transgender

US Supreme Court Upholds Tennessee Law Protecting Kids From Transgender Mutilation

On June 18, the United States Supreme Court issued a historic 6-3 decision in United States v. Skrmetti, upholding Tennessee’s law banning the “transgender” mutilation of minors. The ruling is a monumental win for children, families and commonsense policy making.

The decision affirms the state’s authority to protect minors from dangerous and experimental transgender medical procedures. It also rejects the argument that children have a constitutional right to access medical interventions like opposite-sex hormones and surgery. The Court’s decision sets significant legal precedent in favor of state sovereignty and the democratic policy making process to determine the controversial issues of the day.

As previously reported by the Daily Citizen,  Tennessee’s Senate Bill 1 prohibits doctors from prescribing puberty-blocking drugs and opposite-sex hormones or performing surgeries to “transition” a minor. The ACLU and LGBT activists challenged the law, claiming that it violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment in the U.S. Constitution because it discriminated on the basis of sex.

Chief Justice John Roberts authored the Supreme Court’s majority opinion and was joined by Justices Thomas, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett. Justice Alito joined the majority opinion in part.

Roberts explained that the law does not discriminate against transgender-identified individuals because it applies neutrally to all individuals on the basis of age and medical purpose. The majority applied rational basis review, the lowest level of constitutional scrutiny, because classifying by age and medical purpose does not require a higher level of legal scrutiny. Based on a rational basis review, the Court concluded that Tennessee has a legitimate interest in protecting children from unproven and potentially harmful medical treatments and surgeries.

The majority also opined that it’s not the role of the Court to settle ongoing debates about transgender medical interventions for minors. Roberts wrote:

This case carries with it the weight of fierce scientific and policy debates about the safety, efficacy, and propriety of medical treatments in an evolving field. … The Court’s role is not ‘to judge the wisdom, fairness, or logic’ of the law before us, but only to ensure that the law does not violate equal protection guarantees. … It does not. … Questions regarding the law’s policy are thus appropriately left to the people, their elected representatives, and the democratic process.

Justice Thomas concurred separately and argued that gender identity should not be extended to sex-based equal protection doctrine and reiterated that rational basis review is “critical to safeguarding” a legitimate government interest.

Justice Barrett also filed a concurrence emphasizing that “courts must give legislatures flexibility to make policy in this area.”

Justice Alito concurred in part and underscored the right of states to regulate these matters and clarified his position that “transgender status does not qualify under our precedents as a suspect or ‘quasi-suspect’ class” that deserves a heightened constitutional review.

The Court’s ruling places the United States (at least in the 26 states that have enacted Help Not Harm laws) in line with several European countries — such as Sweden, Finland, and the United Kingdom — that have restricted the use of these treatments in minors due to safety concerns and a lack of long-term evidence.

Justices Sotomayor, Jackson and Kagan dissented from the majority, arguing that the law discriminates on the basis of sex and transgender status and should have been reviewed with a heightened scrutiny. The dissent also maintained that to deny minors transgender medical intervention is a violation of constitutional protections.

The majority opinion is a decisive win for the idea that the people should resolve controversial medical and moral issues of the day by democratic processes rather than judicial fiat.

This ruling will set a strong precedent for the constitutionality of similar laws nationwide.

Focus on the Family applauds the Court’s decision. This ruling will help families protect their children from radical trans ideology that tries to deny the inherent goodness of God’s design for human sexuality and the value of male and female made in His image. 

Now is the time to call on Congress to pass a federal law to ban experimental trans interventions on minors nationwide. Every child in America deserves to be protected from reckless medical experimentation. Contact your senator and representative today.

Image from Getty.

Children’s Hospital Los Angeles Shuts Down Harmful ‘Center for Transyouth’

Children’s Hospital Los Angeles is shutting down their harmful “Center for Transyouth Health and Development,” one of the oldest and largest children’s “gender clinics” in the country.

Pro-child advocates celebrated the closure, as the center will no longer be irreparably damaging minors with irreversible, experimental puberty blockers, opposite sex hormones and surgeries.

