transgender

Maryland School Teaches Sixth Graders About Being ‘Transgender’ and ‘Nonbinary’

In celebration of “Transgender Awareness Week,” Westland Middle School, in Bethesda, Maryland, gave sixth grade students lessons on “transgenderism” and “being nonbinary.”

As reported by Fox News, the 11- and 12-year-old students were inculcated into the irrational, deceptive world of transgender ideology via videos and a 12-slide presentation.  

As reporter Andrew Mark Miller explained for the news outlet:

Multiple slides in the presentation provide information on “what it means” to be transgender and students are then quizzed about what they learned.
In another slide, students are told to discuss questions with their neighbor in class, including, How do people know if they are a ‘girl’ or ‘boy?’”
Slide from Fox News of the sixth grade lesson on “transgenderism.”

Another slide asked students to answer questions such as: “What do I already know about the experiences of transgender people?”; “What do I want to know about the experiences of transgender people?”; and, following the lesson, “What have I learned about the experiences of transgender people?”

The slides included “8 Tips for Being Nonbinary!” a video from a “non-binary producer” named “Laurenzo” who has 889 thousand followers on TikTok and 54 thousand followers on Instagram.

In the video, Laurenzo answered questions such as, “If someone calls you by your wrong pronouns, what do you do?” and “I don’t know which ‘label’ is right for me … Help?”

“Laurenzo” in front of the “nonbinary” flag.

In answering the latter question, Laurenzo described her journey from straight to bisexual to lesbian to nonbinary, saying she always identified as an “androgynous person.”

She encouraged the sixth graders “to create the identity that you feel is your true self on the inside,” rather than embracing their male or female sex.

The activist also referred to her “chosen family” – a term used by some in the LGBT community when they reject their natural family and embrace others who identify as homosexual or transgender as their “real family.” 

Laurenzo goes on to talk about “how to bind properly.” Breast binding, also known as chest binding, is the dangerous practice of using cloth strips, sports bras or special undergarments that compress breast tissue, flattening the breasts in an attempt to look male.

These attempts by females to look masculine come with many risks, as a fact sheet from the American College of Pediatricians (ACPeds) explains. The professional organization notes that 89-97% of individuals who bind their breasts report adverse reactions in online surveys, including:

  • Chest and/or back pain, reported by 75-80%, with 39% describing severe pain and 21% reporting limitation in daily activities.
  • Fractured ribs (3%).
  • Pulmonary problems, such as shortness of breath (47-68%); reduced exercise tolerance and difficulty speaking; pulmonary edema; and restrictive lung disease.
  • Skin problems (78%),including acne, rashes, itching and scarring.

ACPeds concludes:

Since most children and adolescents who feel uncomfortable with their biological sex, will feel comfortable at the end of normal uninterrupted puberty, chest (breast) binding should not be recommended. Those who practice chest binding should be educated about the adverse effects.

Laurenzo notes that binding “restricts your breathing, but she then goes on to tell the sixth graders:

My general advice about binding is make sure you’re being safe about it, don’t be wearing a binder more than eight hours in a day [and] definitely not exercising.

There is nothing “safe” about this practice. Montgomery County Public Schools is promoting a dangerous, false ideology. When young people attempt to change their bodies to mimic the opposite sex, there are multiple, irreparable health risks.  

Humans are made in the image of God – male and female. This isn’t just a biblical, theological issue, it’s also a matter of science. “Gender,” as some sort of internal self-definition, is a false concept.

Westland Middle School is one of the top-ranked middle schools in Maryland – yet it is teaching an unscientific concept as if it were true. In addition, only 68% of students are proficient in reading and 40% are proficient in math – scores which would earn a D and an F, respectively, in most classrooms.

Rather than indoctrination, the school should stick to teaching the basics.

Related articles and resources:

Addressing Gender Identity with Honesty and Compassion

An Essential Primer on Defending the Reality of Male and Female

Counseling Consultation & Referrals

FTC Begins Investigating ‘Gender-Affirming’ Medical Community for Deception, False Advertising

HHS Releases Report on Harms of ‘Transgender’ Medical Interventions for Minors

How the “Trans” and Gender Redefinition Issue Attacks the Family

How to Respond to “Trans” and Gender Ideology? Simple: Live Not by Lies

Resources for families struggling with wrong-sex identification

Transgenderism and Minors: What Does the Research Really Show?

‘Transgender Means Many Different Things’ — And Nothing

What Does it Mean to Be Trans, Anyway?

Court Upholds Trump Ban on ‘Transgender’ Service Members

A federal appeals court on Tuesday allowed the Trump administration to enforce its prohibition on transgender-identified individuals from serving in the military.

In a 2-1 decision, a panel of judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled a lower court had afforded “insufficient deference” to the secretary of war to enforce strict medical standards on service members.

