Tag Archive for: gender identity

Kevin Sorbo’s New Children’s Book Promotes Biblical Masculinity

In a world increasingly opposed to masculinity, actor, writer, and producer Kevin Sorbo has entered the fight in defending it. In his recently published children’s book entitled, “The Test of Lionhood,” Sorbo addresses the topic of gender identity while promoting biblical masculinity. “The attack today on masculinity is a call for us to stay vigilant right now,” he told Fox News. “Let’s let boys be boys and let girls be girls. And let’s stop this whole thing about chopping down the men in the world.”

Sorbo further expressed how being brave and “manly” are not bad attributes, and stated young boys need to understand this. “They’re going out there and protecting people — and they shouldn’t be afraid to confront things that are dangerous,” he said.

Sorbo has been criticized for years as a man who promotes conservative and Christian values in Hollywood, from which he was booted out several years ago, he says. In an interview with The Washington Stand, Sorbo shared further insight. “I guess people are afraid of the truth,” he said. “I’ve always said we need to wake up the lions out there. And all these people talk about the quiet silent majority. Well, when are they going to wake up?”

He went on to say how the Left can cancel whoever they want, whenever they want. “We’re losing free speech more and more all the time,” he said. Between the Left’s constant hypocrisy and the cultural war on gender, Sorbo felt called to write this book. But despite the opposition who want to deem Sorbo’s book as evil, he stated that he simply wants to help boys to understand the importance of their role as boys who will one day be men. “Kids are growing up realizing how the father is not that important to the family unit,” he shared. “And that’s what Hollywood has done. And they’ve done it on purpose.”

But this issue expands beyond Hollywood and what people see on the big screen. For years, experts have acknowledged the crisis of fatherlessness as an increasing one, which negatively impacts the development of boys, and contributes to poverty, drug and alcohol abuse, and the crumbling of society at large. “No matter what I put out there, I’m gonna get backlash,” Sorbo shared. But regardless of inevitable backlash, he stated how he is going to keep making movies that promote masculinity, family, and “good messages.” Movies that aren’t “celebrating evil, hate, anger, sex, and violence,” Sorbo emphasized — the themes Hollywood often promotes.

Sorbo made it clear he wants to use his films to bring back the kind of movies Hollywood used to put out. “You know, movies that make you laugh, think, react, maybe relate to somebody on the screen. … Give them hope, Give them redemption. Give them a chance to live in a more positive world instead of a negative one. I want to live in a world that’s got light in it, not [a] world that lives in darkness.”

Sorbo concluded by offering encouragement for those who need it. “You have to work hard to have success in life,” he underscored. “Most people do not have the strength to do it because they’ve learned just to give up and let the government take care of them. … [But] don’t let anyone set your limitations.”


Sarah Holliday

Sarah Holliday is a reporter at The Washington Stand.

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2023 Family Research Council.

The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

UK Report: Over One Third of Children on Puberty Blockers Experienced Worsened Mental Health

New research from the United Kingdom is showing that over a third of children placed on puberty blockers and hormone drugs suffered severe mental health deterioration afterwards.

A 2011 study conducted at the Tavistock Gender Identity Development Service (GIDS) clinic for children reported that children who were put on puberty blockers suffered no adverse mental health effects. However, new analysis conducted by Susan McPherson, a professor of psychology and sociology at the University of Essex, and retired social scientist David Freedman found that the majority of children put on puberty blockers and hormone drugs experienced erratic and fluctuating mental health, including over a third whose mental health “reliably deteriorated.”

The original study, conducted on 44 children between the ages of 12 and 15, was reportedly based on group averages, while the new analysis relied on individual results, which McPherson and Freedman explained “allows us to look at how a treatment is performing in terms of the percentage of patients improving, deteriorating, and showing clinically significant change. … It is possible, using this approach, to look at patterns, such as who is benefitting and who is not.”

Last year, Britain’s National Health Service (NHS) opted to close down the Tavistock GIDS clinic after a government report found that the staff rushed and even pressured minors into taking puberty blockers and hormone drugs with almost no psychological or medical oversight. A reported 96% of child patients were placed on puberty blockers by Tavistock staffers, and concerns were raised over a tendentious focus on “gender dysphoria,” instead of considering other psychological factors in recommending drugs or surgeries for minors, which were summarily dismissed. In fact, the situation was so concerning that Dr. Hillary Cass, the pediatrician tasked by the government with investigating the claims against Tavistock, offered her recommendation to shut down the clinic several months early, saying she had enough information already to justify closing Tavistock.

Cass particularly stressed concerns she had over the use of puberty blockers and other hormone drugs, which the Tavistock clinic had been prescribing to children as young as 10 years old, many of whom were already on the autism spectrum or suffering various mental health issues like depression or eating disorders. In her interim report to the NHS, Cass noted, “There is lack of consensus and open discussion about the nature of gender dysphoria and therefore about the appropriate clinical response.” She added, “There has not been routine and consistent data collection, which means it is not possible to accurately track the outcomes and pathways that children and young people take through the service.”

Over the years, numerous whistleblowers — former staff governor Dr. David Bell, consultants and nurses like Marcus and Sue Evans, child safeguarding officer Sonia Appleby, and countless former patients who now, as adults, regret being put on puberty blockers and hormone drugs — have sounded the alarm over the Tavistock clinic’s practices. Most have pointed out that children and their parents were often denied informed consent as staffers rushed children onto puberty blockers after only three or four meetings. Some whistleblowers even explained that topics like “sexual orientation” were effectively off-limits and that a transgender identity and a battery of hormone drugs were the only options explored by clinicians. Others pointed out that the drastic rise in children going through Tavistock (from about 250 “patients” in 2011 to over 5,000 in 2021) and linked it to the growing puberty blocker and hormone drug industry.

The findings of the new analysis of the Tavistock study are in line with research conducted and published by Family Research Council. Dr. Jennifer Bauwens, director of FRC’s Center for Family Studies, explained earlier this year:

“At one time, gender dysphoria was considered a mental disorder, but now, due to the increasing prevalence of a worldview shaped by gender identity ideology, it has morphed into a human rights issue. The ideology borrows from the mental health aspects of gender dysphoria in order to justify medical ‘intervention.’”

She continued, “Advocates of gender-affirming care insist it is both lifesaving and evidence-based health care for those who identify as transgender. But the research used to make such a claim is full of methodological errors and can be easily disputed as a research body that is incomplete.” Notably, the original Tavistock study from 2011 focused on group studies instead of on individual situations and results. Bauwens added, “Not only are the currently published studies problematic, but there is a lack of ongoing and long-term follow-up reports that address the impact of cross-sex hormones and surgeries.”

In June, the NHS banned the use of puberty blockers and hormone drugs on minors, following a growing swath of European medical experts who have backed off gender transition procedures for children. France, Sweden, Finland, and Norway have also put restrictions on the use of puberty blockers and hormone drugs on children. The U.S. still hasn’t.


S.A. McCarthy

S.A. McCarthy serves as a news writer at The Washington Stand.


‘Let Us Raise Our Kids’: Thousands of Canadians Protest LGBT School Policies

Most Americans Don’t Consider Same-Sex Couples Raising Kids ‘Completely Acceptable’: Pew Poll

Roy Introduces Bill to Repeal FACE Act and End the Persecution of Pro-Lifers

‘There Are New Threats’: Experts Discuss How to Stop the Sexualization of Children

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2023 Family Research Council.

The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

DHS Awards Anti-Terror Grant for LGBTQ Group to Indoctrinate 6-Year-Olds

The Biden administration has awarded an anti-terrorism grant worth more than half-a-million dollars to an LGBTQ activist group, which distributes condoms and “sex education” material, to expand its “in-school support for LGBTQ+ youth” as young as age 6. The manifesto of its school-based group — which is based on the Black Panthers — calls for the “abolition” of the police, the erasure of the U.S. border, and the “reclamation” of all “stolen lands” by indigenous people.

Joe Biden’s Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announced that the Sexual Minority Youth Assistance League (SMYAL) had received a $530,000 Targeted Violence and Terrorism Prevention (TVTP) grant late this week. Although the TVTP grant is intended “to prevent targeted violence and terrorism,” the grant synopsis explains that the SMYAL “will provide in-school support for LGBTQ+ youth, training for school staff and youth service providers, [and] resilience programming for LGBTQ+ youth ages 6-24.” The grant will address both “the risk of violence and negative mental health outcomes faced by LGBTQ+ youth” in Washington, D.C., and nearby Montgomery County, Maryland.

GSA Networks Seek to Abolish the Police, Borders, and ‘Cisgender Heterosexual Patriarchy’

SMYAL’s latest 990 form states that its members run the “DC Regional GSA,” or Genders & Sexualities Alliance (GSA) Network clubs, which aims to “lead the charge for LGBTQ rights and social justice.” Formerly the “Gay-Straight Alliance,” the group renamed itself the Gender & Sexualities Alliances Network in 2015 to signal that its leaders “have moved beyond the labels of gay and straight, and the limits of a binary gender system.” GSA boasts of 4,000student-run clubs operated by 40 state chapters.

The GSA Network’s “Truth Nine Point Platform” calls for “the Abolition of the Police, ICE, Borders and the Judicial System”; “an End of the Cisgender Heterosexual Patriarchy”; “Reparations for all Indigenous and Black Peoples,” including “Indigenous reclamation of stolen lands”; and “free and non-compulsory education for all ages.”

“The manifesto was inspired by and builds upon the Black Panther Party’s Ten-Point Program, the Young Lord’s 12 Point Program and Platform, and the Third World Gay Revolution,” GSA Network states, as it promises “to bravely and ferociously fight for our communal liberation.” The Black Panther Party “advocated the use of violence and guerilla tactics to overthrow the U.S. government,” according to the FBI.

“We invite our comrades in struggle who align with our principles, including those who have yet to self-determine their relationship to the struggle, to join us in solidarity, coalition, and liberation — remembering the revolution is a relationship,” the GSA Network platform concludes.

SMYAL activists “connect with and provide assistance to teachers, staff, administrators, community members and partners to start and grow local GSAs,” according to its tax filings.

SMYAL Distributes Condoms, Gives LGBT Adults Access to Children without Parental Supervision

The first item listed on SMYAL’s “sexual health” program is “condom distribution.” SMYAL operates a “Peer Health Fellowship” for children ages 13-24: “Fellows serve their their [sic] schools and communities as health educators. Fellows serve their community as role models, leaders, and trusted friends by distributing condoms and safer-sex information,” according to the group’s most recent tax filings.

SMYAL operates numerous youth groups for children who identify as LGBT or “who are exploring or questioning their identities.” The youngest group, known as Little SMYAL, combines children from 6 to 12, although teens may opt to continue attending. The next level includes programs for children from early adolescence through their mid-20s.

“Little SMYAL’s is a group for queer and trans 6-12 year olds to provide young people a safe(r) space hang out [sic] and meet new people,” its website states. “To best meet the needs of our youth, we have programs that are designed for 6 to 9-year-olds (who we call Unicorns) or 10 to 13-year-olds (who we call Rainbows),” the group explains. “If your child is 13, they may choose to continue attending Little SMYALs programs or age up into SMYAL’s drop-in programs for youth ages 13+.”

“Some programs are open to all youth within this 13-24 age range,” SMYAL notes.

SMYAL actively seeks to separate children or adolescents from their parents, asking for access to young children without parental supervision. “We invite caregivers to attend a ‘Welcome to Little SMYALs’ session to make sure their child is ready to participate in future programming. We then encourage caregivers to give their child some space to allow them to meet new friends and participate fully in this environment,” SMYAL’s website states. “[S]ome parents/caregivers have enjoyed getting coffee down the street together during in-person programs.”

SMYAL also offers “clinical services to LGBTQ youth ages 6-24,” including “trauma-enforced yoga, sound healing, and mindfulness.” Its Youth Leadership Development program holds workshops on topics ranging from “allyship” to “gender and sexuality 101.”

‘Beyond Ridiculous’

Giving an anti-terrorism grant to a child-focused LGBTQ activist group is “beyond ridiculous,” Meg Kilgannon, senior fellow for Education Studies at Family Research Council, told The Washington Stand. “Anti-terrorism and violence prevention money from DHS is supposed to prevent another 9/11 bombing — actual violent terrorism. It’s not supposed to impose sexual ideologies on children or adults. That’s child abuse and taxpayer abuse.”

