Tag archives: Transgenderism

Biden’s 100 Days of Failing Women

by Mary Beth Waddell, J.D.

May 4, 2021

Last week, during his address to a joint session of Congress and the nation, President Joe Biden acknowledged the historic nature of a female vice president and speaker of the House of Representatives sitting on the dais, and said, “we need to ensure greater equity and opportunity for women.” Unfortunately, he has done exactly the opposite in his first 100 days in office by making good on his promise to push gender identity ideology—which seeks to erase the vitally important genetic and physiological differences between men and women.

Last June, in Bostock v. Clayton County, the U.S. Supreme Court radically re-wrote Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by holding that sexual orientation and gender identity are included in the statute’s prohibition of sex discrimination in matters of employment. Sex non-discrimination laws are meant to protect biological women, and the Court’s insertion of gender identity ideology flips the law’s intent on its head. On his first day in office, President Biden signed an executive order requiring that the Bostock re-definition be adopted across the federal government.

In this order, President Biden specifically mentioned Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, which provides equality for women in sports. He also signed another executive order that effectively undid the previous administration’s good work in the education space, further entrenching the LGBT agenda into schools and obliterating women’s sports and private spaces.

The previous administration had responded to Bostock by issuing a memo that affirmed biology and equality in regard to Title IX—the Department of Education (ED) under Biden has since archived that memo. The Department of Justice issued a memo on Bostock’s application to Title IX, indicating that it did apply. Further, ED has withdrawn the previous administration’s letter of findings against the Connecticut Interscholastic Athletic Conference and its member schools regarding its violation of Title IX for allowing biological boys to compete in sports designated for biological girls.

Additionally, President Biden has used the phrase “all genders” in various memoranda and proclamations. One of the most egregious references is contained in the proclamation for American Heart Month. The president said that heart disease affects “all genders” and merely acknowledged that “the symptoms of a heart attack can be different for men and women.” He didn’t acknowledge the importance and need for further sex-specific study. The world-renowned Johns Hopkins Hospital notes that it has only been in recent non-male-focused studies that this differential has become more known. Johns Hopkins has its own Women’s Cardiovascular Health Center that provides education, comprehensive treatment, and diagnostic services to prevent and manage heart disease in women. A National Institute of Health listed study from 2010 entitled “Gender differences in coronary heart disease” concluded that, “A greater awareness of the differences in presentation […] between men and women, with gender-based interpretation of diagnostic tests, is mandatory […] to improve therapeutic strategies and outcomes in women.”

This necessity extends across the medical field. Medicine must be based in science and the patient’s physiological makeup, yet President Biden’s actions have made it clear that he disagrees. He nominated Xavier Becerra as secretary of Health and Human Services despite his having no relevant experience. His only credentials are being radically anti-life and anti-faith and advocating for radical sexuality ideology. For assistant secretary of Health and Human Services, Biden nominated Rachel Levin, who severely failed to properly handle the COVID-19 pandemic while serving as Pennsylvania’s secretary of health. Levine has an alarming record of prioritizing the radical sexuality agenda over public health and advocates gender transition for children, which is extremely harmful. Sadly, young girls are a particular target of this agenda.

Furthermore, legislation that the president has supported in both official statements and his joint session speech are detrimental to women. He called on Congress to pass the Equality Act, a massive bill that would overhaul our federal civil rights framework to, among other things, mandate acceptance of gender identity ideology, leaving women and others to suffer the consequences. If enacted, the bill would go much further than allowing biological males to compete in women’s sports, thereby unfairly penalizing female athletes. It would also obliterate women’s private spaces like bathrooms, locker rooms, and battered women’s shelters. This would be especially devastating for battered women who need a safe and private space to heal because biological men would be allowed to enter their shelters.

President Biden also called for the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) and made official statements praising H.R. 1620, the Violence Against Women Act Reauthorization of 2021. VAWA was indeed enacted in 1994 to improve the criminal justice response to domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking and increase the availability of victim services. Unfortunately, the 2021 reauthorization bill would undermine VAWA’s purpose by further traumatizing battered women by allowing biological men into shelters designated for women. It would also reduce resources for battered women, given its mandated acceptance of gender identity ideology, which creates onerous burdens and litigation. The 2021 reauthorization would also allow organizations known to cover up abuse and sex trafficking to access VAWA grant funds. Lastly, it would put incarcerated women at risk of abuse by allowing biological males, sex offenders included, into women’s prisons if they say they identify as a woman.

While all of this looks bleak for women’s rights, privacy, and safety, fortunately, there is hope. Little traction exists for the Equality Act, and there is both federal and state legislation to protect women in various areas like sports, shelters, and medicine to hopefully stop the administration’s harmful agenda. This fight is just beginning. We will have to see how it plays out over the next four years.

To Counter the Transgender Lie, We Must Speak Truth

by Lisa

May 3, 2021

This is the final part of a 3-part series. Read part 1 and part 2.

To beat the billionaire boys’ club at their game we must first reject their end goal of disembodiment. They seek to eliminate human physical limitations in favor of a new hybrid form of humanity. They are simply beginning this march toward madness using the construct of gender. (For much more on this topic, look up the work of Jennifer Bilek.)

Money’s ideas on “gender identity” should be rejected, not lauded. They should be exposed for what they are: a bag of linguistic tricks used by a man who needed to be covert in his attempt to sexualize young children. Rothblatt and Pritzker must also be called out for what they are: two men who decided to create an intricate legal framework to take their sexual proclivities mainstream while adding billions to their bottom lines.       

We must remember that those who control the language control the narrative. This is why the idea of “preferred pronouns” was introduced. The outlandish concept, while clearly a bastardization of the English language, is the ideal way to get an unsuspecting public to willingly utter outright lies that serve the goals of the trans medical industrial complex. 

