Mommy Tells Me I'm a Girl: A Father's Fight Against Childhood Gender Transition

By Ryan Thompson, Disruptarian.com

April 10, 2025

In a heart-wrenching interview with Soft White Underbelly, Jeff Younger shares his decade-long struggle against the medical transition of his young son—a battle that exemplifies the growing tension between parental rights and an increasingly aggressive gender ideology.

Younger's story began when his twin sons were just toddlers. His then-wife, a pediatrician, started telling one of their sons, James, that he was a girl. What followed was a nightmare of family court manipulation, political influence, and the systematic removal of a father from his children's lives—all because he refused to participate in what he views as harm to his child.

“Imagine you have children that you're close with, and you're put in a chair, and a judge brings your children into the room and initially threatens to sexually mutilate them,” Younger describes. “And you have to sit there and remain totally calm in the slow-motion sexual abuse of your child.”

The first alarm bells rang when Younger's son was only three years old. He recorded a video (now available on YouTube under “Mommy says I'm a girl”) where his young son explained that his mother had told him he was a girl. According to Younger, his ex-wife would put their son in timeout saying, “Don't be a boy. The monsters only eat boys,” and began socially transitioning him shortly after.

What's particularly disturbing about this case is that James reportedly never presented as a girl with anyone but his mother. With his father, at church, with friends, he dressed as a boy and used his birth name. When asked why he presented as a girl with his mother, the child reportedly said, “Mommy doesn't love me if I'm not a girl.”

Most alarming was Younger's discovery in medical records that his ex-wife and a pediatrician were planning to chemically castrate James at age eight or nine—years before puberty would naturally begin. This discovery launched Younger into a six-year battle to outlaw such procedures in Texas, which he eventually won, though at tremendous personal cost.

The family court system, according to Younger, served as the mechanism through which his parental rights were systematically stripped away. After winning a jury trial for 50/50 custody in 2019, Younger describes how a new judge transferred his case and gradually eliminated his access to his children through a series of manipulative legal maneuvers.

“They give you an order that you can't follow,” Younger explains about family court tactics. “They try to find out what the father can't do or won't do, and then they construct orders which force him to violate the orders, and then they take his kids from him.”

For Younger, the line was drawn at three principles: never hurting his son, never morally miseducating his son, and never letting his resources be used to hurt his son. When supervised visitation required him to use a female name and pronouns for his son—which Younger believes would harm his child—he refused, creating the pretext for further restrictions.

Eventually, the Texas courts allowed his ex-wife to relocate with the children to California, where laws not only permit but in some cases mandate gender-affirming care. While Younger believes his son is currently on puberty blockers, he hopes that recent federal executive action may prevent more invasive interventions like cross-sex hormones.

“Every child that goes onto cross-sex hormones, 100% of them go to surgery,” Younger claims, highlighting the stakes of his continued fight.

The political dimensions of this case are striking. Younger alleges that powerful donors and organizations on both sides of the political spectrum have actively worked to promote childhood gender transitions. He specifically points to Republican mega-donor Paul Singer, founder of the Human Rights Campaign, as a major force behind the movement, explaining why Younger faced such strong opposition even in conservative Texas.

His case reveals how family courts can become weaponized against parents who oppose the medical transition of their children. Court-appointed counselors reportedly asked leading questions of his sons, trying to establish that Younger was “authoritarian,” while his ex-wife's characterization of him as “misogynistic” was accepted without scrutiny.

Most disturbingly, Younger now faces the prospect of imprisonment for his stance. “The state of California says that I have to pay for the chemical and physical castration of my son as child support,” he explains. “I'm not going to pay that child support. I'm not going to pay anything to hurt my son, and that means I'll be going to prison.”

Despite the tremendous emotional toll, Younger maintains a remarkable calm and focus on the long game. “No matter what happens to James, there's nothing that he can do, no mistake he can make that's so bad he can't get to heaven,” he reflects, revealing the spiritual foundation that has sustained him.

His approach to managing despair comes from his father's boxing advice: when everything seems hopeless, just make your situation 1% better. “When I'm down, I just get to work and make the situation 1% better for James,” whether through writing letters, speaking with officials, or advising other parents facing similar situations.

Younger's story represents a growing pattern across the country where parents who oppose the medical transition of their children face severe legal consequences. His case demonstrates how the institutions designed to protect children can be manipulated to override parental concerns when those concerns conflict with prevailing ideological trends.

For parents facing similar battles, Younger's advice is straightforward: document everything, avoid signing court orders that surrender your rights, and maintain your principles even under extreme pressure. Most importantly, “save James, save thousands of children,” as he puts it—recognizing that his fight extends beyond his own family.

As Parental Alienation Awareness Day approaches on April 25-26, Younger's story reminds us that children benefit from maintaining relationships with both parents, and that family courts should protect rather than sever these bonds. His ongoing fight—now focused on keeping his son off cross-sex hormones and changing laws in California—represents a father's refusal to abandon his child, regardless of the personal cost.

In a nation increasingly divided on fundamental questions about human identity and child development, Younger's case may prove to be, as he puts it, “the Fisher point…the issue which defines all of the other differences.” For parents caught in similar struggles, his resilience offers both warning and inspiration.