LGBT

Why the Move to Re-Pathologize ‘Trans’ Identity is Important

Genspect, a grassroots educational organization standing in direct opposition to gender ideology, is calling for what they call the “re-psychopathologization” of “transgender” identities. It is an important move for which they are getting expected pushback.

Yes, re-psychopathologization is an uncommon word in most people’s vocabulary, but it simply means reestablishing “trans” identity, not as something to be celebrated and affirmed, but as a psychological state of ill-health to be compassionately treated clinically in the mind of the individual.

As Mia Hughes, research analyst and author of the groundbreaking WPATH Files, explained at the September Genspect conference in Albuquerque, the “monster” in gender ideology is not necessarily the doctors performing experimental, body-modifying medicine on young people. The actual culprit is “an idea; the false belief that being transgender is innate, healthy and something to celebrate.” She stated this “is what is causing all the devastation.” And as a result, she explains, “to be absolutely clear, an entire field of medicine [“gender affirming care”] was built on a false belief; a fiction created by a political movement to serve its own agenda.”

Thus, no one is transgender.

As Focus on the Family has explained, “transgender’ means many different things … and nothing.The American Psychiatric Association explains transgender is “a non-medical term that has been used increasingly since the 1990s as an umbrella term” for anyone who rejects their biological sex believing their mind can be sexed differently than their body. There is no scientific discovery establishing this assumption.

These facts are why Genspect explains, “Re-psychopathologization means restoring transgender identities to their proper place in psychiatry – as conditions of the mind requiring careful therapeutic attention, rather than celebrating them as healthy identities.”

They also explain the term re-psychopathologization is “not an accident of phrasing, nor an unfortunate choice of words.” Nor is it an uncompassionate statement. Genspect hold it “is a deliberate and necessary response to the catastrophic decision made by the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) in 2010 to “‘de-psychopathologize’ transgender identities.” That effort to depathologized “trans” identity in clinical practice continues today in examples here, here, here and here.

Genspect correctly holds that you cannot successfully and compassionately treat a condition if you hold an incorrect belief about the thing itself. They explain re-psychopathologization “is a call to restore clarity, compassion, and safeguarding by recognizing that transgender identification is not innate or biologically determined, but an all-consuming pathological belief heavily influenced by culture.”

They see this an essential act of restoring clarity in medicine as “psychiatry must address pathological beliefs rather than collude with them.” It is also a way to restore genuine compassion for people, as those “caught in this cultural wave are innocent victims who need help and support, not experimental body modification in the name of a political ideology.”

Why Now?

Genspect launched its de-psychopathologization effort because “it is now clear that the experiment of ‘gender-affirming care’ has failed.” This is evidenced in many recent factors. One is this year’s June 18thU.S. Supreme Court decision in United States v. Skrmetti which rejected the idea that access to experimental “trans-affirming” procedures is a constitutional right. Second, countries such as Denmark, Sweden, Finland, France, and England have reviewed the evidence and moved away from allowing drug and surgical experimentation on children in the name of gender ideology. Third, people are increasingly learning of the harms gender policies are having on women, here, here, here and here, as just a few examples.

Genspect explains, “It is time to recognize transgender identification for what it is: a pathological belief requiring careful psychiatric attention, not celebration and widespread medicalization.”

This understanding is more medically and scientifically accurate. As such, it will serve mothers and fathers, children and the clinicians who serve them better.

Related Articles and Resources

If you or someone you know is struggling with transgenderism or other sexuality issues, and you don’t know where to turn, Focus on the Family is here to help.

Focus offers a one-time counseling consultation with a licensed or pastoral counselor free of charge thanks to generous donor support. If you would like to request a consultation with Focus’ Counseling Department, call 1-855-771-HELP (4357) weekdays from 6:00 AM to 8:00 PM (Mountain Time) or complete our Counseling Consultation Request Form.

New Research Shows ‘Transgender’ Identity Dramatically Driven by Immaturity

‘Transgender’ Means Many Different Things — and Nothing

American Academy of Pediatrics Captured by Gender Ideology; Mainstream Professionals Are Calling Them Out

Transgenderism and Minors: What Does the Research Really Show?

What Does it Mean to Be Trans, Anyway?