The “transyouth” clinic stated its decision “followed a thorough legal and financial assessment of the increasingly severe impacts of recent administrative actions and proposed policies.”

Those administrative actions included announcements by the Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation that they would be investigating and prosecuting those responsible for mutilating and sterilizing children with sexual identity confusion.

In announcing its closure, the “transgender” clinic stated:

For more than 30 years, Children’s Hospital Los Angeles has provided high-quality, evidence-based, medically essential care for transgender and gender-diverse youth, young adults, and their families. CHLA is immensely proud of this legacy of caring for young people on the path to achieving their authentic selves.

Despite this deeply held commitment to supporting LA’s gender-diverse community, the hospital has been left with no viable path forward except to close the Center for Transyouth Health and Development, effective July 22, 2025.

It’s important to know that the interventions the clinic refers to as “medically essential care” do not have “high-quality, evidence-based” research behind them. This is a bald-faced lie.

A recent, comprehensive HHS review, Treatment for Pediatric Gender Dysphoria Review of Evidence and Best Practices, found a lack of good evidence for using drugs, hormones and surgeries for children suffering from sexual identity confusion.

A news release from HHS clearly explained the troubling paucity of evidence and grave risks for confused children who receive these drugs, hormones and surgeries:

This review, informed by an evidence-based medicine approach, reveals serious concerns about medical interventions, such as puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and surgeries, that attempt to transition children and adolescents away from their sex.

The review highlights a growing body of evidence pointing to significant risks – including irreversible harms such as infertility – while finding very weak evidence of benefit. That weakness has been a consistent finding of systematic reviews of evidence around the world.

The HHS report lists other countries that have stopped or limited these damaging, disfiguring treatments, including Denmark, Sweden, and Norway. They all found a lack of scientific evidence for these procedures and noted the serious harms and risks to minors.

In addition to the HHS report, England’s Dr. Hilary Cass spent four years reviewing the evidence about “gender identity” interventions for minors and released a 388-page report with 12 research-based appendices.

Dr. Cass explains that there is little evidence for using drugs, hormones and surgeries for minors:

This is an area of remarkably weak evidence, and yet results of studies are exaggerated or misrepresented by people on all sides of the debate to support their viewpoint. The reality is that we have no good evidence on the long-term outcomes of interventions to manage gender related distress.

Journalist and pro-child activist Brandon Showalter has written extensively about the horrible damage to minors from transgender medicine. He touted the closure of the clinic in a post on X:

Focus on the Family heartily agrees. We are thankful that the closure of this clinic means more children will be protected from these experimental, ineffective, disfiguring procedures.

Related Articles and Resources

To speak with a family help specialist or request resources, please call us at 1-800-A-FAMILY (232-6459).

Counseling Consultation & Referrals

Transgender Resources

God’s Amazing Grace in a Transgendered Person’s Life

Chloe Cole: Gender Reassignment Surgery Regret

Addressing Gender Identity with Honesty and Compassion

Support for Parent Whose Adult Child Identifies as Transgender

Discussing Transgender Issues With Teens

Pam Bondi Directs DOJ Attorneys to Investigate Transgender Procedures for Minors

FBI, DOJ Target Those Mutilating Children with ‘Transgender’ Drugs and Surgeries

Image from Shutterstock.

A Man Conned His Way Into A Women’s Prison. Now, Officials Can’t Make Him Leave.

A violent Illinois inmate conned his way into a women’s prison in 2019 by declaring himself “transgender.” Now, he’s refusing transgender medical interventions — but prison officials still aren’t allowed to transfer him to a men’s facility.

The women he’s housed with are paying the price.

A Wolf in … Wolf’s Clothing

Andre Patterson entered the Illinois prison system in 2005. The 36-year-old will serve at least 18 more years for several violent crimes, including murdering his cellmate in 2006.

In 2019, Patterson joined an American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) lawsuit pressuring the Illinois Department of Corrections (IDOC) to provide transgender medical interventions to transgender-identified inmates.

