LGBT

Dec 17 2024

Department of Education Blew $1 Billion on DEI – Here’s Why It Matters

Parents Defending Education (PDE) discovered that the Department of Education blew through more than $1 billion dollars on Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) grants, trainings and programs over the past four years.

Parents – and grandparents and other concerned citizens – should be aware that DEI has permeated teacher training colleges, teachers’ unions, school boards, and local schools, indoctrinated children into a false, divisive ideology.

PDE reported that the actual amount of money spent may be even greater than what their investigation uncovered. The parents’ rights group said that it broke up DEI education grants groups as follows:

Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) Hiring: $489,883,797.81

This category includes DEI or race-based recruiting, training, and hiring practices.

Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) Programming: $343,337,286

This category includes general DEI programming and trainings, discipline including restorative practices, and youth activism.

Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI)-Based Mental Health/Social Emotional Learning (SEL): $169,301,221

This category includes DEI-based mental health training programs and SEL trainings and programming.

Parents may not be aware that SEL, which in the past was used to teach children self-awareness, self-management and empathy, is now used to indoctrinate children into Critical Race Theory, with concepts like intersectionality, which says people are privileged or oppressed based on certain characteristics, as PDE explains.

Intersectionality includes instructing children in topics they are not equipped to understand, like sexual orientation and gender identity. It inculcates them into the idea that everyone is motivated by hidden, implicit bias and bigotry.

These programs and trainings are part of a deeply flawed theory and enterprise that, instead of bringing people together, creates suspicion and discord. DEI actually teaches students to discriminate against “privileged” groups to make up for past discrimination.

In addition, DEI burdens “oppressed” groups with a weight of helplessness and feelings of disempowerment, leading them to believe most individuals and institutions are against them.

Who wants young children taught that they are either inherently privileged or essentially oppressed – and always will be, due to “systemic” bias in individuals and culture?

While the goal is inclusion and equality, DEI divides people based on an ever-growing set of characteristics, including skin color, religion, sexual identity and behaviors, language, body size, disability status – and more. And it privileges different “oppressed” groups over others, based on those attributes.

We used to call this discrimination.

For an example of how this functions, check out this “Wheel of Privilege and Power,” brought to us by the Canadian government:

This visual tool by the Government of Canada can help individuals identify how power and privilege relate to their personal circumstance. It covers thirteen categories of social identity, including Citizenship, Wealth, Gender, and Language. Each category has at least three levels of privilege. This resource will be of particular value to those who want to understand how their intersecting social identities relate to systems of power and discrimination (particularly in the Global North), and to professionals working on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion initiatives.

The closer to the center you are, the more privilege you have.

And this is the ideology our federal government is funding and pushing on our children.

Thankfully, schools are beginning to realize how inherently divisive these programs are. In recent months, the University of Michigan, Idaho State University, the University of Idaho, and Boise State University began shutting down their DEI programs.

They’ve dropped these programs because they increase tensions, rather than fostering inclusivity.

The Department of Education should follow suit and drop its wasteful, counterproductive spending.

Image from Shutterstock.

Related articles and resources:

BLM at School – How a Day Encouraging Parental Educational Involvement Was Overshadowed by a Week of Radical Ideology

Boise State Closes DEI Centers, Follows National Trend

Breaking Down Racial Barriers With God’s Love (Part 1 of 2)

Diversity Statements Booted From University of Michigan Hiring Process

‘Equipping Parents For Back-To-School’ – Updated Resource Empowers Parents

How To Talk With Your Kids About Racial Differences

Hurray for Walmart Abandoning DEI Programs and Policies: ‘Biggest Win Yet’

Is ‘Critical Race Theory’ Being Taught in Public Schools? CRT Deniers Claim it Isn’t

Oklahoma Bans DEI in Universities and Government Agencies

Dec 16 2024

ACLU Lawyer Admits ‘Trans Them or They Die’ Warning is False

Untold numbers of parents have been manipulated into submitting their gender-creative children to experimental hormonal treatments and physically damaging surgical procedures because they were asked – with emotionally abusive language – by psychologists and medical doctors, “Would you rather have dead son or an alive daughter?”

This “choice” is a terrible thing to confront a parent with. It becomes sinister when professionals whom parents depend on for the best advice for their children make such claims with no real backing in the scientific literature.

