LGBT

Parents Should Dread Netflix’s Purchase of Warner Brothers

Netflix inked a $72 billion deal to purchase Warner Brothers and HBO last week. The merger, if successful, will allow Netflix to insert LGBT content into family favorites including Harry Potter, Looney Tunes and the DC comic book universe.

“Together, [Warners Bros and Netflix] can give audiences more of what they love and help define the next century of storytelling,” Netflix co-CEO Ted Sarandos wrote in a press release announcing the deal.

Netflix normalizes and promotes same-sex attraction and sexual identity confusion as part of its commitment to “inclusion.”

“Netflix content has continued to show gains when it comes to LGBTQ+ representation over the past 6 years,” the platform celebrated in its 2025 report on inclusivity. “The number of stories without an LGBTQ+ character has continued to decline.”

In 2023, more than 50% of lead characters in Netflix’s original series were LGBT-identified, the report found, compared to 19% in 2018.

Netflix’s acquisition of Warner Bros would allow the streaming service to impose its sexual ethic on a massive library of beloved movies and TV shows.

Netflix already adds LGBT content and character to reboots of popular children’s shows.

In a recent examination of 326 children’s TV shows on Netflix, Concerned Women for America identified LGBT content in reboots of Power Rangers, She-Ra, The Fairly OddParents and The Magic School Bus, among others.

The report’s observations align with customer complaints from September, when this clip from a Netflix original cartoon, Dead End: Paranormal Park, went viral.

Jaw-dropping scenes from reboots of children’s shows surfaced soon after. In this this clip from The Baby-Sitters Club, a character chastises hospital staff for referring to a transgender-identified boy using biologically correct pronouns.

In this scene from Strawberry Shortcake: Berry in the Big City, a male “transberry” who “loves living out loud as his authentic self” dresses in drag.

Concerned Women for America concluded one-third of shows rated TV-G, -Y or -Y7 on Netflix “contained LGBT characters, themes, storylines or messaging.” Of the 23 children’s programs Netflix created or licensed in 2023, 14 contained LGBT content.

The seriousness of Netflix gaining dictatorial control over the entertainment industry cannot be overstated. Netflix belongs to an ideological community which explicitly endeavors to normalize and affirm same-sex attraction and sexual identity confusion by introducing LGBT content to children.

“There was a time not very long ago when … I would never be allowed to put an out gay, lesbian, bi, trans, gender-nonconforming or gender non-binary character in a show,” Michal Vogal, an animator for Strawberry Shortcake and My Little Pony, told OX Magazine in 2019.

He continued:

But slowly, little by little, animated shows have been pushing that boundary. A background couple here, someone’s parents there and every time, as little as it may seem, it allows someone else on some other show to push the envelope a little bit more.

Vogal expanded on the importance of targeting children:

One of the reasons I think it’s so important to tell [LGTB] stories in animation is so that future allies can see our stories at a young age. Then they can better understand what they can do and how they can help.

The normalization and promotion of same-sex attraction and sexual identity confusion correlates with a nationwide spike in the number of LGBT-identified Americans.

A record 9.3% of American adults self-identify as LGBT, a 2025 Gallup poll found, with each generation of adults reporting higher numbers of LGBT-identification. An estimated 23% of Gen Z adults are LGBT-identified, compared to 14% of millennials and just 5% or less of those in older older generations.

Netflix’s purchase of Warner Bros is not set in stone. Paramount Pictures Warner Bros’ shareholders an alternative offer on December 8.  Investors can sell their shares to Paramount until January 8.

If Paramount’s bid fails, Netflix still faces an uphill battle to convince American regulators the merger will not form a monopoly.

Regardless of the outcome, parents should understand Netflix’s pending purchase of Warner Bros as an important example of how an entertainment company’s ideology dictates the content of individual TV shows and movies.

Netflix promotes LGBT content as part of its brand strategy. Parents should err on the side of caution when deciding whether their child should consume any content on Netflix.

For faith-based reviews on movies, TV shows, video games and more, check out Focus on the Family’s Plugged In.

Additional Articles and Resources

Gallup Poll Shows Yet Another Increase in ‘LGBTQ+’ Identities

Large Increase in U.S. Adults – Especially Gen Z – Identifying as ‘LGBT’. Here Are Some Reasons Why.