The media conglomerates are already slaves to these goals. That’s how we end up with a Time magazine cover featuring the actress Ellen Page as a supposed man who goes by the name Elliot. Time must lie like this to appease the medical/pharmaceutical industry and the billionaires in charge of it. You, on the other hand, do not have to lie like Time.    

We lose the battle for humanity and sanity every time we help Pritzker, Rothblatt & Co. advance their cause by using their made-up language. If we don’t stand up and stop playing their game now, it will soon be too late.    

Trans advocates are calling for prison for those who “misgender” or “deadname” someone (two other made-up words in the ever-evolving trans lexicon). People in the UK have been sent to jail (see here and here) for violating hate speech laws that require people to use “preferred pronouns” on social media. A Canadian man went to jail in March for using the pronoun “she” in reference to his daughter (his ex-wife claims the girl is actually a “he”).

Some trans advocates claim the concept of a gender reveal party actually “promotes violence” because it involves parents imposing their ideas of gender onto a helpless unborn baby. More and more trans activists are calling for puberty blockers to be mandated for all children worldwide so each can pick their gender of choice on a timeline they decide. (Tumblr currently offers its users 121 genders to pick from. Go check them out to see what the billionaires have in store for our future.)

If you’re bold enough to refuse to cave on the pronoun posse, you will be immediately attacked by all those who’ve been indoctrinated by trans ideology. They will usually pick a fight with you by throwing down what I call “the story card.” This involves telling a personal story about a friend or a friend of a friend who was supposedly so unhappy until the day he/she/they realized that he/she/they is actually transgender. This friend eventually transitioned and now he/she/they is the happiest he/she/they has ever been.

In response to a story like this, all one need say is: It ain’t over until the well-proportioned individual who may or may not still identify as a lady sings.

Many people who identify as trans who first claim to be thrilled with their transition end up living to regret it. A profound sadness often sets in after the hormone honeymoon wears off. (People who go on cross-sex hormones typically feel an immediate boost in mood. This is, in part, why so many depressed teenage girls are seeking them out.)

Every day, more and more people who once bought the lies perpetuated by Money (and money) are now de-transitioning back to their God-given sex. People like Elle Palmer, Charlotte Evans, Walt Heyer, Keira Bell, and Linda Seiler are just a few of the many vocal de-transitioners now dedicated to speaking the truth about the trans-medical industry and its insatiable need for victims (and victims’ money). Websites like DetransVoices.org and SexChangeRegret.com are gaining in popularity even as they’re suppressed or outright banned by Google and its subsidiaries. Videos and books featuring the personal stories of de-transitioners abound, although Americans are currently forbidden from viewing many of these people’s videos on YouTube or buying their books on Amazon.      

The issue of how transitioning has ruined the lives of millions will surely reach a fever pitch in years to come. So the next time someone throws down a trans “story card” then follows it up by explaining how “trans people need the support of their cisgender peers,” stop them right there. First, tell them you will not dignify the use of the term “cisgender.” This is yet another made-up word brought to us by all the usual suspects. Cisgender supposedly means a person who identifies as the gender related to his or her biological sex. In other words, it’s everyone who isn’t trans. Using this word gives those of us who have not succumbed to Money’s lies our own brand of pathology related to gender identity.

The billionaire boys’ club desperately needs everyone to use their nonsense words (like cisgender) because it tricks the public into thinking their grift has gravitas.  

A 2011 U.S. study found that 41 percent of transgender participants reported attempting suicide in comparison to 1.6 percent of the general population. Is this because people aren’t accepting of them or because they have mental health problems the rest of the population does not? The Centre for Suicide Prevention says on its website that transgender people experience mental illness at a much higher rate than the general population. While 6.7 percent of the U.S. general population suffers from depression and 18 percent grapple with some form of anxiety, nearly half of all people who identify as transgender experience one or both of these issues. Telling these people that they should try to change every single part of their physical bodies in order to feel better is abhorrent. Their problem is not in the body, it’s in the mind.  

If we instead begin celebrating people who break traditional gender stereotypes (instead of telling them to get a series of surgeries), we would start to make progress where mental health is concerned. We should applaud any boy who has personality traits or interests typically considered feminine. We should encourage any girl who demonstrates more traditionally masculine qualities or an interest in boys’ sports or hobbies. But of course the trans medical complex doesn’t want us celebrating these individuals because the moment we do, they can no longer herd them into their gender clinics.   

If my 8-year-old told me she felt like she might be a mermaid, I wouldn’t take her to a doctor and ask him to amputate her legs and replace them with a tail. Yet our new Assistant Secretary of Health believes that minors should be able to determine their own gender without parental consent. There are currently many trans activists advancing the idea that a child should be taken away from his or her parents if the parents refuse to let him or her transition.    

All it takes is a confused teenage girl stopping by her school counselor’s office and mentioning that she doesn’t feel totally at ease in her body (what teen girl does?) to get a reference to a gender identity specialist who can then send her directly to Planned Parenthood for cross-sex hormones. She can change her name and pronouns and “come out” to friends and family as transgender the very next day. And all this can happen without parental consent.

For the sake of our children, we can no longer be silent. We must collectively commit to never use the words that pedophile advocate John Money and the billionaire boys’ club came up with. We must start referring to people by the pronouns associated with their biological sex. We must not care about what names we get called or what relationships we lose in the process. We must stop perpetuating the idea that calling people by their “preferred pronouns” is somehow virtuous. Taking care not to offend through speech is not a virtue. Telling the truth is. 

We must tell others about the origins of the gender identity movement (before Google memory holes everything having to do with John Money).   

We must tell others about the billionaires who decided to take their fetishes mainstream in order to make bank.

We must advocate for people who identify as transgender so they can get help for their very real mental health issues instead of getting more surgeries that usher them deeper into their delusions.