The carefully conducted British Cass Review maintains,

Tragically deaths by suicide in trans people of all ages continue to be above the national average, but there is no evidence that gender-affirmative treatments reduce this. Such evidence as is available suggests that these deaths are related to a range of other complex psychosocial factors and to mental illness (see page 195, note 16.22).

The Cass Review also states,

It has been suggested that hormone treatment reduces the elevated risk of death by suicide in this population, but the evidence found did not support this conclusion (see page 33, note 86).

This devious claim took another major hit in oral arguments before the United States Supreme Court in U.S. v Skrmettion on December 4, 2024.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor brought up the suicide myth in her comments first, stating, “I think some [children] attempt suicide?” Pro-trans Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar answered, “Yes, the rates of suicide are striking” (See page 31, lines 10-13 of official SCOTUS transcript).

Leor Sapir, a specialist on the politics of trans medicine, explains in City Journal, “This claim – that rates of suicide among gender-dysphoric young people are high – constitutes the trans suicide myth.”

Justice Alito sought to correct Justice Sotomayor’s assumption when questioning Chase Strangio, the ACLU attorney. Alito stated,

A lot of categorical statements have been made this morning in argument and in the briefs about medical questions that seem to me to be hotly disputed, and that’s a bit distressing. One of them has to do with the risk of suicide.

Do you maintain that the procedures and medications in question reduce the risk of suicide? (See page 87, lines 8-16).

Strangio responded,

I do, Justice Alito, maintain that the medications in question reduce the risk of depression, anxiety, and suicidality, which are all indicators of potential suicide.

Justice Alito set the trap, asking Strangio if he believed “that’s clearly established” in the literature.

Strangio responded, “I do think it is clearly established in the science and in the record” (see page 87-88, lines 25, 1-2).

Alito then referenced page 195 of the Cass Review (cited above) explaining, “There is no evidence that gender-affirmative treatments reduce suicide.”

Strangio was knocked back a bit and made a damning admission to the “trans them or they will die” canard.

What I think that is referring to is there is no evidence in some – in the studies that this treatment reduces completed suicide. And the reason for that is completed suicide, thankfully and admittedly, is rare and we’re talking about a very small population of individuals with studies that don’t necessarily have completed suicides within them (see page 88, lines 15-23).

Strangio then started parsing the differences between “completed suicides” and “suicidality” which refers to thoughts about or plans to attempt suicide.

Sapir notes,

Strangio’s pivot to suicidality is a standard tactic of gender medicine activists in public debates. They exploit public ignorance about the difference between suicidality – thinking about suicide, attempting suicide, using gestures of self-harm as a cry for help or as a form of emotional manipulation – and actual death by suicide.

Take notice: The ACLU has admitted before the United States Supreme Court that the “Would you rather have a dead son or an alive daughter?” manipulation is not supported by the scientific literature.

No parent should ever be manipulated by this … and no ethical medical or psychological professional should ever ask that question, pretending it is a clinical likelihood.

This deceptive myth has now been admitted false by the very people who have been pushing it. It was a shameful and damaging manipulaton.

Additional Resources

Do Not Fall for the ‘Affirm Them or They Will Die’ Lie

Suicidal or Stable? WPATH Activist’s Contradictory Evaluation Secures Felon Transgender Surgery

UK Bans Puberty Blockers for ‘Transgender’ Minors

U.K.’s Review of Child Gender Policy Reveals Profound Failures That U.S. Still Defends

The WPATH Files – Transgender Interventions Are ‘Unethical Medical Experiments’

Suicidal or Stable? WPATH Activist’s Contradictory Evaluation Secures Felon Transgender Surgery

Transgenderism and Minors: What Does the Research Really Show?

How to Defeat Gender Ideology, Protect Children and End ‘Trans America’

How to Defeat Gender Ideology, Protect Children and End ‘Trans America’ Pt. 2

Image from Shutterstock.

Dec 13 2024

Virginia School District Will Respect Teachers’ Religious Freedom and Speech

Three Virginia teachers won a victory when “the Harrisonburg City School Board agreed to respect the teachers’ constitutionally protected right to do their job in accordance with their religious beliefs,” Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) announced.