IDOC subsequently transferred Patterson, now calling himself “Janiah Monroe,” to Logan Correctional Center — a woman’s prison.

In court, Patterson claimed conditions in the men’s prison, including his lack of access to women’s undergarments and sufficient hair removal methods, had caused him to harm himself. He believed moving to a women’s facility would alleviate his distress.

“At Logan Correctional Center, I hope to be subject to less violence and harassment, and to have the opportunity to live more consistently with my gender identity,” he wrote in his testimony for the ACLU.

But his desire to peacefully coexist with “other women” apparently waned upon entering Logan. On June 18, 2019, Patterson allegedly raped a woman in his housing unit. In a  lawsuit filed a year later, lawyers described the victim’s fear of Patterson:

Plaintiff was terrified of this inmate as the inmate was much bigger and stronger than plaintiff. Plaintiff had also heard that this inmate had assaulted prior cellmates and had been convicted of murder.

IDOC officials transferred the victim to an entirely different prison just four days after Patterson assaulted her.

Changing His Mind

IDOC tried to transfer Patterson back to a men’s facility in 2024, when he started refusing his opposite-sex hormone treatments.

His legal team objected, assuring a judge he still “identified” as a woman.

“We know [Patterson’s] position on gender-affirming care has changed multiple times, recently, not necessarily because [his] identity has changed, or not because [he’s] not ‘trans,’ but because of conditions and how things have been at Logan,” Reduxx quotes Patterson’s attorney.

The IDOC presented evidence showing Patterson had not only asked to discontinue opposite-sex hormones but even agreed to voluntarily return to a men’s prison.

“Both of those things are now not true,” Patterson’s lawyer responded.

The judge sided with Patterson, requiring IDOC give him at least two-weeks’ notice of any transfer to “give an opportunity for Patterson to challenge [it].”

The order effectively allows Patterson’s attorneys to indefinitely postpone his transfer to a men’s prison.

The Con

The fluidity of “transgenderism” shields obvious incongruencies in Patterson’s testimony and behavior.

In his statement for the ACLU, Patterson claimed, in part, that he’d “always known” he’d been a girl and began opposite-sex hormones at just 12 years old. He said the IDOC finally resumed his opposite-sex hormone therapy in 2012 after he repeatedly tried to harm himself.

It’s unclear which parts, if any, of his statement are true. He wrote, for instance, that he entered the Illinois prison system in 2008. But his IDOC profile says he was first incarcerated in December 2005. He remained incarcerated after he murdered his cellmate the following year.

It’s also apparent that Patterson’s pathology does not stem from confusion over his sexual identity. He would not refuse “gender-affirming” treatments if they assuaged his mental discomfort. He would not allegedly rape a female inmate if he desired to live among women in peace.

Federal Reform

President Trump’s executive order “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government” requires federal detention centers to segregate prisoners by sex. It also prevents the federal Bureau of Prisons from spending tax dollars on prisoners’ transgender hormonal or surgical interventions.

But Congress has not yet codified these provisions into law, which means future presidential administrations could remove them.

The order also doesn’t apply to state-controlled prison systems like IDOC.

Why It Matters

Politicians and judges in Illinois have created state-level incentives for men like Patterson to infiltrate women’s prisons.

In December 2019, the ACLU won its case against the IDOC, with a federal judge ordering the department to provide transgender-identified prisoners with “medically necessary hormone therapy, access to clinicians qualified to treat gender dysphoria and the ability to socially transition.”

Patterson “socially transitioned,” in part, by moving to a female prison. The court’s ruling effectively gives the hundred other transgender-identified Illinois prisoners represented by the ACLU the opportunity to do the same.

In 2020, the inmate Patterson raped filed a lawsuit alleging employees at Logan punished her for reporting his conduct. After coercing her to call the assault “consensual,” a statement she later retracted, the victim claims correctional officers accused her of filing a false report.