We must explain to everyone that transgenderism is but a temporary stop on the road to transhumanism.  

By speaking these truths, we have a chance at saving our culture from the lie that is transgenderism.

The Staggering Reach of Billionaire Transgender Activists

by Lisa

April 29, 2021

This is part 2 of a 3-part series. Read part 1.

The first billionaire we have to thank for pushing incessant trans propaganda on our children is a man named James Pritzker. Pritzker came out as transgender in his 60s and now goes by the name Jennifer. The Pritzker family has been on the Forbes magazine Top 10 list of “America’s Richest Families” since the list began in 1982. The Pritzkers founded the Hyatt Hotel chain. They also own an airline, a cruise line, and a tobacco company (which they sold in 2006 for $3.5 billion). The Pritzkers sold their largest holding company (with 60 corporations) in 2010 to Berkshire Hathaway for $4.5 billion. But it’s the medical industrial complex where the Pritzkers have staked a lot of their current investments

After Pritzker announced he was a trans woman, he donated $6.5 million to the Program in Human Sexuality at the University of Minnesota and just under $6 million to the Palm Center (an LGBTQ think tank to study trans people in the military). He donated $2 million to install the world’s first “Chair of Trans Studies” at the University of Victoria, British Columbia, and he donated another $1 million to Lurie Children’s Hospital of Chicago for a Gender and Sex Development Program.

Pritzker, along with fellow trans-identifying billionaire Martin Rothblatt (who now goes by Martine) began throwing hundreds of millions of dollars at both cultural and educational organizations around the globe on the condition that those groups would, in turn, indoctrinate people with Money’s ideas on gender identity.   

Way back in the ‘90s, Rothblatt hired three trans activist lawyers to create an “international, legal framework for the cultural acceptance of sexual identities not embodied in biological reality.” In other words, what we are watching unfold in our country right now has been in the works for decades. Boys being allowed to compete in girls’ sports and take away their scholarships was conceived long ago with the legal framework being laid long before LGB ever recognized the T.  

But the trans agenda coming from the billionaire boys’ club doesn’t end with laws that embolden people who swap out one gender for another. The mission that Pritzker and Rothblatt have embarked on is far greater.

Rothblatt used to work for NASA, and he is the founder of Sirius Satellite Radio (worth $26 billion). He also founded the pharmaceutical company United Therapeutics ($4.5 billion). United Therapeutics is the world’s largest cloner of pigs. In fact, Rothblatt wrote his doctoral dissertation on xenotransplantation which is the transplantation of living cells, organs, or tissues from one species to another. (Can you see where this is going yet?)

Rothblatt doesn’t just identify as transgender; he also identifies as transhuman.

Rothblatt’s Terasem Foundation seeks to promote technological immortality via mind uploading and nanotechnology. The four pillars of Terasem include: 1) Life is purposeful; 2) Death is optional; 3) God is technological; 4) Love is essential.

Rothblatt believes humans are capable of living forever and has created an organization dedicated to extending human life through cryogenics and cyber consciousness. His website Lifenaut allows people to save a “digital back-up” of both their mind and genetic code. He even commissioned a humanoid robot to be made using his wife as the model. This robot has made many speaking appearances and been interviewed by numerous newspapers, including The New York Times.  

In the Journal of Evolution and Technology (Vol. 18, May 2008), Rothblatt wrote an article called “Are we Transbemans Yet?” He identifies a “beme” as a unit of someone’s character or nature that behaves like a gene but is not bound to a physical location. Under the section of the article entitled “Reinventing Our Species” Rothblatt says, “We can replicate life without DNA…while it is true that without DNA there will be no flesh, that does not mean that there will be no self. Expressing the bemes of our consciousness in a computer substrate is still an expression of us.” He goes on to say, “Just as human DNA gives rise to humans, human BNA gives rise to bemans.” He talks about new kinds of bodies we will soon have and new kinds of laws that will be needed as a result.

Rothblatt says there is a direct correlation between the acceptance of a person’s right to alter their gender and the acceptance of a person’s right to become transhuman (or transbeman). He says what we need is a total reimagining of what it means to be human.

In other words, transgenderism is only the tip of a much larger iceberg.  

Now numerous LGBTQ organizations funded by the billionaire class are insisting on new public school curriculum that will spread their ideology to children in grades K-12. It began with requiring schools to teach “the role and contributions of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people” in history textbooks. One of the first states to adopt this was Illinois where James Pritzker’s cousin, Illinois governor J.B. Pritzker, signed it into law.

New teaching at the K-12 level will be far more extreme. The California Department of Education has a plan to teach kindergarteners that there are 15 different genders to choose from. Because insane ideas such as these are already being taught in parts of Europe, we now have elementary schools reporting a skyrocketing rate of students seeking to transition. One teacher in a British school revealed she knows of 17 students in the process of switching genders. She claims many of them were vulnerable kids with autism or mental health issues who were tricked into believing they were born the wrong sex.

You see, if people like Pritzker and Rothblatt can confuse a child about gender before he or she hits puberty, it means greater financial gains for them. Because both men have a stake in the trans-medical industrial complex, if they can confuse children when they are very young (elementary school age), they can profit off puberty blockers in addition to life-long hormone treatments and countless surgeries at the gender clinics they’re invested in.

Remember, a single trans customer will pay for many surgeries over a lifetime (vaginoplasties, facial feminizations, vocal cord reconstructions, breast implants, Adam’s apple shavings, even “womb transplants” for men). This all adds up to big bucks in these billionaire bank accounts.

Once Planned Parenthood saw how much money there was to be made in the trans medical business, they too rushed in to provide people with cross-sex hormones under what they call “gender affirming therapy.” They are now the second largest provider of this service.