The teachers, Deborah Figliola, Kristine Marsh and Laura Nelson, no longer have to hide a child’s sexual identity confusion from parents and no longer must use a child’s “preferred pronouns,” which could be different from the student’s real sex.

ADF argued that these mandates violated the religious beliefs and free speech of the teachers, whose Christian faith prohibits lying to or deceiving parents.

Figliola was delighted by the verdict, saying:

As teachers, we care deeply about the children entrusted to our care. We could not idly stand by while the schools’ administration enforced a policy with a radical, one-size-fits-all approach to students struggling with their gender, and that allowed parents to be pushed out of the picture.

We’re thrilled for this legal victory that allows religious educators in the Harrisonburg school district to do the job we love, in a manner true to our faith.

The legal aid organization explained that the teachers filed a complaint after the school district unveiled new guidelines mandated by the Virginia General Assembly and released by the state’s department of education, “Model Policies for the Treatment of Transgender Students in Virginia’s Public Schools.” The district held a training during the 2021-2022 school year to explain the new policies to staff.

During the training, teachers were told that a child with sexual identity confusion might have a family that is “unsafe”:

Students should be focusing on their education, and they can’t if they feel unsafe!

Kids need to feel safe and cared for! Some families are unsafe and toxic if kids come out.

The training explained that teachers must comply with students’ preferred pronouns:

If a student shares a preferred name or pronoun different from your documentation on day #1, always utilize a student’s preferred name and pronouns.

The new policy stated that parents were not to be told about a child’s “social transition” at school, unless the student gave his or her permission:

If a student has not shared their gender identity or preferred name with their parent/guardian, it is not appropriate to take the lead on sharing this information or to contact the parent/guardian to ask permission to utilize the preferred name.

Teachers were told to withhold information from parents about their child’s mental health.

School staff were told they would be disciplined if they did not follow these guidelines.

ADF first sent letters to the district, explaining that the policy was unconstitutional. When the district did not change the policy, the teachers filed a legal complaint alleging that their rights were being violated.

As the case was winding its way through the courts, the Virginia Supreme Court ruled in 2023 that high school teacher Peter Vlaming’s rights were violated when his high school adopted and enforced a similar policy. The West Point School Board ended up paying $575,000 in damages and attorney’s fees to Vlaming, in a case brought to course by ADF.

The Virginia Circuit Court for Rockingham County pointed to that decision, ruling in a summary judgment against Harrisonburg City Schools:

The [Virginia] Supreme Court has answered the legal questions here. School boards can’t compel employees, over their objections, to refer to a student by pronouns that don’t correspond with the student’s sex. Vlaming v. W. Point Sch. Bd. …

Vlaming held that Virginia’s Free Speech Clause protects the right of teachers “not to be compelled to give a verbal salute to an ideological view that violates his [or her] conscience and has nothing to do with the specific curricular topic being taught.”

ADF Senior Counsel Kate Anderson, who argued the case before the Circuit Court, explained the significance of this victory that protects teachers’ rights and parental rights:

Deb, Kris, and Laura – like all teachers – are protected under the Constitution to do their job in alignment with their religious beliefs, including how they refer to their students and the vital information they share with parents.

We are pleased to favorably resolve this case on behalf of our clients and ensure that the Harrisonburg City School Board will respect every teacher’s right to speak consistent with her faith.

The Virginia Department of Education released new policies regarding transgender-identified students in July, 2023, better ensuring the rights of parents and teachers in public schools. Teachers are now instructed to partner with parents – rather than hide critical information concerning their children from them.

Related articles and resources:

Free Speech Victory for Virginia Teacher Fired Over ‘Transgender’ Pronoun Policy

Responding to a Transgender-Identified Family Member

Transgender Resources

Teacher Wrongly Fired for Refusing to Use ‘Preferred Pronouns’ Wins $575,000

Teacher Fired For Not Using Student’s “Preferred Pronouns”

Image credit: ADF

Dec 12 2024

UK Bans Puberty Blockers for ‘Transgender’ Minors

The United Kingdom’s Department of Health and Social Care announced it will protect children by indefinitely restricting “the sale and supply of puberty-suppressing hormones” for those suffering from “gender incongruence” because the drugs pose “an unacceptable safety risk.”

Despite the ban, England’s National Health Services and the National Institute for Health Care Research will still be conducting a clinical trial “into the potential benefits and harms of puberty suppressing hormones as a treatment option for children and young people with gender incongruence.”