“When people say they want to close agencies like the FBI, CIA, or DHS, programs like this one are part of the reason for that sentiment,” she said.

The taxpayer-funded DHS grant will greatly enhance SYMAL’s budget. The $530,000 TVTP grant represents 15% of the $3.6 million in revenue the group reported in 2021. (In all $2,061,623 of its $3,632,170 came from government grants.) SYMAL spent $351,123 promoting the GSA Networks’ agenda. It also spent $350,363 on its Peer Health Fellowship and $302,248 on its Youth Leadership Development Program.

Awarding SMYAL and other politically polarizing organizations DHS grants shows that “the national security industrial complex is too big and too focused on perceived threats to government from American citizens rather than on actual national security threats: cyberattacks on public schools and other organizations; lawlessness at the border; child trafficking rings; drug trafficking rings — all with international ties,” Kilgannon said.

“It’s not the job of DHS to make people feel good about their own sex lives and enforce societal endorsement of sex acts,” she concluded.


Ben Johnson

Ben Johnson is senior reporter and editor at The Washington Stand.


To Prioritize Equity DHS Anti-Terrorism Funds go to Groups Devoted to Underserved Populations

California to Create “Transgender History Month”

‘Public Education Needs to be a Site of Socialist Organizing’: ALA President

PEPFAR Is Subsidizing Abortion Advocacy, Say Lawmakers, Pro-Lifers, and African Leaders

Barna: Discipleship Is a Journey, Not a Destination

Why Every Christian Should Study the End Times


EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. ©2023 Family Research Council.

The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

Chloe Cole: Anyone Trying to Hide Kids’ Gender Identity Is ‘Plain Perverted’

There aren’t a lot of 19-year-olds who give up their birthdays to go to Congress and plead for kids’ lives. But Chloe Cole isn’t your average teenager. The face of the detransitioner movement has come into her own by walking a painful path she prays no one else follows. Now, after years of suffering, self-doubt, and irreversible surgery, Chloe is a living warning to parents that the scars of trying to be someone else never fully heal.

“I look in the mirror sometimes, and I feel like a monster,” she told the roomful of elected leaders last month. Chloe talked emotionally about the double mastectomy that doctors encouraged at just 15. “After my breasts were taken away from me, the tissue was incinerated — before I was able to legally drive.” It was the loss of that piece of herself that drove the nightmare home. “Every single night after every bath, after every shower, I would have to look down at these huge wounds that were on my chest,” she remembered. Even the skin grafts that they “took of my nipples” haunted her. The masculine replacements that doctors made “are weeping fluid today,” she admitted to the hushed room of leaders.

These are the horrors that Chloe travels the world to share. Now, with the shock that the number of U.S. gender reassignment surgeries has tripled, her cause is even more urgent. She wants people to know that she was never suicidal before her transition. That changed almost instantly. “After my surgery, I did become suicidal,” Cole admits. “I’m doing better now, but my parents almost got the dead daughter promised to them by my doctors.”

She was referring to the intimidation tactics used by a shocking number of clinics on moms and dads who are concerned about letting their children move forward with cross-sex hormones and mutilation. “I mean, really, they were just giving me what I, as the child, wanted rather than stopping [me] and letting me be a kid and thinking about what it might have been that I actually needed — which was psychotherapy and just being given a chance to just grow up,” Chloe told former Congressman Jody Hice on Friday’s “Washington Watch.”

And the doctors “expected my parents to go along with all of this. They told them that it was going to be life or death for me, that I would become suicidal if I were not on these interventions. And really, what it came down to was they said that to manipulate my parents.”

But as Chloe explains it, she was just a small-town girl in rural California who was on the verge of puberty and uncomfortable with what was happening to her body. “And when I told my parents that I felt like a boy, in retrospect, all I meant was that I hated puberty, that I wanted this newfound sexual tension to go away.” She started reading things online that if she didn’t feel like a girl, she probably wasn’t. In a letter that she left on the dining room table, she told her parents that she wanted to be a boy. “They had no idea what to do,” she recalls in a lengthy profile piece for The Telegraph.

At therapy, the “experts” — like so many of her teachers — ignored years of evidence that Chloe was most likely autistic. She says she never felt “super close” to her parents, and “I must have had some sort of attachment issue. I started at five or six to reject physical affection.” Despite those underlying issues, doctors urged Chloe’s mom and dad to consent to puberty blockers at just 13.

“They told them that blood was going to be on their hands … and that they only had those two choices. No other choices were presented to us. They never told them about the possibility that I would resist or detransition or of me regretting these procedures. They said that it was more likely that I that I would regret going through puberty than I ever would being on these interventions,” Cole explained to Hice.

Two years later, at the tender age of 15, Chloe made the decision that she has regretted ever since: “I had a double mastectomy, meaning that my breasts had been removed permanently.” After months of physical pain and trauma, she realized she “regretted all of these interventions, that I was too young to be making decisions like this, and that by doing all of this, I was losing parts of my adulthood before I could even call myself a woman, and that one day I wanted to be able to have kids of my own.”

Sitting in a psychology class about parenting and family barely a year later, Cole had what she now considers “a huge wake-up call.” “As I listened, I reali[zed] that I had a maternal instinct, that one day I’d like to have kids of my own, but that the effects of being prescribed puberty blockers and testosterone during my transition might mean I couldn’t.”

But these weren’t things she was thinking of at 15 when she had her body irreversibly altered. “But sitting in that class, it hurt me really deeply to reali[ze] how a part of me had been taken away. … It shattered my heart into a million pieces.” She talks about spending a lot of time in bed, “unable to get up, crying silently. I didn’t know what life would look like from there and who I would be, but I just knew I couldn’t take any more testosterone shots.”

What came next was a long and difficult chapter marked by indifferent doctors and the open betrayal of the same LGBT movement that had pushed her toward this mess. “I actually got a really aggressive response from the transgender community and the people who had celebrated me the most through my transition,” Chloe told Hice, “[They] … were now turning their back on me, and they were saying the cruelest things to me. And even my doctors — I wasn’t getting any support from them. I wasn’t getting any help as to how to go off of the hormones or any of the complications that I was having from these procedures. It was an incredibly lonely experience, so much more difficult than transitioning in the first place.”

Trying to figure it “all out on my own,” Chloe started stumbling on other people with similar horror stories — people who felt damaged and regretted it. “And while on one hand, it was kind of comforting knowing that I wasn’t the only one going through this,” it was also, she explained, “incredibly painful and terrifying that I’m not the only one who has been hurt by this, that there are many people out there — the amount of which we’ll never know. … And I wanted to be able to advocate for other people, especially the other kids who have been in this situation — and to prevent it from happening ever again.”

When Hice characterizes what happened to Chloe as abuse, she embraces the term. “That’s absolutely what it is at every single level. I was failed by these adults — these people who call themselves doctors, who are supposed to help my parents in raising me and getting me care.”

That’s why she’s adamant that parents do more digging about what’s really going on. “… [A] good percentage of these people — if not all of them — have had some sort of co-morbidity issue, whether it be like a learning disorder, such as ADHD or autism, or like a cluster B personality disorder, depression, social anxiety. Or, overwhelmingly, many of them have a history of trauma, whether it be of sexual abuse or assault or rape or a parental or family trauma. And it’s hard to know how that might play into the way that a person sees themselves in relation to their sex.”

The idea that schools want to hide these issues or keep a child’s gender identity a secret is, in her opinion, “plain perverted.” “ …[I]t’s incredibly concerning that these schools think that they can control what the child is exposed to more than the parent. I mean, back when I was in school, when I was in middle and high school, we had like waivers for parents to sign off for sex ed. But they don’t get a choice on this?”

So where should parents start? What would have helped Chloe when she was struggling?

“The best thing to do is to … not go the path of having these children go on permanent interventions that will affect them for the rest of their lives,” she insisted. “It’s important to speak to them directly and openly about where these feelings are coming from. What is it that makes them feel like they’re not enough as their own sex? What is influencing them to think that they can just opt out of either being a boy or a girl and go the other path? And to remember to be compassionate to them, to let them know that they are loved. That they are perfect as they are. That the issue is not their body or the way that they look or were born, but the way that they see it.”

As frightening as the idea may be to parents, moms and dads are the ones best equipped to guide their children through this. That means taking control over the negative voices that are corrupting their view of themselves. As Chloe concluded:

“[T]ry to remove the influence that is making them think otherwise—whether it be from school, whether they’re learning it in class from their peers, or from the internet, and to respond accordingly. Like … in the case of it being from social media or the internet, you might have to take away their devices and to replace it with something else like a sport or encouraging them to go out and develop a hobby. Or if it’s coming from school, then you’ll have to be more involved in your child’s education to see what is going on in the classroom, to look at the curriculum. And you may have to move schools, you may have to end up homeschooling them, which is not an option for every parent.

“It is incredibly difficult. But I think in the very end it’s worth it, because that gives you full control over what your child is being exposed to and what they’re taught.”


Suzanne Bowdey

Suzanne Bowdey serves as editorial director and senior writer at The Washington Stand.


‘Sexual Imperialism’: The World Bank Debanks Uganda over Anti Molestation Law

Rock Stars Take on Transgender Agenda

Women Speak Out Against YMCA ‘Transgender’ Bathroom Policies


EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2023 Family Research Council.

The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

Over 1,000 School Districts Hiding Students’ Gender Identities from Parents

A new report is sounding the alarm on the growing number of schools embracing transgender ideology and keeping parents in the dark. According to Parents Defending Education, at least 1,040 U.S. school districts have adopted policies instructing or encouraging faculty and staff to keep students’ gender identities a secret from parents. Those districts include over 18,000 schools responsible for nearly 11 million students. The vast majority of those school districts (593) are in California.

Meg Kilgannon, senior fellow for Education Studies at Family Research Council, told The Washington Stand, “I am grateful to Parents Defending Education for their attempt to quantify this problem. It is important to support with evidence what many parents know by instinct or experience: our educational system that is supposed to work with parents will often work around parents instead.” She added, “At this point, parents need to assume they will be deceived by their school if their child makes a gender identity declaration to a teacher or counselor at school.”

Commonly called “Transgender/Gender Nonconforming Policies,” such dictums have been the subject of controversy and even protest across the nation, with parental rights organizations such as Moms for Liberty and Mama Grizzly forming to combat the policies and others like them. Speaking on the role of parental rights organizations, Kilgannon commented, “[I]f we have the ability to do so, we must engage with people and systems that view this parental deception as good for children. Obviously, something is very wrong if some people can believe the answer is government first, parents second or never.”

A recent example of the ongoing controversy may be found in New Jersey, where a state judge last week blocked a trio of school districts from enforcing a policy requiring faculty and staff to inform parents of students’ gender identities at school, effectively forcing the school districts to keep parents in the dark. The judge wrote that the policies, “if implemented, will have a disparate impact on transgender, gender nonconforming, and nonbinary youth.” Those policies would require teachers, coaches, and other staff to inform a student’s parents if that student used a bathroom that didn’t correspond to their biological sex, requested different pronouns be used in addressing them, or asking to play on a sports team that didn’t correspond to their biological sex.

The controversy over “Transgender/Gender Nonconforming Policies” comes as debate continues on why an increasing number of children are identifying as transgender or non-binary. One study from earlier this year, for example, classified the increase as part of “a socially contagious syndrome,” stating that it’s likely that “common cultural beliefs, values, and preoccupations cause some adolescents (especially female adolescents) to attribute their social problems, feelings, and mental health issues to gender dysphoria. That is, youth[s] … falsely believe that they are transgender…”

While some theorize that standard peer pressure, coupled with the social popularity of transgenderism, is largely responsible for the increase in children identifying as transgender, others — like Mama Grizzly founder Stacy Langton — allege it’s largely rooted in the sexual grooming of children by teachers.

Kilgannon commented, “[T]his is where our own action as parents are so important. We must be present to our children, engaged with them, being the most important person in their lives. … [L]ike everything in life, it starts with ourselves and our relationships to the people God has put in our lives, especially the children we are blessed with and responsible for.”


S.A. McCarthy

S.A. McCarthy serves as a news writer at The Washington Stand.


11th Circuit Reinstates Alabama Law Protecting Minors from Gender Transition Hormones

Michigan Ads in Red States Promote Abortion, Same-Sex Marriage

Calif. Library Kicks Out Event Speaker for ‘Misgendering’

Leftist Muslim Activist Who Once Attacked ‘Gay Ideologies’ Now Blames GOP for Muslim Opposition to LGBTQ

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. ©2023 Family Research Council.