The decision stays Biden-nominated Judge Ana C. Reyes’s March 18 preliminary injunction that had placed the Pentagon’s policy on ice after several transgender-identifying service members filed a lawsuit to prevent the policy’s enforcement.

Judge Reyes is the “first openly LGBT” person to serve on the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia and “is a longtime Democrat Party donor,” The Federalist reports.

Judge Gregory Katsas, a Trump nominee, authored the Court of Appeals’ decision and explained the Hegseth Policy “is likely constitutional because it reflects a considered judgement of military leaders and furthers legitimate military interests.”

“The government identifies several legitimate military interests that the Hegseth Policy advances,” Judge Katsas continued. “Chief among them is military readiness. … Secretary Hegseth had before him evidence that treatments for gender dysphoria would limit deployability and may not be effective. … His predecessors unanimously agreed that these concerns are serious ones.”

In May, the U.S. Supreme Court stayed a separate preliminary injunction in a related case that had prohibited the Pentagon from disqualifying transgender-identified individuals from military service. Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson had dissented from the Court’s decision.

Judge Katsas cited the Supreme Court’s 6-3 ruling as a further reason for staying Judge Reyes’ preliminary injunction.

“The Supreme Court has already held that the government is likely to succeed on its contention that the Hegseth Policy does not violate equal protection,” Judge Katsas wrote.

Judge Neomi Rao, also a nominee of President Trump, joined the Court of Appeals’ majority opinion. Judge Cornelia Pillard, a nominee of former President Barack Obama, dissented.

Just one week after taking office for the second time, President Donald J. Trump signed an executive order, Prioritizing Military Excellence and Readiness, that made it the policy of the U.S. government to “establish high standards for troop readiness, lethality, cohesion, honesty, humility, uniformity, and integrity.”

The order properly explained,

This policy is inconsistent with the medical, surgical, and mental health constraints on individuals with gender dysphoria. This policy is also inconsistent with shifting pronoun usage or use of pronouns that inaccurately reflect an individual’s sex.

The Pentagon then issued a directive on February 26 disqualifying individuals with a current diagnosis, or exhibiting symptoms, of gender dysphoria from military service. The directive also stipulates:

  • All service members will only serve in accordance with their sex.
  • Pronoun usage within the military must reflect service members’ sex.
  • Sleeping, changing and bathing facilities will be designated based on biological sex.
  • The Department of Defense will not pay for transgender medical interventions.

The directive reversed two previous presidential policies, implemented by the Obama and Biden administrations, that had relaxed the military’s policy of prohibiting “individuals with gender dysphoria, a medical condition associated with clinically significant distress,” from serving in the military.

Between 2015 and 2024, the U.S. Department of Defense spent over $52 million providing transgender medical interventions to active-duty service members.

Following the Court of Appeals’ ruling, Secretary of War Pete Hegseth posted a meme depicting his foot kicking “Woke Culture” and “DEI Military” out the front door of the Department of War.

“This administration has done a great deal from day one to remove the social justice, politically correct and toxic ideological garbage that had infected our department. To rip out the politics,” Secretary Hegseth told hundreds of our nation’s top military leaders in a speech in September.

“No more identity months, DEI offices, dudes in dresses. No more climate change worship. No more division, distraction or gender delusions. No more debris.”

Now, two of our nation’s highest courts have upheld one of the administration’s initiatives to restore a “warrior ethos” to the military and end the “woke” at the Department of War.

Liberty Counsel founder and chairman Mat Staver issued a statement after the Court of Appeals’ ruling, saying, “The D.C. Court of Appeals ruling affirms that the Equal Protection Clause does not require the armed forces to disregard its legitimate medical standards that are essential for mission success.”

“The ‘Hegseth Policy’ is grounded in objective medical criteria and the natural differences between the sexes to ensure that every servicemember is fully prepared — physically and mentally — to meet the challenges of defending our nation.”

The Daily Citizen will keep you updated of any important developments in this case.

The case isTalbott v. United States.

Related articles and resources:

Hegseth: No More ‘Woke’ At Department of War

Supreme Court Lets Trump’s ‘Transgender Military Ban’ Take Effect

SecDef Hegseth: Military Reinstating 8,700 Wrongly Discharged Servicemembers

Biden-Appointed Judge Blocks Trump Ban on ‘Transgender’ Service Members

Pentagon Ends Paid Travel Expenses and Time Off for Abortions

Photo from Getty Images.

The APA’s 5 Failed Critiques of HHS Report Discrediting Sex-Rejecting Procedures for Kids

The American Psychiatric Association (APA) tried and failed to discredit the Department of Health and Human Services’ (HHS) report showing sex-rejecting procedures harm minors.

