As Children’s Ombud, Gerhardsen ought to know that the debate is not merely difficult, it is deeply disturbing – but not for the reasons she gives. What Gerhardsen describes as an innocent symbol of “love and acceptance” is, in reality, an ideological smokescreen. Behind the reassuring and pleasant words lies a concentration of political power that in practice challenges and erases children’s natural boundaries.

When the Children’s Ombud acts as a loyal functionary for a global agenda, she overlooks the democratic betrayal that is now unfolding over the heads of Norwegian parents.

Where was the critical voice of the Children’s Ombud when biology was replaced by ideology?

Norwegian parents have scarcely heard of the unofficial Yogyakarta Principles. Yet this ideological blueprint underpins the ideology of the organisation FRI and the political pressure being exerted behind the scenes. These principles have set biological facts aside and elevated subjective feelings to the status of the only valid truth.

This is the pattern now being played out in legislative changes that permit legal gender reassignment for children as young as six. The most alarming aspect is the demand for absolute conformity: no one is to be allowed to ask critical questions.

When public debate is absent, power is transferred from elected representatives to closed committees and directorates.

A prime example is the National Professional Guideline for Gender Incongruence.

People who experience gender incongruence, and especially young people in profound emotional distress, need professional and compassionate help. But this guideline fails them.

Instead of listening to leading medical communities that call for caution, the guideline promotes a radical practice whereby irreversible medical pathways may be initiated without sufficient oversight – something that has drawn sharp criticism from, among others, the Norwegian Healthcare Investigation Board (Ukom).

Nevertheless, the document functions as a marching order.

This is what has led Bærum and other municipalities to roll out “Rainbow Lighthouse” programmes in schools. Parents believe this is solely about stopping bullying and helping vulnerable young people. In reality, a far-reaching ideology is being implemented in which biology must yield to subjective feelings.

When the Children’s Ombud demands flag-raising, she legitimises the supranational sexual agenda of the UN and the WHO for 2030. Reports concerning the WHO’s “Standards for Sexuality Education in Europe” document the dark paradox: under labels such as “rights-based education”, pressure is exerted to introduce gender theories, body exploration and the dismantling of norms to children of pre-school age.

Those driving this agenda know that whoever controls language controls thought. They empty profound values such as “equality”, “love” and “inclusion” of their original content and refill them with a radical, norm-critical ideology.

If you criticise the actual medical consequences for children, you are not met with biological arguments. Instead, you are accused of being “against love”. That makes dissent socially and politically dangerous.

The real consequences for those who dare to object are brutal and destructive:

– Social exclusion and character assassination:

Critics are consistently met with labels such as “transphobe” and “extremist” in order to destroy their social reputation and frighten others from expressing their views.

Women’s rights activists in Norway have been summoned for hours-long police interrogations under Section 185 of the Penal Code, simply for expressing the biological fact that a man cannot become a woman. The law is actively used to intimidate people into silence.

Directorates such as Bufdir have published guidelines instructing teachers to avoid biological terms such as “male and female genital organs” in teaching. Teachers who adhere to science risk disciplinary proceedings.

Psychologists, doctors, teachers and academics who warn about the medical harms of puberty blockers and surgery on children experience exclusion from their own professional communities, denial of publication opportunities, or pressure to leave their positions.

When sex is made fluid and reduced to a subjective feeling, it triggers a frontal assault on women’s and children’s hard-won rights:

The Act on Change of Legal Gender means that biological men who feel like women are granted full legal status as women.

As a result, biologically justified safe spaces such as women’s shelters, changing rooms, women’s prisons and sporting arenas are opened up. The struggle for women’s rights is erased.

– We have seen examples of biological men changing their legal gender on paper in order to obtain gender-based admission points for higher education.

Women are displaced from arrangements intended to remedy historical injustice because the law equates biological reality with a legal fiction.