The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

The 5 Worst Lies of the Biden Administration

For the Biden administration, pushing abortion and transgender ideology is a top priority at all levels of government. Sometimes, this priority even overshadows their commitment to the truth. And the Biden administration has told some real whoppers. But don’t take my word for it; consider the facts for yourself. Here are the top five lies of the Biden administration regarding abortion and transgender ideology.

1) Weakened safety standards for the abortion pill regimen does not pose a threat to women.

On January 3, 2023, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) permanently removed a “requirement that mifepristone be dispensed only in certain health care settings, specifically clinics, medical offices, and hospitals (referred to as the ‘in-person dispensing requirement’).” At the same time, it created a new program under which pharmacies such as Walgreens and CVS can become licensed to distribute mifepristone.

Mifepristone is the first of two drugs taken to induce a chemical abortion. FDA in 2011 placed mifepristone under the Risk Evaluation and Mitigation System (REMS) due to reports of adverse events up to and including death. REMS is reserved “for certain medications with serious safety concerns.” By removing the in-person dispensing requirement from the REMS governing the use of mifepristone, FDA enabled abortion pill dispensaries to ship the pills to women without any oversight from a health care practitioner.

On December 16, 2021, the FDA had “determined that the data support modification of the REMS to reduce burden on patient access and the health care delivery system and to ensure the benefits of the product outweigh the risks.”

On January 22, 2023, President Biden issued a memorandum endorsing FDA’s action, saying that it was “evidence-based” and taken “after an independent and comprehensive review of the risks and benefits.” He directed the Department of Justice (DOJ) and Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to work together to further advance distribution of the abortion pill regimen. In compliance with this directive, Attorney General Merrick Garland and HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra both denounced an April court decision blocking the distribution of mifepristone (the decision is currently on hold).

In reality, the best available evidence shows that “chemical abortion has led to a surge in emergency room visits and higher rates of complications,” according to the Charlotte Lozier Institute (CLI). According to a peer-reviewed, 17-year longitudinal study of Medicaid claims data, in the 30 days following a chemical abortion, women have a 22% greater risk of visiting the emergency room for any reason, and a 53% greater risk of visiting the emergency room for an abortion-related reason, when compared with a surgical abortion.

Peer-reviewed studies of comprehensive datasets in Finland, Sweden, and California also show higher complication rates from chemical abortion. In Finland, a study of 42,619 abortions found that one fifth of all chemical abortions resulted in complications, a rate four times greater than for surgical abortions. In California, a study found the major complication rate for chemical abortions was four times greater than for surgical abortions. In Sweden, a study found complications of chemical abortions “increased significantly during 2008-2015 without any evident cause.”

Although President Biden called the FDA review “comprehensive” and “evidence-based,” the data they reviewed was far less robust than these peer-reviewed studies. “Starting in 2016, the FDA chose to only require reports of death associated with the abortion pill, making their dataset woefully incomplete,” said Dr. James Studnicki, CLI’s vice president of Data Analytics. The FDA review ignored this substantial evidence of high complication rates when it freed the distribution of chemical abortion pills from professional oversight.

2) Military readiness requires taxpayers to cover abortion-related expenses for servicemembers.

On October 20, 2022, Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin issued a memorandum titled, “Ensuring Access to Reproductive Health Care,” which directed the Department of Defense (DOD) “to ensure that our Service members and their families can access reproductive health care.” On February 16, 2023, the DOD finalized the policy, granting up to 21 days of “administrative absence to non-covered reproductive health care,” subsidizing “travel for non-covered reproductive health care services,” and loosening “command notification of pregnancy” to benefit abortion.

DOD has claimed the policy will “increase readiness.” After Senator Tommy Tuberville (R-Ala.) announced he would block senior-level military promotions until DOD ended the policy, President Biden accused Tuberville of “jeopardizing our national security over domestic social issues. Pentagon Spokesman John Kirby was asked last month, “Why is the new DOD policy on abortion critical to military readiness?” He responded that paying for abortion-related travel was a “foundational, sacred obligation of military leaders.”

In reality, federal law prohibits the DOD from using taxpayer funds to promote abortion. Under 10 U.S. Code § 1093, DOD funds and facilities “may not be used to perform abortions except where the life of the mother would be endangered if the fetus were carried to term or in a case in which the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or incest.” On December 15, 2022, 66 members of Congress wrote to Secretary Austin notifying him that “funding travel and transportation to obtain non-covered, elective abortions through the DOD would, in and of itself violate federal law. It also contradicts DOD’s past recognition, interpretation, and implementation of this law.”

3) Self-perceived gender identity always overrides biological distinctions between the sexes.

On January 20, 2021, President Biden issued an executive order directing federal agencies to interpret all “laws that prohibit sex discrimination” to “prohibit discrimination on the basis of gender identity or sexual orientation,” extending the Supreme Court’s Title VII-specific reasoning in Bostock v. Clayton County to every federal law. A separate executive order on this date ordered the president’s Domestic Policy Council to “coordinate efforts to embed equity principles [including with ‘respect to … gender identity’], policies, and approaches across the Federal Government.”

In the months that followed, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), the U.S. Department of Education, the DOJHHS, and other agencies have faithfully implemented this directive to expand the presence of biological males in women’s shelters, women’s locker rooms, and women’s sports, reinterpreting the Fair Housing Act, Title IX, and Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act. FRC Action has compiled a full accounting of the dozens of actions taken by Biden administration in pursuit of this goal.

In reality, physical differences between men and women are too important to ignore. Biological males are, on average, taller, heavier, and stronger than females, which gives them an upper hand in many types of sports — not to mention a predatory advantage when they win admission into women’s-only spaces. Males have won over 30 championships in women’s-only sporting events dating back to 2003. These distinctions are so obvious that even pro-LGBT Democrats cannot entirely ignore them. Last month, a Democratic congressman suggested erecting “barriers” in women’s locker rooms to protect women who felt uncomfortable changing next to a biological male with fully intact anatomy. And a Democratic senator tweeted, “We cannot avoid the biological/evolutionary differences between men and women.”

4) Civically engaged American citizens are violent domestic terrorists.

On October 4, 2021, Garland directed the FBI to investigate a “disturbing spike in harassment, intimidation, and threats of violence against school administrators, board members, teachers, and staff.” That directive came five days after the National School Boards Association asked President Biden to investigate parents who spoke out at school board meetings for “domestic terrorism and hate crimes,” in a letter prompted by Education Secretary Miguel Cardona. Earlier this year, the House Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government determined that the FBI had, in fact, used counterterrorism resources to investigate parents. Needless to say, the “spike” in violence was entirely fabricated.

On September 23, 2022, 25 heavily armed federal agents conducted a pre-dawn raid on the home of pro-life activist Mark Houck to arrest him in front of his wife and seven children. The DOJ indicted Houck under the FACE Act, alleging that two years ago he violently pushed an abortion facility escort to the ground, when he was only defending his 12-year-old son from an aggressive, profanity-laced tirade. Houck had offered to voluntarily surrender months earlier, but apparently the DOJ’s resources were better spent on a SWAT-style raid. This January, a jury acquitted Houck of the charges brought against him.

In February 2023, a leaked memo from the FBI field office in Richmond, Va. revealed the bureau was spying on “radical traditionalist” Catholic communities. After months of FBI stonewalling, the Weaponization Subcommittee finally obtained documents proving that the Richmond field office coordinated with at least two other field offices, and that the investigation had gone as far as seeking to embed undercover sources.

In reality, each of these episodes simply involved ordinary citizens peacefully living their lives, practicing their faith, and properly engaging in the democratic process. In contrast with the previous lies, once caught, the Biden administration could muster no defense against the obvious impropriety of their behavior except pretending it never happened, Nevertheless, the fact remains that the Biden administration has weaponized federal law enforcement resources to investigate private citizens for nothing more than being civically engaged.

5) Protecting minors from harmful, irreversible gender reassignment procedures is illegal discrimination and potentially fatal.

On July 25, 2022, HHS announced a proposed rule under Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act, which would force health insurers to cover gender reassignment procedures for minors and could financially coerce doctors to perform them.

Far from an isolated affair, promoting gender reassignment procedures is official Biden administration policy — although the federal role is less direct than states. The DOJ has intervened in lawsuits to block laws protecting minors from gender reassignment procedures in Alabama and Tennessee. The DOJ also tried to force two Catholic hospital associations to provide and insure gender reassignment procedures, in violation of their religious beliefs.

State actions to protect minors from gender reassignment procedures “callously threaten to harm children and their families just to score political points,” alleged President Biden in a March 2022 statement. He appealed to the political conclusions of “respected medical organizations” to argue that “access to gender-affirming care for transgender children can benefit mental health, lower suicide rates, and improve other health outcomes.”

HHS Secretary Becerra agreed in a June 2022 press release, “This year, we have unfortunately seen an alarming rise in state laws and other actions that discriminate against our LGBTQI+ children and youth. … We as a Department recommit to ensuring every American can access health care — including gender-affirming care.” This remained the official White House position as of April 2023, when Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said gender reassignment procedures for minors is “something for a child and their parents to decide” and certainly “not something we believe should be decided by legislators.”

In reality, confused children are often “given no choice” about pursuing gender reassignment procedures, according to detransitioner Prisha Mosley. “They said it was transition or suicide. … I was told, ‘You will kill yourself if you don’t go through with these treatments.’” A whistleblower account from one transgender center said the providers even disregarded the refusal of the custodial parent and proceeded with gender reassignment procedures anyways.

The physical reality of gender transitioning is even more brutal. One young detransitioner said the reassignment procedures performed on him did not make him a woman, but they did make him a “patient for life.” Young people who begin puberty blockers almost universally proceed to cross-sex hormones and often mutilating surgery. Cross-sex hormones can cause “irreversible infertility, while surgeries cause irreversible loss of healthy, functioning organs. Yet Biden said those opposing these gruesome procedures are the ones harming children.

On each of these five points, the Biden administration is driven more by ideology than by the truth. Abortion-by-mail is not safe for women. Taxpayer-funded abortion travel is not necessary for military readiness. Biological sex does matter more than gender identity in many contexts. Citizens aren’t domestic extremists just because they advocate policies the Biden administration doesn’t like. And gender reassignment procedures are good for nobody, especially not minors. With the constant drumbeat of fiction to the contrary, we must keep telling the truth — and saying it loud.


Joshua Arnold

Joshua Arnold is a staff writer at The Washington Stand.


Biden Admin Opposes Protecting Women From Dangerous Abortion Pills

Nurse Found Guilty of Murdering Seven Premature Babies in Neonatal Unit

Court’s Ruling Holds Biden Admin Accountable for Hiding How Abortion Hurts Women

Poll Shows 73% of Americans Oppose Unlimited Abortions


EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2023 Family Research Council.

The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

‘Huge Mistake’: Anheuser-Busch and Other Brands Continue to Face Worldwide Boycott

The year 2023 has been full of breaking news stories and madcap headlines. So far, it has entailed a bank collapse, four indictments of a former president, an AI revolution, investigations into the weaponization of the federal government, Hunter Biden’s controversial business dealings, and the list goes on.

In the midst of the political frenzy, one story continues to take the front page as more details are uncovered: the national boycott of several woke companies. The most recent development in this saga includes influential heirs and publications pointing out how far these companies have drifted from the values established by their founders.

Anheuser-Busch was the first to face a national boycott after Bud Light partnered with trans-identifying activist Dylan Mulvaney, ultimately costing the beer company $395 million in North America alone. Soon after, Target, Levi Strauss, Starbucks, and Sports Illustrated “decided to follow transgender advocacy straight to financial insolvency.” Although one would say that the ultimate goal of these retailers is to provide goods and services in exchange for currency, some experts argue that their priorities have shifted.

“Nothing big changes quickly. Corporations started caring more about virtue signaling than serving customers when they started to be led by people who cared more about virtue signaling than serving customers,” Joseph Backholm, senior fellow for Biblical Worldview, told The Washington Stand. “It’s just a fixation with feelings caused by a lack of adult leadership.”

With the collapse of Anheuser-Busch still in full swing, Billy Busch — the great-grandson of Adolphus Busch — weighed in on what he thinks his ancestors would have to say about the direction the company has taken.