The suit speculates prison employees covered up Patterson’s conduct to justify transferring him to a women’s prison:

The transfer of transgender inmates from male to female prisons has been a contentious policy within IDOC.
In an attempt to justify the transfers, Defendants … covered up the sexual assault of [the victim] and tried to falsely classify it as consensual to keep it from being considered a violation [of prison conduct].

A judge dismissed the victim’s complaint in 2022 because she lacked evidence against specific employees. But that doesn’t mean her allegations are false. Illinois prisons have undeniable incentive to keep transgender-identified prisoners’ crimes quiet — it’s the only way to simultaneously pacify the powers-that-be and keep the public off their backs.

Every part of Patterson’s case, and the Pandora’s box it unlocked, is unacceptable. It’s long past time for states to make prisons single sex again.

Additional Articles and Resources

Taxpayers Will Fund Violent Inmate’s Transgender Surgery, Judge Rules

Activist Group WPATH Influences Judgement in Case of Prisoner Receiving Trans Surgery

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

Judge up for Promotion Moved Serial Rapist and Pedophile into Female Prison

New Docuseries Paints Chilling Picture of Women Forced to Live with Men in Prison

Female Prisoners Beg for Help in Light of California Law That Lets Men Who Identify as Women into Women-Only Prisons

Lawsuit Filed Against California for Allowing Men Into Women’s Prisons

‘Transgender Means Many Different Things’ — And Nothing

Rape Victims Must Refer to Male Rapist in Court with ‘She/Her’ Pronouns

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

LGBT Issues and the Church: Problems With a ‘Gay Christian’ Identity

This is part one of an ongoing series on problematic trends in the church regarding LGBT issues.

There’s a movement in Christian circles where those struggling with same-sex attractions identify themselves with terms like “gay Christian” or “gay celibate Christian.”

Others use terms like “sexual minority Christians,” “queer Christian” or even “trans Christian.”

Many who describe themselves this way – but by no means all – say they are embracing chastity or celibacy and pursuing a relationship with Christ. That is, they believe the historic, biblical Christian sexual ethic, that God created humans male and female, and sexual expression is reserved for the marriage relationship of a husband and wife.

A number of Christian writers and ministries have adopted this nomenclature, with some of them training churches and other ministries to follow their lead.

Focus on the Family does not believe these terms are biblical or helpful for same-sex-attracted strugglers. Although these groups and individuals hold to biblical teaching that transgender and homosexual lust and behavior are wrong, they fail to practice Scripture’s teaching on identity – who believers are in Christ.

We are not questioning the faith of individuals who use this language, but we would challenge the wisdom and rationale for calling themselves or others “gay Christians” or similar terms.

There are a number of arguments that people give for using “gay Christian,” including:

  • “Gay” best describes my life experience as different from “heterosexual” folks.
  • I take a “missiological” or “missional” approach, using “gay Christian” as a way of relating to non-Christian LGBT-identified people and reaching them for Christ.
  • It’s polite to practice “pronoun hospitality,” using a person’s “chosen pronouns” and self-described “gender.”  
  • “Gay” is simply a linguistic synonym for “same-sex attracted,” and most people think of “gay” in this manner.
  • Saying, “I’m a gay Christian” doesn’t define me – it’s just like using language like, “I’m American” or “I’m a surfer” or “I am  a mechanic.”

While this article will not answer all these arguments, we’ll answer more in the future and discuss other areas of concern where many in the church have succumbed to harmful LGBT ideology.

For now, here are four reasons why identifying as a “gay Christian” is not biblical, wise or helpful. (N.B.: It’s cumbersome to use all the different LGBT terms throughout this article, so I’ll generally use “gay” as a catch-all for the wide range of “identities” created by LGBT activists.)

1. Dividing up the world into “gays” and “straights” is an unbiblical, false modern construct.

    Humans are either male or female. This is actually a core identity – along with, for believers, the deeper, Christian identity of being a son or daughter of our Father. Both male and female are made in the image of God and both are good and valuable and necessary complements for each other.

