transgender

Yet Another Man Steals Women’s Trophies

A biological man won the 400- and 200-meter dash at the USA Track and Field Open Masters Championships on Saturday, beating out women as young as 14 years old.

Sadie, formerly Camden, Schreiner, is no stranger to taking trophies from female athletes. The 21-year-old has broken numerous school and competition records since he began competing as a woman in 2023.

President Trump’s executive order prohibiting men in federally funded education programs from competing in women’s sports will prevent Schreiner from competing on the Rochester Institute of Technology’s track team.

But the order doesn’t apply to private organizations like USA Track and Field (USATF).

USATF abides by the International Olympic Committee’s rules, which allows men to compete in some women’s sports if they meet low testosterone thresholds. Schreiner claims estrogen injections have rendered his testosterone levels “undetectable.”

It hasn’t impacted his success. In the 200-meter, Schreiner beat 14-year-old Zwange Edwards, 16-year-old Zariah Hargrove, 15-year-old Leah Walker and 18-year-old Ainsley Rausch. At least four other athletes scheduled to race in this category did not participate. Schreiner’s only two competitors in the 400-meter, 17-year-old Anna Vidolova and 16-year-old Amaris Hiatt, were similarly absent.

It’s unclear whether the missing athletes declined to compete against a man or missed the races for other reasons.

On his Instagram page, Schreiner defended his participation in women’s track and field by arguing estrogen injections had worsened his performance enough to be “equitable.”

As an 18-year-old man, Schreiner’s fastest time in the 400-meter put him in the 87th percentile of all male runners his age. As a 21-year-old “woman,” his fastest time puts him in the 87th percentile of all female runners his age. This similarity in relative performance, he argues, should qualify him to compete against women.

Estrogen may have slowed Schreiner down, but it hasn’t changed his biological makeup. Men’s bodies are better suited to running fast, with more ergonomic bone structure, higher bone density, larger lung capacity and a more efficient vascular system.  

These biological advantages can’t be changed or negated. That means, if Schreiner were truly a woman, he would be performing much worse.

No matter how you slice it, the fact remains — a man handicapped by estrogen injections does not a women make.

It’s not an intellectually difficult argument, but, somehow, this author has a hard time believing the USATF will jump to protect female athletes anytime soon.

Additional Articles and Resources

Trump Signs Executive Order Protecting Women’s Sports and Spaces

NCAA Ban on Men in Women’s Sports ‘Toothless,’ Say Advocates, Gaines

Olympic Women’s Boxing Champ is Officially a Man

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

Olympic Privilege? Officials Protect Women’s Sports — But Only at the Highest Level

Male and Female Biology Matters

New Study: Testosterone Blockers and Female Hormones Don’t Erase Male-Female Athletic Differences

NSA Sex Chats Reveal Nature of Gender Ideology

More than 100 federal officers across 15 intelligence organizations used the NSA’s chat service to send explicit messages about “male-to-female” transgender surgery, laser hair removal, polyamory and orgies.

Messages published by investigative journalists Chris Rufo and Hannah Grossman show the inappropriate discussions took place in “LBTQA” and “IC_Pride_TWG”— two government chat channels reportedly created in the name of “Diversity, Equity and Inclusion.”

Though Tulsi Gabbard, the newly-confirmed confirmed Director of National Intelligence, fired officers who participated in the chats, this incident is more than a government foul-up — it’s a referendum on the nature of gender ideology.

Here’s two truths believers must take away from the NSA’s sex chats.

Gender ideology spreads everywhere.

Gender ideology is like a tenacious weed — it spreads anywhere it’s planted.

American intelligence and counterintelligence agencies may not seem like places where gender ideology and its accoutrement would thrive. The sexually explicit messages at the NSA prove otherwise.

One of Rufo’s NSA insiders provided additional details in an article for City Journal.

“About ten years ago, [leadership] started doing the ‘employee resource groups’: African-American, veterans, Pride. It was just a meeting here and there…then it started to get more and more.”

The source continued:

You could be hired as a mathematician, a staff officer or system engineer, but you would spend your time going to these events and having meetings all day about it.
They got themselves into position to help craft policy and started pushing the idea that if you want to get promoted, you have to participate in these events.

No matter how much influence gender ideology wields in personnel decisions and time management, one might hope it wouldn’t affect the way agents do their jobs. Rufo’s insider says that isn’t true, either.