“I think my family, my ancestors, would have rolled over in their graves,” he said. “They believed that transgender, gays, that sort of thing was all a very personal issue. They loved this country because it is a free country and people are allowed to do what they want, but it was never meant to be on a beer can and never meant to be pushed in people’s faces.”

In an interview with Sean Hannity, Busch noted that his family “wouldn’t have ever gotten as political as this.” He said that his family lived by the motto “making friends is our business,” which entailed bringing people together, making for a fun drinking experience. He later added, “people that drink Bud Light — that drink beer — really don’t relate to that kind of advertising,” calling the Dylan Mulvaney partnership “a huge mistake.”

As Anheuser-Busch sales continue to plummet over their LGBT advocacy, another massive corporation has walked away from their foundational values, also resulting in a financial crash.

Disney was next to be pummeled by the boycott wave, eventually resulting in the entertainment behemoth taking a monetary beating earlier this year. Not only did two of their recent films, “Lightyear” and “Strange World,” cost them $258 million, but Disney’s “crowds are getting smaller” this summer. Management’s ongoing feud with Florida Governor Ron DeSantis (R) has also proven unsuccessful, as they recently announced the cancellation of their $1 billion construction complex in Florida. Some are attributing their recent downfall to their woke, political agenda, which contradicts the founder’s values.

“Roy and Walt Disney would be shocked to see how Disney’s values have changed, which I believe is the foundation of Disney’s downward spiral in the last few years,” Melissa Henson wrote in an opinion piece published by The Washington Times. “Disney’s shift over the past few years — from broken promises about keeping R-rated content off Disney+ to content that sexualizes children — may have a lot to do with the company’s dismal performance these last several months.”

While speculations have been made as to why so many corporations have been abandoned this year, Backholm addressed the morality of boycotting from a Christian perspective.

“When it comes to boycotting, I think Christians are prohibited from encouraging evil. It’s hard to know where that line is because we live in a sin-filled world, and you can’t ever escape connections to it. But if we become convinced that one action is likely to lead to evil, we can’t take that action.” Ultimately, Backholm concluded, “We should all have a line that we are unwilling to cross.”


Abigail Olsson

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2023 Family Research Council.

The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

When the Transgender Movement Kills

The most common question transgender activists use to bully parents into approving their daughter’s lifelong dependency on experimental hormone injections is: “Would you rather have a living son or a dead daughter?”

But the tragic story of Abigail Martinez’s daughter, who took her own life after attempting to transition to life as a boy, proves what a false dichotomy that is.

A hard-hitting new film reveals how the trans movement inflicts death, depression, and familial estrangement in service of the pharmaceutical industry.

The story of Yaeli Martinez forms the heart of “Gender Transformations: The Untold Realities,” an original production of The Epoch Times. Though technically classified as a “docudrama,” the term does not do justice to the reality that plays out on the screen: The majority of the film consists of real people sharing heartbreaking true stories, without an interviewer’s prompting. Through their eyes, the 85-minute Epoch Original production traces the transgender contagion from its funding sources in Big Pharma, to ideologically extremist teachers who radicalize children behind their parents’ backs, to trans activists who brainwash and kidnap minors, to the irreversible damage the industry causes teens and young adults. Abigail Martinez sheds real tears for her daughter’s suicide — and real footage shows trans activists mocking her grief.

The “docudrama” label comes from the movie’s dramatization of the short life, radicalization, and death of Yaeli Martinez. The film renames Yaeli “Evie,” who transitions to “Evan.” But the recreation of Yaeli’s life — which can only be reconstructed, since she stepped in front of a train at age 17 — forms the narrative arc turning patchwork of first-person vignettes into a mosaic picture of lives callously shattered for profit.

Yaeli became indoctrinated in extreme gender ideology through a school LGBT group, where she eventually joined her “friends” in identifying as transgender. One night, Yaeli’s “friends” pulled up outside Martinez’s home, picked her up in an unmarked car, and whisked her away to an unknown location to live with other transgender-identifying young people. “They even took the license plate off of their car,” Martinez remembers.

Things got worse when the government got involved. Yaeli said her mother refused to affirm her identity, causing the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services to put the minor into a group home. A judge would authorize the minor to receive transgender injections against her mother’s will. Eventually, Yaeli — who now identified as “Andrew” — brought her mother back into her life, just as newfound friends began to desert her and reality began to assert itself.

“She told me, ‘Mom, I realized that no matter what I do I’m never going to be like my brother. I’m in pain. I can’t sleep. I can’t concentrate,’” Martinez recalls. “’It’s not working the way that I thought.’”

One day in 2019, law enforcement gave Martinez the news that her daughter had committed suicide. “I was screaming. I said, ‘No, I want my daughter,’” Martinez later told The Daily Signal. She pleaded to be able to spend time with the body of her daughter, whom she had not seen since the child ran away.

“The gentleman from the funeral home told me there’s nothing really that you can see or recognize,” Martinez recalled.

All that remained of her child’s legacy was the undying hatred of the radical LGBTQ movement. The movie includes real footage of Martinez sharing her story, as trans activists yell, “Cry more!” and “What a sob story!”

After removing a child from a loving home and transitioning her, the Los Angeles government refused to acknowledge any responsibility for Yaeli’s death. “We extend our deepest condolences to the family and friends of Andrew M., as well as to the LGBTQIA community which advocates relentlessly to protect its youngest and most vulnerable members from such tragedies,” responded the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services.

The statement said nothing about the role of the transgender movement — top to bottom — in creating the tragedy.

That story falls to Martinez and the movie’s ensemble of grieving parents, whistleblowing therapists, investigative journalists, and remorseful detransitioners.

The origin story of transgenderism’s social contagion begins by tracing the money back to the Big Pharma companies that manufacture these drugs. “If you’re going to look for anything in this country, you’re going to follow the money, because it will always tell you the truth. Who’s funding these LGB organizations?” asked writer and investigator Jennifer Bilek. “What I found was a whole lot of very, very powerful moneyed people in the highest echelons of finance, Pharma, and technology.” Dr. Katherine Welch, a concerned physician, agrees that pharmaceutical companies “fund the activists and the NGOs to stir up a lot of passion.” Then the companies ask for emergency use authorization, based on “a mental health crisis among our youth.” Thanks to their combination marketing-and-lobbying efforts, there is now “a $1.5 billion industry for surgery alone,” said lawyer Erin Friday. “And I think that’s an underestimate.”

The trail extends to dishonest researchers, such as John Money, and subject criteria set by organizations such as the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH). The academic cohort produces the shoddy research trumpeted by the media, entertainment industry, and school officials. When Erin Friday learned her daughter had secretly begun identifying as a boy at school, administrators told her, “We need to be a safe space” for her child. “By extension, I’m unsafe,” said Friday.

The message promptly filters down to young people. A few confess to being amazed at the virtually godlike power they hold over their own bodies. “When I went into the Planned Parenthood building to [talk about] the surgery … I could pick from 25 sets of breasts,” said detransitioner David Bacon. “I could build myself.”

But most seek to rebuild themselves from a trauma, or they naïvely believe the transgender industry’s claims that the silver bullet for their depression lies at the end of a needle. Continually hearing the (scientifically inaccurate) mantra that children who identify as transgender will commit suicide if not immediately “affirmed” caused at least one woman to become profoundly depressed. “It made me feel even more hopeless, because I thought there was no way to accept myself. I had to get these painful surgeries and take hormones,” said detransitioner Catt Catinson. Her psychological evaluation “affirmed me immediately” and “just sort of overlooked my eating disorder” and childhood sexual abuse. Abel Garcia received the same treatment, even after telling them, “I might be autistic” and that he felt unsure whether he identified as transgender.

“The worst part, honestly, is that I was allowed to do all this, and that nobody was willing to stop me and have a second opinion,” says Garcia. “Instead, I was affirmed, I was love-bombed. I was allowed to destroy my body.”

So, was Yaeli Martinez, to whom the movie is dedicated.

“This pain never goes away,” says Abigail Martinez. “You breathe and you can feel the pain.”

Yet the movie ends with the hope that some victims of the transgender industry survive long enough to live as their authentic selves, the ones reflected by their biology. “It took me about a year to fully deprogram from gender identity ideology,” said Cattinson. “I feel like it was the act of deprogramming, just changing my beliefs, that allowed me to recover from my depression.” Now, she has reconnected with the family her embrace of gender ideology estranged. “It’s been very healing, having that family connection again. We can just be together and love each other.”

That gives hope to Pamela Garfield-Jaeger, a therapist and social worker who believes adults caught up in the transgender movement “didn’t realize just how harmful this was.” One day, Americans will look back at this chapter as “a dark time in our history, but I don’t think this is going to last.”

But until then, the testimony of Martinez and other grieving families torn apart by extreme transgender ideology, preserved in this Epoch Original, reveals the incalculable consequences when darkness triumphs, even briefly.


Ben Johnson

Ben Johnson is senior reporter and editor at The Washington Stand.


Pop Star Doubles Down on Opposing Gender Transitions for Children

‘Family Is on The Chopping Block’: A Conversation with Dr. Carrie Gress on Feminism

Progressive Pastor: ‘I Felt No Guilt, No Shame, No Sin’ for Her Two Abortions


“Detransitioner” Chloe Cole testified to this effect at a recent hearing in the House of Representatives.

Dr. Jennifer Bauwens testifies at the Congressional hearing, explaining the ethical issues regarding gender transition procedures and urging the subcommittee to act on behalf of children.

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2023 Family Research Council.

The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

‘What Is a Woman?’ Katie McCoy’s New Book Provides Biblical Clarity

Conversations surrounding gender and sexuality are seemingly inescapable these days, and Christians today are increasingly being labeled as “hateful” by those who disagree with a biblical worldview. In these contentious times, it is more necessary than ever that Christians approach these topics both biblically and lovingly.

Despite the ubiquity of these topics, many Christians shy away from the conversation for fear of being “canceled” or for lack of knowledge about what has become a complicated battlefield of ideas. However, Christians must join the discussion because gender ideology is causing real harm to the most vulnerable among us: children.

Although gender ideology has a detrimental effect on children of both sexes, it is having an outsized effect on young women. As our culture’s answer to the question “What is a woman?” becomes more and more uncertain, young women are being inundated with contradictory ideologies that lead to harmful physical consequences. At her March 2022 confirmation hearing, Ketanji Brown Jackson epitomized our culture’s confusion when the future Supreme Court justice declined to define the word “woman.”

Katie McCoy’s new book “To Be a Woman” is an important contribution to the conversation about how Christians can answer the day’s toughest questions about sexuality and gender with love, compassion, grace, and wisdom. McCoy sheds light on what has become a difficult topic, specifically addressing how young women are disproportionately affected.

If we are going to respond to our culture with love and knowledge, we must first properly understand the basics of the conversation we are undertaking. McCoy seeks to explain the “confusion over female identity and how Christians can respond” with a five-part model: the How, the Why, the Where, the What, and the Who.

The How addresses the social catalysts that have created an environment that cultivates disorder and confusion about gender and sexuality. The “epidemic” that has become known as rapid-onset gender dysphoria (ROGD) affects young women more frequently than young men, and the influence of online resources that encourage ROGD means that the standard of care is causing increasingly more harm.

The Why analyzes the ingredients and ideologies that have combined to create a world that sustains these influences and discussions. From the rise of the postmodern worldview to the growing distrust of society and authority and, more importantly, the separation of God from culture, our society has broken down the fundamental attributes of gender, and this has become a harmful recipe that results in “toxic, dangerous, and corrosive” behavior.

The Where presents the science behind “treatment” for rapid-onset gender dysphoria and how the validation of gender identity leads to harmful physical consequences that society views as “loving treatments.” However, these validations, ranging from fake periods to new pronouns, attempt to separate the connection between biology and gender, to which McCoy responds well by clarifying, “Gender is distinct from biology, but it is still derived from biology.”

The What breaks down the biological differences between the sexes that are so stark they cannot be ignored. Contemplating the many physiological and neurobiological differences present in human anatomy helps readers navigate the labyrinth of gender topics and remind us that we should be in awe of and not overwhelmed by the complexity that God created in us.

The Who connects the meaning of gender and womanhood to the context of the Bible and the healing that society needs to undergo in order to repair women’s relationships with their physical bodies. Commenting that “maleness and femaleness have a purpose,” McCoy brings the discussion back to God’s plan for humanity and reflects on the deeper meaning of being “made in His image.”