    Yet many in the world, and especially LGBT-identified people, see the world divided up into sexual identities: “gay” or “straight”; “transgender” or “cisgender”; “heterosexual” or “homosexual.” These are all modern, man-made identities based on sexual thoughts, feelings, socio-political constructs, behaviors and attractions.

    The terminology lends itself to the idea that “gays” are a different type of people from “straights.” This is not how Scripture identifies people – so why should we?

    2. It’s unbiblical and disconnected from Church history – not to mention nonsensical – to call oneself a “gay Christian.”

    Here’s a simple thought experiment: Can you imagine any of the early believers identifying this way? “Hi, I’m James; I’m the gay apostle.”

    It’s absurd.

    It’s just as much of a problem if you substitute the Greek words commonly translated “homosexual” in the New Testament. First, there’s the word “arsenokotoi,” meaning “men who lie with other men” – which is what many mean by our modern term “gay.” It’s impossible to believe that any man throughout Church history would say, “I’m an arsenokotoi, but also a chaste Christian.”

    It’s oxymoronic.

    Malakoi is another word for homosexuality in Scripture; it means effeminate or soft. No disciple would ever say, “That’s Nicodemus; he’s the effeminate follower of Jesus.”

    No. Adding “gay” to “Christian” is to detach from biblical and historic Christianity. It puts a barrier between a believer and his true identity in Christ.

    3. “Gay Christians” argue that “gay” is the equivalent of “same-sex attractions.” But that’s not really how most people use this language.  

    While people sometimes use “gay” to mean “same-sex attracted,” the term is more often used as if “being gay” were a person’s core identity. People use language like, “I discovered my true self,” or “He’s gay” or “I came out as gay” – as if revealing their central, most authentic self.

    I would argue that most people assume that when someone says, “I’m gay,” it means the person is not only same-sex attracted, but also acting on their desires and pursuing same-sex romantic or sexual relationships. The redefinition of marriage to include “gay marriage” has further cemented this into people’s minds, regardless of whether someone adds the term “celibate” or “single” as a modifier.

    Using “gay Christian” language is even more confusing today because so many churches, denominations and religious colleges affirm LGBT attractions, identities and relationships. Activist groups like the Human Rights Campaign, Q Christian Fellowship, “Side A Christians,” and The Reformation Project actively promote “gay Christianity.”

    The linguistic sleight of hand of those who say, “Well, when I say, ‘gay Christian’ I mean I’m attracted to the same sex,” is not convincing when “gay” is so connected to sexual lust and behavior in the minds of many. Why use language that is so confusing?

    4. Calling oneself “gay” buys into the lie that we define ourselves by our own thoughts, feelings, beliefs, and romantic and sexual attractions.

    In his book Strange New World, Carl Trueman describes our modern culture’s view of “the self,” which he says is characterized by people believing they create or discover their “true identity.”

    “Being gay” is part of a broken world where  “expressive individualism” rules.

    Truman writes, “The priority that the LGBTQ+ movement places on sexual desire and inner feelings relative to personal identity is part of this broader accent on the inner, psychological life of Western people that shapes us all.”

    It’s difficult to see why authentic Jesus followers would buy into this postmodern ideology and see sexual attractions (or “sexual orientation,” a spurious concept invented by psychologists) as a core part of themselves, worthy of being placed in front of being a Christian. This is not a biblical view of personhood. Certainly sex and sexuality are part of who we are, but they aren’t the defining aspect of believers’ lives.

    I’ve read a lot of the arguments from “gay Christians”; far too much ink has been spilled on debating this question. But I have yet to see an argument for this terminology that is rooted in Scripture.

    It’s important for the whole Church to have correct thinking on this issue. The language people use to describe themselves is an important theological consideration, not a matter of preference or self-definition.

    So we do not define people by sexual attractions or sexual behaviors. Rather we see men and women, created in God’s image and deeply loved by Him.

    Related Articles and Resources

    10 Things Everyone Should Know About a Christian View of Homosexuality

    Carl Trueman: Strange New World: How Thinkers and Activists Redefined Identity and Sparked the Sexual Revolution

    Is ‘Gay Christian’ a Proper Term?