The entire trans industry works like this: First, create a false problem (confuse kids through teaching them about gender identity). Then introduce a solution to the false problem (come fix your problems at one of our gender clinics where you’ll be a life-long customer).

The billionaire boys’ club knew they needed to brainwash the masses to accept the new gender ideology in order for their business plan to work. Several key changes in the cultural lexicon were first necessary in order to shift people’s thinking at a subconscious level. To start, the word “transexual” had to be done away with so people wouldn’t associate the trans movement with sex (even though there is most definitely an association). Many so-called “trans men” are males who have a bizarre sexual fetish called “autogynephilia.” Autogynephilia is the objectification of women to the point of wanting to embody a female oneself. (See Dr. Ray Blanchard’s research for more on this.)

Both Pritzker and Rothblatt appear to meet the standard definition of an autogynephiliac: a man who enjoys cross-dressing so much that he develops a sexual fetish around it. In the past decade, there has been a massive, concerted effort by trans activists to normalize this fetish by taking it public. But the word “transexual” was conveniently replaced with the more respectable sounding “transgender”—a word that inherently implies a person has no choice in what “gender identity” they become. They were simply “assigned the wrong gender” at birth.  

Altering language this way is a classic John Money tactic. Money was the person responsible for shifting everyone away from using the term “sexual preference” to the term “sexual orientation.” To have a sexual preference implies a person has a say in who they desire to have sex with. A sexual orientation, on the other hand, implies the person was born with those desires and they, therefore, remain totally out of their control. (Can you see why a pedophile might prefer option B?)     

(It should be noted that the subject of “gender identity” is not the only arena where Money’s language tactics are used. The Scientific American recently announced they would no longer be using the words “climate change” but would instead substitute the term “climate emergency.” Other publications rushed to follow their lead.)  

Read part 3.

You Can’t Twist Scripture to Force Women to Compete Against Men in Sports

by David Closson

March 26, 2021

On Monday, South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem (R) vetoed House Bill 1217, legislation that would protect women from being forced to compete against biological men in sporting events. In a press conference announcing the veto, Noem said she supported a bill to protect middle and high school girls but argued that extending the same protections to female collegiate athletes would prompt lawsuits from groups like the NCAA.

While most conservatives were frustrated by Noem’s capitulation on the transgender sports bill, one faith group, the South Dakota Synod Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA), actually encouraged Noem to veto it. Signed by about 30 church leaders, the short letter read:

Dear Governor Noem:

Grace and peace to you in this season of Lent. I reach out to you today on behalf of the 200 South Dakota congregations, ministry sites and organizations of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA). As Lutherans, baptized members in the body of Christ, we care about the actions of our government because it is a gift from God intended for the safety and flourishing of human life. Yet, as sinners in need of God’s grace and forgiveness, the gift and power of government is abused. It is why I am urging you to veto HB 1217 that claims to promote “fairness” in women’s sports. In the Gospel according to Luke, Jesus asks his disciples, “which one of you, having a hundred sheep and losing one of them, does not leave the ninety-nine in the wilderness and go after the one that is lost until he finds it?” After the lost sheep is found Jesus says, “rejoice with me, for I have found my sheep that was lost.” (ref. Luke 15:4-6) Meaning that there is no rejoicing until all have found a place in the flock — including our trans siblings of faith. Policies and laws that purposely exclude trans individuals contribute to deteriorating mental health. The Trevor Project reports that 40% of transgender adults reported having made a suicide attempt, and that over 90% of those attempts took place before the age of 25. Looking after the lost one means inclusion and compassion. God the incarnate goes to the far stretches of the Earth to find the lost and calls them home by name, “you are mine.” (Isaiah 43:1) As people of faith, we are invited to do the same. Please, as a beloved child of God, do not forget about the one child, when you have the ninety-nine with you.

As Christians, it is important to think carefully about current events. When it comes to matters of public policy, there are many issues that do not have a clear-cut answer for how believers should think. This requires restraint and humility. On the other hand, there are some topics—such as abortion—where Scripture speaks clearly. Christians, especially pastors and Christian leaders must be clear about their convictions.

This brings us to the recent letter to Governor Noem. One of the most important responsibilities a minister of the gospel has is caring for hurting people. As Christ’s under-shepherds, pastors are called to serve people with love and care (Acts 20:28). Thus, it is appropriate when ministers discuss legislation they believe will affect their congregants and those in their ministries. However, the recent letter to the South Dakota governor is problematic for a few reasons, chiefly its misuse and appropriation of Scripture.

But first, it is important to note their letter contains some helpful reminders. For example, they are right to acknowledge that positions of leadership, especially in government, can be challenging. They also acknowledged that man is fallen and broken due to sin. Moreover, the desire to love our neighbors who identify as transgender is commendable, as Christ has called the church to love everyone (Mt. 5:43-48, Luke 6:27-36). Their reminders along these lines are helpful.

However, there are a few problems about the letter that deserve attention. First, our love of neighbor must be modeled after the pattern of Christ, not the world (Rom. 12:2). We cannot adopt the world’s understanding of love, which demands affirmation of lifestyles and actions contrary to the will of God as revealed in Scripture. According to the leaders who signed the letter, love for their friends who identify as transgender requires accepting transgender ideology which contradicts the Bible’s teaching on sexuality.

Second, the letter misuses Scripture to make its main point. In its proper context, the parable of the lost sheep in Luke 15:1-7 is about salvation and pursuing lost people (i.e., those who do not have a relationship with God). The shepherd goes after the one lost sheep because it is lost; he rescues it and shows it the way of life. This parable (and the subsequent parables of the lost coin and the prodigal son) discloses Christ’s heart and His redemptive love for sinners. It encourages believers following His example to pursue those who do not have a relationship with God in order to show them the way of life.  

