• Skip to main content
Daily Citizen
  • Subscribe
  • Categories
    • Culture
    • Life
    • Religious Freedom
    • Sexuality
  • Parenting Resources
    • LGBT Pride
    • Homosexuality
    • Sexuality/Marriage
    • Transgender
  • About
    • Contributors
    • Contact
  • Donate

transgender

Jul 20 2026

House Advances ‘Chloe Cole Act’ Banning ‘Transgender’ Procedures For Minors

Advocates for children’s well-being celebrated the House Judiciary Committee’s vote in favor of the Chloe Cole Act. The bill, HR 7651, bans irreversible, body-mutilating ‘transgender’ procedures for minors. 

The legislation also allows children damaged by these interventions to bring a civil suit against health professionals, hospitals or clinics up to 25 years after their 18th birthday. Parents or guardians may also file lawsuits. 

The Act, sponsored by Missouri Rep. Bob Onder, has 86 sponsors and passed out of the committee on a strict party-line vote of 15-8 on June 15. 

Cole, whose body was irreparably injured by transgender medical procedures, applauded the victory on X, saying “Thank you @JudiciaryGOP for standing up for future generations!”

The Chloe Cole Act has PASSED COMMITTEE! We are one step closer ensuring children in ALL of the United States are protected from transgender medical experimentation!

Thank you @JudiciaryGOP for standing up for future generations! https://t.co/ZKg4zK4UOM

— Chloe Cole ⭐️ (@ChloeCole) July 15, 2026

HR 7651 defines specific harmful transgender medical interventions that would be banned for minors and would allow for civil suits, including: 

  • Intentionally delaying, halting, or disrupting the natural development of the individual’s body, including the onset or progression of puberty, so that it does not develop or halts developing to correspond to the individual’s sex.
  • Changing the individual’s body, including the individual’s external appearance or biological functions, to no longer correspond to the individual’s sex.
  • Providing puberty blockers or opposite sex hormones.
  • Surgical procedures that attempt to transform an individual’s physical appearance or that attempt to alter or remove an individual’s sexual organs.

On June 3, Cole testified before the U.S. Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions in a hearing titled, “Protecting Our Children: Exposing the Dangers of Irreversible Gender Transition Procedures on Minors.” 

She told the committee: 

As a child, I was diagnosed with gender dysphoria and underwent medical transition as a minor, including puberty suppression, cross-sex hormones, and an irreversible double mastectomy.

Cole was only 15 when she underwent surgery to remove her breasts, explaining that these interventions did nothing to help her sexual identity confusion:

The peace and self-acceptance I was promised did not come. I am now almost 22 years old, and I live every day with the consequences of decisions made when I was a minor.

Cole listed the bodily harms she has suffered from the transgender medical industry: 

I have scars where healthy breasts used to be. I did not complete normal female puberty. I experience pain in my knees and hips that I associate with the treatment I received. I still live with trauma from what was done to my body. There are periods when I feel numb, have flashbacks, or experience nightmares.

She went on to explain that children “lack the maturity” to make decisions “that permanently alter their bodies and may affect their fertility, sexual function, and lifelong health.” She described her regret and the harassment she has received for speaking against harmful procedures. 

Shannon Minter, legal director of the National Center for LGBTQ Rights, testified in favor of the bill, saying: 

The harm any such ban would cause to transgender young people and their families is profound and unjustified.

Minter, a female attempting to live as a man, ignored the paucity of evidence in favor transgender interventions. And she completely overlooked recent studies and reviews, from Sweden, Finland, the U.K. and the U.S., showing the deep harms of medicalizing a mental health issue.

Dr. Kurt Miceli, MD, chief medical officer of Do No Harm, detailed the weak evidence for inflicting these medical procedures on children and stated they are “ideologically driven rather than grounded in emerging evidence.”

A companion bill, S 2907, has been sponsored in the Senate by Tennessee Sen. Marsha Blackburn. 

