Gallup recently released poll results showing that 7.2% of American adults identify as “lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender or something other than heterosexual.” When Gallup first started measuring LGBT statistics in 2012, this number was 3.5%, which means that the LGBT community as a proportion of the U.S. population has doubled over the last ten years.

However, the poll displays a more nuanced result when this 7.2% of the population is  broken down proportionally by age group. Only 1.7% of the Silent Generation, 2.7% of baby boomers, and 3.3% of Generation X identify as LGBT, which leaves the remainder of the U.S. population’s 7.2% to be made up by millennials and Generation Z: a significant 11.2% of the former and a staggering 19.7% of the latter. So according to Gallup’s numbers, not only is 1 or 2 in every 20 U.S. adults lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, or “other LGBT,” but 1 in every 5 gen-z-ers is. We’ve come a long way over the last 50 years. Flash back to 1972, when the American Psychiatric Association was classifying homosexuality as a mental illness; now, in 2022, 1 in every 5 of young adults place themselves outside of the traditional heterosexual paradigm.

For some, this poll reflects an admirable shift in American culture. As society becomes more accepting and affirming of the lifestyle—celebrating it as an important aspect of a person’s identity and normalizing it to the younger generation—more and more of the nation’s young people go off to explore their sexualities in these sinful ways while they are young and impressionable and those who should be seeking help for this sexual disorder now feel legitimized in this broken lifestyle. Cathy Renna, the National LGBTQ Task Force communications director, seemed to convey this sentiment in her remarks to USA TODAY:

Who we are is rooted deeply in us and is something young people – growing up in a culture that has finally been able to tell them that they are aren’t alone [sic], that they are beautiful and perfect exactly as they are – will never turn back from now.

Sadly, however, Renna’s remark is truer than she might think. When young people grow up in a culture that tells them they are perfect “exactly as they are,” they might very well never turn back from it.

In Generation Z’s results, we now see the cumulative effects of the steady push to legalize, then normalize, then praise these sinful lifestyles. There’s a reason almost no one in the Silent Generation answered the Gallup poll as LGBT—they were all born before 1945, in a world which was not perfect by any means, but which was definitely more true to biblical standards of sexuality than ours is today. As the generations rolled on, the push to affirm the LGBT lifestyles got louder and louder, but it wasn’t until the most recent generations that we could really say that young people have “grown up” in such a sin-affirming world.

Most of us have a hard time imagining what the world would be like without cars, because we all grew up in a world saturated with them. We no longer think about whether they are beneficial or detrimental, as I’m sure many people did at the turn of the 20th century; we just accept them as a matter of fact, because they are an integral part of our world and they are here to stay. Likewise, I think many of the younger generations are now going to have a hard time imagining what the world would be like if heterosexual marriage were the universal norm. Vigorous debate does still persist right now, but if trends continue like they have been, then it’s going to be harder and harder to get people to believe the biblical paradigm. Perversion will be an integral part of our world and here to stay—or, as Renna put it, young people “will never turn back now.” For her movement, it’s a trend of liberation. But this is not liberty—this is bondage.

The Bible frighteningly describes how societies slip into this kind of sexual perversion—as a form of bondage, rather than a form of liberation. For those who want to see our nation avoid cultural self-destruction, this trend should bring us to our knees. Here’s the basic outline: God has made Himself plain to everyone, so that we are all without excuse if we try to deny Him (Rom. 1:19–20). Nevertheless, unbelievers refuse to acknowledge God; although they know God, they neither glorify Him as God nor are thankful to Him (Rom. 1:21).

So what is God’s response? Does God try to reveal Himself harder? Give people more signs? Make people think more clearly? No, the opposite is true. While God definitely extends His grace to many, and no one is beyond His saving power, Paul explains the natural trend of the unbelievers that refuse to glorify God: their thinking will become futile and their hearts will be darkened (Rom. 1:21). This is not liberation; this is debilitation. Even though they might claim to be wise—maybe even “woke” to all the injustices that no one else can see—unbelievers become fools. They exchange God’s glory for mere images (Rom. 1:22–23).

