According to Abigail Shrier’s 2022 City Journal report, Hudacko’s wife, Christine, filed for divorce and revealed their eldest son identified as transgender soon after a trip to New York with their sons. During the divorce proceedings, Judge Joni Hiramoto granted Hudacko shared custody of his youngest son but denied him any custody of his transgender-identifying son. Hudacko’s cautious approach to experimental drugs, preferring to wait and see if his son’s gender issues would resolve naturally, was deemed by the judge as evidence of his unfitness as a father.
Judge Hiramoto’s stance aligns with an increasing movement that labels parents “abusive” for not affirming their child’s “gender identity.”
This ideology has infiltrated American institutions, including courts, schools, and state laws. For instance, Illinois’s House Bill 4876 aims to redefine child abuse to include denying minors “necessary medical . . . gender-affirming services.” This targets parents who take a cautious approach to their child’s dysphoria, an approach that is gaining traction in Europe.
The Biden administration is reinforcing this dangerous redefinition of “abuse” through new foster-care regulations. These rules, implemented by the Administration for Children and Families (ACF), misrepresent existing research to support activist views on what constitutes a child’s “best interest,” thereby affecting foster children and parents alike. The new rules require state agencies to follow strict protocols when placing LGBTQI+ foster children. Providers must undergo specialized training, facilitate access to resources that support the child’s health and well-being, and create an environment that affirms the child’s LGBTQI+ identity to qualify for federal funding.
The ACF argues that not using a child’s chosen name and pronouns correlates with poor mental health outcomes, relying on self-reported survey data to claim a connection between “gender affirmation” and positive mental health outcomes in trans-identifying children. However, these surveys are insufficient to conclude that significant mental health disparities among LGBTQI+ youth result from stigma and discrimination.
A Trevor Project brief, cited by the ACF, claims LGBTQ youth in foster care had nearly three times the odds of reporting a past-year suicide attempt compared to non-foster youth. The ACF uses this to suggest that foster parents’ handling of “gender identity” influences youth suicidality. However, foster youth typically experience more adverse childhood experiences (ACEs), which are linked to higher suicidality. This indicates that foster youth with more ACEs might adopt a transgender identity as a coping mechanism, a view supported by evidence of co-occurring conditions in trans-identified populations predating their trans-identification.
The U.K.’s Cass report further supports this perspective, noting that foster youth were overrepresented in the first clinical cohort at the nation’s gender-identity clinic. The report found common factors among children referred to gender clinics, such as maternal and paternal mental illness, substance abuse, and combined neglect and abuse. This suggests these children likely had more ACEs and may have identified as transgender as a coping mechanism.
The Biden administration, instead of addressing the real issues in the U.S. foster system, such as a critical shortage of homes and underfunding, is pushing federal policies that compel foster families and agencies to affirm a child’s gender identity, equating non-affirmation with abuse. This misguided approach only exacerbates the challenges faced by vulnerable children.
Another Trevor Project survey cited by the Administration for Children and Families (ACF) attempts to show that transgender-identified foster youth are disproportionately “kicked out, abandoned, or run away” due to their gender identity. However, this survey conflates these reasons without distinguishing between them, leading to ambiguous conclusions.
The ACF also references a Trevor Project survey to assert that supportive homes reduce suicide attempts among transgender-identified youth. Yet, the survey fails to define “support,” leaving interpretation to the respondents. The data reveals only a slight difference in suicide attempts between youth in “gender-affirming” homes (14 percent) and those in “non-affirming” homes (20 percent).
A child’s perception of “support” may be influenced by their mental health history, independent of their transgender status. The Family Acceptance Project admits that “transgender young adults reported lower social support and general health” regardless of family acceptance. This suggests that youth with severe psychiatric issues might be more likely to identify as transgender and view family situations as unsupportive.
The ACF later claims that supportive environments lead to positive mental health outcomes for LGBTQI+ youth, citing a Substance Abuse and Mental Health Administration (SAMHSA) report. However, SAMHSA’s references are conceptual papers, not empirical studies. The report endorses social transition without robust research support, while a 2023 U.K. study found no significant effects of social transition on mental health. The Cass Review warns that social transition is an active intervention with profound effects on psychological functioning and long-term outcomes.
SAMHSA’s report suggests that one supportive adult can positively impact the mental health of youth with diverse sexual orientations or gender identities, citing research on acceptance of sexual orientation, not gender identity. The DSM-5 notes that most childhood “desisters” end up identifying as gay, not transgender.
The ACF’s comparison of objections to child gender transition with “conversion practices” is misleading. Psychologist James Cantor clarifies that studies on conversion therapy have focused on sexual orientation, not gender identity. Most children desist from transgender identification naturally, without intervention.
The ACF rules erroneously treat LGBTQI+ youth as a homogeneous group, assuming research on gay and lesbian youth applies to transgender youth. This strategy, exploited by transgender activists, ignores the real issues in the U.S. foster system, such as the critical shortage of homes, underfunding, and high turnover rates in child welfare agencies.
Instead of addressing these pressing problems, the Biden administration’s policy seeks to force foster families and agencies to affirm a child’s gender identity, equating non-affirmation with abuse and worsening the challenges faced by vulnerable children.