Do Not Fall for the ‘Affirm Them or They Will Die’ Lie

New Research Confirms Previous Findings: Most Gender Confused Kids Desist

The Shifting Ground of ‘Gender-Affirming Care’

How the “Trans” and Gender Redefinition Issue Attacks the Family

How to Respond to “Trans” and Gender Ideology? Simple: Live Not by Lies

Are Sex and Gender Different Things?

No, Trans Rights Are Certainly NOT Human Rights

The Embarrassing Crack-Up of the LGBT Project

Yes, Transgenderism is a False Belief System

Image from Shutterstock.

Male ‘Throuple’ Buys Toddler from Quebec Government

Three men in a polyamorous relationship purchased a three-year-old girl from the Quebec government last month — a frightening arrangement that prioritizes the men’s desire to legitimize their relationship over the young girl’s rights and safety.

The Quebec Youth Protection Service awarded Eric LeBlanc, Jonathan Bedard and Justin Maheu custody of the young girl when she was just one. These men legally became her “parents” on September 11.

At least one prospective adoption agency refused the “throuple” because Quebec does not award parental authority to more than two adults, LeBlanc told CTV News. The Youth Protection Service was reportedly “more open.”

“Through that process, they learned that we are a little different because we’re three, but we’re not different from any other family,” LeBlanc explained.

Of course they are. In fact, there are few places more dangerous for that young girl than with three unrelated, adult males.

Children statistically do best in the shared home of their married, biological mother and father. This is, in part, because the biological tie between parent and child guarantees better parental buy-in.

“Children reliably move their [biological] mothers and fathers to invest, secure, protect and nurture them,” child advocate Josh Wood writes for Them Before Us. “And they do so at a level no substitute arrangement consistently matches.”

Numerous studies show stepparents, in contrast, do not invest as much time and energy into biologically unrelated children in their care. Evolutionary psychologists Martin Daly and Margo Wilson coined this phenomenon the “Cinderella Effect.”

This little girl will always feel the loss of her biological parents. She, like all orphaned children, deserves to be adopted by a married, male/female couple who can best mimic the stability and safety of the parents she lost. Instead, the Quebec Youth Protection Service placed her in the care of three biologically unrelated men in celebration of a radical, untested family form.

There is no greater statistical threat to a child than an unmarried male living in the home.

Cross-analyses of several countries performed by Daly and Wilson found stepparents beat their children to death at a 100 times higher rate per capita than children living with their biological parents.

A more recent U.S. dataset of people sentenced for producing child pornography showed, when controlling for the population, children living with an unrelated male adult were over 900% more likely to be sexually abused than those living with biological fathers.

This toddler is at grave risk of abuse. If, God forbid, she is harmed, Quebec authorities may not find out for years. She’s far too young to know what abuse is, let alone ask for help.

Right now, only two of the three men have parental custody over the child — but that could soon change.

In April, Quebec Superior Court Judge Marc-Andre Landry gave the province one year to change its civil code limiting parental custody to only two adults. Quebec has appealed the decision.

“It’s not about stepparents or other potential realities. It’s really about three people sitting together and saying, ‘We should have a child together,’” Landry wrote.

The harm of this ruling, if it stands, cannot be overstated. At best, it prioritizes the sexual predilections and desires of adults over the rights of children to maternal and paternal love and care. At worst, it could allow child predators to share custody of an abuse victim under the guise of an “alternative family.”

CTV News captioned their interview with the “throuple”: “Three men and their daughter want their family recognized by the Quebec government.”

That is a lie. That child is not “their daughter,” because no child can have more than one father. She doesn’t care about family recognition; she wants her biological mother and father back, or the closest approximation to them.

Instead, the Quebec government sold her to three men who wanted a child to complete their parody of domestic bliss.

She did not consent — but it did not matter.

Please join the Daily Citizen in standing against such reckless family redefinition and in praying for the safety and salvation of this little girl.

Additional Articles and Resources

Florida to Regulate Surrogacy After Pennsylvania Sex Offender Purchases Baby

Baby Should Be Immediately Removed from Convicted Child Predator

Legalization of Same-Sex Marriage Harms Children and Society

Chip and Joanna Gaines Platform Couple to ‘Normalize Same-Sex Families’

California Legislature Passes ‘License to Kidnap’ Act, Other Horrible Legislation

Virginia and Texas Move to Protect Girls’ and Women’s Private Spaces

Virginia Governor Glenn Youngkin directed the state’s Board of Health to take steps to protect sex-segregated spaces and activities.