You had analysts that didn’t want to do the reporting they were supposed to be doing because they were going to have to report on somebody’s “dead name.” They were having this crisis of conscience about reporting the adversary’s actual name because they thought it was their “dead name,” and they didn’t want to disrespect the person.

Gender ideology infected the American intelligence apparatus, not because everyone believed in it, but because a few vocal activists faced only passive opposition.

It takes intentional, repeated efforts to root out gender ideology — and no piece of it can be left behind.

Remember that when similar ideas are introduced at your job, church or school.

Gender ideology is fundamentally sexual.

Gender activists work hard to separate gender ideology from sex. They support teaching it in schools. They reject or downplay assertion that men, in particular, can experience sexual gratification from dressing as or acting like women.

The NSA sex chats illustrate the truth: Gender ideology is a set of inherently sexual ideas and beliefs. That’s why, when they proliferated in the American intelligence community, transgender chat channels became increasingly sexual.

The messages released by Rufo frequently featured men who think they are, or want to be, women. Many expressed feeling sexual gratification after undergoing transgender medical interventions.

These commentors likely have autogynephilia — a paraphilia defined as “a male’s propensity to be sexually aroused by the thought of himself as a female.” As the Daily Citizen has previously reported, as many as 3% of men in Western countries may experience autogynephilia.

Academics believe it inspires many men to adopt “trans” identities and behaviors.

Autogynephilia is just one of the many paraphilias, fetishes and deviancies that find acceptance and encouragement in gender ideology. These undeniably sexual foundations are present in everything from drag to the ostensibly “age appropriate” gender unicorn cartoon given to students in public schools.

Why It Matters

Gender ideology is intractable and irreducibly sexual. Don’t give it any foothold in your or your kids’ lives.

Additional Articles and Resources

‘Transgender Means Many Different Things’ — And Nothing

Transgenderism and Minors: What Does the Research Really Show?

Parents Fight Back Against California School District’s Secret LGBT Clubs

What Does it Mean to Be Trans, Anyway?

The Shifting Ground of ‘Gender-Affirming Care’

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

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

New Gallup Poll Shows the Incoherence of ‘LGBTQ+’ Fiction

The Gallup polling group does an annual U.S. survey tracking how much of the population identifies as “LGBTQ+”. They released their most recent findings late last week, and this new data further demonstrates how incoherent this meaningless alphabet soup really is.

In 2023, 7.2% of Americans said these letters identified them in some way. In 2024, that number climbed slightly to 7.6%. This year, that number jumped to an even more unreasonable 9.3%. It is unreasonable because the whole idea that “LGBTQ+” represents anything objectively true and real — something that anyone actually is — is a myth.

Gallup reports this new 9.3 percentage apex has nearly doubled since 2020 and is much higher than 3.5% in 2012, the first year Gallup started polling these amorphous identities. Nearly all this growth has taken place among the younger generation, demonstrating this is more social/ideological contagion, rather than something that exists in nature.

What Does “LGBTQ+” Even Mean?

It is not unfair to question what this collection of letters even means.

Gallup explains they asked people if they “identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender or something other than heterosexual.” We must be mindful of the fact that increasing numbers of young people believe its unfashionable to identify as heterosexual, regardless of their actual sexual desires or behaviors. We are naive if we assume someone saying they are “LBGTQ+” means they are attracted to the same-sex or identify as some “other gender.” When asked to identify which of the letters (or the undefined +) they identify with, the majority of this elastic group said they were either bisexual (5.2%) while 5% declined to give an identity at all. This is very telling.

Only 2% said they were “gay,” 1.4% identified at “lesbian” and just 1.3% said they were “transgender.” Fewer than 1% said they were some other identity like pansexual, asexual or queer.

It has been documented that respondents don’t always mean what we might think they mean when they identify as non-heterosexual. Eric Kaufmann, a Canadian professor of politics at the University of Buckingham in England, found in his 2022 research that “LGBT identification was running at twice the rate of LGBT sexual behavior” [emphasis added].

Kaufmann adds, “The majority of the increase in LGBT identity can be traced to how those who only engage in heterosexual behavior describe themselves.” In effect, young people are increasingly using the imprecise “LGBTQ+” identity for reasons beyond what their actual behavior is.