But the consequences don’t stop there. Not only does sin affect the mind, as unbelievers will claim to be wise while actually becoming fools, but rejection of God also affects sexuality. The very next step is that God gives them over—the same word used when Jesus predicted his betrayal—to sexual impurity, degrading their bodies (Rom. 1:24). They will exchange God’s truth for lies, and slip further into bondage. The unbelievers no longer serve God, but serve creation (Rom. 1:25).

This only spirals downwards, because God then gives them over—there’s that phrase again—to vile lusts (Rom. 1:26). And what are these vile lusts? Then come the chilling words:

For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error (Rom. 1:26–27, ESV).

It may sound cold to some, but here’s the harsh truth: homosexuality is not an immutable identity—it was never the way humans were ever supposed to be. Rather, when it is prevalent in a society, it is an enslaving consequence of rejecting God.

A society that openly accepts sin is far, far down the broad and wide road, and accordingly, Paul ends this passage by listing a series of evils, and then criticizing those who “not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them” (Rom. 1:32, ESV, italics mine). Which is what Renna, along with an increasingly vocal portion of our society, is now doing.

The increasing population proportion of the LGBT community and the promulgation of its acceptance are feeding each other in a vicious cycle. Renna hit the nail exactly on the head when she observed that a culture of acceptance will mean youth will never turn back. But that is precisely what is so frightening. Youth will never turn back if youth is enslaved by sexual perversion, having been “given over” to it as a consequence of sin. Our society is already far down the Romans 1 path that begins with rejecting God and ends in enslaving debauchery.

Only by a miracle of God can it be redeemed.

But our God is a God who answers prayer, and He is also a God of miracles.

The U.S. Center for Disease Control is sending out an LGBTQ inclusive self-assessment guide to all schools in the country. The agency wants to find out how committed schools are to providing a safe and inclusive environment for these students. The CDC’s school health division believes that when schools provide such an environment for gay and transgender students, it will improve the health and success of all students.

What makes them think this?

Obviously, someone at the CDC put in a lot of time and effort to developing the full color 32 page guide. But how does an organization whose mission is the control and prevention of diseases find the justification to create such a document? And why do they think they are qualified to deal with this issue? Do they consider homosexuality, transgenderism, queerness a disease?

Of course not. The disease they are attacking is our culture. This takes a little explanation to understand.

For years it has been known that members of the LGBTQ community suffer from mental illnesses at higher levels than heterosexuals. In fact, anxiety, depression, alcohol and drug dependence are problems that are 2.5 times greater among homosexuals and transgenders. Prior to 1973, being a homosexual was, itself, considered a mental illness. That changed when the American Psychiatric Association decided to remove homosexuality from the DSM-II, the bible for mental illness.

At the time, most of those who voted for this change did not believe that homosexuality was normal. Instead, because homosexuality was listed as a disorder in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, homosexuals could be denied employment. This was not right, they thought. So the condition was removed as an illness.

Removing homosexuality from the manual did not change the frequency of mental illness experienced by the LGBTQ community, however. It was higher before 1973, and it was higher after 1973, right up to 2023.

Since 1973 there has been a continuing campaign to view homosexuality as a normal variant of human sexuality. That effort started to dramatically increase after 1985, when Division 44 of the American Psychological Association was established. Division 44, also known as the Society for the Study of Lesbian and Gay Issues, is the APA’s subgroup focused on LGBTQ issues. Today, that group has 1,500 members spread across 50 states, the District of Columbia and eleven other countries. Most of the members are, themselves, LGBTQ.

From the beginning, Division 44, operating behind the scenes and largely in secret, worked to restructure the culture to be more affirming of the LGBTQ lifestyles. That started to ramp up significantly in 2004 when Judith Glassgold was president of that division. In the Fall, 2004 newsletter for the division, she published a portion of her remarks at the APA annual convention that past summer.

Glassgold endorsed what she called “Liberation Psychology.”

Liberation Psychology cannot be considered science, or even social science. It was the brainchild of Ignacio Martin-Baro, a Spanish born Jesuit priest. He also was a University of Chicago trained social psychologist who had been assigned by the Jesuits to El Salvador. In El Salvado he promoted liberation theology, which was Christian theology merged with promoting liberation of the oppressed.