Similarly, in Texas, Governor Abbott recently signed the Texas Women’s Privacy Act into law, protecting girls and women in locker rooms, showers, bathrooms, prisons and domestic violence shelters.

Here’s what happened in these states.

Virginia

The Family Foundation, a Focus on the Family-allied public policy group, explained the governor’s executive action in a press release:

“In a major victory for women and girls across the Commonwealth, Governor Glenn Youngkin today issued Executive Directive 14, instructing the State Board of Health to promulgate regulations protecting the health and safety of females in sex-separated spaces and activities.”

In his executive directive, the governor stated what prompted the order, “Students of both sexes have made high profile complaints about both harassment from students of the opposite sex within intimate spaces such as locker rooms, which threatens the health and safety of students, and the inclusion of biological males in girls’ athletic competitions, which is a clear violation of Title IX.”

He pointed to specific instances where privacy and safety were violated.

“Most recently, a complaint sent to USED [U.S. Education Department] alleges that on September 2, 2025, a biological male was watching girls change in a Fairfax County Public Schools girls’ locker room. …

“Additionally, more than a dozen witnesses have testified in a case involving a male Tier III sex offender who exposed and sexually gratified himself in front of female children in female locker rooms within schools and fitness centers in Northern Virginia.”

Governor Youngkin directed the Board to draft regulations that:

  • Prevent biological males from participating in organized female-only athletic teams and competitions in Virginia.
  • Prevent biological males from using designated female spaces where females are likely to be in a state of undress.

Texas

In September, Governor Greg Abbott signed SB 8, the Texas Women’s Privacy Act. The House passed the measure with a vote of 86-45, while the Senate voted 19-11 in favor of the law.

SB 8 defines male and female by their normal reproductive capacity, then it requires individuals to use sex-segregated facilities based on their sex.

According to Texas Values, a Focus on the Family ally, the law makes it clear “that women and girls are protected in their sex separated spaces like showers, locker rooms, domestic violence shelters, and prisons.”

The pro-family organization had been fighting since 2017 to pass legislation to keep sex-segregated spaces based on biological sex, not on an individual’s made up notion of their “gender.”

Texas Values’ Director of Government Relations Mary Elizabeth Castle applauded the new law, saying:

“Today, Texas made a historic move in making sure that no woman or little girl has to look over her shoulder with fear when she is in the locker room, restroom, or shower because a man has been allowed to wrongfully enter that space.”

“I thank Governor Abbott and other state leaders for being strong in passing the Texas Women’s Privacy Act before the calendar year is over. Our Texas legislature has made the message loud and clear: You don’t mess with Texas women and their dignity.”

The Daily Citizen applauds Virginia and Texas for taking steps to protect people – boys and girls, men and women – from those with wrong-sex confusion who insist they are the opposite sex. Gender ideology doesn’t change the truth that there are only two sexes – male and female.

Related Articles and Resources:

Federal Investigation Finds Loudoun County Violated Boys’ Title IX Rights

Girls Sports Coaches Are Incentivized to Recruit Men — Parents Shouldn’t Let Them

How to Get In Touch With Your State Policy Group

President Trump: ‘There are Only Two Genders: Male and Female’

Transgender Resources

Trump Signs Executive Order Protecting Women’s Sports and Spaces

UPenn Will Strip ‘Lia’ Thomas of Medals, Apologize to Female Athletes

What Does it Mean to Be Trans Anyway?

Why Christians Can’t Avoid the “Trans” and Gender Redefinition Issue

Yes, Girls Care When Boys Take Their Trophies

SCOTUS May Hear Colorado Family’s Case: Can Schools Secretly Transition Students?

On Monday, the United States Supreme Court met privately to consider cases for the new term beginning next week. Among them is a case involving a Colorado family whose daughter was secretly transitioned by a public school district.

The case has garnered national attention in the ongoing debate over parental rights in education. The family is hoping the Court will take the case and use it to affirm parental rights against school districts that attempt to usurp the authority of fit parents to direct the care, upbringing and education of their children.