Public Libraries Promote ‘LGBT’ Books to Children and Teens — Year Round

Sexualizing Schoolchildren: Classroom and Library Books

Three Ways the Media Supports Sexually Explicit, Inappropriate Books for Children

Gender Ideology is Wrong: There Are Only Two Sexes

Anti-scientific gender theory holds that human sexuality is a glorious “gender spectrum,” a veritable rainbow of possibilities.

One can find seemingly scientific books and articles making this case here, here, here, here and here.

But a new article published in the esteemed Archives of Sexual Behavior explains why such talk is bunk. Entitled “Why There are Exactly Two Sexes,” it is authored by evolutionary biologist Colin Wright. Evolutionists, after all, have a keen interest in what male and female are, and how both cooperate to pass DNA down through the generations.

Wright explains that science defines male and female in their reproductive function. The very first line of his article states, “Across anisogamous species, the existence of two – and only two – sexes has been a settled matter in modern biology.”

“The sexes – male and female – refer to these two distinct reproductive strategies in anisogamous species. Males are defined as the sex that produces numerous small gametes (sperm). Females, conversely, are defined as the sex that yields fewer but larger gametes (ova),” Wright correctly states.

Of course, this long established view is supported by other scholars. Wright explains, “Because sperm and ova are the only two gamete classes in anisogamous systems, there are only two sexes.” As such, “This gametic dimorphism underlies biologists’ reference to sex as a ‘binary.’”

Such a basic biological definition might seem obvious to most people, but Wright explains “the societal and ethical stakes are also significant.” Gender theory has infamously defined male and female away into oblivion. Wright says this is driven by unscientific, ideological dogma. “Proposals to redefine sex in terms of karyotypes, secondary sexual characteristics, behavior, or other correlates are incoherent and invariably presuppose this foundation, because the categories ‘male’ and ‘female’ are intelligible only by reference to sperm and ova.”

Wright is a secular evolutionary biologist. But just as this truth is reflected in science, it is also revealed in the wisdom of Scripture.

“So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. And God blessed them. And God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth” (Gen. 1:27-28, ESV).

Scripture tells us humanity is created in two forms – male and female – and each is the unique and deeply consequential image and likeness of God. God created male and female with many essential and distinct qualities, but the first command He gave them was to live out their sex-distinct procreative nature. In this way, we become cooperators with God as life-givers.

And this is precisely why the truth and beauty of male and female are being so viciously attacked today by the evil one. He knows what they mean. Christians must as well.

Related Articles and Resources

How Science and Faith Can Defeat Gender Ideology – Part One

How Science and Faith Can Defeat Gender Ideology – Part Two

How the Binary in ‘LGBTQ+’ Reveals Its Utter Incoherence

Why the ‘LGBT Person’ and ‘LGBT Community’ Don’t Really Exist

Here’s What Happens When Good People Don’t Connect Gay and Trans Ideology

What is ‘Gender Identity’

Transgenderism and Minors: What Does the Research Really Show?

Olympics Set to Keep Men Out of Women’s Sports

The International Olympic Committee finally moved to protect women’s sports with a new policy that will prohibit males from competing in women’s events in the Olympic Games.

The Times of London first reported the news, following an IOC meeting in Lausanne, Switzerland.

“The International Olympic Committee is set to announce a ban on transgender women in female competition early next year after a science-based review of evidence about permanent physical advantages of being born male.”

The Times, of course, is mistaken in its terminology.

There are no “transgender women,” only sexually-confused males who use drugs, hormones and surgeries in a misguided attempt to appear like women.

IOC President Kirsty Coventry led the charge to safeguard Olympic female athletes, announcing after her election in March 2025 “that a task force of scientists and international federations would be set up within weeks to come up with a new [transgender and intersex] policy,” The Guardian reported.

Coventry explained that new scientifically-based IOC guidelines are needed to protect women’s sports.

“It was very clear from the members that we have to protect the female category, first and foremost. We have to do that to ensure fairness. And we have to do it with a scientific approach.”

Last week, task force member Dr. Jane Thornton, IOC health, medicine and science department director, gave an initial report to IOC members about male athlete’s physical advantages.

“Sources said the presentation by Thornton, a Canadian former Olympic rower, stated that scientific evidence showed there were physical advantages to being born male that remained with athletes, including those who had taken treatment to reduce testosterone levels,” as the Times reported.

The IOC first adopted guidelines paving the way for men to compete in women’s sports in 2015.

That guidance, from the “IOC Consensus Meeting on Sex Reassignment and Hyperandrogenism,” stated that a man must have declared his identity as a woman for at least four years and demonstrate testosterone levels below 10 nanomoles per liter for at least 12 months before their first competition.