Clearly, Jesus’ intention in telling the parable of the lost sheep was not to make sure “all have found a place in the flock” (if inclusion in the flock means disregarding and flouting clear biblical teaching). Again, the context of the passage is about repentance and salvation. Jesus’ explanation of the parable makes it clear that He is talking specifically about sinners who repent. Moreover, Scripture is very clear about God’s design and purpose for marriage and human sexuality.  

Citing the parable of the lost sheep as evidence that Christians ought to oppose a bill that would protect women and girls’ sports is not a faithful interpretation of Luke 15. Christians are called to tell the truth, and that includes the truth that God made us male and female. It is not unloving or unkind to truthfully (1 Cor. 13:6) point out the many injustices and physical dangers associated with allowing biological males to compete against biological females. 

It is never permissible to misuse Scripture to advance a political agenda. Moreover, there is no reason for Christians to oppose commonsense legislation that protects women and girls at all levels of athletic competition. In fact, supporting legislation like House Bill 1217 is a practical way to protect female athletes. This bill deserves support, not condemnation, from Christian leaders in South Dakota and around the country.

Arkansas Moves to Protect Children from Gender Transition Procedures

by Chantel Hoyt

March 25, 2021

The Arkansas Senate is currently considering HB 1570, the Save Adolescents from Experimentation (SAFE) Act. This bill aims to protect children from invasive and untested procedures associated with “gender transition,” as these types of procedures pose serious health risks and cannot be fully reversed. Such drugs and procedures are based on the unscientific theory that some individuals can be born in the “wrong” body. Eighteen states have introduced similar legislation so far in 2021.

The Arkansas SAFE Act prohibits health care professionals from performing gender reassignment surgeries or providing puberty-blocking drugs and cross-sex hormones for the purpose of gender transition to individuals under the age of 18. Health care professionals found to be in violation of this policy would have their medical licenses revoked. The bill also prohibits medical insurance from covering such treatments for minors. The bill is sponsored by Rep. Robin Lundstrum of Arkansas’ 87th district (Benton and Washington counties) and recently passed the House floor with a vote of 70-22. It is currently awaiting action in the Senate. 

The liberal news media has decried this legislation’s so-called “assault” on transgender rights.  Back in January 2020, when only six states had introduced such legislation, CNN quoted Ryan Thoreson, a Yale law school lecturer and LGBT rights researcher, as saying, “There are alarming signals that this could pass in conservative states.” Thoreson also referred to these bills as part of a series of “attacks on transgender youths” by lawmakers and said that the proposed laws would restrict young people’s access to “basic health care.” The CNN article also insisted that bills like these could “prove devastating to transgender children” and suggested that children who cannot obtain such procedures are more likely to commit suicide.

You don’t have to be a physician to know that describing gender reassignment surgery and hormone therapy as “basic health care” is ludicrous. In what other instance would the suppression of natural bodily development and removal of healthy or non-diseased body parts from children (or anyone for, that matter) be considered permissible, let alone essential health care? 

Transgender activists typically argue that securing access to gender transition procedures is really about the child’s mental health, theorizing that these procedures are the only thing that will cure their gender dysphoria and reduce their distress. This idea might be more compelling if it had any scientific evidence to back it up. We currently have no good evidence that these procedures even accomplish their stated purpose—improving children’s mental health. FRC argues that such evidence would be “absolutely necessary to justify such radical and unnatural physical intervention.”

This lack of evidence, combined with the fact that most children with gender dysphoria will outgrow their condition and not identify as transgender adults, makes the legality of performing gender transition procedures on children and activists’ advocacy for said procedures even more troubling. For most kids with gender incongruity, puberty is the cure, not the disease.

The number of proposed bills aimed at protecting minors from the harmful effects of gender transition procedures has seen a sharp rise in the past two years. This trend, combined with conservative wins in state legislatures in the most recent election, is cause for optimism. Hopefully, states will be able to pass common-sense legislation that protects children from such harmful practices, nurturing them rather than sacrificing their health and well-being on the altar of unscientific transgender ideology. 

Based on its recent success, the Arkansas SAFE Act could very well be the first bill of its kind to pass a state legislature, but it needs your help! If you (or your family and friends) live in Arkansas, please speak up now and ask your elected officials to protect minors from the growing pressure to treat puberty like a disease.

Do Gender Transition Procedures Prevent Suicide?

by Family Research Council

March 24, 2021

Transgender advocates often claim that gender transition procedures are the cure to suicide risk among transgender-identifying youth, and that legislation restricting gender transition procedures on minors causes suicide. But a closer look at suicide studies (see pp. 11-12) reveals several problems with those claims:

  • The 2015 U.S. Transgender Survey published by the National Center for Transgender Equality did find elevated risk of suicide among people who identify as transgender during their lifetime:
    • Forty percent (40%) have attempted suicide in their lifetime, nearly nine times the rate in the U.S. population (4.6%).
    • Seven percent (7%) attempted suicide in the past year—nearly 12 times the rate in the U.S. population (0.6%).
  • However:
    • This did not account for untreated mental illness, perhaps because transgender advocates resist any association between gender incongruity and mental illness; and
    • This was drawn from a “convenience sample” (an online poll of volunteers).
    • A survey that used more scientific methods, the California Health Interview Survey, found that among “highly gender non-conforming” youth, only 3% of girls and 2% of boys reported having attempted suicide.

Furthermore, although such statistics are often cited as evidence that minors should pursue gender transition, these numbers do not prove causality. Even if the elevated rates are legitimate, the data often do not indicate when the suicidal thoughts or actions occurred—before or after gender transition.