    Joe Dallas: In Other Words, Part One, Two and Three

    Linda Seiler: Becoming the Woman God Made Me to Be; Trans-Formation: A Former Transgender Responds to LGBTQ

    Rosaria Butterfield: Accepting My True Identity in Christ, Part One and Part Two; The Secret Thoughts of an Unlikely Convert; Five Lies of Our Anti-Christian Age

    Image from Shutterstock.

    California Sues DOJ Over ‘Transgender’ Athlete Ban

    California is suing the Justice Department over its demand the state prohibit male athletes from competing in women’s and girls sports.

    The lawsuit retaliates against letters sent to California school districts by Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon last week, ordering them to certify the ban “in writing” because “knowingly depriving female students of athletic opportunities and benefits on the basis of their sex would constitute unconstitutional sex discrimination under the Equal Protection Clause.”

    “Defendants have no right to make such a demand,” the California lawsuit states. It continues:

    Instead, allowing athletic participation consistent with students’ gender identity is substantially related to the important government interests of affording all students the benefits of an inclusive school environment, including participation in school sports, and preventing the serious harms that transgender students would suffer from a discriminatory, exclusionary policy.

    Of course, the lawsuit makes no mention of the “serious harms” to women that result from males competing in their sports.

    This heated pushback is occurring despite President Trump’s recent executive order, “Keeping Men Out of Women’s Sports.”

    This February order explains that males competing in women’s sports is “demeaning, unfair, and dangerous to women and girls, and denies women and girls the equal opportunity to participate and excel in competitive sports.”

    The order later states:

    It is the policy of the United States to rescind all funds from educational programs that deprive women and girls of fair athletic opportunities, which results in the endangerment, humiliation, and silencing of women and girls and deprives them of privacy. 

    It shall also be the policy of the United States to oppose male competitive participation in women’s sports more broadly, as a matter of safety, fairness, dignity, and truth.

    California Attorney General Rob Bonta argues this presidential executive order violates California antidiscrimination laws, including California Interscholastic Federation (CIF) rules.

    The CIF governs California public and private school sports. It contains a bylaw that forces “gender identity” recognition “in a manner that is consistent with their gender identity, irrespective of the gender listed on a student’s records.”

    However, Julie Hamill, principal attorney with California Justice Center, is adamant that the U.S. Constitution provides protection for biologically female athletes – rights that California is violating by “allowing males into ‘girls only’ categories.”

    Permitting males to compete in women’s and girls sports also violates Title IX, a federal civil rights law enacted in 1972 which prohibits sex discrimination in education programs and activities receiving federal financial assistance.

    Hamill stated, “By continuing to fan flames of division and play politics, leftist politicians and media outlets are causing further harm to American girls.”

    This was especially evident in May when female athletes were forced to share their podium with AB Hernandez, a male, at the California State Track and Field Championships. 

    “Watching two girls share one of the biggest moments of their athletic careers with a male competitor was a painful reminder of how far we’ve strayed from truth and fairness,” said Sophia Lorey, outreach director at California Family Council.

    “What I witnessed at the California State Track and Field Championships was not progress, it was the erasure of girls sports,” she continued.

    Focus on the Family couldn’t agree more. California’s lawsuit seems intent upon harming countless young girls and their rights, while protecting men pretending to be women. This unfair policy not only strips female athletes of their hard-earned achievements but also violates their basic human rights as women.

    Please pray California’s lawsuit is defeated in court.

    Related Articles and Resources

    Transgender Resources

    What is “Gender Identity?”

    Addressing Gender Identity with Honesty and Compassion

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

    Department of Justice Launches Title IX Task Force to Protect Women’s Sports

    Girls Shouldn’t Apologize for Protesting Boys in Girls Sports

    Trump Signs Executive Order Protecting Women’s Sports and Spaces

    Female Athletes Challenge Minnesota Policy Forcing Them to Compete Against Males