Ohio judges reject gender ideology, say parents don't have to accept child's 'transsexual identity'

From the Pacific Northwest to the north Atlantic, some jurisdictions remove or refuse to return children to parents who won't affirm their identity as the opposite sex. The Biden administration even convened a "speed dating" event to fund "family acceptance" child welfare programs that seek to eradicate parental opposition to gender confusion.

An Ohio appeals court made clear in a ruling this month that the Buckeye State cannot count refusal to affirm against parents, while upholding the custody determination in that case.

"There is no requirement in Ohio law that parents must unquestioningly accept and support their minor children's claims of transsexual identity or preferred pronouns," reads the opinion, noting ongoing litigation over Ohio's statutory ban on so-called gender-affirming care for minors and the Supreme Court's decision upholding Tennessee's similar ban.

"From a best-interest analysis perspective, we see no serious concern presented by Mother's and Father's cautious reactions to 'Sara's' disclosure of her perceived transgender status and preference for male pronouns," contrary to the implication in Ohio's brief and the juvenile court's permanent custody decision that refusal to immediately affirm shows unfitness.

The March 20 opinion and judgment entry by judges Matthew Byrne, Robert Hendrickson and Robin Piper, elected to their positions between 2008 and 2020 after winning Republican primaries, is unusual among courts for avoiding the language of gender ideology, such as referring to gender-confused males and females with wrong-sex pronouns.

Even the Supreme Court's blessing of Tennessee's ban on puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones and surgical interventions for gender-confused minors was riddled with gender ideology, repeatedly using the phrases "transgender boy" and "transgender girl" to refer to the opposite sex and describing the challengers' female lawyer as a man.

"We will refer to Sara accurately, as a female," the Ohio panel wrote, citing their 2025 decision in another custody case that, for "readability" and "to avoid confusion," used male pronouns for a father "diagnosed with gender dysphoria" who "considers himself to be a woman." 

The judges also invoked Ohio judicial conduct rules to protect the "independence, integrity, and impartiality of the judiciary" and the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals' refusal to address a male federal prisoner as a woman due to "lack of legal authority," "judicial impartiality" and "the complexities associated with shifting and newly-created pronouns."

By contrast, a California judge forced prosecutors to use female pronouns for Tremaine Carroll in the male inmate's pending felony trial for rape and "dissuading a witness" while housed at the Central California Women's Facility under the Golden State's SB 132. Women's Liberation Front board treasurer N.K. Stade recently wrote about the "abomination" for The Hill.

Ohio lawmakers are already considering legislation to bar government agencies from defining parents as "harmful" or "dangerous" for affirming their children's sex rather than gender identity or denying foster placements for refusal to affirm gender identity, which the conservative Heritage Foundation calls the most comprehensive such legislation in the country.

The threat is not theoretical in neighboring Indiana, which took a now-adult child from his parents for refusing to affirm his identity as a girl. State GOP Attorney General Todd Rokita argued the parents' case was moot, and the Supreme Court refused to review it.

Ohio defended its gender-affirming care ban for minors, which remains in effect, before the Ohio Supreme Court on Tuesday. An all-Democratic appeals panel ruled it unconstitutional for infringing on parents' "fundamental right to seek medical care for their children."

On the other side, a wide coalition including parental and gay rights groups and a transgender child psychologist are asking the U.S. Supreme Court to reinstate a legal challenge to Washington state's law that hides gender-confused runaways from parents, unilaterally sets "reunification" conditions and refers them for gender affirming care.

A judge in Iceland reportedly stripped custody from a father for opposing a medicalized gender transition for his 10-year-old autistic son, whose condition is known to have a higher association with gender confusion. X owner Elon Musk, who is autistic, highlighted the dispute. 

Musk told gender-critical psychologist Jordan Peterson two years ago he was "essentially tricked" into approving puberty blockers for his gender-confused son Xavier, now legally Vivian Wilson, and told that "Xavier might commit suicide" if Musk denied treatment. USA Today refused to use his son's birth name, even editing "Xavier" out of Musk's quote.

Girl's gender identity and sexuality kept changing

The Ohio appeals court made clear that Sara's gender identity is an ever-moving target and perhaps a distraction from bigger health problems, raising the question of how exactly her parents could affirm her even if they wanted to.

"The record indicates that, during the pendency of the children's services case, Sara repeatedly changed the pronouns that she prefers," and her half-sister Karen, with whom Sara was living when the permanent custody hearing happened, testified that Sara would change her "sexuality every four to five weeks," the order said.  

Their father was "calm" when Sara "came out" to him with Karen present, according to the half-sister, and Sara sought a name change "because she associated her given name with being yelled at," not related to gender identity, the order said. "Karen opined that Sara's struggles with body dysphoria are actually related to her weight."

Sara's mother, who is not Karen's mother, testified she was "surprised and uncomfortable" that the 13-year-old identified as a boy and wanted accompanying pronouns, but that "we would work through this" if her gender identity continued. Now that the girl is older, "Mother no longer cared what Sara wanted to be called."

The girl's therapist, Abigail Channell, agreed that "Sara is struggling with gender identity and sexuality." While Sara preferred "they/them" pronouns when the hearing happened, Channell described her as "she" and said she'd use the same pronoun directly to Sara.

The therapist didn't think Sara actually had gender dysphoria, saying her "self-harm and suicidal ideation are motivated by past trauma, rather than [a] gender-related issue," the order said.

"Children who struggle with these issues deserve sober and sensitive guidance, and Ohio law does not require parents unquestioningly to accept whatever their children say about their gender identity or sexuality at that particular moment," the judges said.

Holding religious observance against parents

A notable wrinkle in the case is the parents' Messianic Judaism and Sara's disinterest, with Karen describing her half-sister as "staunchly anti-religious" and therapist Channell saying the girl had made "some progress" with her anger about religion.

"There is also a possible suggestion in the state's brief and in the juvenile court's decision that Mother and Father should be faulted, in a best-interest analysis, for not unquestioningly supporting Sara's turn away from their family's Messianic Judaism," the order says.

"This is also not supported by Ohio law. Parents are free to assist and guide their children in the development of their religious faith," the court said.

The European Court of Human Rights, by contrast, recently refused to review Sweden's removal of tween girls from their Christian parents more than three years ago, initially based on the older girl's abuse allegation, which she quickly retracted, according to their lawyers at Alliance Defending Freedom International.

The Swedish government then justified withholding the children because of the "religious extremism" of their parents, Daniel and Bianca Samson, "citing their refusal to let the girls wear make-up and the family’s regular attendance at church three times a week," AFDI said. Their parents claim both girls, who are separated and have been repeatedly moved, have attempted suicide.

The court said the parents did not "exhaust legal remedies in Sweden, despite the legal team’s assessment that there were no further options for domestic recourse," and it saw no "apparent violation of the right to respect for private life under the European Convention on Human Rights," ADFI said.

George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley wrote: "This family appears to have done everything demanded of them as their daughters begged to return home. It is a case worthy of inquiry by the [Trump] Administration in defense of religious liberty."