Kaufmann concludes, “Overall, the data suggest that while there has been an increase in same-sex behavior in recent years, sociopolitical factors likely explain most of the rise in LGBT identity.”

Leftist commentator and comedian Bill Maher famously skewered the incoherence of this exploding “LGBTQ+” identity among our youth.

Maher wryly notes that “if we follow this trajectory, we will all be gay in 2054!” Of course, that is no more true than it is that nearly 10 percent of Americans are gay, lesbian or trans. Young people are increasingly identifying with this mish-mash alphabet soup because its trendy and it challenges norms, something nearly every generation of young people has been eager to do to express their so-called independence.

Research published in 2023 in The Journal of Sex Research explains researching adolescent sexual identity is confusing because, they find, “sexual orientation is multidimensional and fluid.” The categories are increasingly meaningless. So much so, that “for many gender diverse adolescents, common questions about sexuality, sexual behavior, and sexual orientation were simply impossible to answer.” Findings “showed multiple developmental patterns, but overall, many adolescents were ‘fluid’ in the sexual identity label and romantic attraction they reported …”

That is what happen when we tell our youth they can literally define their own realities.

Does “LGBTQ+” Even Exist?

Douglas Murray, a British public intellectual who identifies as homosexual, explains in his very important book, The Madness of Crowds, that LGBTQ+ is an absurd fiction.

LGBT is now one of the groupings which mainstream politicians routinely speak about – and to – as if they actually exist like a racial or religious community. It is a form of absurdity. For even on its own terms this composition is wildly unsustainable and contradictory.

Why?

Murray is very clear. “Gay men and gay women have almost nothing in common. … Neither have very much use for each other, and almost none meet in any ‘communal’ spaces.” He adds, “Gay men and gay women, meanwhile, have a famous amount of suspicion towards people who claim to be ‘bisexual.’”

He is not done.

“And there is tremendous dispute over whether the T’s are the same thing as everybody else, or an insult to them” and “Queers want to be recognized as fundamentally different to everyone else, and to use that difference to tear down the kind of order that gays are working to get into.”

No, “LGBTQ+” does not exist as a meaningful, coherent category. That is precisely why polling like this from Gallup and other such organizations only tells us how many young people don’t want to be affiliated as mainstream and are all too happy to confuse pollsters with completely made up categories.

Additional Resources

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

Why Christians Can’t Avoid the “Trans” and Gender Redefinition Issue

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

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

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

Are Sex and Gender Different Things?

No GLAAD, Gender Ideology is NOT ‘Settled Science.’ It’s the Opposite

Why Focus on the Family Cares About the Gender Issue?

Yes, Sexuality and Gender Are Undeniable Gospel Issues

Image from Shutterstock

NCAA Ban on Men in Women’s Sports ‘Toothless,’ Say Advocates, Gaines

Flag on the play — the NCAA’s new gender policy won’t keep men out of women’s college sports, advocates like Riley Gaines allege.

The Policy

The NCAA ostensibly barred men from women’s teams earlier this month after President Trump signed “Keeping Men Out of Women’s Sports,” an executive order disqualifying educational organizations that allow men to join women’s sports teams from receiving federal funding.

The NCAA had previously allowed men undergoing transgender hormone interventions to compete on women’s teams. Under these rules, Gaines, an NCAA all-American swimmer, was forced to compete against — and share a locker room with — Lia Thomas, a man.

Eligibility Loophole

The NCAA’s new policy forbids “males assigned at birth” from competing on female teams, but it only defines “male” and “female” as the “designation doctors assign to infants at birth, which is marked on their birth records.”

The vast majority of states allow birth certificates to be altered to a person’s “preferred gender.”

According to the Movement Advancement Project, a non-profit advancing gender ideology, only six states — Florida, Kansas, Montana, Oklahoma, Tennessee and Texas — allow no changes to birth certificates.

Most states, and the District of Columbia, will change a person’s sex on their birth certificate if they provide evidence of undergoing transgender medical interventions. Fourteen states — California, Idaho, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington — will make changes upon request, no questions asked.

In an article critiquing the NCAA’s “toothless” policy, Jennifer Sey, a former member of the U.S. National Gymnastics Team and the founder of XX-XY Athletics, argues that states are working to accelerate the birth certificate editing process to get ahead of rules like the NCAA’s.

