The Biden-Harris administration is advancing policies that could redefine child protective systems, especially for families with children who express gender identity confusion. As part of their broader effort to promote inclusivity and gender affirmation, the administration has aligned with activists who see “non-affirmation” of a child’s gender identity as a form of child abuse. This shift has sparked significant debate, as some parents worry it could lead to government overreach into family matters and decisions related to gender identity.
At the forefront of this movement is Alex Roque, head of the Ali Forney Center for homeless LGBTQ youth in New York City. During a U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) webinar last fall, Roque made a bold claim: “Transphobia is child abuse.” He argued that family rejection of a child’s gender identity is no different than denying them access to basic needs such as food or education. Roque emphasized that if such denials were based on other factors, they would make headlines and lead to legal repercussions.
This viewpoint is not an outlier among gender activists who are shaping the Biden-Harris administration’s policies. In fact, it reflects a growing movement within government circles that sees affirming a child’s gender identity as a fundamental right, one that parents must not obstruct.
One of the most notable influences on the administration’s evolving policies comes from Cuyahoga County, Ohio. Over the past several years, social workers in the county have developed a program that pressures parents to affirm their children’s gender identities. Federal grant funds were used to support this initiative, which has become a model for the broader approach being promoted by the Biden-Harris administration.
The program operates under the premise that a parent’s failure to affirm their child’s gender identity could lead to the removal of the child from the home. This strategy has alarmed many parents who worry they may lose custody of their children if they disagree with the child’s expressed gender identity or choose not to pursue immediate gender-affirming interventions.
The Daily Caller News Foundation conducted a review of hundreds of documents and emails obtained via public record requests, which revealed how the Cuyahoga County program has influenced the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). These documents show that HHS’s Administration for Children and Families (ACF) used the Cuyahoga County model as a blueprint while drafting new rules for foster care, finalized in April 2024.
The finalized HHS foster care rule includes specific language about the treatment of children who express gender identity issues. It emphasizes that child protective services must act in the “best interest” of the child, which could mean intervening if parents do not support their child’s gender identity.
Critics argue that the rule could be used to punish parents who take a cautious or non-affirming approach to their child’s gender expression. Some fear it could lead to an environment where parents feel compelled to accept and support their child’s gender identity, even if they have reservations about the long-term effects of medical or social transition.
Proponents of the rule, however, argue that it is necessary to protect the rights and well-being of transgender and gender non-conforming children. They believe that children who do not receive gender affirmation from their families are at a higher risk of mental health issues, homelessness, and even suicide. From their perspective, intervention by child protective services is essential to ensure these children are not subjected to emotional or psychological harm.
The debate over these policies highlights a larger cultural and political divide over gender identity and the role of government in family life. Supporters of gender affirmation policies argue that denying a child’s gender identity can have serious consequences for their mental health and well-being. They see the government’s role as a protective one, ensuring that all children have the support they need to thrive, regardless of their gender identity.
On the other hand, critics see these policies as an example of government overreach. They argue that parents have the right to raise their children according to their own beliefs and values, and that removing a child from a home simply because the parents do not affirm a particular gender identity sets a dangerous precedent. These critics worry that the government is stepping into the role of the parent, making decisions that should be left to families.
As these new rules and policies are implemented, families across the country are left wondering what this means for their rights as parents. Will they lose the ability to guide their children’s decisions about gender? Will child protective services be used as a tool to enforce a particular view of gender identity? Or will these policies serve to protect vulnerable children from harm and ensure that all children have the support they need to thrive?
For now, the Biden-Harris administration appears committed to promoting gender affirmation as a central part of its child welfare policies. But the conversation is far from over. As more parents, activists, and lawmakers engage in the debate, the question remains: where should the line be drawn between protecting a child’s rights and preserving parental authority?