HHS commended the association last week for for peer-reviewing Treatment for Pediatric Gender Dysphoria: Review of Evidence and Best Practices, which the department first published in May. The American Academy of Pediatrics and Endocrine Society refused HHS’ invitation to review, though both support subjecting wrong-sex-identified children to surgical procedures, puberty blockers and [wrong]-sex hormones.

Though the APA agreed to review Treatment for Pediatric Gender Dysphoria, it did not do so carefully or in good faith. Its criticisms rely on half-truths, manipulations and outright falsehoods, demonstrating how little evidence “gender-affirming” organizations have to support procedures they call “evidence-based.”

Below are five of the America Psychiatric Association’s failed critiques of HHS’ Treatment for Pediatric Gender Dysphoria.

Failure to Read

The APA recommended HHS review 16 additional studies for the final version of Treatment for Pediatric Gender Dysphoria.

The original report had already addressed twelve of them.

Two other recommended studies examined the effect of sex-rejecting procedures on the wrong population (adults, not minors). Another did not investigate sex-rejecting procedures at all.  

HHS found only one of the APA’s recommended studies “potentially relevant.” Importantly, it came out after the department published Treatment for Pediatric Gender Dysphoria on May 1, 2025.

In its response to the association’s review, HHS speculates its “unfounded” criticisms “could have resulted from a failure to read core parts of the review.

Making Assumptions

The APA argued Treatment for Pediatric Gender Dysphoria failed to consider the risk of allowing children struggling with wrong-sex identification to go through puberty.

This critique reflects a common lie that sex-rejecting procedures stop wrong-sex-identified children from committing suicide or experiencing other debilitating mental illnesses.

More importantly, it subtly reveals the APA changes its conception and treatment of puberty based on the feelings of the developing child.

The association evidently considers puberty a natural and necessary process only when the child accepts it. Conversely, when puberty causes a child distress, the association considers it a sickness to be stopped and reversed.

HHS correctly recognizes puberty as a natural, necessary part of human life — regardless of the developing person’s feelings about growing up. Treatment for Pediatric Gender Dysphoria investigates the effects of disrupting this natural physical development with wrong-sex hormones, drugs that “block” puberty and sex-rejecting surgeries.

Cherry Picking

Treatment for Pediatric Gender Dysphoria references many findings and conclusions from The 2024 Cass Review — a comprehensive report on transgender medical interventions which prompted the UK to ban puberty blockers and prohibit the administration of wrong-sex hormones to minors outside experimental research.

The APA criticized HHS for cherry picking favorable portions of the Cass Review and ignoring lines like, “For some, the best outcome will be transition…”

Ironically, the association cherry picked this phrase from a larger paragraph, not on the benefit of sex-rejecting procedures, but on the UK National Health Service’s obligation to children struggling with wrong-sex identification:

For some, the best outcome will be transition, whereas others may resolve their distress in other ways. Some may transition and then de/retransition and/or experience regret. The NHS needs to care for all those seeking support.

The APA selected this paragraph out of context to suggest the Cass Review equivocates on the benefits of sex-rejecting procedures. It doesn’t. The review clearly concludes evidence for sex-rejecting procedures is weak and, further, that doctors can’t know whether children will grow out of their wrong-sex identification and regret harming their bodies.

“Any reasonable interpretation of The Cass Review’s statements … must grapple with its findings about lack of evidence for benefit and deep uncertainties about diagnoses,” HHS writes. “Unfortunately, the APA fails to do so.”

Unsupported Conclusions

The APA criticized HHS for obfuscating how it chose and evaluated evidence in Treatment for Pediatric Gender Dysphoria.

Most other peer reviewers praised the report for its transparency and methodological rigor.

HHS highlights a positive peer review from two methodologists at the Belgian Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine. The scientists commended the reports’ methodology and described the results as “[written] transparently” and “easy to follow.”  

Misapplication of Scientific Norms

Healthcare “stakeholders” refer to any population or entity impacted by changes to the medical system, including patients.

The APA argued HHS improperly excluded stakeholder perspectives, particularly those of “transgender individuals and their families,” from Treatment for Pediatric Gender Dysphoria.

But scientists don’t need patients’ input to write reliable evidentiary reviews.

HHS suspects the association confused its report with a clinical practice guide, which dictates how doctors should diagnose and treat medical conditions. Clinical practice guides generally require feedback from patients who will be impacted by the recommendations.

Treatment for Pediatric Gender Dysphoria does not weigh in on diagnoses and treatment; it compiles and evaluates all evidence on the effects of sex-rejecting procedures on minors. The perspectives of patients and other stakeholders do not — and should not — affect its scientific conclusions.  

Ironically, HHS notes, the current “gender affirming” clinical practice guides for wrong-sex-identified children score low on stakeholder involvement.

Why It Matters

Treatment for Pediatric Gender Dysphoria suggests the American medical system performed sex-rejecting procedures on wrong-sex-identified children with no evidence of those procedures’ benefits and every evidence of their harms.