  • For example, a 2020 article in the journal Pediatrics examined the link between taking puberty-blocking hormones and nine different mental health outcomes. Although it found that those who received puberty blockers had a lower rate of “lifetime suicidal ideation,” it also found that those who received puberty blockers were twice as likely to have had a suicide attempt resulting in inpatient care (i.e., hospitalization) in the last 12 months as those who did not (45.5% vs. 22.8%). (Neither finding rose to the level of statistical significance in the study.)
  • A 2011 Swedish study (in which the authors were able to examine the medical records of every person in Sweden who underwent gender reassignment surgery over a 30-year period) found a number of physical and mental health problems were elevated among this population, including a rate of completed suicides among those who completed transition that was 19 times higher than the general population.
  • A comprehensive review of the literature on the subject by the U.S. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services declared about the Swedish study that “we cannot exclude therapeutic interventions as a cause of the observed excess morbidity and mortality.” In other words, not only does gender reassignment surgery (and other “therapeutic interventions” such as hormone therapy) not demonstrably benefit those who identify as transgender (including by reducing their risk of suicide)—it may actively harm them, and increase that risk instead.

When you combine these facts with findings that the “desistance” rates (the rate at which transgender-identifying adolescents cease to identify as the opposite sex) range from 70 percent to 97.8 percent in biological males, and from 50 percent to 88 percent in biological females, the picture becomes clear. For most transgender-identifying youth, puberty is the cure, not the cause, of gender incongruence. Even among those who continue to identify as transgender, there is evidence that transitioning causes more harm than good, at least as measured by rates of suicide attempts resulting in hospitalization and rates of completed suicide. Furthermore, these studies include populations from Sweden and California, two jurisdictions that are arguably very supportive of gender transition policies.

For a full report on the dangers of gender transition procedures, see FRC’s Do Not Sterilize Children: Why Physiological Gender Transition Procedures for Minors Should Be Prohibited

Alabama Seeks to Protect Minors from Gender Transition Drugs and Surgeries

by Chantel Hoyt

February 18, 2021

Alabama lawmakers are currently considering two bills that would prohibit doctors from prescribing gender transition drugs, hormones, and surgeries to minors. Known as the “Vulnerable Child Compassion and Protection Acts,” these bills are designed to protect minors who are struggling with gender confusion from harmful procedures that cannot be fully reversed later and that they may likely come to regret.

These bills also prohibit nurses, counselors, and school personnel from withholding information about a child’s gender confusion from the child’s parents. Senate Bill 10, introduced by Representative Shay Shelnutt of the state’s 17th district, passed the Senate Healthcare Committee in a vote of 11 to 2 last Wednesday, while House Bill 1 is still awaiting a vote after being the subject of a public hearing by the House Judiciary Committee on the same day. Under both bills, doctors who violate such laws would face criminal charges.

The Alabama House version of the bill was introduced by Republican Wes Allen last year. “When I learned that this was going on in our state of Alabama, I was really shocked that puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones were being given to minors,” he said on Washington Watch recently. When asked about his motivation behind the bill, Allen replied that it is simply about protecting children. “The most important thing we can be doing as legislators is taking care and protecting children, so that’s really the motivation behind it.” 

Rep. Allen also spoke briefly about how children lack the proper ability to make life-altering decisions, as well as studies that suggest that 85-90 percent of children with gender dysphoria will eventually outgrow such issues and “grow to accept how God made them and grow to accept their bodies.” Allen was hopeful about the success of House Bill 1: “We’ve got to make sure we protect our kids, and we’re looking forward to advocating for this bill in the weeks to come.”

Chantel Hoyt is a Research Assistant with State & Local Affairs at Family Research Council.

Transgenderism is Now Rated G

by Arielle Leake

July 17, 2020

The Baby-Sitters Club is a new Netflix series based on the popular children’s books by the same name published in the late ‘80s and early ‘90s. The books—and now the television series—follow the lives of four 12-year-old girls and their entrepreneurial babysitting endeavors. Unfortunately, parents who fondly remember the books from their own childhood should think twice before allowing their impressionable children to watch this G-rated show.

Transgenderism is brazenly presented, unchallenged, and actively celebrated. The fourth episode of the show “Mary Ann Saves the Day” prominently displays the show’s cultural indoctrination. One of the four main characters, Mary Ann, is tasked with babysitting Bailey, a young boy who firmly believes he is a girl and lives a transgender lifestyle. The episode is fraught with highly concerning dialogue and messaging. For example, Mary Ann’s friend explains Bailey’s lifestyle to her by saying, “We all want our insides to match our outsides.” This explanation clearly illustrates the two-story dualism underlying the transgender movement or, as Nancy Pearcy puts it in her book Love Thy Body, “the idea that your brain can be at war with your body.”

The scriptwriters are so committed to the idea that your feelings control who you really are that they cannot even promote healthy encouragement. When Mary Ann, who struggles with self-confidence (as most tween girls do), exclaims that she is “a pathetic cry-baby,” the only help her friend can offer is to say, “If you believe you are a pathetic cry-baby who am I to tell you otherwise.” It could have been a moment used to show young girls how to support and encourage one another while not affirming a lie someone believes about themselves. Instead, all the show can muster is a weak statement meant to shove forward the philosophy that how you feel dictates who you are.

Mary Ann finally finds her “confidence” when she takes it upon herself to reprimand the doctor and nurse who dare to address Bailey by his biological sex. Mary Ann instructs them that “from here on out,” they should “recognize her for who she is.” Further, she requests that they bring Bailey something other than the standard blue hospital nightgown, which he evidently finds highly offensive.

Even more appalling, those in the position of authority—both the medical professionals and the child’s parents—willingly go along with the young child’s whims. Instead of helping him see who God created him to be, they encourage his harmful fascinations and reinforce the idea that fitting a certain “stereotype,” whether it be wearing blue or playing tea parties, is what makes you a male or female.