Background

The case, Lee v. Poudre School District R-1, involves complaints from two families, the Lees and the Juriches, in Colorado. They allege that the school district’s policies on gender identity intentionally excluded parents from critical decisions involving their children.

According to their lawsuit, the Lees’ 12-year-old daughter was invited to attend an “art club,” but the meeting turned out to be a Gender and Sexuality Club.

In an exclusive interview with the Daily Citizen, Erin Lee explained, “At the meeting, adults told her daughter that if she wasn’t entirely comfortable in her biological sex, she was trans. Activists informed her she was queer if she wasn’t sure who she was sexually attracted to, and they advised the kids that it was ok to lie to her parents about the meeting.”

The families argue that the school district’s policies fostered an environment that discourages disclosure to parents and even promotes secrecy. They allege that these policies and practices violate the constitutional right of parents to control the upbringing and care of their children.

Lower Court Rulings

The district court dismissed the case, finding that there was no plausible constitutional violation.  

The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s decision, concluding that the families did not sufficiently link the alleged harms to official district policy.

Legal Theories

The families claim the school district’s actions violate the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause, which the courts have interpreted as securing the rights of parents to direct the upbringing and education of their children.

They argue that the Constitution presumes parents are the natural guardians of their children and that the state cannot displace them from this role without compelling justification.

The school district maintains that its policies are designed to protect student privacy and foster a supportive environment. They claim that the policies are administrative choices, and the school district has ultimately discretion over their policies.

Lee Family Remarks

Erin Lee spoke with the Daily Citizen about standing up for her family and for all the families that have had their rights infringed,

I’ve connected with so many other parents who’ve had their children, their families and their rights violated by public schools keeping secrets and encouraging their children to keep those secrets from parents. This is such a ubiquitous issue that has harmed thousands.

I feel blessed that we were able to rescue our daughter from the throes of wrong-sex confusion and protect her from the harms of chemical & surgical mutilation. This lawsuit is for our girls and our families. But it is also about every other parent who has been in our shoes.

Impact

If the Supreme Court agrees to hear this case, the implications could be far-reaching.

A decision in favor of the families could reestablish the presumption that the parents, not schools, have the right to direct their children on sensitive topics like identity and religion.

A ruling against the school district would force school districts to be more transparent about their policies.

A holding in favor of parents could also give more parents the confidence to challenge other educational debates in public schools, including curriculum content, religious accommodations, health decisions and parental opt-outs.

A decision about whether the court will take the case this term is expected on Monday, October 6.

The Daily Citizen will continue covering this developing story.

Related Articles and Resources

Erin and Jon have a documentary, Art Club, telling their story. Watch online for free.

To learn more about Erin’s advocacy for children and parents, visit her account on X or her website.

‘Art Club’ Documentary — One Family’s Escape from Gender Ideology, and the Bigger Trend Sweeping the Nation

Exclusive Interview: Colorado Parents Expose ‘Gender Cult’ at Public School in New Documentary

Focus on the Family Urges Congressional Leaders to Respect Parental Rights

Focus on the Family exists to help families, and that includes help navigating the issues of homosexuality and transgenderism. Focus offers a free, one-time counseling consultation with a licensed or pastoral counselor. To request a counseling consultation, call 1-855-771-HELP (4357) or fill out our Counseling Consultation Request Form.

Homosexuality Resources

Transgender Resources

Understanding Homosexuality

Image from Shutterstock.

Mayday USA Sues Seattle for Violating First Amendment Rights at Worship Rally 

The leaders of Mayday USA, which hosted worship and prayer rallies across the nation, sued the city of Seattle, Mayor Bruce Harrell, and police chief Shon Barnes for infringing on their First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and religious liberty.

Mayday USA planned worship and prayer events in five cities as a “‘Mayday’ call to awaken America’s parents and politicians into protecting children and our religious freedom.” After hosting successful gatherings in New York, Miami and Houston, the group was organizing events in Seattle and Los Angeles.

Led by Jenny Donnelly of Her Voice Movement and evangelist Ross Johnston, Mayday’s “Don’t Mess With Our Kids” rallies called Christians to worship and intercede on behalf of America because of how our nation harms children through abortion, trafficking, and indoctrinating them with a “liberal, political and sexual agenda that seeks to destroy their God-given identities.”