HHS gave standard-bearers like the APA the opportunity to respond to this serious implication. They either refused or presented weak, deceptive arguments devoid of evidence.  

That’s unacceptable. Protecting children from sex-rejecting procedures requires illuminating these cop-outs and pursuing justice for families and children harmed by these unconscionable practices.

Additional Articles and Resources

Counseling Consultation & Referrals

Resources for families struggling with wrong-sex identification

HHS Finalizes Report Finding Sex-Rejecting Procedures Harm Minors

HHS Releases Report on Harms of ‘Transgender’ Medical Interventions for Minors

FTC Begins Investigating ‘Gender-Affirming’ Medical Community for Deception, False Advertising

The Shifting Ground of ‘Gender-Affirming Care’

Don’t Fall for the ‘Affirm Them or They Will Die’ Lie

Transgenderism and Minors: What Does the Research Really Show?

UK Bans Puberty Blockers for ‘Transgender’ Minors

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

England’s NHS Stops Dispensing Puberty Blockers for Children — Not Safe or Effective

Addressing Gender Identity with Honesty and Compassion

Newsom Signs Bill Connecting Students to ‘LGBT Hotline’ and Unsafe Chatrooms

HHS Finalizes Report Finding Sex-Rejecting Procedures Harm Minors

The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) released its final, peer-reviewed report on the effects of sex-rejecting procedures on minors last week.

Treatment for Pediatric Gender Dysphoria: Review of Evidence and Best Practices, which HHS first published in May, found “transgender” medical interventions — including puberty blockers, [wrong]-sex hormones and surgical operations — pose “significant, long term and too often ignored” harms to children.

The report’s groundbreaking conclusion remains unchanged in the final version published November 19. The latest copy includes peer reviewers’ evaluations of the report and the department’s responses to their critiques. It also reveals the names of review’s nine prestigious authors.

HHS invited three of the report’s biggest critics — the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Psychiatric Association and the Endocrine Society — to participate in the peer review process.

All three organizations recommend sex-rejecting procedures for minors struggling with wrong-sex identification. Upon the release of Treatment for Pediatric Gender Dysphoria in May, the American Academy of Pediatrics claimed it “misrepresented the current medical consensus and failed to reflect the realities of pediatric care.”

But only the American Psychiatric Association agreed to review the report. HHS thoroughly refuted its critiques, such that The Washington Post editorial board wrote:

[The HHS report’s] core finding — that the evidence for [transgender medical] interventions is highly uncertain — echoes the results of systematic reviews in other countries. None of the peer reviews of the HHS report ultimately rebut that conclusion.

Critics attacked HHS for bias and lack of transparency in May, when it kept the authors of Treatment for Pediatric Gender Dysphoria anonymous.

“That’s one more reason why I can tell you this is an ideological, political document and not a scientific one,” Casey Pick, director of law and policy at the Trevor Project, a radical LGBT activist group, told Science in May. “Scientists stand by their work.”

In the final report, HHS notes withholding authors’ names is an “established practice in scientific review” meant to reduce bias in the peer reviews.

Nine multi-disciplinary experts authored Treatment for Pediatric Gender Dysphoria, HHS reveals, including two bioethicists, two psychiatrists, a philosopher, an evidence-based medicine specialist, an endocrinologist and two researchers — one who specializes in healthcare and another who covers “pediatric gender issues” for a think tank.

“These are not ideological cranks; they are thoughtful researchers,” the Post’s editorial board admits, concluding:

It is fair to say [the authors’] work has withstood scrutiny, with minor updates.

Treatment for Pediatric Gender Dysphoria withstands even the most critical peer reviews. That means Americans must acknowledge national medical authorities perform sex-rejecting procedures on children struggling with wrong-sex identification, despite evidence showing such interventions cause irrevocable harm.

“The American Medical Association and American Academy of Pediatrics peddled the lie that chemical and surgical sex-rejecting procedures could be good for children,” HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. castigated in a press release announcing the final report.

He continued:

They betrayed their oath to first do no harm, and their so-called “gender-affirming care” has inflicted lasting physical and psychological damage on vulnerable young people. That is not medicine — it’s malpractice.

The Daily Citizen heartily agrees.

Additional Articles and Resources

Counseling Consultation & Referrals

Resources for families struggling with wrong-sex identification

HHS Releases Report on Harms of ‘Transgender’ Medical Interventions for Minors

FTC Begins Investigating ‘Gender-Affirming’ Medical Community for Deception, False Advertising

The Shifting Ground of ‘Gender-Affirming Care’

Transgenderism and Minors: What Does the Research Really Show?

UK Bans Puberty Blockers for ‘Transgender’ Minors

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

Addressing Gender Identity with Honesty and Compassion

Newsom Signs Bill Connecting Students to ‘LGBT Hotline’ and Unsafe Chatrooms

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?