Focus on the Family offers a one-time complimentary consultation with our ministry’s professionally trained counselors. The consultation is free due to generous donor support.

To reach Focus on the Family’s counseling service by phone, call 1-855-771-HELP (4357) weekdays 6:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. (Mountain Time). Please be prepared to leave your contact information for a counselor to return a call to you as soon as possible. Alternatively, you can fill out our Counseling Consultation Request Form.

Related articles and resources: 

Addressing Gender Identity with Honesty and Compassion

American College of Pediatricians: No Benefits From ‘Gender-Affirming’ Interventions

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

HHS Finalizes Report Finding Sex-Rejecting Procedures Harm Minors

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

Florida Sues Medical Groups for Promoting ‘Transgender’ Mutilation of Children

New Research Shows ‘Transgender’ Identity Dramatically Driven by Immaturity

Medicalizing Gender Confusion Makes Things Worse, New Research Confirms

Resources for families struggling with wrong-sex identification

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

Written by Jeff Johnston · Categorized: Government Updates, Sexuality · Tagged: Chloe Cole, LGBT, transgender

Jul 17 2026

Senators Introduce ‘Stop the Sexualization of Children Act’

Congress is considering legislation to prohibit schools from using federal money for sexually explicit and transgender materials in classrooms.

Senators Jim Banks, James Lankford and Tommy Tuberville introduced the Stop the Sexualization of Children Act in the Senate. Representative Mary Miller sponsored the bill in the House, where it has already passed the Committee on Education and Workforce by a party-line vote of 18-13.

In a press release, Tuberville said of the proposed legislation, HR 7661:

Exposing children to sexually explicit material in classrooms is completely inappropriate and a gross abuse of taxpayer dollars. I will continue to work with my colleagues to remove this kind of content from our classrooms to protect the innocence of our young people.

Tuberville’s statement explained the need for the bill:

Research has shown that exposure to sexual content at a young age can increase the risk of early sexual activity, unsafe sexual practices, and other risky sexual behaviors. In recent years, concerns have grown among parents regarding sexually explicit materials, activities, and themes being introduced in schools.

HR 7661 is supported by Christian and conservative groups like Family Research Council, Family Policy Alliance, Moms for America and American Principles Project.

The American Library Association (ALA) opposed the legislation to protect children. President Sam Hemick issued a statement expressing disappointment the bill had passed the House committee, saying:

H.R. 7661 is a dangerous bill that steals the power to choose what kids read away from parents, local communities and well-trained educators and librarians, and gives it to politicians in Washington, D.C. Congress is not authorized to make decisions about what kids read in school, and it is not allowed to interfere with the rights of states and communities to control their own schools.

As previously reported by the Daily Citizen, the ALA believes it is “banning books” to keep graphic and disturbing content out of public schools. The organization’s “Library Bill of Rights” states that children should have access to whatever books they want and they deserve “privacy and confidentiality” – including from parents – in those decisions.

Stop Sexualization of Children amends the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 to read:

No funds under this Act may be used to develop, implement, facilitate, host, or promote any program or activity for, or to provide or promote literature or other materials to, children under the age of 18 that includes sexually oriented material, including any program, activity, literature, or material that exposes such children to nude adults, individuals who are stripping, or lewd or lascivious dancing.

It labels “sexually oriented material” as material that:

(i) includes any depiction, description, or simulation of sexually explicit conduct (as defined in subparagraphs (A) and (B) of section 2256(2) of title 18, United States Code).
(ii) involves gender dysphoria or transgenderism.

The federal statute cited, 18 U.S. Code § 2256, defines “sexually explicit conduct” for child exploitation laws. Schools could no longer use federal funds to pay for materials that depict explicit sexual activity and lewd behaviors.

HR 7661 makes allowances for “classic works of art” in the classroom which may contain nudity, citing art listed in the Smarthistory’s guide to Advanced Placement Art History as acceptable.