But the risky, experimental drugs will no longer be widely available for clinicians to prescribe; they will only be used in this long-term trial.

The decision follows an evidence review of “the routine use of puberty blockers for the treatment of gender incongruence” by England’s National Institute for Health and Care Excellence and the findings released earlier this year in the Cass Review, an “Independent Review of Gender Identity Services for Children and Young People.”

Both reviews found there was “insufficient evidence to support the safety or clinical effectiveness of puberty blockers for adolescents.” A similar investigation from England’s Commission on Human Medicines found “that the current prescribing environment is unsafe.”

The NHS ordered in March 2024 to suspend use of the drugs for sexually confused children; this recent announcement updates that previous decision “to make the order indefinite.”

In its statement about the decision to suspend the use of these drugs for children with sexual identity confusion, the NHS explained:

Puberty blockers are a type of medication called Gonadotrophin-releasing hormone (GnRH) analogues. They are licensed only for use in young children (for precocious puberty) or older adults (for certain cancers).
They are not licensed for use for adolescents, and they are not licensed for gender incongruence or dysphoria.
Licensing of medicines requires a robust assessment of safety and effectiveness data. These medications have not undergone that process, which means the safety and risk implications for use with gender dysphoria have not been assessed.

The drugs have also been used to chemically castrate sex offenders.

The American College of Pediatricians explains the risks and harms for children who take puberty suppressants for gender dysphoria, including emotional instability, depression, greater self-harm, behavioral and emotional problems, along with “many serious permanent side effects including osteoporosis, mood disorders, seizures, cognitive impairment and, when combined with cross-sex hormones, sterility.”

The announcement came just one week after the U.S. Supreme Court oral arguments in United States v. Skrmetti, where the federal government and “transgender” activists argued against a Tennessee law banning the use of puberty blockers, hormones and surgeries for minors.

In defending the Tennessee law, state Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti gave several reasons why the legislature moved to protect children from these experimental, damaging procedures, including: high desistance rates when a child’s puberty is not suppressed, “accounts of regret and harm from detransitioners,” “concerns over minors’ ability to provide informed consent,” and the lack of evidence in favor of puberty blockers.

Skrmetti also pointed out:

Health authorities in Sweden, Finland, Norway, and the United Kingdom have all concluded that these interventions pose significant risks with unproven benefits.

It’s tragic that many medical professionals and groups in the U.S. still promote these devastating, ineffective procedures.

While we’re glad the U.K. has stopped widespread use of puberty blockers, it’s disturbing that these clinical trials that will take place, using children as guinea pigs in a fruitless effort to heal what is not a biological or medical condition, but a spiritual, mental and psychological issue.

A more compassionate approach would be to help these children resolve these sexual identity struggles, working with them so they accept and embrace their God-given masculinity or femininity.

Related articles and resources:

Counseling for Sexual Identity Concerns: A Measured, Careful, and Compassionate approach

Key Takeaways from Supreme Court Case on ‘Transgender’ Interventions

Supreme Court Hears Case on Protecting Children from ‘Transgender’ Sterilization and Mutilation

Talking to Your Children About Transgender Issues

Tennessee and Mississippi Pass Bills to Protect Children from Harmful ‘Sex Change’ Procedures

Transgender Resources

When Transgender Issues Enter Your World: How Christians can respond with compassion, courage and truth

U.K.’s Review of Child Gender Policy Reveals Profound Failures That U.S. Still Defends

The WPATH Files – Transgender Interventions Are ‘Unethical Medical Experiments’

World’s Largest Youth Trans Clinic Shuts Down Over Poor Science

Image from Shutterstock.

Dec 06 2024

Big Win for Women’s Golf: LPGA and USGA Publish New ‘Transgender’ Policies

Ladies Professional Golf Association and the U.S. Golf Association published new policies barring males who went through some stages of puberty from playing women’s professional golf.

The policies were developed after female golfers pushed back when the LPGA Tour allowed Hailey Davidson, a male who attempts to live as a female, to compete in its qualifying series. Independent Women’s Forum (IWF) led the campaign, sending a letter signed by more than 300 female golfers to the LPGA and USGA opposing men in their sport.