Combining his radical theology with his expertise in social psychology (a discipline that views the source of many psychological problems as being directly caused by oppressive social norms) he came up with “Liberation Psychology.” Liberation Psychology combines elements of Marxism, feminism, liberation philosophy, liberation theology, critical psychology, critical theory, critical gender and critical race theories, critical pedagogy, as well as other ideological streams.

Essentially, it is more a religious cause than a scientific endeavor. It is a theory that, in practice, has no successes it can trumpet. And it is a theory that was built on a jumbled mass of speculation.

Glassgold writes: “Liberation psychology is necessary because we are oppressed . . .  Thus, understanding oppression is essential for understanding the psychological difficulties our community faces, for much of the behavior that ends up being termed ‘psychopathology’ is not simply an individual trait, but the outcome of social forces.” 

She proposed that the work of the profession is not merely to heal, but to reshape society.

For years after 1973, many psychologists and psychiatrists continued to work with homosexuals to help them conform to the social norm of heterosexuality. Some of the therapeutic efforts involved mostly talk therapy. But other approaches involved aversion therapies or other abusive types of treatments. The more abusive approaches have since been discredited for all change efforts, whether it was used to neutralize homosexual urges or to stop overeating, drug or alcohol abuse, or any other unwanted behavior.

Since 1985, Division 44 has been hard at work to discredit all efforts to convert homosexuals to heterosexuality, not only the aversion therapies. These psychologists claimed that children were born gay or born trans. For years they searched for and tried to prove there was a gay gene. But there is none. Now they insist homosexuality is inherent, a natural occurring identity on the sexual continuum.

Behind the “born that way” claim for homosexuality, there is an anti-science, blind refusal to seek understanding about how a person becomes gay. When a child says “I’m gay” or I’m lesbian” or I’m trans” we must accept it without question. It makes no difference that more than half of the LGBTQ community self-report as having been sexually abused or having experienced some other sexual trauma. Anyone who dares to explore the origins of a child’s declared homosexuality is branded a heartless homophobe. Of course, this has allowed countless predators who abused many of them to get away scot-free.

Division 44 demands that every segment of society conform to their view that LGBTQ is normal and should be affirmed by everyone. This effort started in their own professions by forcing changes in the ethical standards for psychologists, social workers and other helping professions. It has become unethical for therapists to question a person’s gender identity. Several states have incorporated these standards into law, even if the person wants help to change.

Today we all are just supposed to accept and affirm a person’s self-proclaimed gender identity. In fact, the preferred response is to celebrate the person’s gender identity.

This philosophy has been pushed into every element of our culture—media, entertainment, sports, education, government, churches, everywhere. Almost every school has a GSA (originally Gay Straight Alliance, now Gender and Sexualities Alliance) or GLSEN (Gay, Lesbian, Straight Education Network) clubs. Originally sold as an antidote to bullying, these clubs work within the schools to normalize homosexual and transgender identities. The claim was that it was only gay students who were being bullied. Which is preposterous on its face.

Now the effort is taking the next step. The activists are working to normalize the sexual activities of the homosexual community even among children. Through the GSA’s and GLSEN, the students themselves are demanding LGBTQ focused sex ed which includes instruction on how to engage in all manner of same sex sexual activities, unisex locker rooms, trans girls on girls sports teams, puberty blockers, transgender hormones and surgeries.

Through guile, manipulation, infiltration, threats, demands, cancellations, demonstrations, lies, Division 44 and its minions have bludgeoned almost the whole of society to conform to the false narrative it has created: children are born gay and we must all affirm and celebrate them. Society must conform. It is the only path to improved mental health for the LGBTQ community. Division 44 started off by focusing on adult homosexuals, but in the last 20 years, they have turned their focus toward children.

So this is the cause that the CDC now has taken up. Indoctrinate children and change the culture in a single generation. When the change has been accomplished, the increased mental illnesses experienced by the LGBTQ community will vanish. When everyone accepts varying and constantly changing sexual identities as normal, an infinite number of self-determined pronouns as the standard, the ever increasing number of gender identities, there will be no differences in the prevalence of mental illness experienced whether gay or straight. So they say.