But simply lowering testosterone doesn’t transform a man into a woman, and lower testosterone doesn’t change male advantages in sports: greater lung capacity and heart size; larger, heavier bones and muscles; and different hip and leg structures. 

New guidelines, released in 2021, passed the buck to international governing bodies that oversee various sports, allowing them to set their own policies on “transgender” athletes.

This led to the debacle in the 2024 Paris Olympics where two males, Algeria’s Imane Khelif and Taiwan’s Lin Yu-Ting won gold medals in women’s boxing. Both were born with rare disorders of sexual development that made them appear female at birth.

But Khelif and Yu-Ting  have XY chromosomes that triggered male puberty, giving them distinct physical advantages over the women they pummeled.

Despite lies from transgender activists and their allies, everyone knows that males and females are physiologically different, with testosterone giving males competitive advantages in sports.

Men’s bodies are different from women’s. This means that men, in general, can out-compete women. That’s why we’ve always had separate sports categories for men and women.

Even if a man believes he’s a woman, he competes in sports with his male body. Women have been injured by men playing their sport, and men who do so steal opportunities, titles, records and victories from women.

The Daily Citizen is glad that the IOC is finally choosing reality over propaganda and false ideology and is moving to protect women’s sports.

It’s about time.

Related Articles and Resources

International Olympic Committee: Men Can Compete as Women, As Long as It’s Fair?

International Olympic Committee’s Revised ‘Transgender Guidelines’ Delayed Until After 2022 Winter Games

IOC President Reaffirms Biological Male Can Compete Against Women at Olympics

Male and Female Biology Matters

Male Boxer Khelif Barred from Female Category After Rule Change

New Visa Policy Blocks Male Athletes from Entering U.S. to Compete in Women’s Sports

Olympic Track and Field Protects Women. Why Won’t Other Sports Do the Same?

Olympic Women’s Boxing Champ is Officially a Man

Transgender Ideology is Inherently Destructive

Transgender Ideology is Inherently Destructive, Part 2

Transgender Resources

Two Men Win Olympic Gold for Battering Women

World Athletics Announces Testing Protocols to Keep Men Out of Women’s Athletics

Image from Shutterstock.

University of California Schools: Students Must Bow to ‘Transgender’ Ideology

University of California schools are using sexual harassment and anti-discrimination training to force students and staff to affirm “transgender” ideology.

Young America’s Foundation first reported that mandatory training at the University of California, San Diego, required students to agree that sexually confused individuals should be allowed to use opposite sex bathrooms based on their “gender identity.”

According to YAF, students must bow down to transgender dogma, or they are blocked from taking classes.

The online program is called SHAPE – Sexual Harassment, Anti-Discrimination, Prevention and Education. It consists of a 60-75 minute training with a quiz at the end of the course.

As YAF explained, UC San Diego students were required “to agree the following scenario constitutes a ‘hostile environment.”

My name is Mona and I am transgender. My classmate Jane continues to call me James, which was my name before I transitioned. Jane refers to me as a man, and complains when I use the women’s restroom. I’ve asked her to stop but she does not. I feel very disrespected and want this to stop. What type of prohibited conduct can this be?

When students choose “Hostile Environment” as the correct answer, SHAPE explains that students must adhere to transgender ideology.

“Hostile Environment may be created when someone demands that others use a particular bathroom that does not correspond to their gender identity or uses the incorrect pronoun.

“Intentionally calling someone their name used prior to transition, as opposed to their lived name, is called dead-naming; and may be a form of sexual harassment.”

In other words, disagreeing with any aspect of transgender ideology creates a hostile environment.

But of course, this is simply speaking biological truth. One would think research universities, with their heavy emphasis on science, would know this.

The UC system violates first amendment rights by forcing students to use speech they disagree with, mandating acquiescence to beliefs that many people of faith reject, and censoring clear scientific thinking about sex and biology.

California Family Council (CFC), a Focus on the Family ally, detailed the origins of the training.

The University of California Office of the President states that SHAPE was “developed by UC Online in partnership with the Systemwide Office of Civil Rights,” and integrates directly with each campus’s online learning system to ensure full participation.

Campuses, including UC San Diego, UC Davis, UC Merced, UC Santa Cruz, UCLA, UC Berkeley, and UC Irvine, have all implemented the program.

CFC described the consequences for students who don’t agree with transgender dogma/

“According to UC Irvine, training is mandatory by the Office for Civil Rights at the University of California, Office of the President, to fulfill state law.