The legislation makes clear that “classic works of literature,” which may contain mild sexual content, are not included in the restricted books but are available to older students. It lists works found in “Great Books of the Western World,” published by Encyclopaedia Britannica; “Classics Every Middle Schooler Should Read,” by Thomas Purifoy Jr.; and “Classics Every High Schooler Should Read,” by Mary Pierson Purifoy.

There are literally hundreds of good options for teachers; there is no need to expose minors to books that detail graphic sexual activity.

Banks said in a press release, “The American taxpayer should not be funding sexually explicit content for minors, it’s that simple.”

Miller expressed the need to protect children from false and confusing “transgender ideology, saying, “Our taxpayer-funded schools exist to educate children, not expose them to sexually explicit material or promote the false idea that a child can be born in the wrong body.”

Related articles and resources:

American Library Association Chooses Marxist Lesbian as President-Elect

‘Banned Books Week’ – What a Fraud

Equipping Parents for Back-to-School

National Education and Library Groups Co-Sponsor Transgender Reading Day for Elementary School Children

Plugged In Book Reviews

Resources When Your Child Encounters LGBT Ideology at School

Sexualizing Schoolchildren: Classroom and Library Books

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

What Gender-Confusing Books Did You Read in School Today, Johnny?

Photo from Getty Images.

Written by Jeff Johnston · Categorized: Culture · Tagged: education, LGBT, transgender

Jul 10 2026

Male Athletes Dismiss Lawsuit Challenging New Hampshire Women’s Sports Law

A pair of male athletes have dropped their lawsuit against New Hampshire’s Save Women’s Sports law and two of President Trump’s executive orders (EOs) protecting girls sports, following a blockbuster decision by the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Court, in a 6-3 decision on June 29, upheld West Virginia and Idaho’s laws protecting girls and women from having to compete against “transgender”-identified males in sports.

The Court ruled that “sex” in Title IX, a federal law prohibiting sex-based discrimination in education programs, “cannot plausibly be interpreted to refer to anything other than biological sex.” The Supreme Court held,

Title IX allows schools to provide separate women’s and men’s sports teams defined by biological sex, and West Virginia has permissibly maintained female sports for biological females consistent with Title IX.

The decision has far-reaching implications, sustaining laws or regulations in 27 states safeguarding girls and women’s athletic opportunities. It impacts other lawsuits challenging protections for girls sports – including one in the Granite State.

In 2024, New Hampshire Gov. Chris Sununu signed the Save Women’s Sports bill (HB 1205) into law, requiring any interscholastic, intercollegiate, intramural or club athletic team or sport sponsored by a school be separated based on sex.

The state’s law was, in part, a response to New Hampshire athlete CeCe Telfer, who became the first male to win an NCAA women’s title, placing first in the 400-meter hurdles final in 2019.

“HB 1205 ensures fairness and safety in women’s sports by maintaining integrity and competitive balance in athletic competitions,” Gov. Sununu said at the time.

In August 2024, two other male athletes filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire, challenging HB 1205 for violating their “constitutional right to Equal Protection” and Title IX by banning them from competing against girls.

Subsequently, the male athletes expanded their lawsuit and challenged two executive orders signed by President Trump, “Keeping Men Out of Women’s Sports” and “Defending Women from Gender Ideology and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government.”

Now, they’ve dismissed the lawsuit entirely, following the Supreme Court’s June 29 ruling.

“Women and girls deserve privacy, safety, and equal opportunities,” said Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) Senior Counsel and Vice President of Litigation Strategy Jonathan Scruggs. “That can’t happen when males are competing in women’s sports, taking spots on women’s athletic teams, and winning women’s championships.”

ADF, representing Female Athletes United, which has members in New Hampshire and other states who have lost to male athletes, intervened in the lawsuit to defend New Hampshire’s law and the EOs.