To the CDC, as with Division 44, the culture we have forged in the United States, a culture that serves as a beacon of freedom to the world, a culture that produced the greatest generation, that created the greatest nation in the history of the world . . . that culture, that culture is the disease the CDC is out to cure.

This is happening before our eyes.

Written by Faith Kuzma

It’s hard to overstate the importance of the recent correction by the American Journal of Psychiatry of a landmark study purporting to demonstrate mental health improvements of “transitioning.”

According to Dr. Mark Regnerus, who analyzed the data,

This is not, contrary to what Bränström [lead researcher] told ABC News, an evidence-informed treatment. That the authors corrupted otherwise excellent data and analyses with a skewed interpretation signals an abandonment of scientific rigor and reason in favor of complicity with activist groups seeking to normalize infertility-inducing and permanently disfiguring surgeries.

In its conclusions, the study claimed hormones had no effect on mental health. The researchers also claimed, however, that SRS (sex reassignment surgery) benefited the mental health of patients. Regnerus explains:

If this were a clinical trial seeking to establish the efficacy of a particularly invasive medical treatment in comparison with a non-invasive standard protocol, there is no way that these published results would favor the invasive treatment—in this case, “gender affirming” surgery—when the statistical difference in outcomes was so tiny and fragile.

Almost a dozen doctors in the U.S., U.K., and Sweden sent seven letters recently published in the journal. These doctors demonstrated the claim of positive mental health outcomes was not merited.

Because it drew from population-wide data collected by the Swedish national health service, the Yale study was initially heralded as a turning point definitively demonstrating medical transitioning yields positive health outcomes. The Yale School of Health specifically announced health outcomes “improve”:

Unfailingly, the popular press echoed this Yale branding of transitioning as beneficial. For instance, without qualification, Reuters announced: “Sex-change operations yield long-term mental health benefits for transgender people.”

Glancing through the headlines, the readership of Newsweek, NBC, and the New York Daily News would surely be satisfied that whatever risks are entailed via “transitioning” may well be justified.

Since most prior studies indicate poor mental health outcomes, the press fanfare reveals how little research  journalists did.

In recent months, the Yale imprimatur lent credence to an especially urgent demand for trans-affirmative healthcare during the pandemic.

As it turns out, however, there is anecdotal evidence many young people desisted while under less constant reinforcement of “transitioning” propaganda. One Reddit user reflected on her break from a social network that affirmed her “transition”:

I detransitioned over the lockdown period and think that the loss of constant positive affirmation of my transmale identity by friends/strangers definitely contributed to me realising that my transition was more tied to outside influences than I previously realised. When I was around others I was constantly praised and looked up to for being trans—being alone helped me uncover and look into that feeling of ‘wrongness’ that’d started to nag at me since permanent T [testosterone] changes had began.

The study design did not initially include assessment of health outcomes for those who, from necessity or choice, did not go through with medically and surgically “transitioning,” After the response led researchers to recalculate, their results showed no difference in outcomes.

Moreover, psychological treatments similar to what is known according to the misnomer “wait and see”  model (actually an active talk therapy model demonstrated as successful by Dr. Kenneth Zucker) did not figure into the study. Surely it is important to examine what treatment paths might have led specifically to desistance, especially given the increasing number of therapy bans that make it dangerous to use talk therapy in response to gender-confused youth and adults.

It’s worth wondering how many online readers will realize the study’s conclusion was retracted. A reader without a medical background likely is unaware of the errors in basic calculations that led to the study authors acknowledging their conclusion was unmerited. Why did the peer review process overlook vested interests, motivated research methods, and in at least one instance, misrepresentations of data?

Why is the American Journal of Psychiatry continuing to maintain on its publication site a discredited study sponsored by donors who back LGBT causes, thereby causing a conflict of interest? Lobbying in the form of endowments provides academic cover of objectivity. Yale, in particular, has huge financial incentives from the Pritzker family, the Arcus Foundation and LGBT-dedicated alumni donations.

A few decades back, A.J. Reynolds sponsored research finding health benefits from cigarette smoking. Unsuspecting onlookers now as then are likely to take the study claims at face value.