As a young woman, I am disappointed to see a show that will be viewed by many young and impressionable girls espousing such harmful views—without so much as a question about the consequences of these ideas. Instead of giving young girls a proper view of what it means to be a woman, The Baby-Sitters Club presents womanhood as something that is merely a product of your feelings and not a God-given identity.

In a world that is becoming increasingly accepting of transgender ideology, parents should be cautious about the ideas being espoused in the media their children consume. Christians have a role to play in restoring an understanding that humans are a unique combination of both body and soul, which equally make up who we are and are not at war with each other. Nancy Pearcy defines the Christian’s role as being “the first in line to nurture and support kids who don’t ‘fit in’ by affirming the diversity of gifts and temperaments in the body of Christ.” This is exactly the opposite of what is done in The Baby-Sitters Club.

Arielle Leake is a Policy & Government Affairs intern focusing on religious liberty.

Gender-Neutral Intersex Passport Case May Advance Larger Transgender Goals

by Peter Sprigg

May 22, 2020

In a decision on May 12, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit ruled that the State Department should reconsider its refusal to grant a gender-neutral passport to a plaintiff with an intersex condition who identifies with a “non-binary” gender.

An “intersex” condition is a biological condition in which one or more of the biological indicators of sex does not develop in the typical male or female way. It is completely different from a “transgender” condition, in which an individual does not identify psychologically with his or her biological sex at birth. True intersex conditions are rare; but transgender identification is rapidly growing.

There is a proverb which warns, “Once the camel gets his nose in the tent, his body will soon follow.” What seems like a small intrusion can quickly become a large one. I fear that metaphor may apply to the legal fight over “gender-neutral” passports.

Although several news outlets covered the story, Courthouse News Service was the most thorough in describing the plaintiff:

The birth certificate Zzyym was given in 1958 originally used the name Brian Orin Whitney and left the gender line blank because they were born with “ambiguous external sex characteristics.” Raised male, Zzyym was 5 when they underwent medically unnecessary corrective surgery at their parents’ request.

In 1995, the six-year Navy veteran changed their name to Dana Alix Zzyym.

The complaint that was filed by Zzyym elaborates:

Zzyym’s parents decided to raise Zzyym as a male, so the original birth certificate’s blank for sex was filled in as “male.” The State Department has treated this birth certificate as the original.

Zzyym lived as a male until adulthood. As an adult, Zzyym explored living as a woman and obtained a driver’s license identifying as female. But Zzyym grew increasingly uncomfortable living as a woman and eventually identified as a nonbinary intersex person. While identifying as intersex, Zzyym obtained an amended birth certificate identifying the sex as “UnKnown.”

According to one physician quoted in the court opinion, Zzyym did not merely “explore” living as a woman; he “has had surgery for transition to female genitalia.”

Zzyym applied for a passport—and requested that his sex be listed as “X.” (I will use male pronouns for Zzyym, since that is how he was identified on his original birth certificate, and in a photograph released by Lambda Legal, he appears to be conventionally male except for the hair on the top of his head being dyed blue.) The State Department refused, stating that U.S. passports may list only “M” (for Male) or “F” (for Female) as the passport holder’s sex. (This initial application and denial took place in 2014—under the administration of President Barack Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry.)

As the court acknowledged, “The State Department … noted that it had offered to produce a passport with an ‘F’ (matching Zzyym’s original Colorado driver’s license) or an ‘M’ (matching the original birth certificate).” However, the unprecedented “X” designation was refused.

News coverage made the Tenth Circuit decision appear to be a defeat for the State Department—but that is not the case. The District Court had ruled in favor of Zzyym outright, issuing “a permanent injunction against enforcement of the binary sex policy” with respect to Zzyym. The Tenth Circuit vacated this lower court decision.

Instead, the unanimous three-judge panel issued a more nuanced (but still flawed) ruling. The State Department had listed five reasons for upholding its binary-sex policy for passports. The court (in an opinion written by Judge Robert E. Bacharach, an Obama appointee) rejected three of these reasons, saying that the record of the case did not support them.

However, the panel also ruled that “the State Department had statutory authority to require applicants to identify their sex as male or female,” and that two of the five reasons for the policy were supported by the record. One might think that “statutory authority” and even one good reason would be enough to sustain the policy. But instead, the court said the State Department should reconsider to determine whether two reasons instead of five constitute enough justification.

The key error in the Tenth Circuit decision was its assumption that people with an “intersex” condition are neither male nor female. For example, the court stated that “most state identification documents pigeonhole[] everyone as male or female even though some people are neither.” They also asserted that requiring Zzyym to identify himself as male or female would amount to “forcing intersex individuals like Zzyym to inaccurately identify themselves” (emphasis added). The opinion even declares, “The State Department acknowledges that some individuals are born neither male nor female.”

If true, this is an unfortunate mischaracterization of what an “intersex” condition is. As even one intersex activist, Jonathan Leggette, has acknowledged, “Intersex traits can involve genitalia, chromosomes, hormones, and other secondary sex characteristics.” If even one of these characteristics develops in an abnormal way, that constitutes a “disorder of sexual development” (DSD), the medical term for an intersex condition. If, say, 98% of a person’s sex-related characteristics are normal male characteristics, and 2% are abnormal or appear to be those considered typical of a female, it would hardly make sense to say such a person is “neither male nor female.” Instead, that individual is clearly a male, but one with a DSD.

Anne Fausto-Sterling, a biologist at Brown University, has been widely quoted as asserting that up to 1.7% of the population is intersex. However, this claim has been challenged by others who point out that many who fall under Fausto-Sterling’s broad definition of “intersex” are people who may live their entire lives without even being aware that they have an intersex condition (such as an abnormality in their chromosomal make-up). The percentage of people who have any real ambiguity about their biological sex is far smaller—being found, by one estimate, in only 2 out of every 10,000 births.