Liberty Counsel filed the lawsuit on behalf of Donnelly and her husband Robert, Johnston, and Russell Johnson, pastor of The Pursuit, a Washington church which sponsored the event.

According to the Seattle lawsuit, organizers asked to hold their event at Pike Place, “a public street and traditional public forum, home to frequent and reoccurring parades, protests, and other constitutionally protected expressive activity on topics espoused from myriad viewpoints.”

The city refused because of “neighborhood opposition,” a clear violation of the organizer’s free speech rights.

Instead, officials pointed the group to Cal Anderson Park “in the heart of Seattle’s most prominent LGBTQ+ neighborhood.” The prayer rally eventually took place on May 26.

Hundreds gathered to worship and pray for “the sanctity of human life, the sacrality of biological gender, the importance of the nuclear family, and the right to freedom of speech and religion,” as Mayday’s initial press release announced. The event also included bike giveaways and free haircuts.  

The lawsuit explains what happened at that park as antifa and LGBT-identified activists attacked the gathering:

Violent agitators threw urine filled balloons at Plaintiffs, engaged in obscene behavior and masturbation in front of the innocent minor children in attendance at Plaintiffs event, threatened Plaintiffs and their volunteers and attendees with death and serious bodily harm for engaging in their protected activity, hurled verbal threats at Plaintiffs, destroyed or damaged Plaintiffs’ event equipment, and otherwise engaged in physical threats and actual violence.

Activists cursed attendees, staff and volunteers, and sprayed them with pepper spray and tear gas. Protestors waved transgender pride flags and carried signs “denouncing the ‘Trump Fascist Regime,’” reported The Seattle Times, adding, “By Saturday night, Seattle police had made 23 arrests on various allegations.”

The lawsuit explained what happened next:

After all of these assaults, police officers told Plaintiffs that they needed to shut down their event early due to the violence.

As part of their reasons, the police told Plaintiffs that there was a shift change for police about to occur, so the police that were on site were leaving. Police also told Plaintiffs that they would not be sending any further police officers to the event because of manpower, overtime, and budget issues.

After the police left, organizers, volunteers and staff tried to break down the stage but were assaulted. Antifa and LGBT activists screamed obscenities and threats, threw water bottles, ripped down banners and damaged production equipment.

To add insult to very real injuries, Mayor Harrell “blamed Mayday for the violence perpetrated against them.” According to a Her Voice Movement press release:

Bruce Harrell, the mayor of Seattle, released a statement after the event, decrying it as “far-right” and unfairly labeling attendees of the peaceful prayer rally as bigots who wished to “provoke a reaction by promoting beliefs that are inherently opposed to our city’s values.”

He went on to say, “While there are broad First Amendment requirements around permitting events under free speech protections, I am directing the Parks Department to review all of the circumstances of this application to understand whether there were legal location alternatives or other adjustments that could have been pursued.”

Mayor Harrell’s statement denied the truth that Mayday USA had “worked closely with the Parks Department for weeks about the entire scope of our event.”

The lawsuit alleges that the city, mayor and police chief violated the First Amendment’s guarantees of free speech, peaceable assembly and free exercise of religion. It further claims that the city’s permitting scheme showed favoritism toward other religious and non-religious groups, violating the First Amendment’s establishment clause and the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. 

Related Articles and Resources

‘Assassination Culture’: Many Believe Killing and Destruction Are Justified  

As Looters Plunder Stores Across the Country, Owners Apologize and Bow to the Angry Mob

Chaos Continues to Reign in Seattle, CHOP Will Be Dismantled but Businesses May Move Elsewhere

‘Freedom March’ in Dallas – Leaving Homosexuality and Transgenderism to Follow Christ

Imagine Seattle: Defunded Police, No Jail and No Youth Detention Center

Lorenz Feels ‘Joy’ at UnitedHealthcare CEO’s Execution

Luigi Mangione: Alleged Killer Apprehended with All-Too-Familiar Manifesto

MSNBC Host Defends Riots Across the Country, Instead Blames ‘White Nationalist Mobs’

Over 400 Attacks on Churches in 2023, New Report Finds

Seattle Police Officer Pens Heartbreaking Letter: ‘I Have Now Been Broken’

Seattle Protestors March on Police Chief’s Home – So Why Not Defund the Police after this ‘Summer of Love’?

Image from Ross Johnston / YouTube