Chapter Six rounds out the conversation by offering more evidence on why the topic of womanhood ought to be important to Christians and places this conversation in the reality of the family unit and everyday life.

In the final chapter, McCoy charges Christians to have compassion and love for others. God commands His people in Leviticus 19 to “love your neighbor as yourself.” Christians are called to follow these commandments given by God even when it is difficult.

With so much confusion and ambiguity plaguing our society’s conversations about gender and sexuality, it is important for Christians to maintain a solid understanding of the battle of ideas that is taking place. Katie McCoy provides a straightforward and clear introduction to the topic that can help believers navigate these conversations effectively and graciously.


Abigail Odom

Abigail Odom is an intern at Family Research Council.

RELATED PODCAST: Confusion, Feminism, and What it Really Means to Be a Woman

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2023 Family Research Council.

The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

Radicals Threaten to Kill, Dismember School Board President for Adopting Parental Rights Policy

A local school board president has been inundated with threats that left-wing activists will dismember her, murder her children, and slaughter her pets. Her crime? Saying that teachers should not keep parents in the dark if their children begin to identify as transgender.

The new Chino Valley (California) Unified School District Board of Education policy states that school officials will notify parents in writing within three days if a child seeks to identify as a gender “other than the student’s biological sex,” use different pronouns, adopt a different name, use the restroom, or join a sports team of the opposite sex. The board adopted the resolution last Thursday, July 20, by a 4-1 vote, with member Donald Bridge casting the lone dissenting vote.

“The next morning, our district got a phone call” from an anonymous caller threatening “to kill me, and they said that they were going to dismember” school board president Sonja Shaw, the official revealed on “Washington Watch with Tony Perkins” Monday. Police alerted Shaw to the threat shortly before a previous interview on the show, last Friday.

Then Shaw looked at her district email account, where she said she saw messages stating, “You’re going to die,” with a series of profane epithets. “Your children are going to die and your animals are going to die.” For a “point of reference, they would name what kind of animals I had,” Shaw added.

“I also got notification that people who identify as being in the terrorist organization Antifa posted on their website, ‘We declare war on Sonja Shaw,’” Shaw told Perkins, adding that the group posted her address. “They said, ‘We know where you sleep,’” the same message an angry mob screamed outside the home of Tucker Carlson in 2018. “They said things like, ‘Use all force possible to stop her.’”

“I’m not going to lie. I was shaking,” Shaw confided on Monday. Police had beefed up patrols around her home to ensure security, she said.

While she had been “hesitant” to share the details of her ordeal, “God reminded me that these are the people that are after our children.”

“Sacramento has waged a war on parental rights, and a lot of it has to do with the perversion of our children,” Shaw told “Washington Watch” guest host Jody Hice, a former Georgia congressman, on Friday.

“We have to put up safeguards. That’s why I was put here,” Shaw told the school board meeting on Thursday.

After being alarmed by Democratic Governor Gavin Newsom’s top-down imposition of radical education policy as a parent, Shaw ran for school board, and “God opened the doors” to implement the new policy, she told Hice. When the Newsom administration learned of the impending policy, State Superintendent Tony Thurmond arrived at the district meeting Thursday night.

“It was a political stunt. He was trying to scare us,” assessed Shaw.

Thurmond requested a private meeting with Shaw prior to the meeting but declined to follow through when he learned she would not withdraw the policy, Shaw has said. He instead addressed the board meeting, speaking as the first of 83 citizens to make their voices heard. Video footage shows the attendees booed when Thurmond concluded, as Shaw asked everyone to “be respectful” toward the official. Thurmond exceeded his one-minute speaking slot, then returned to the podium demanding a “point of order,” although he is not a board member. Police eventually escorted him out of the building.

Thurmond later claimed he “stayed within the one-minute limit,” and tweeted, “When done speaking, the board president verbally attacked me an [sic] instructed police to remove me.” State Senator Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco), who authored a bill allowing out-of-state children who identify as transgender to flee to California and be injected with cross-sex hormones against their parents’ wishes, alleged, “The QAnon school board president cut him off.” But his former colleague, State Senator Melissa Melendez (R-67), pointed out that “Thurmond militantly enforced the rules for speakers when he was in the legislature.”

The district’s newly enacted policy has won the support of parental rights advocates and education experts nationwide. “The school board in Chino Valley is making parental involvement and inclusion a priority. State level officials interested in a healthy school system should follow their lead,” Meg Kilgannon, senior fellow for Education Studies at Family Research Council, told The Washington Stand.

But the policy drew instant backlash from the California Legislative LGBTQ Caucus, which announced its members are already “actively working on new approaches” to override the democratically enacted resolution. The liberal caucus added that parents who represented the near-unanimous consensus of the Chino Valley school board “will not stop us.”

“It appears some state legislators are scheming to make the newly passed CVUSD policy illegal with a future bill,” said Jonathan Zachreson, a member of the Roseville City School District school board and the founder of Reopen California Schools.

Parents in the district have expressed enthusiastic approval. “I think it’s crucial that we keep parents in this conversation. I think that the worst thing you can do to a child is to ostracize their parents from such an important conversation,” Amy Davlin, a parent in the district, told Newsmax on Tuesday morning.

“Groomers and pedophiles are the ones who attempt to gain the trust of children and encourage them to keep secrets” from their parents, said Davlin. A school district should “not encourage children to deceive and lie to their parents.”

More than two-thirds (68%) of Californians agree that parents should be notified if their minor children change their gender identity, according to a poll taken by Protect Kids California.

“I believe there is an all-out agenda against our children,” said Davlin, who said the new policy sends a message to activists who have weaponized education against parents: “You have crossed a red line. The red line is our children.”

Democrats have indicated a legal fight will ensue. California State Attorney General Rob Bonta (D) threatened that the pro-parental rights policy “may violate California’s antidiscrimination law” in a letter to the Chino Valley school board seeking to sway Thursday’s vote. Disclosing a child’s transgender identification to his or her parents “is very likely to result in significant emotional, mental, and even physical harm,” Bonta asserted.

Parents and board members reject that talking point. “Why are you assuming that parents are dangerous?” asked Shaw.

“If you want a lower suicide rate, bring the parents into the conversation,” said Davlin. “We are the ones who love the kids the most. We are the ones who have their best interests at heart, not their teacher who is with them a few hours a day.”

As Newsom and Thurmond focus on social issues, California students fall further behind. California ranks 38th nationwide in K-12 education, according to U.S. News and World Report — behind such Republican strongholds as Florida (14), Virginia (13), Indiana (7), Utah (9), Nebraska (11), and South Dakota (24). Education levels may improve if teachers focused on fundamentals rather than indoctrination, said Kilgannon. “We’re just trying to get the crazy out: To not have children taught wrong history, not have children taught that they could be born in the wrong body, not have children shown sexually explicit images,” she told Perkins on Monday.

Shaw’s leadership could show the Republicans how to recapture the White House in 2024, one political commentator believes. “We need to have more Sonjas running the school boards around the country,” said Newsmax contributor Tom Borelli on Monday morning. “Republicans can make this a great issue going forward, that we’re the party that represents parental rights. How dare a school district try to deny a parent knowledge about their own child?! That’s just plain outrageous.”

Meanwhile a potential 2024 Democratic presidential hopeful, Gavin Newsom, “plays the biggest part” in fueling the vitriol, hatred, and potential violence directed toward the Chino Valley school board, said Shaw. “But I’m glad that they’re exposing themselves,” Shaw continued.

“My daily prayer is for those to be revealed, exposed, and removed that don’t have the best intentions and that have ill intent for children,” Shaw told Perkins. Thanks to their voluble radicalism, “More people are starting to realize what we’re up against.”

“They’re literally driving a wedge between parent and child,” said Perkins on Monday. “This is evil. It’s just pure evil.”


Ben Johnson

Ben Johnson is senior reporter and editor at The Washington Stand.


Maryland school system runs into Muslim opposition to LGBTQ curriculum

Democrat Sen. Bob Casey Requested $1 Million in Federal Funds for Communist-Supporting, Child Drag Show-Hosting LGBT Center

Why did the NEA recommend ‘Gender Queer’ book for summer reading?

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2023 Family Research Council.

The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

Coast Guard Chief Who Supervised Trans Recruit: It ‘100%’ Hurts Readiness

For all the talk that America “is stronger when it’s inclusive,” the real-world consequences of Joe Biden’s transgender military policy have been deeply and painfully felt. In a force already ravaged by wokeness, overextension, and cratering recruitment, men and women on the ground are also being asked to do the impossible: function with deeply dysfunctional members — which, as one Coast Guard Chief explains, has never endangered America more.

Like most people in uniform, Rocky Rogers, a 25-year veteran of the Coast Guard, watched President Biden sign the executive order that lets trans-identifying troops back into the military and wondered how it would affect him. He didn’t have to wait long to find out. In a sobering interview with Family Research Council President Tony Perkins, he set the record straight on just how disruptive and perilous it was.

As a direct supervisor to one of nine trans-identifying Coast Guardsmen in the military from 2018-2020, Rogers had a front-row seat to the decision that’s created a huge mess for unit commanders and, more broadly, national security.

“Before that member reported to my unit, my workspace,” Chief Rogers explained, “the command briefed me what was going on and just said to look out for this person.” Almost immediately, things started to unravel. “[The problems started with] an unimaginable amount of medical appointments to where this member was rarely at work for a personal choice procedure to be done. Because of these choices, my workforce was significantly hindered in what we could respond to,” he said. It was especially frustrating, Rogers pointed out, because he was “billeted six personnel, but we only had five that were able to work any given time of the day. So that was a huge, huge impact.”

From there, it just got worse. The coast guardsman started “asking for extended lunches or for nourishment, which is always acceptable, but [on top of that, this person wanted] another hour and a half for personal medical care. And I asked the member to get the command approval, because if you give it to one, you have to give it to all. And if we were to give everyone a two-hour lunch, nothing would be completed during the normal workday. So [we’re talking about] a lot of challenges.”

But, of course, when Rogers tried to get help from his own chain of command, he got nowhere. These special accommodations were made because this individual was transitioning to another body.

Chief Rogers expected — wrongly, it turned out — that his supervisors would have his back. “During my briefing with the command before this member even reported [to me], the command asked me if I ever needed any guidance [or] any support to let them know.” When that time came, “I can count three times I reached out to the command and medical administrators directly asking for advice for … challenges with, again, an unimaginable amount of medical appointments and so forth.” In emails back, he was told, “‘Chief, figure it out. Handle it appropriately.’ And that was a sign to me that no one in a leadership role wanted their hands to be tied.”

Eventually, Rogers said, this all led to a great deal of friction with his team. “There was a lot of frustration. There was just a lot of animosity, if you will, because they knew [that] this person could not be depended on to help out with our day-to-day tasks. So it wore the morale in our workspace down very quickly.”

If a single trans-identifying guardsman is this detrimental to a unit, Perkins wondered aloud, “What if you had two individuals like that in your group?”

Rogers did the math. “I’d have 65% of a crew to do 100% of the work — [that’s] what it would come down to.”

“That seems like that has an impact on military readiness,” Perkins replied.

“Absolutely, 100%,” Rogers agrees.

His story comes days after an 18-year-old military recruit broke her silence about what it was like showering with biological men as a result of Biden’s controversial policy, putting her in an “extremely uncomfortable position.” Senator Mike Rounds (R-S.D.) relayed her testimony in an Armed Services Committee hearing last week without revealing the woman’s name because she’s so worried about retaliation.

She was in basic training, “where she was sleeping in open bays and showering with biological males who had not had gender reassignment surgery but were documented as females because they had begun the drug therapy process,” Rounds explained. “She could have basically resigned or stepped away. She could have started over again.” But, at the end of the day, he argued, “I think this is one of the reasons why we’re not meeting our recruitment goals now,” he said. It’s Biden’s “woke agenda that we now see coming down by executive order.”

Yet the Pentagon and entire Biden team continues to argue that introducing mentally unstable people to the American military “is in our national interest.” Rounds and others, who’ve heard nightmarish complications, could not disagree more. “Most of the focus [under the Biden administration] is on the transgender individuals, not on the individuals who are working with them.”