Scruggs added,

President Trump’s executive orders and New Hampshire’s law recognize common sense and track Title IX, the federal law that ensures equal opportunities for women in athletics. We are grateful this case is coming to an end and that New Hampshire is free to protect its female athletes.

The EOs protect women’s sports and spaces across the country by cutting off funding for educational institutions and athletic associations that “deny female students an equal opportunity to participate in sports and athletic events” by requiring them to compete against males.

The Trump administration has been actively investigating and filing lawsuits against blue states for failing to protect female athletes, launching investigations into Minnesota, California and Illinois for violating Title IX by allowing males to compete against females.

These actions are crucially important. While the Supreme Court concluded Title IX permits states to protect girls sports, it left open the question of whether Title IX requires states to have separate sports teams based on sex.

So, female athletes in 27 states are protected from competing against males. Girls and women in the 23 remaining states without such laws on the books are left vulnerable.

The Trump administration is hoping to use the EOs, which properly interpret Title IX, to ensure all girls and women nationwide are protected from transgender-identified males attempting to compete in their sports.

It’s likely a lawsuit to determine whether Title IX requires all states to protect girls sports will eventually make its way up to our nation’s highest Court.

For now, states like New Hampshire are free to defend girls and women on their own.

All girls and women deserve to be able to dream, hope, train and compete in sports without unwanted intrusion from male athletes.

We’re grateful the Supreme Court has allowed states like New Hampshire to defend female athletes. Now, we hope and pray girls and women in all states will soon be granted the same protections.

The case is Tirrell v. Edelblut.

Related articles and resources:

Blockbuster Supreme Court Ruling: Girls Sports Are for Girls

New Hampshire Enacts ‘Help Not Harm’ and ‘Save Women’s Sports’ Bills

Photo from Shutterstock.

Written by Zachary Mettler · Categorized: Government Updates · Tagged: Girls Sports, transgender

Jul 07 2026

How ‘Pride’ 2026 Showed That the LGBT Movement Is Imploding

If there is a takeaway from this year’s month-long celebration of sexual experimentation, redefinition and rebellion, it is that LGBTQ has been fully revealed as the incoherent mess it always has been.

The ever-growing rainbow of letters do not represent a unified worldview because each denies the wonder and truth of what it means to be human. In fact, they are set on upending this. Whether you have a Christian (or some other faith-basis) or an evolutionary materialist worldview, you believe that both male and female and their union are essential for sexuality, the family and humanity to function.

Opposition to this fact is the primary flaw of all LGBTQ ideology and it has been demonstrated in colorful ways around this year’s “pride” month. The rainbow coalition is finally imploding.

Two key leaders in this movement have demonstrated this very powerfully. One is old, the other young.

The old one is Andrew Sullivan who essentially kick-started the same-sex marriage redefinition debate with his ground-breaking 1989 “Here Comes the Groom” article in the New Republic magazine. Being a grandfather of this movement, Sullivan has become the movement’s cranky old man, bemoaning that gay rights movement became too radical by going “trans” and queer. In fact, The New York Times gave Sullivan 4,200 words of its precious print real estate last year for him to amply illustrate how LGBTQ “radicalized and lost its way.”

But in early June 2026, Sullivan confessed how “distressing” it is to find the Ts and the Qs are “setting us back 20 years” because of their radicalness. This was demonstrated in a June Gallup report indicating support for gay and lesbian relationships among republicans, democrats and independents had turned southward.

Gallup also explained that support for gay “marriage” started dipping in 2023 and has continued to decline. Sullivan blames this decline on the fact that trans and queer ideologies have become “hegemonic” in LGTQ world. So much so, as Sullivan explained, it’s “why it is only appropriate that [NYC mayor Zohran] Mamdani put out a ‘pride’ statement this week referring solely to ‘queer and trans people,’ excising LGBs from the movement we built.”

Kicked off their own bus because they are seen by supporters as boringly traditional.