Such financial ties incentivize research conclusions favored by donors and require up-front disclosure on the American Journal of Psychiatry website. Regarding such studies, Julian Vigo observes:

What this means, when you sift through the bios of the principal investigators and many on the advisory board who hold seats on other granting institutions, editorial committees, and institutional seats of great power, is this: that an enormous amount of money has been thrown at academics who are using public funds for political activism within a dishonestly formulated project.

Not just the publishers of such research but professional organizations as well are to blame for mainstreaming bogus research on “transitioning.” In at least two instances, professional medical organizations amplified the false benefits claim and basically continue to carry water for the “trans” lobby by further nesting and codifying transitioning within established practice.

The Butterfly Effect of “Trans” Advocacy in Research

Within months of the Yale study being published, systematic embedding of “transitioning” as best practice in “trans” healthcare began. This butterfly effect is seen in the ways professional associations dovetailed guidelines to fit the 2019 study.

Just two months after the Yale research appeared, the AMA issued a statement in support of “transitioning”:

Receipt of gender-affirming care has been linked to dramatically reduced rates of suicide attempts, decreased rates of depression and anxiety, decreased substance use, improved HIV medication adherence and reduced rates of harmful self-prescribed hormone use.

At the very least, the AMA needs to issue a correction. Dr. Mary Davenport, OBGYN writes:

This is a very serious error. It caused the AMA to state that surgery was an important treatment for gender dysphoria, and that justice requires insurance and the military to pay. (comment on social media). 

It wasn’t just the AMA, however, that extended the butterfly effect of the Yale study.

Sorry, Not Sorry

With evangelical zeal, the American Psychiatric Association (APA) also loaned its considerable professional authority to effectively endorse the study’s discredited conclusion with a headline that even now serves to support “transitioning”: “Study Finds Long-Term Mental Health Benefits of Gender-Affirming Surgery for Transgender Individuals.”

Despite its being fully discredited, the erroneous claim is updated by links to the journal’s correction, but it is still essentially being propped up by the APA. Initially hidden behind a paywall, the correction was virtually unseen and unavailable to online readers who still are likely to assume the APA underwrites or even champions the biomedical approach. Put plainly, the corrected publication now finds that neither time on hormones nor SRS surgery improves mental health outcomes. Yet this information is not clearly stated on the APA’s “update” page.

Additionally, while the APA links to the journal’s statement, it is written in academic jargon for specialists who know their niche area, not a general readership, which can still gloss the headline as legitimizing transitioning. Even for medical generalists, the continued posting of the study is misleading and harmful. Dr. Quentin Van Meter, a pediatric endocrinologist, commented in a recent conference presentation that most doctors are too busy to research information about new developments in care and rely on guidelines often drafted within small work groups by activists.

Clearly, both the journal and the professional associations are minimizing the study’s shortcomings in a way that deliberately misleads.

Helena, who is a re-identified woman, sums up how reframing of data to show positive outcomes undermines the trust patients have in medical institutions:

[T]here are a multitude of reasons why the unquestioning acceptance of these interventions as “care” is both ethically and scientifically flawed. It is true, and will always be true, that people who identify as transgender should receive support as well as proper, evidence-based, mental and physical healthcare. The issue is that as it stands today, the trans healthcare industry, and increasingly the institutions of the broader medical establishment (including the World Health Organization, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Psychological Association, and the Endocrine Society, among others), have broken away from the traditional standards originally set by rigorously developed medical ethics and the scientific method.

Inescapably, academic standing is undermined by the simultaneous effort to avoid public scrutiny. Public confidence can only be restored by a full retraction, including removing mention of the study from online publications and websites.

As an inflection point in the activist normalization of medical “transitioning,” research not only informs but directs healthcare policies and standards. The butterfly effect extends to teaching materials provided to doctors as part of continuing education requirements. For instance, the study was quickly repurposed as CME, (Continuing Medical Education) and turned into a key class that U.S. physicians take to keep their license. The course teaches physicians that “The findings support the decision to offer surgery to transgender individuals seeking it, as well as policies that ensure coverage for surgery” (Posted on Twitter by SEGMtweets). This statement needs to be expunged since the Yale study shows no such thing. If that does not happen, organizations posting such claims need to be held liable for disseminating misinformation.