“Every student must earn a 100% score on the final quiz to pass. Failure to complete the program results in a registration hold, preventing enrollment for the next semester.”

Several UC schools, including Santa Cruz and Santa Barbara, use the training to show they are complying with Title IX of the Educational Amendments of 1972.

“No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any educational program or activity receiving federal financial assistance,” federal law states.

The state of California – and the UC system – make a mockery of Title IX by redefining biological sex to include the spurious concept of “gender identity.” One is an objective fact, the other a baseless belief system.

UC schools allow males to usurp women’s rights, robbing women of educational opportunities, sports victories, scholarships, privacy and safety.

“Once regarded as centers of critical thinking and open debate, these institutions are now conditioning students to affirm a narrow, politicized definition of truth,” CFC opined.

The organization encouraged students to stand up to the UC system’ denial of reality and censorship of opposing voices.

“However, do not let indoctrination training like this silence your voice. Refuse to submit to any authority that demands you compromise biblical conviction or deny biological truth. Instead, stand up and fight alongside the California Family Council.”

Related Articles and Resources

DOJ Lawsuit Describes California Department of Education’s Infuriating Treatment of Girls

Feds Sue California Department of Education, Interscholastic Federation For ‘Illegal Sex Discrimination’

Feds Pressure California After Boy Wins in Girls Track and Field Championship

Focus on the Family Transgender Resources

Shoving Girls Off the Podium: More Male Athletes Participating in Girls Sports

Transgender Ideology is Inherently Destructive

Trump Signs Executive Order Protecting Women’s Sports and Spaces

Image from Shutterstock.

Supreme Court Considers Florida Parental Rights Case

On Nov. 7, the U.S. Supreme Court will consider taking up a landmark case that could redefine the meaning of parental rights in public education. The case, Littlejohn v. School Board of Leon County, has the potential to impact every classroom in the United States.

Background

The case involves a middle school student in Florida. Parents allege school officials met privately with their 13-year-old daughter to discuss “gender identity” and created a “gender support plan” against their wishes and without informing them.

According to the lawsuit, staff were allowed to withhold information if a student requested confidentiality. Parents claim the school violated their constitutional right to direct the upbringing of their child under the 14th Amendment.

Legal History

Florida district court and the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the case.

Both courts applied the “shock-the-conscience” test – a standard of review that requires proof of school officials acting with the intent to harm in order to find wrongdoing – and held that the school’s actions did not meet that threshold.

The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals reasoned,

Defendants did not act with intent to injure. To the contrary, they sought to help the child. Under these circumstances, even if the Littlejohns felt that Defendants’ efforts to help their child were misguided or wrong, the mere fact that the school officials acted contrary to the Littlejohns’ wishes does not mean that their conduct “shocks the conscience” in a constitutional sense.

In September, the Littlejohns filed their petition with the Supreme Court to review the decision. The Court has scheduled a conference to discuss the case for Friday, Nov. 7.

Constitutional Question

Here’s what at stake: if school officials can infringe on fundamental rights of parents protected in the U.S. Constitution.

The Littejohns argue that parental rights are fundamental and require the Court to apply the highest level of review, strict scrutiny, as it would with other core constitutional rights.

Impact

A ruling in favor of the Littlejohns could solidify constitutional protections for parental rights nationwide on the growing issue of school officials transitioning students without parental involvement.

If the Court decides to take the case this term, there is good reason to believe that the Court would protect parental rights.

As previously reported by the Daily Citizen, the Supreme Court decided not to take a similar Colorado parental rights case. In a short statement, Justice Samuel Alito made it clear that the case raised very serious questions about parental rights.

“The troubling – and tragic – allegations in this case underscore the ‘great and growing national importance’ of the question that these parent petitioners present.”

The Daily Citizen will continue to follow this case.

Related Articles and Resources

Focus on the Family exists to help families, and that includes help navigating the issues of homosexuality and transgenderism. Focus offers a free, one-time counseling consultation with a licensed or pastoral counselor. To request a counseling consultation, call 1-855-771-HELP (4357) or fill out our Counseling Consultation Request Form.

‘Art Club’ Documentary — One Family’s Escape from Gender Ideology, and the Bigger Trend Sweeping the Nation

Exclusive Interview: Colorado Parents Expose ‘Gender Cult’ at Public School in New Documentary

Focus on the Family Urges Congressional Leaders to Respect Parental Rights

Homosexuality Resources

Transgender Resources

Understanding Homosexuality