And that may be one reason recruitment is collapsing. “As of July 12 of this year — so six days ago,” Rogers said, “just the enlisted ranks alone, the Coast Guard is down 3,559 members. That’s just recruiting. That’s not counting the shortages within the ranks that are already there.”

It’s the fruit, Lt. General (Ret.) Jerry Boykin insisted, of the Left’s years-long march through our armed forces. “I mean, give me any logical reason that you would see the kinds of things that we’re seeing in our military today. If you really want to understand [what Barack Obama meant] when he said, ‘I’m going to fundamentally change this country.’ … And if you want to do that, you start with the military. Now we’re seeing the results of that effort.”


Suzanne Bowdey

Suzanne Bowdey serves as editorial director and senior writer at The Washington Stand.

RELATED VIDEO: Trump: “Corrupt” Biden is “dragging us into World War 3”

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2023 Family Research Council.

The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

SAFE Act Explosion: 72% of Red States Now Protect Minors from Gender Transition Procedures

As the 2023 state legislative season winds toward a conclusion, it’s time to analyze whether state efforts to protect minors from gender transition procedures were successful. The answer is a hearty “yes.”

Before this year, only four states had passed legislation prohibiting gender transition procedures on minors, which include irreversible removal of healthy organs and permanent sterilization through cross-sex hormones. As of Tuesday, when the Louisiana legislature enacted protections over the governor’s veto, 21 states have protections (one state improved on previously enacted language). Nearly three-quarters (72%) of Republican-controlled state legislatures have passed legislation protecting minors from gender reassignment procedures, and 18 out of 29 (62%) of Republican-controlled legislatures have passed a law this year.

That number could grow. There is still time for the Ohio Senate (in session until December 31) to pass HB 68, or for the North Carolina legislature (in session until July 28) to override the governor’s veto of HB 808. However, now that 35 out of 50 states have concluded their legislative sessions, there is enough data to help us fill in the picture of how successful state legislatures have been.

State by State

Before 2023, only Alabama (2022), Arkansas (2021), Arizona (2022), and Tennessee (2021) had passed legislation protecting minors from gender transition procedures, and the movement still faced uphill battle. Even among these laws, Tennessee’s was a stub, Arizona’s had its enforcement mechanisms stripped out, Arkansas’s was vetoed by Republican Governor Asa Hutchinson, and Alabama’s and Arkansas’s were blocked by federal courts.

Then in 2023, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, and West Virginia all passed laws to protect minors from gender transition procedures. Tennessee also enacted legislation to upgrade its previous law.

That leaves only eight GOP-controlled state legislatures that have not yet protected minors from gender transition procedures: Alaska, Kansas, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, South Carolina, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. In Alaska and Wisconsin, no bill was introduced (although Wisconsin’s legislature is still in session). North Carolina and Ohio are also still in session, and both have made substantial progress towards passing a bill. In New Hampshire and South Carolina, bills died in committees without ever receiving a vote. In Kansas, a bill passed the Senate 26-10 and then expired in a House committee. In Wyoming, a bill passed the Senate 26-5 but was defeated 2-5 in a House committee.

Although these eight states failed to pass a bill protecting children this year, it’s possible they may do so next year, now that a majority of likeminded states have done so; this is particularly true for Kansas and Wyoming, where a bill did pass overwhelmingly in one chamber, and where nearly all neighboring states have enacted these protections for minors.

Bills to protect minors from gender transition procedures have also been introduced in six out of 19 Democrat-controlled state legislatures (Hawaii, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, Rhode Island, and Oregon), although none of the bills have received a committee vote. No bills to protect children have been introduced in the other Democrat-controlled legislatures (California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, Vermont, and Washington). Some Democrat-controlled state governments (including California, Colorado, Maryland, Minnesota, Vermont, and Washington) have gone in the opposite direction, declaring themselves “sanctuary states” for minor gender transitions.

While bills to protect minors from gender transition procedures have so far failed to pass in Democrat-controlled states, it does not follow that they cannot attract Democratic support. Democratic legislators lent their support in a number of states, and in Nebraska a Democratic senator cast the deciding vote in favor of the bill. However, the combined lobbying power of medical associations and trans ideologues carries more sway in Democrat-controlled states.

In two states (Pennsylvania and Virginia), control of the legislature is divided. In Pennsylvania, Republicans control the state Senate, while Democrats control the state House; a bill to protect minors has been introduced in the state House, but it has not received a committee vote. In Virginia, Democrats control the state Senate, while Republicans control the state House; the House narrowly passed (50-48) a bill to protect minors from gender transition procedures, which was then voted down (6-9) in a Senate committee.

Bill by Bill

Some organizations, like the ACLU, choose to track the raw number of bills introduced, instead of the states where legislation has become law. They use this measure as the basis of claims like, “In the last few years states have advanced a record number of bills that attack LGBTQ rights,” and “While not all of these bills will become law, they all cause harm for LGBTQ people.” They identified 130 bills in the category of “health care” that have been introduced in 2023, which is largely comprised of bills they believe “ban affirming care for trans youth” — in other words, gender transition procedures.

That the ACLU identified 130 bills in this one narrow category emphasizes the misleading nature of their chosen measurement. Without digging into the details, an average person would assume that each bill introduced in a state represents a different policy idea, and the ACLU insinuates that the very number of these different ideas floating around “cause harm for LGBTQ people.”

In reality, the bills more often represent slightly different variations on the same idea. For instance, the ACLU tracked 13 bills in Mississippi, 14 bills in Texas, and 15 bills in Oklahoma. But each state only passed one bill and largely ignored the rest. By examining the text, it’s possible to see why: many of the bills have substantially similar language. Essentially, there was substantial legislative momentum to pass a SAFE Act in these states, but legislators weren’t sure which version would gain the widest support from their colleagues. So, many members decided to introduce slightly different versions of the same basic idea, with a different age limit here, a different enforcement mechanism there, or an extra section added or subtracted. The ACLU fearmongered this legislative brainstorming into an unprecedented attack on LGBT rights, when it was really nothing of the kind.

In other states (notably Iowa), the exact same bill text bore as many as four different bill numbers throughout its legislative journey, and the ACLU counted each one as a separate bill. Such a tactic only makes sense if the goal is to inflate the total number of bills.

The ACLU has proven very effective at mobilizing opposition to these bills among the mainstream media and left-wing activists. However, it has proven less effective at accurately representing what these bills do: they protect minors from the harm and regret associated with permanent, irreversible procedures until they are old enough to truly make a decision for themselves.

Key Developments

As the number of states passing legislation to protect minors from gender transition procedures swelled throughout spring 2023, several developments added features to the conversation that had not been there before.

One notable feature is the prevalence of left-wing disruptions. From January to March, opponents of these bills usually employed respectable tactics — trotting out medical experts and medical opinions to testify against the bills at official hearings.

But, as it became clear these tactics were not working, the proponents of transitioning children adopted more aggressive (one might say “desperate”) tactics. In the last week of March, protestors staged demonstrations in four state capitols, opposing SAFE Acts and related bills. On March 29, protestors in Frankfort, Ky. disrupted the state House as it prepared to vote, forcing it to recess while the protestors were cleared (some by arrest) from the balcony. They performed the same disruptive stunt in Montana, egged on by a legislator. In Florida, they threw underwear with the message “leave my genitals alone” from the balcony, while a disruptive display in Nebraska served as a fitting finale to the session-long filibuster tantrum.

Another development was the addition of a provision, not found in earlier versions of the bill, that allowed a six-month period (or other brief period) to wean minors off of puberty blockers. This provision is distinct from an exception in some bills that effectively grandfather-in (indefinitely) anyone who has already started gender reassignment hormones. It appears to be based on expert testimony that stopping hormone treatments cold turkey could have negative psychological effects on minors. Despite extensive coverage of the issue, I have not encountered anyone attempting to contradict this claim. Bills in at least five states allowed a puberty blocker exception for six months or a limited period, while bills in six states contained the broader (and less politically courageous) exception to grandfather-in minors currently on puberty blockers.

A third development is the increasing boldness of state legislators. Once they are in possession of the actual facts regarding gender transition procedures, its questionable medical record, and its potential harm to minors, unprecedented numbers of state legislators have proven willing to stand up against all the conventional political forces in their states, because they know it is the right thing to protect children.

In the earliest fights, Republicans struggled against more cowardly Republicans to pass these bills in deep-red states. Now, not only are Republicans almost entirely united (with individual exceptions here and there), but even Democrats are crossing the aisle to join them in protecting children. This year, two (and soon perhaps three) state legislatures (Kentucky’s and Louisiana’s) have enacted protections for minors over a governor’s veto. At least seven states have passed their bills despite massive (and sometimes disruptive) protests at the state capitol. And every state has had to endure a multitude of slanders heaped upon them by left-wing smear groups, the mainstream media, and often local media, too.

And the margins have been overwhelming. Tennessee passed its bill in votes of 26-6 and 77-16. North Dakota’s bill sailed to victory 66-25 and 37-10. Florida’s legislature voted 27-12 and 82-31. Nearly every state legislative chamber approved the bills by two-to-one or three-to-one margins, if not more. Even if a moderate Republican governor wanted to pull an Asa Hutchinson, it would clearly be a foolish mistake.

Remaining Work

That said, there is still much work to do, even in states that passed a bill this year. In some states, the legislators pulled their punches. The West Virginia Senate, for instance, stripped out all enforcement mechanisms in an 11th-hour floor amendment. Utah’s bill authorizes the foxes to guard the henhouse. Georgia’s bill is surprisingly weak, with only one enforcement mechanism and large exception. Even among the solid bills, at least a dozen can be improved by prohibiting insurance or public funds from covering gender transition procedures for minors.

Many states won a resounding victory in 2023 for protecting minors from the clutches of the trans ideology. But even in states that passed a law this year, there are opportunities to protect children even better in future legislative sessions by rolling back the darkness further. Legislators should capitalize on their success and momentum.


Joshua Arnold

Joshua Arnold is a staff writer at The Washington Stand.

RELATED ARTICLE: There’s a War on for Your Kids in Public Schools

RELATED TWEET: Warning Graphic.

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2023 Family Research Council.

The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

A Defiant GOP Smashes Woke Military Policies with Rock-Solid NDAA

The biggest story of this past week isn’t that the House passed the military spending bill — or even that they passed it with language that beats back President Biden’s woke policies. The biggest story is the one that won’t be told: of House conservatives refusing to give an inch.

Former Congressman Jody Hice, now a special advisor to the president at Family Research Council, was blown away by the sea change in how this new Republican majority is doing business. For the last couple of years, Hice watched his party buckle under Democratic pressure, especially where military policy is concerned. “Progressively,” he told The Washington Stand, “the NDAA bills were becoming more and more woke. And we, as a Republican conference, were compromising to the demands on the Left. To see what took place Thursday night, I was just blown away. This is a major shift — not only from the woke agenda push from this administration — but this is a major shift from the direction of our own conference over the last several years, as it pertains to the NDAA.”

Late Thursday night, Republicans finally went to sleep after accomplishing what seemed impossible only hours before: adding a slew of pro-life, pro-military, anti-gender transition amendments to the bill. Democrats and the media spent the wee hours of the morning blasting the conservative changes, vowing it would never pass with such “poison pills.”

They were wrong.

Barely nine hours later, the entire NDAA — anti-woke language included — had squeaked by in a 219-210 vote, thanks to an even swap of Republicans and Democrats (four) trading sides. Reps. Jared Golden (D-Maine), Marie Gluesenkamp Perez (D-Wash.), Gabe Vasquez (D-N.M.), and Don Davis (D-N.C.) all threw their support behind the GOP-led bill.

Of course, the most jubilant celebration came Thursday afternoon when Congressman Ronny Jackson (R-Texas) managed to include language rolling back the Pentagon’s taxpayer funding of abortion — an absolute defiance of the law. In one of the most powerful moments of that debate, mom-to-be Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-Fla.) stood on the House floor and made it clear: “I am a United States veteran and a woman elected to Congress while pregnant. Advocating for a service member to have a child ripped from her womb completely destroys everything this military stands for.”

As Rep. Mike Johnson (R-La.) explained on “Washington Watch” moments before that vote, what the Department of Defense did with this sudden policy was nothing but an unconstitutional “end run around many of the pro-life states’ laws and all the hard work that’s been done after Dobbs overturned Roe.”

