This insane story about ‘gay babies' proves that woke isn't dead

Telegraph

18-03-2025

The next time someone blithely assures you that 'woke is over' now Donald Trump is back, politely direct his or her attention to the following story. In the US state of New Jersey, hospitals have been giving new parents a questionnaire to fill in.
And this questionnaire asks them to specify their newborn baby's sexuality.
Yes, you read that correctly. Holly Schepisi, a Republican member of the New Jersey Senate, has shared a photo of the questionnaire on her Facebook page, after getting her staff to confirm that it was real. And here, verbatim, is how the relevant question is phrased.
'Which of the following best describes your baby? Lesbian or gay; straight or heterosexual; bisexual; self-describes (please specify); questioning/unsure.'
No matter how many times I reread the quoted passage, I still can't decide which aspect of it is the maddest. The idea that a newborn baby can be gay. The idea that parents might think their newborn baby is gay. The idea that a newborn baby can 'self-describe' anything, let alone his or her sexual orientation. Or the idea that a newborn baby is 'questioning' his or her sexual orientation – as if, while in the womb, the baby was convinced that he or she was heterosexual, but now, a couple of hours after being born, is starting to have second thoughts.
Even if the baby does happen to be wrestling with such extraordinary notions, it's unclear how he or she would convey his or her conclusions. Coming out to your parents is hard enough for grown adults. So goodness only knows how a preverbal child is meant to manage it. Or perhaps the parents are just expected to guess. ('Our two-day-old son has yet to discuss his sexuality with us. But we have noted his passion for interior design and musical theatre.')
For a moment, I wondered whether the questionnaire might actually be part of some ingenious sting operation by the FBI. Any time a grown man ticks a box suggesting he thinks that very small children have sexual preferences, undercover agents immediately leap out and arrest him.
But no. It would appear that there is no such plan. In reality, the whole thing is probably just a wild misunderstanding. A spokesman for the healthcare provider behind the form said that asking such questions is now 'required by New Jersey law' – after local politicians decreed that healthcare providers must collect detailed demographic data about all their patients, including sexual orientation. I suspect that these politicians didn't have the sexual orientation of newborn babies in mind. None the less, this is how their law has been interpreted.
Whatever the explanation, though, the farce doesn't end there. Because the questionnaire doesn't just ask about your baby's sexuality. It also asks about your baby's gender identity.
Among the wide variety of possible answers listed on the form are 'male', 'female', 'genderqueer' – and, rather curiously, 'trans woman' and 'trans man'. In the context, surely it should be 'trans baby'. But then, if a man can identify as a woman and a woman as a man, I suppose there's no reason why a baby shouldn't identify as an adult.
On the plus side, the spokesman for the healthcare provider did make clear that parents are entitled not to answer the questions, if they so wish. This must come as a relief not only to the parents, but to hospital staff.
After all, new parents tend to be irritable enough as it is, what with all the sleep deprivation and stress. Ask them whether their baby son is a lesbian, and God knows what they might do.
Make prisoners pay
From slashing foreign aid to cutting benefit payments, Sir Keir Starmer has recently adopted an unexpectedly conservative approach to public spending. I don't know whether he's looking for further ways to ease the burden on the taxpayer. But if he is, I have a suggestion for him.
He should pay a visit to the Clink Prison Museum in London.
There he will learn the history of the Clink, a gruesome medieval prison which was in use from 1144 to 1780. I happened to visit it at the weekend. And, among many other fascinating facts, I learnt that prisoners were required to pay for their incarceration out of their own pockets.
They had to pay for their bedding, lighting, heating, food, water. They even had to pay for their fetters and chains to be attached to them. And then, at the end of their sentence, they had to pay once again to have the fetters and chains removed.
No doubt some Labour MPs would be hesitant to adopt such a policy today. They might venture to suggest that, in the 21st century, it would seem a touch draconian, and liable to meet with a certain amount of resistance from human rights lawyers.
All the same, the Prime Minister should at least try putting it to focus groups. Because I have a funny feeling that it would poll quite well.