The win is part of a growing movement to keep boys and men from erasing girls and women and unfairly taking medals, scholarships, spots on teams and prize money from female athletes.

IWF listed some of the women responsible for this victory:

Professional golfers and IWF ambassadors Lauren Miller, Hannah Arnold, Dana Fall, and Amy Olson have led a movement internally among 300+ female professional golfers to overturn the policies and restore fairness and integrity to their beloved sport and profession.

The letter, which IWF sent on August 19, 2024, was shared with Outkick. The athletes said it was unfair to allow men in women’s sports, arguing:

We all know there can be no equal athletic opportunity for women without a separate female golf category. Yet, the Ladies Professional Golf Association (LPGA) continues to propagate a policy that allows male athletes to qualify, compete and win in women’s golf, even as several national and international governing bodies of sport and state legislatures increasingly reject these unjust and inequitable policies that harm female athletes.

The advocacy group said it’s impossible for a man to become a woman and noted the advantages males have in golf due to physiological differences between the sexes:

The male advantage in driving the ball is estimated around a 30% performance advantage; this is an enormous difference in the context of sport. Anatomical differences between males and females affect clubhead speed and regulating consistency at ball contact. Females have higher mean heart rates and encounter greater physiological demands while playing, especially at high altitudes. The anatomical differences are not removed with male testosterone suppression. There is no way to turn a male into a female. Being female is not equated to being male with a reduction in strength.

The IWF also led a letter-writing campaign where more than 8,000 individuals wrote letters to the LPGA and USGA demanding the associations “end participation policies that erase equal opportunity and the spirit of women’s professional golf.

The LPGA’s new “Gender Policy for Competition Eligibility” now states:

In consulting with top experts in the fields of medicine, science, sport physiology and golf performance, we have been advised that a Player’s exposure to male puberty provides physical advantages that are beneficial to golf performance compared to Players who have not had such exposure. …

A Player’s exposure to male puberty provides physical advantages that are beneficial to golf performance compared to Players who have not had such exposure.

The policy explains that male players can only play women’s golf if “they have not experienced any part of male puberty either beyond Tanner Stage 2 or after age 12 [whichever comes first].”

The “Tanner Staging System” was developed by British Pediatric Endocrinologist James Mourilyan Tanner after two decades of studying the physical development of children through adolescent to adulthood. Stage 1 is before puberty begins, so Stage 2 is the first stage in puberty, when male or female hormones begin to be released in the body, triggering physical, emotional and mental changes in adolescents.

Conceivably, a child born male, who has early puberty blockers to stop this natural, normal process, and then goes on to have female hormones and surgeries could play on the LPGA Tour and its affiliated tours – even though he is still different from girls and women.

But those who have gone through male puberty, like Davidson, will not be able to compete on the LPGA Tour.

The USGA Policy adopts similar guidelines for “transgender female” athletes but allows women who claim to be men to compete with women – as long as they have never used male hormones. And it allows “transgender females” to compete on men’s teams.

The policy also allows “transgender males” (women claiming to be men) who use testosterone to compete in men’s golf.

IWF and women athletes celebrated the victory, with professional golfer Dana Fall opining:

Today’s policy announcement is a huge win for women and girls in sports. The LPGA and USGA, the premiere bodies which dictate the rules of women’s golf, are standing up for fairness and the integrity of our sport. Today, the message sent to women is that we do matter, and they are working to return equal opportunity and protect fair sport for female athletes.

Related articles and resources:

Independent Women’s Forum and Independent Women’s Law Center explain the physiological differences between males and females and the harms when males compete against women: “Competition Report: Title IX, Male-Bodied Athletes, and the Threat To Women’s Sports”

Addressing Gender Identity with Honesty and Compassion

Focus on the Family: Counseling Consultation & Referrals

Focus on the Family: Transgender Resources

Homeschooled Christian Golfer Amy Olson to Play U.S. Women’s Open While 7 Plus Months Pregnant

No, It’s Not ‘Complicated’ to Keep Men Out of Women’s Sports

Riley Gaines and 15 Other Female Athletes Sue NCAA Over ‘Transgender Policy’

#SaveGirlsSports – New Campaign Launched by Family Policy Alliance

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

Women Golfers Protest LPGA Policy Allowing ‘Transgender’ Competitors

Image from Getty.