The younger voice criticizing the devolution of LGTBQ is 36-year-old Matthew Vines who gained notoriety in 2015 for his deeply heretical book, God and the Gay Christian. It sought to rewrite Jesus’ clear sexual ethic, explained in Mark 10 and Matthew 19, which affirmed the truth of Genesis’ creation anthropology.

On the last day of this year’s ‘pride’ month, The New York Times published an editorial from Vines concerned that the movement he helped prop up is losing serious steam because “queer” is overtaking the “gay” that he salutes. In fact, his piece is titled, “I’m Gay, Not Queer. It Matters.”

It matters to Vines because, like Sullivan, “queer” is too radical for his liking. But as so many of Vines’ peers in his own movement reminded him so many times in negative reaction to his piece, the gay movement has always been about challenging convention.

The Advocate opined that people like Sullivan and Vines “suggest we can have our rights so long as we reassure the broader public that we are not too political, too gender-nonconforming, too disruptive, too trans, too angry, too difficult, too visible, too queer.”  The Washington Blade, in reaction to Vines, explained the central problem in their view is “the United States remains a nation that enforces and exalts a heterosexual, cisgender majority.” Thus, to “be queer, to resist and reject standards that normalizes and essentialize gender and sexuality, is a countercultural act, whether or not people like Vines are ready to acknowledge it.”

Sullivan and Vines mistakenly assumed that redefining marriage to allow same-sex couples to “marry” would settle gays down. They were wrong. This movement only knows how to grow more radical because that is its very DNA.

Vines is also sad that his movement no longer believes its old baseless talking point “that being gay is not a choice” in favor of same-sex relationships being “better thought of as a part of a wider rebellion against social norms.”

Of course, Vines is correct in this observation. Major LGBT voices have been challenging the idea that sexual orientation is fixed as the “born-this-way” claim asserts. The truth is, there is actually very little agreement over what sexual orientation even is and is not.

The most significant among these voices is lesbian gender scholar Lisa Diamond who destroyed the ‘born-this-way’ claim in a popular TED Talk. She explained the claim is not supported by scientific data, nor is it “fair” to gay and lesbian political efforts. 

Professor Sari van Anders of Queen’s University in Canada has called for retiring the concept of sexual orientation altogether in favor of her more scientifically and experientially accurate “Sexual Configuration Theory.” She holds that “sexual orientation as a term is increasingly seen as regressive,” because it “belongs to the bioessentialist project.” That “project” holds that male and female are actual biological categories. After all, gay or lesbian mean nothing if male and female do not actually exist.

University of California, Riverside sociologist Brandon Andrew Robinson has recently renewed the call to abolish all sexual identities like gay and lesbian because open fluidity allows for so many more possibilities. UC Riverside reports Robinson’s thesis is, “Sexual identity functions as a kind of prison, confining human desire and reinforcing a false notion of gender based on fixed, biological categories.” The tide is moving against you, Mr. Vines.

This is why the LGBT movement is presently imploding. It is set on overturning the historic and culturally universal reality of what it means to be human as male and female. It is set on overturning a creation anthropology given to us in the truth and wisdom of Genesis, which, as we have seen, is solidly affirmed by Jesus himself.

No wonder it’s imploding. This false ideology is riddled with internal contradictions. 

Our job is to continue to demonstrate the various ways that ‘pride’ month and its rainbow banner are set against human truth, and thus collapsing as a result.

Written by Glenn T. Stanton · Categorized: Sexuality · Tagged: LGBT, transgender

Jun 29 2026

Supreme Court to Decide if Washington State Can ‘Transition’ Runaway Children

The U.S. Supreme Court will take up a challenge to Washington state laws that allow the state to help runaway children receive abortions and “transgender” medical interventions – puberty blockers, hormones and surgeries – without parental consent or knowledge.