– For children, the fluid concept of gender means that they are deprived of the right to a stable and natural understanding of reality.

When kindergartens and schools tell children that they may have been “born in the wrong body”, the system abandons its duty to provide children with a secure upbringing grounded in science.

Children’s natural vulnerability is exploited in order to satisfy adults’ ideological visions, while parental rights are pushed aside.

The Storting says no – why should schools say yes?

The Children’s Ombud overlooks a simple but fundamental paradox: Norway’s highest democratic body, the Storting, has deliberately chosen not to fly the rainbow flag from the parliamentary building during Pride. The reasoning is principled and clear: Pride is regarded as a political manifestation, and the state authorities are expected to remain neutral.

When the nation’s parliament acknowledges that Pride carries a significant political agenda that divides the population, why should Mina Gerhardsen force it into the schoolyard?

Norwegian schools have absolutely no need for the symbolic politics of the organisation FRI.

Schools already have a statutory and continuous focus on inclusion, love of one’s neighbour and universal values. These principles are firmly rooted in both the Education Act and the national curriculum, and they are practised professionally throughout the year, entirely without the need for political campaign flags.

The iceberg that Norwegian media refuse to see. The Children’s Ombud asks us to place blind trust in supranational experts. But why should Norwegian parents surrender control over their children’s bodies and boundaries to closed international networks?

Here at home, coverage of the disturbing Epstein files has been marked by a deafening reluctance to engage. Norwegian media have narrowed the matter to financial connections and Crown Princess Mette-Marit’s unfortunate encounters.

But this is scarcely the tip of the iceberg. Norwegian media refuse to see what lies beneath the surface:

A cynical and malicious agenda directed against children, driven by people with enormous power. New analyses of the released Epstein documents have triggered profound international discussions about how the systematic grooming and manipulation of children actually takes place. It involves gradually erasing children’s natural boundaries of intimacy, confusing their perception of reality and normalising the abnormal, so that they become defenceless against adults’ transgressions.

When the Children’s Ombud and the school system roll out the sexualisation agenda of the UN and WHO, a direct and dangerous line is drawn to this method.

Forcing children and young people to break down their own barriers under the label of “diversity” functions in practice as a form of institutional and legal grooming.

Jeffrey Epstein used enormous sums on philanthropy, research and international cooperation to purchase a polished and respectable façade.

Men of power concealed their darkest actions behind elite associations – just as supranational bodies today package harmful gender theories and early sexualisation in a façade of human rights and sustainability.

The publication of these documents has created a massive and irreparable breach of trust between the public and established institutions – albeit outside Norway’s borders.

While populations in other countries are awakening to these disturbing realities, Norwegian media remain either deafeningly silent or, at best, politically correct in their dry and superficial coverage.

When it emerges that people in positions of power have been able to commit or ignore systematic abuse of children for decades, the state, the UN and the WHO lose all moral authority. They have absolutely no right to dictate what our children should learn about the body and sexuality.

The system has failed, and parents must reclaim the responsibility of protection. The limit has been reached. When parents react against the rainbow flag, it is not about hatred but about defending children. It is about adults who have retained their reason and who can see that children are being led to believe that they were “born in the wrong body”.

It is about stopping a process that, in the most extreme cases, pushes children and young people into irreversible medical experiments involving puberty blockers, hormones and surgery – interventions that result in lifelong pain and sterility.

Mina Gerhardsen’s mission as Children’s Ombud is to protect children, not to function as an advertising agency for a global, norm-critical agenda. Imposing adults’ ideologies, fetishes and supranational political objectives upon children below the age of sexual consent is not diversity – it is a grave, authoritarian and systemic transgression of boundaries.

It is high time that the Children’s Ombud stopped demanding loyalty to ideological campaign flags.

We already have one flag in Norway. The red, white and blue flag embraces absolutely everyone who lives in this country, without dividing us into special-interest groups. That is the flag that belongs in the schoolyard.