“This has become a really important issue in the country,” Johnson insisted. And what they’ve done, he explained, is used “executive fiat” through the Department of Defense. Secretary Lloyd Austin “[has] said that they will pay for or reimburse expenses relating to abortion services. So in other words, if a service member or a woman serving is pregnant, and she’s on a base somewhere in a [red state] … then she can travel to a state that provides abortion — and taxpayers will reimburse her for that. That’s a violation of the Hyde Amendment,” Johnson fumed.

Family Research Council President Tony Perkins made sure to emphasize, “Just to be very clear here, we’re talking about elective abortions. So this is new territory [President Biden is staking out]. For decades, [there] has been a bipartisan position that taxpayers would not be forced to facilitate abortion.”

Obviously, this has been a huge flash point in the Senate, where Coach Tommy Tuberville (R-Ala.) has taken months of heat for holding up certain military promotions until the DOD drops its reckless abortion advocacy. And while Democrats — the president included — blame the senator for everything from recruitment problems to retention, they refuse to even meet with Tuberville. If this delay was really so devastating to military readiness, the coach has said, you’d think Biden would pick up the phone and try to negotiate.

“That’s what this place is about,” he added. “It’s about working with each other, talking it out, getting in situations where you can maybe compromise to a point. I mean, here’s a guy that doesn’t even want to talk.”

He may be forced to, now that Republicans have teed up a 1,200-page rebuke of the last two years of Defense Department radicalism. If Biden wants to blame someone for America’s shrinking force, he ought to look in the mirror.

After all, it’s “the president and his administration [who’ve] injected into the military all of this woke social policy nonsense. … We have ESG and DEI and anything else you can imagine —the funding of drag queen shows on military bases, [the] violation of parental rights. We were able to get amendments … to take care of all of that,” Johnson said. But frankly, “it’s far more contentious than it should be. You know, our military has a very important job,” he insisted. “They’re trained to be a powerful force that wins wars and defends our nation, not experimentation with social policy. And so it’s just completely disingenuous for the president to [blame Republicans or blame Tuberville for these problems]. … [I]t’s not Republicans and conservatives that are inserting this. It was him. We’re undoing the damage that has been done.”

Along with crushing the Biden abortion policy, Republicans also held the line on the avalanche of diversity training and wildly inappropriate mission creep like taxpayer-funded gender transitions. Amendments to:

  • Outlaw the flying of Pride flags on military property (Norman Amendment #34) passed 218-213;
  • End the indoctrination of children in Defense Department schools by banning pornographic and dangerous gender ideology books (Boebert Amendment #35) passed 222-209;
  • Ban taxpayer-funding of gender transition procedures (Rosendale Amendment #10) passed 222-211;
  • Strip the funding for Chief Diversity Officers or Senior Advisors for Diversity and Inclusion from the ranks (Roy Amendment #30) passed 217-212; and
  • Outright block the DOD from creating new DEI administrator positions or taking action to fill existing DEI jobs (Burlison Amendment #62) passed 218-213.

One lone Democrat — Rep. Henry Cuellar (Texas) — voted with conservatives to stop the president’s out-of-control extremism on abortion and transgenderism. And while he refused to comment about the decision, he probably heard from the same constituents that his neighbor Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas) did. “The American people I’ve talked to back home don’t want a weak military; they don’t want a woke military; they don’t want rainbow propaganda on bases; they don’t want to pay for troops’ sex changes.”

And yet, as Perkins pointed out, Biden blames Republicans for injecting social issues into the military. “You know, it’s like they poke the bear, and the bear pushes back — and they accuse the bear of being aggressive. The Left has been pushing this stuff for years.” And finally, conservatives pushed back.

“I do want to point out,” Perkins said, “that there’s something unique here under this Republican Congress. … I don’t want people to miss that … a year ago, we couldn’t even have a debate under the Democratic rules. There was no debate. It’s just that you were steamrolled in the Left’s process of getting their agenda through. … [This open dialogue] is something that hasn’t happened in a very long time.

“Yeah, what a concept,” Johnson joked. “We were able to get some real process reforms in that long, drawn-out battle for the speakership in January. And as painful as that process was for everyone, the result was really good. We got transparency again. We eliminated—forever, we hope—the possibility of omnibus spending bills and giant pieces of legislation that no one has read. … It takes a lot more time and effort, but this is what is demanded, and it’s what the American people deserve. And I’m really glad we’ve gotten back to some regular order here.”

In the meantime, Republicans are crossing their fingers that the heavy lifting they’ve done on the NDAA survives the Democrat-led Senate. One thing’s for sure, Perkins said. Biden doesn’t have Tuberville to kick around anymore. If he wants to end the freeze on military promotions, there’s a simple solution now: support this bill. “The remedy’s right here in front of him.”


Suzanne Bowdey

Suzanne Bowdey serves as editorial director and senior writer at The Washington Stand.

RELATED ARTICLE: House State and Foreign Ops Funding Bill Contains First-of-Its-Kind Pro-Life, Pro-Family Protections

EDITOR NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2023 Family Research Council.

The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

Transgenderism and Transhumanism: An Interview with Dr. Gerard Casey

The Washington Stand recently had the opportunity to speak with author, legal scholar, and philosopher Dr. Gerard Casey on the subject of transgenderism, which he sees as a precursor to transhumanism. Casey holds law degrees from the University of London (LLB) and University College Dublin (LLM) as well as a primary degree in philosophy from University College Cork, an MA and Ph.D. from the University of Notre Dame and the higher doctorate, DLitt, from the National University of Ireland. He led the Christian Solidarity Party in Ireland in the 1990s and has published several books, including “Hidden Agender: Transgenderism’s Struggle against Reality.”

The Washington Stand: It’s hard not to be inundated these days with pro-transgender propaganda. But transhumanism is not a word that most people are familiar with. Can you maybe explain to us, just clarifying terms, what that is?

Dr. Gerard Casey: You’re right. It’s a sort of a niche idea. Less niche than it used to be. It began in around the 1980s and 1990s in the sort of Silicon Valley area. And as might be expected, many of the people who were enthusiastic about it come from that sort of background. But generally speaking, what it means is if you take the two elements of the term trans and humanism, trans meaning across or beyond, it means beyond humanism. And the idea is that human beings, such as we are, are limited in our capacities, largely because of our embodiment. And there is a possibility, according to the Transhumanists, that we can go beyond what we are now to become something very different — in fact, almost a new species so that we can leave aside the limitations of our bodies which would allow us to go travel to other planets. We can enhance our cognitive and sensory capacities so that we can know more and know better and see and experience and hear better. We can, according to them, if we undergo certain changes — especially, for example, either meshing with machines, robots, or cyborgs, or, even better, leaving aside all reasonably concrete forms of embodiment. Obviously, we would not be biological because we want to leave that behind — that’s too fragile to subsist in some way, if you like, on some kind of internet, ethernet, as it were — so that we are effectively freed from all the limitations of embodiment, at all. And in so doing, live, as it were, forever, and so leave behind the limitations of humanity as it is now. That’s about as much as I can say, really.

TWS: And you see a link, a correlation, between transgenderism and transhumanism. What do you see as the key indicators, so to speak, of that link?

CASEY: Well, I suppose you might say the clue is in the word ‘trans.’ So transgenderism really is the idea that biology doesn’t determine what we are in terms of our gender and gender is — well, who knows exactly what it is? It’s a much-disputed term, but the one thing it’s not equivalent to (unless you want just to be pleonastic) is sex. Gender is, if you want to try and make sense of it … I suppose, your sense of masculinity or femininity along a sort of scale or a spectrum. And people can identify, obviously in an infinite number of ways along here, but the idea then that makes it radical is that our gender turns out to be more fundamental than our biology. And in fact, it needs to be protected and people need to have, if you like, legal protection for this and to be able to switch from one gender to another.

Now, what causes all the problems, of course, is that the terms “gender” and “sex” either mean something different or are the same. And what you see in all of the literature here and all the propaganda is a systematic switch back and forth between the two. Very often, in many cases, gender is taken to be the equivalent of sex. So a man who is said to be a trans woman is said to change sex, which is very strange, because whatever one might think about gender — whatever that is, and we can dispute it — it’s clearly not the case that somebody who is of the male sex can by any means become a member of the female sex.

And I’m not saying, of course, that somebody can’t simulate it or look like it or, you know, wear clothes or make up or dress their hair or even have surgery, which will alter the external features. But none of that is actually effective in changing sex for the simple reason that one sex, apart from the sort of obvious secondary characteristics that manifest themselves, what sex really has to do with is the role one plays in reproduction. And there is nothing whatsoever you can do to a man to change his role in reproduction. He cannot perform the role that a woman plays in reproduction. And there’s nothing that you can do to a woman to change her role in reproduction. She cannot do anything. Of course, you can simulate aspects of the bodily structure of males or females, if you like, by surgery.

But the thing is, it’s not just a question of what something looks like, it’s a question of what it can actually do and what it performs. That’s essential, right? And people sort of miss that. So it’s a very strange idea, but it’s one that has gone from being extremely niche, even more niche than transhumanism, to suddenly becoming, as it were, a flavor of the month in a whole host of organizations, governments, schools, universities, businesses — all seem to be buying into this with what degree of authenticity? I don’t know whether they’re doing it just to be hip and cool and fruity, as we might say. Whether they actually believe any of this is another question.

But whether or which, it’s having a remarkably destructive effect on a lot of things, particularly on children and children’s education. Indeed, for very young children who are in large measure being encouraged to think of themselves as being of a different gender/sex to what they are, especially at an age when they are vulnerable, to being unsure of what it is that they are. You can end up with a situation where these children are encouraged or given hormones which will affect their development, sometimes distorting their ability, their puberty and indeed preventing them from normal development, to the even more radical surgery, which can involve the detachment of body parts — penises in the case of men, breasts and so on, in the case of women, and then reconstructive surgery to simulate penises in women and vaginas in men. But, of course, that doesn’t it will work because all you get if you remove a man’s — I hope this isn’t gross for anybody — but if you remove a man’s penis and simulate a vagina, you don’t get one. You get a hole which, given the way the body works, tries to close. Okay. And therefore, it has to be permanently opened, kept open. That’s not the way a real vagina works and so on. Similarly, a penis isn’t just a strange appendage that a man has at the front of his body, but it works, as we all know in particular ways. And unless it’s doing that, it’s not really a penis. So it’s a very, very strange idea. But even stranger, as I said, is the rapidity and the extent of the, pardon the pun, the penetration into institutions.

TWS: And it’s everywhere. You can’t go anywhere without seeing it now. Aside from just the verbiage of it with “trans” that’s linked to transhumanism, you’ve drawn a series of correlations between the two, transgenderism and transhumanism. What are some of the distinct correlations?

CASEY: I probably wasn’t as clear as I might be about this. So both of them, what they really have in common, although they do it in different ways — the commonality is the rejection of the embodied nature of human beings. Transgender says this is not essential. We can have human beings that are essentially plastic. We can make ourselves to be anything that we want. And in that way, as it were, leave the body behind or diminish its significance. Transhumanists similarly think that human nature is not fixed or limited. It is for them limitless and the body is for them not so much plastic as rather an obstruction to their plans for the future development of a new species. So they reject embodiment in the end as well. They do it in different ways.

TWS: You recently spoke at a conference where you made a point about the dynamic between the body and the soul. How do both transgenderism and transhumanism reject that fundamental truth?

CASEY: Well, as I just said, they both, as it were, reject any essential connection between what it is to be human and being embodied. They do it in different ways, but that’s essentially what they do. So transgenderism rejects it by suggesting that our gendered nature is somehow given to us in a way that is completely independent of our biological structure, which is a really strange sort of thing. So that in fact, for the transgender ideologists, you can change your sex, but you can’t change your gender, which is really odd when you think about it, because you would have thought it would be the other way around. No.

Some transhumanists reject the body because of its limitations, its fragility, its inability to support what they think it is that we need to do. The limitations that are placed on our knowledge, our cognition, our relatively short lifespans. And for them, the goal is to do two things — one, a kind of immortality. I mean, they really do think that it would be possible for human beings, even embodied because of developments in nanotechnology and so on, to live for much more extended periods than we now do, maybe even by a factor of 10. But even more importantly, to live, as it were, without a body at all, because they, like the transgenders, think of human beings as being essentially minds. And therefore, these minds can be transposed, uploaded into machines, and so live forever.