The Court announced on June 29, 2026, that it was granting certiorari in the case International Partners for Ethical Care, Inc. (IPEC) v. Ferguson, which presents the question:

Whether parents have standing to challenge a law or policy that deliberately displaces their decision-making role as to “gender transitions” of their children, and in so doing creates present and likely future impediments to their ability to parent their children as they deem best for them.

The case began in April 2023 when Governor Bob Ferguson signed SB 5999, “Supporting youth and young adults seeking protected health care services,” into law, as the Family Policy Institute of Washington (FPIW) reported.

The Focus on the Family ally explained:

SB 5599, as signed by the Governor, allows shelters to assist children in obtaining abortions, puberty blockers, gender “reassignment” surgeries, or any other health services prescribed by a doctor to treat “dysphoria,” without contacting police, CPS, or the child’s parents. 
The bill report states that a shelter can be classified as “any person, unlicensed youth shelter, or runaway and homeless youth program.” This means that a child could seek shelter at any stranger’s house and that person would not need to alert police that they were harboring a runaway child. This opens the door for countless threats to the safety of minors across the state. (Their emphasis.)

The bill defined “protective health care services” as “gender-affirming treatment and reproductive healthcare services that are lawful in the state of Washington.”

“Gender affirming treatment” is a euphemism for body-damaging, experimental, irreversible medical interventions like puberty blockers, opposite-sex hormones and surgeries that attempt to make a person look like the opposite sex.

“Reproductive health care services” includes abortions and the removal of healthy organs, like “genitals, gonads, the uterus, ovaries, fallopian tubes, and breasts.”

In August 2023, America First Legal filed a lawsuit challenging the legislation against Governor Jay Inslee, Attorney General Robert Ferguson, and Ross Hunter, Secretary of the Washington Department of Children, Youth, and Families. Plaintiffs in the case a group of eight parents and two organizations, IPEC and Advocates Protecting Children.

America First Legal was joined by Schaerr Jaffe LLP, and Joel Ard, who brought the pre-enforcement challenge, arguing the statute deprived some parents “of their fundamental right under the U.S. Constitution to direct the care and upbringing of their children, as well as their rights to the free exercise of religion, due process, free speech, and equal protection.”

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, agreeing with a lower court, held that the parents and organizations did not have standing, meaning they did not have a direct stake in the outcome and had not yet been injured – despite the fact that the parents had children who rejected their sex, including one child who had previously run away from home.

The 9th Circuit ruled, in July 2025, that the plaintiffs had not shown they had “suffered or will imminently suffer an injury in fact.”

Remember, this is a law which allows any person or shelter in Washington to hide children, along with critical mental and psychological health information – from their parents. But the 9th Circuit stated the parents could not challenge this unconstitutional law which deprived them of their right to raise children according to their deeply held beliefs.

The case has ramifications beyond Washington, as California, Minnesota, New Mexico and Illinois have similar laws or executive orders in place.

International Partners for Ethical Care, Inc. (IPEC) v. Ferguson  could also affect cases in Arizona, California, Indiana, Maryland, Montana, Texas and other states which have removed children from parents’ custody because they would not allow damaging transgender medical interventions.

International Partners for Ethical Care, Inc. (IPEC) v. Ferguson will be heard in late 2026 or early 2027. The Daily Citizen will keep you informed about this important parental rights case.

Related articles and resources:

Activist Erin Friday on Protecting Kids and Fighting Gender Ideology

Colorado Bill Would Force Parents to Accept Child’s New ‘Gender Identity’

Erin Friday on Family Courts, ‘Transgender’ Sanctuary States and Fighting to Protect Parental Rights

HHS Tells States Not to Remove Children From Parents Who Affirm Biological Reality

Written by Jeff Johnston · Categorized: Culture, Family · Tagged: supreme court, transgender

  • Page 1
  • Page 2
  • Page 3
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Page 37
  • Go to Next Page »

Privacy Policy and Terms of Use | Privacy Policy and Terms of Use | © 2026 Focus on the Family. All rights reserved.

  • Cookie Policy