Because the study’s statistical analysis was invalidated and a correction issued, such statements need to be removed from teaching materials and websites. Hacsi Horvath, an epidemiologist who has reviewed this study and others like it, advises,

institutions should strongly consider removing [such] documents … to  prevent  potential  patient  harms  that  may  accrue  if individuals, clinicians and  policy-makers take  their  “findings” at face value.

Talk Therapy Beats Surgical Disfigurement

So many structural changes to the practice of medicine appear to hinge on this one Yale study. Rippling out to affect society-wide structures, the study’s over-reach has already led to enormous changes in the way doctors practice medicine. Researchers, banking on the elite schools they work for, sell off their brand to mega foundations and agenda-driven donors.

The increasing overlap between the fields of psychiatry and medicine is wasting away the skills and strategies of traditional psychiatrists. Dr. Deborah Soh, non-conservative author of the recently published book The End of Gender  recommends a return to letting therapists do their job:

[Medical professionals] can’t do their jobs right now. Anyone who is ethical has left or is choosing not to work with gender dysphoria.  They can’t do their jobs properly.  So what you have instead is the people who are currently operating are activists, and they will facilitate what the patient wants, whether or not that may be the best thing for them.

Because many of the activist definitions have been enshrined in law, therapists and medical doctors no longer routinely complete an assessment. Few if any engage gender-confused patients in historically demonstrated successful modes of talk therapy now possibly subject to bans. As a result, many psychiatrists have left the field. At the UK’s Tavistock gender clinic, an alarming 35 clinicians recently resigned over concerns about gender affirmation, basically over-diagnosing kids who otherwise might well go on to desist.

Organizations with “trans”-affirmative protocols need to be held to account. The ways the Yale 2019 study positioned affirmative practices as the best approach show how powerful a weapon it became in convincing the public of the efficacy of “transitioning.” The social engineering goals of those with moneyed interests in this medical growth industry need to be identified and named by any organization promoting the affirmative response.

From risky off-label hormones in an unregulated sphere of medicine, “transitioning” became essential healthcare under the halo effect of the Yale 2019 study. Now that this claim is rejected, it’s time to fully retract the “trans” affirmative standard of care and allow medical practitioners to do their jobs and their organizations to advocate only what is legitimately evidence- based.

We take very seriously the trust you place in IFI when make a donation to our work and ministry.
We understand that we are accountable before you and God to honor your trust. 

IFI is supported by voluntary donations from good people like you.

An Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) ruling that gender identity is covered by Title VII’s prohibition against discrimination based on sex is being hailed as a ”sea change’‘ by transgender activist organizations. But an attorney for Liberty Counsel Action notes that the 1964 Civil Rights Act was never intended to cover gender identity and the ruling “basically says that a Bible bookstore owner, for instance, could not turn away a homosexual, cross-dressing man, a man who likes to wear a miniskirt and lipstick….”

You may remember Laurie Higgins’ articles identifying Georgetown law professor Chai Feldblum, a lesbian activist who became President Obama’s appointee to lead the EEOC.  Laurie pointed out that Feldblum sees the battle between “gay rights” and moral opposition to homosexuality as a zero sum game.  One side will win, and the other will lose.   Feldblum is on record saying: 

“Sexual liberty should win in most cases.  There can be a conflict between religious liberty and sexual liberty, but in almost all cases the sexual liberty should win because that’s the only way that the dignity of gay people can be affirmed in any realistic manner.”  And yet when push comes to shove, when religious liberty and sexual liberty conflict, she admits, “I’m having a hard time coming up with any case in which religious liberty should win.”

Of course, Feldblum is correct.  Religious freedom and special homosexual so-called “rights” cannot co-exist. 

Passage of nondiscrimination legislation – specific to sexual orientation – has been attempted since 1974 in the U.S. Congress. Currently, several bills promoting ENDA are circulating in the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives promoting ENDA.  Homosexual activist and U.S. Representative Barney Frank (D-MA) is the chief sponsor in the U.S. House.