And indeed, then the transcendent dimension of transhumanism, which turns it into a kind of religion, is that they see our task, as it were, of filling the entire universe eventually. And for that, the body really has to be left behind because there is no possibility of anything like extensive cosmological travels with a body we can hardly get off our own planet. Getting out of our solar system would be something major. Anything more than that clearly requires leaving the body behind.

TWS: In your view, what can Christians do to effectively confront or combat the transgender agenda? Or is it maybe already too firmly entrenched in our society? And as sort of an addendum to that question, would combating transgenderism help prevent or at least mitigate the onslaught of transhumanism?

CASEY: A good question. I think in the case of transgenderism, that it’s doomed to fail. It’s so blatantly crazy that it’s simply unsupported. And I see it as having, if you like, the evanescence of an intellectual fashion. Now, it can last a reasonably long time. And of course, its institutional installation will preserve it. But I think, in fact, I suspect there are signs already of a turn here. There is certainly mounting resistance in a way that there wasn’t even when I published my book in 2021. And since then, I’ve seen more and more and more — especially women, who feel themselves strangely, biologically disenfranchised more so than men — are beginning to resist. And again, because women have perhaps a greater day-to-day concern with the upbringing of their children and they’re beginning to see the effects that this is having on them.

So there are strong signs, as it were, of resistance mounting. And I do hope that in time there will be a return to something approaching normality. We’ll always carry the wounds of this particular movement, though. I mean, it won’t go without leaving damage behind. But I see that as being overcome-able. It may not be in my lifetime, but then I’ve got a relatively short number of years left. But I would think in the short, in the medium term, it’s something that will be defeated. It won’t go away on its own. And the resistance needs to mount and to be mounted and to get stronger. And we need to recapture law, we need to recapture the universities, we need to recapture government, we need to recapture churches, all of whom have sort of bought into this, many for reasons they think are good and nondiscriminatory reasons and so on. I mean, not necessarily bad intentions, but nonetheless foolish.

The transhumanist thing is a little different in that there are sort of three dimensions to transhumanism. One is that it does touch on something which it seems to me is perfectly in order, which is what we always have done as human beings, attempted to adapt ourselves to the world in which we live, not to freeze to death in the winter because we light fires. There’s nothing wrong with that. By cultivating the fields so that we don’t have to go trekking after animals all the time, so that we domesticate our animals and our food. So we’ve always used technology. And the history of mankind, in a sense, is almost a history of technology as we were. And of course, the most explosive one, of course, was the industrial Revolution, which has brought us in the space of 200 years from a situation where almost everybody in the world was living on the brink of starvation for almost all of their lives, to a situation where well over half the human population now is living at a level that even kings and princes would hardly have lived at in the not-so-distant past. In other words, the use of nanotechnology to preemptively prevent things like cancer or to treat people with microscopic surgery, all that sort of thing. None of that, it seems to me, is intrinsically problematic. We use remedial or prosthetic devices all the time to help our lives and help people live better and to live longer. And that’s not essentially a problem.

The second aspect of transhumanism, however, is enhancement. And on this one, I’m a little bit conflicted because in a way we already use enhancement. I mean, the books behind me are a form of enhancement. I could not in my lifetime produce everything that’s in those books, I could not think them up on my own, but they’re there for me to consult. And therefore, they’re a way in which the collective thoughts, wisdom, and sometimes stupidity — because not all books are great — are there for me to make use of and to make new things from. And that’s a good thing. And of course we have the electronic version of those now in terms of the internet and electronic communications, electronic access to libraries in a way we didn’t have. And all of that’s good, that’s a good thing. It can be used badly like any technology, but that’s the nature of technology.

What Transhumanists, of course, are thinking is, “Why don’t we move this inside?” So that you’re not just using a machine or looking at a screen, but rather that you build it into the individual. And this is where it starts to get a little bit problematic because now you’re talking about one of the key elements of transhumanism, which is the sort of meshing of machine and man in a significant way. And again, on the outer fringes of this, we already have this. I mean, somebody who’s using, say, a prosthetic leg, which is connected neurally to the brain, is already, as it were, doing something like this.

But the Transhumanists don’t see this as something which is going to be purely remedial, but they see it as a kind of enhancement so that the idea would be to kind of move from a biological body with all its limitations and its fragility to something, at least in the beginning stages, like a machine, which would be much more robust and the parts of which, of course, could be interchanged without affecting us. You know, just as you take your car in and you can change a part, okay, the car doesn’t die. And there’s no blood and guts. So you could, as a driver with your new mechanical machine body, as it were, if a part broke down, simply have it replaced, and so continue literally, you know, forever, if it could be maintained in this particular way.

And then finally, there’s the idea of moving away from any kind of embodiment at all, whether it’s in the biological structure that we now have. Or what they call the ‘Sims,’ these kind of mechanical substrates to living in what they talk about in computer terms is the cloud. And we live there as it were, electronically, and interact. Now the problem with all that is, of course, that apart from any technical problems — and those aren’t small, and there are people who are skeptical about whether they can ever be overcome. Anyway, I’ll leave that to one side. The problem is that this conceives of human beings as if they were simply minds. But we’re not. If you think about it, you take a phenomenon like anger, an emotion like anger or, indeed, any emotion. A phenomenon like anger is psychosomatic. It’s felt in, created by, located in a body. I mean, you can’t be angry without your bodily structures changing, without your pulse racing, without your heart beating faster, without becoming flushed and your eyes dilated. It’s just not possible. And so all our emotions are psychosomatic.

Even our love for other people is located in and expressed in bodily ways. It’s hard for us to think of it. And even if you come to something like pure intellect — think about it, it’s very hard — that is simply a part of what we are. It is not entirely what we are. So we’re not minds, as it were, with a kind of adventitious or accidental connection to a body that can be left behind, but we are essentially embodied creatures. And that for me, is one of the key insights of Christianity.

I mean, the whole Judeo-Christian tradition, in fact, and in my atheistic phase, I can remember being required to read some Aquinas. I wasn’t very happy about that particular project, but I read it and when I read his commentary on Corinthians 15 and he said, ‘Anima mea non est ego — My soul is not me.’ I was struck by the kind of bodily robustness of that and thought, ‘Oh, this is the kind of guy I could really get behind.’ I found that very interesting. … So we’re not simply minds attached to bodies. We are essentially embodied creatures.

And therefore, that’s why transgenderism and transhumanism in their varied and different rejections of embodiment, if you like, are false to what it is that we are. And I think both are destined to fail. Transgenderism in hopefully the medium term, preferably the short term, and transhumanism can keep going forever because they can always postpone. Well, the promises can always be pushed out 20 years, and 20 years is long enough to make it seem exciting in the near future, and long enough for people to forget what it is that you promised 20 years ago when we get to it. But we shall see. Well, somebody will see. I won’t see because I won’t be here.

TWS: Wonderful insight, Professor. Thank you again very much for your time. It’s been great talking with you.

CASEY: Okay, no problem. Talk to you again.


S.A. McCarthy serves as a news writer at The Washington Stand.

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2023 Family Research Council.

The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

Don’t Say Gay, Say Groomer Instead

It’s easy for conservatives to think of the LGBT activist crowd as constantly crying wolf over pronouns and “deadnames,” but when self-described “queer” people try to describe who they are and what they do, pay attention. A prime example of this principle occurred just this week: participants in New York City’s annual Pride Parade chanted, “We’re coming for your children.” Others shouted, “Five, six, seven, eight, don’t assume your kids are straight.” Other scenes included nude adult men exposing themselves to children — both in New York City and in Seattle.

None of this is a novelty. Back in 2021, the San Francisco Gay Men’s Chorus faced backlash for writing and performing a song entitled, “A Message From the Gay Community,” which repeats the phrase, “We’ll convert your children.” Another startling line goes, “You think that we’ll corrupt your children if our agenda goes unchecked / Funny, just this once, you’re correct.” Yet another says, “Just like you worried, they’ll change their group of friends / You won’t approve of where they go at night.” And another exclaims, “Oh, you’ll be disgusted when they start finding things online that you’ve kept far from their sight.” The singers initially took the song off YouTube in the face of criticism, but restored it days later, announcing they stand by the message.

Although LGBT activists once went into hysterics at the suggestion of homosexuality inevitably being pushed on children, now that the movement is firmly entrenched in American society, they retroactively admit they were always coming for your children — they just don’t want parents to be up in arms over the fact. A recent spate of bills passed in Florida — and, more importantly, the alphabet mafia’s reaction to those bills — revealed this facet of LGBT ideology well before this past week, and confirmed the connection conservative Christians have long noticed between homosexuality and child-predation.

Grooming is the act of deceptively building a relationship of trust with a child, most often utilizing a position of authority, in order to take advantage of a child sexually. The LGBT ideology is predicated upon grooming. But don’t take my word for it, take theirs.

The first half of the grooming process involves building a relationship of trust with a child, most often utilizing a position of authority (such as the role of a teacher), and progressively pushing the child to the point where sexual acts are accepted. When Florida Governor Ron DeSantis (R) signed into law a bill last year forbidding teachers from telling elementary school students about gay sex, oral sex, gender fluidity, and a host of other homosexual propaganda, pro-gay activists were up in arms, labelling the legislation the “Don’t Say Gay Bill.” LGBT groups claimed that their very existence was being threatened simply because they weren’t allowed to talk to kids about anal sex. That law was recently expanded to ban all classroom promotion of the LGBT agenda, sparking further rainbow-colored outrage and claims that the ban on telling children about anal and oral sex is an attempt to “erase” the LGBT “community.”

We all know a man can’t impregnate another man, nor can a woman impregnate another woman. In other words, LGBT activists cannot reproduce — instead, they recruit. They groom. Children are taught that being gay or lesbian or bi or trans is not only acceptable but even cool, and, being but children, they believe it. This is grooming. The previous generation of LGBT activists were told (by the previous generation of groomers) that being gay or bi or trans isn’t acceptable but is cool and should be made acceptable. Now that same generation has taken up the groomer mantle and is telling children it is now acceptable, thanks to the hard work of previous generations, to be gay or lesbian or bi or trans — and it’s still cool.

Teaching children about sex is not the teacher’s role, ever. Although the teacher is, in theory, endowed with the parents’ authority to educate their children, there are certain things that only parents have the authority or right to discuss with their children: sex is chief among those things. A teacher violating that boundary and having those discussions with children usurps the role of parent, the ultimate physical manifestation of a trusted authority figure in that child’s life. In other words, by violating that boundary, an LGBT activist claims a child as his own. Remember, it’s not reproducing, it’s recruiting.

Banning LGBT activists from using the classroom to promote sexual abnormalities to children cuts them off from their most easily-accessible recruiting pool and makes grooming children more difficult; no longer are groomers put in a position of practically-unquestioned authority and given the role of mentor. When their capacity to groom children is taken from them, LGBT activists claim it’s an attack on their very existence. Why? Because they groom children. It’s how they carry on their lineage. Believe them when they say these things.

The LGBT activist reaction to Florida authorizing use of the death penalty for child rapists is even more disconcerting and even more revealing. This seemingly commonsense and surprisingly bipartisan piece of legislation is also, according to the activists, an attack on “LGBT rights.” The definition of grooming culminates in taking advantage of a child sexually. Raping a child would fit that definition. Yet LGBT activists are boo-hooing that legislation threatening child rapists with death “literally spells death” for them.

This time, the LGBT claim is backed up by studies. A 2013 study published by the Department of Health and Human Services stated, “Epidemiological studies find a positive association between physical and sexual abuse … in childhood and same-sex sexuality in adulthood …” A study last year by Vanderbilt University Medical Center found that adults identifying as homosexual reported childhood sexual abuse at more than twice the rate of their heterosexual peers. A 2001 report conducted by Judith Reisman of the Institute for Media Education estimated that adults identifying as homosexual are 40 times more likely to abuse a child than their heterosexual peers. While none of these studies prove causality, they do demonstrate a correlation that cannot be ignored.

Without grooming, the LGBT ranks are, if not generationally decimated, at least significantly diminished. Their own proclamations (“We’re coming for your children”) and actions, as well as their vehement responses to legislation limiting grooming tells us who they are. If we accept their own definition of themselves, we can only conclude that the LGBT “community” are, by their own admission, groomers.


S.A. McCarthy

S.A. McCarthy serves as a news writer at The Washington Stand.

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2023 Family Research Council.

The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.