, if the risk of trans people committing suicide is increased by the publication of a mum’s concern that her teenager might have misdiagnosed herself as trans, isn’t that evidence of deeper issues being experienced by those at risk?

Or is it a manipulative cry-bully tactic aimed at silencing any dissent from the ‘gender is fluid’, ‘trans women are women’ and ‘gender is a social construct’ narrative?

Surely a recent High Court ruling in the UK which found that puberty blocker drugs given to stop the natural development of transgender identifying children were “experimental” and weak on evidence proves confused teenagers and their parents need discussion, not censorship from journalists who are terrified by ideas and determined to play to the sensibilities of micro-groups.

Hysterical outrage from activists claiming that an op-ed is “dangerous and harmful” ignores the fact that medical interventions involving children can likewise be “dangerous and harmful.”

The article published in and then quickly removed from The Age was fair comment on an important issue of national interest. It’s a conversation that should be had. All sides deserve to be heard. Children’s lives are at stake.