Even among those with such a genuine intersex condition, however, the number who have both male and female characteristics in nearly a 50-50 ratio is very small. There are dozens of different DSDs that have been identified; of those, only one comes close to this type of ambiguity. It is known as an “ovotesticular” DSD (or “true gonadal intersex” or “true hermaphroditism”) because those with this condition have both ovarian and testicular tissue. This is the rarest DSDonly about 500 cases have ever been reported in the medical literature. And yet even among these, “Most affected individuals have a 46, XX chromosomal [typical female] make-up …, which normally results in female sexual development.”

The Tenth Circuit decision reports that Zzyym “was born with both male and female genitalia.” That is a stronger assertion than the one found in Zzyym’s original complaint in the District Court, which was merely that “Zzyym was born intersex, with ambiguous genitalia.” We don’t know if that is a reference to “ovotesticular DSD,” since that more technical term is not used in the opinion.

In one sense, the ultimate disposition of Zzyym’s case poses little danger of setting a major precedent for others, since the number of people “with both male and female genitalia” is tiny. People with such a birth defect are deserving of our compassion.

However, this case, demanding a “gender X” passport for someone with a biological “intersex” condition, is merely the camel’s nose in the tent. In asserting that intersex people are “neither male nor female,” the court fails to note that most people with intersex conditions are perfectly content to identify as either male or female, notwithstanding their physical problems. The only reason Zzyym felt the need to sue the State Department is because—unlike most “intersex” people—his psychological “gender identity” is “non-binary,” meaning “neither male nor female.”

But declaring one’s “gender identity” to be “non-binary” is merely the latest fad in the larger “transgender movement.” Just as most “intersex” people are not “non-binary,” most of those who choose to identify as “non-binary” do not have a biological intersex condition but are entirely normal with respect to their biological sex at birth.

Transgender activists would like for anyone who identifies as “non-binary” to be able to get identification documents with an “X” gender marker. Winning one for an intersex person would only be the first step toward that even more radical goal.

The State Department should continue to refuse Zzyym’s request.

Amidst a Global Pandemic, California Legislators Seek $15 Million for Transgender Hormone Therapy and Dance Classes

by Peter Sprigg

May 13, 2020

Peter Sprigg, FRC’s Senior Fellow for Policy Studies, submitted the following letter on May 12, 2020, to the California Legislature in opposition to AB 2218, the “Transgender Wellness and Equity Fund.”

***

Dear California Legislators:

I am writing to urge that you oppose Assembly Bill 2218, which would establish a “Transgender Wellness and Equity Fund” with an appropriation of $15 million. I am writing on behalf of Family Research Council (FRC), a national non-profit public policy organization representing tens of thousands of Californians, and whose issue portfolio includes human sexuality.

In particular, we believe that it is inappropriate to provide taxpayer dollars

to a hospital, health care clinic, or other medical provider that currently provides gender-affirming health care services, such as hormone therapy or gender reassignment surgery, to continue providing those services, or to a hospital, health care clinic, or other medical provider that will establish a program that offers gender-affirming health care services . . .

No “hormone therapy” (neither puberty-blocking hormones nor cross-sex hormones) has been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the purposes of facilitating gender transition. Fenway Health, which serves the LGBT community in Boston, writes that “no medications or other treatments are currently approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the purposes of gender alteration and affirmation.” A 2018 article in the journal Transgender Health reiterated that “there are no medications or other treatments that are FDA-approved for the purpose of gender affirmation.” And the American Medical Association’s Council on Science and Public Health reported that “steroidal hormones,” “GnRH analogs” (puberty blockers) and “antiandrogens” are all used “off-label” for “gender re-affirming therapy”—because their use “lacks scientific evidence.” While it is not illegal to use drugs “off-label” in certain instances, the lack of proof that using these hormones for gender transition is safe and effective is a strong argument against the state funding these largely experimental treatments.

Similarly, evidence does not support the assertion that gender reassignment surgery is “medically necessary.” In 2016, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services under the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (CMS) declined to issue a new “national coverage determination” (NCD) that would mandate coverage for such surgery under Medicare, declaring that “there is not enough high quality evidence to determine whether gender reassignment surgery improves health outcomes.” CMS examined 33 studies, but found that all had “potential methodological flaws,” and that “[o]verall, the quality and strength of evidence were low.”

Even the evidence that is available does not demonstrate that gender reassignment surgery is effective at achieving its fundamental goal—improving the long-term mental health of individuals. Patients in the best studies “did not demonstrate clinically significant changes” after surgery. One of the strongest studies, out of Sweden, showed a suicide rate among post-surgical transgender patients that was 19 times that of the general population.

In addition to directly funding procedures of questionable medical value (as well as “guided meditation” and “dancing, painting, and writing classes”), this bill would also fund programming that essentially amounts to ideological indoctrination, in the form of “trans-inclusive best practices” and the creation of “educational materials” and “capacity building training.”

It also seems ironic that the sponsors of this legislation, who I presume would support laws to prohibit “discrimination” on the basis of “gender identity,” are actually mandating such discrimination by giving favored treatment to organizations that meet a numerical quota of officers, board members, or a fiscal sponsor who themselves “identify as TGI” (“transgender, gender nonconforming, or intersex”).

Finally, it seems inconceivable that during a crisis caused by a global pandemic, with tax revenues shrinking and emergency expenditures rising, the California Legislature would even consider investing time or money in a program that would have to be considered a luxury even in normal times, and even if it were worthwhile (which, for the reasons cited above, I believe it is not). When, at this writing, nearly 70,000 Californians have become infected with the novel coronavirus and nearly 2,800 have lost their lives, it would reflect misplaced priorities to be appropriating money to support the programs listed above.

I urge you to oppose AB 2218.

Sincerely,

Peter Sprigg
Senior Fellow for Policy Studies
Family Research Council
Washington, D.C.

Archives