She points to Governor Bob Ferguson of Washington State, who announced on February 12, “The [Washington] Department of Health will now process all requests to change gender designation on birth certificates within three business days. Previously, there was as much as a 10-month wait.”

“Hurrah! Now men can lie faster!” Sey opined.

An NCAA spokesperson tried to dodge criticism, telling Fox News, “The policy is clear that there are no waivers available, and athletes assigned male at birth may not compete on a women’s team with amended birth certificates or other forms of ID.”

But this language isn’t included in the policy — quite the opposite. The organization explicitly writes, “Schools are subject to local, state and federal legislation and such legislation supersedes the rules of the NCAA.”

Does this mean the NCAA will accept “edited” birth certificates from states that allow such changes? It doesn’t say. Nor does it take responsibility for verifying the authenticity of athletes’ identification, writing, in part:

As with all other NCAA eligibility criteria, member schools remain responsible for certifying student-athlete eligibility for practice and competition.

The NCAA’s hands-off approach makes it easy for administrators to rubber-stamp “edited” birth certificates and allow men onto women’s teams.

Practice Squad Loophole

In an interview with Fox, Gaines identified another glaring problem with the NCAA’s revised policy — it allows men who practice with women’s teams access to “benefits” afforded to female athletes.

“A student-athlete assigned male at birth may practice on the team consistent with their gender identity and receive all other benefits applicable to student-athletes who are otherwise eligible for practice,” the document reads.

An NCAA spokesperson told Fox the carve-out protects women’s teams that routinely practice against men, like basketball teams. But the policy doesn’t include any language forbidding men in these situations from accessing women’s locker rooms.

“No mater how you read it, men are still allowed to receive women’s benefits, which includes access to their locker rooms,” Gaines told Fox. “There’s no screening. There’s no oversight.”

Why the Hesitation?

Women deserve to compete in single-sex sports and change in single-sex locker rooms. That’s called equality. The NCAA purports to agree, but their policy doesn’t reflect the position it represents to the news.

If the NCAA truly wants to keep men out of women’s sports, it shouldn’t have any problem requiring athletes to present unedited birth certificates or forbid men on practice squads from accessing women’s locker rooms.

The longer the NCAA refuses to address these oversights, the more likely it seems they’re not interested in protecting women in their organization.

That’s a big problem.

Additional Articles and Resources

ADF: Victory for women, girls: Federal court rejects Biden admin redefinition of ‘sex’ in Title IX across country

Biden Becomes Nation’s Most Powerful Trans Activist With Executive Order

Court Rules Against DOE’s Title IX Rewrite, Saving Women’s Sports & Spaces – For Now

House Passes Bill Protecting Women and Girls in Sports

Olympic Women’s Boxing Champ is Officially a Man

Middle School Girls Who Protested ‘Trans’ Athlete Are Banned From Future Competition

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

Olympic Privilege? Officials Protect Women’s Sports — But Only at the Highest Level

INVESTIGATION: Taxpayers Fund Transgender Experiments on Children

The federal government has spent at least $6.8 million taxpayer dollars on grants funding transgender medical experiments on minors, a Daily Citizen investigation reveals.

The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is paying on three active, multi-year grants funding experiments testing the effects of opposite-sex hormones and so-called puberty blockers on minors. Worth a cumulative $16.4 million, the last of these grants won’t conclude until April 2026.

In 2015, the National Institutes of Health (NIH), a subsidiary of HHS, promised to pay UCLA $9.7 million to conduct a study titled, “The Impact of Early Medical Treatment in Transgender Youth.”

In practice, the experiment involved injecting 95 gender confused kids with drugs designed to treat illnesses like prostate cancer and observing what happened to their brains. When it came time to release the results — that “puberty blockers did not lead to mental health improvements” — Dr. Johanna Olson-Kennedy and her colleagues demurred.

When The New York Times unearthed the buried study in October, Olson-Kennedy justified her decision:

[It] might fuel the kind of political attacks that have led to bans of the young gender treatments in more than 20 states.

Olson-Kennedy is referring to states that ban doctors from performing the transgender medical interventions on minors — the kinds of “treatments” she’s made a living off.

Even crazier? Taxpayers are still paying for a study they’ve yet to see. According to federal grant documents, HHS will pay the remaining $6.6 million it promised by January 2026.

HHS will conclude a seven-year, $3.7 million grant to Leland Stanford Junior University in May, which went toward studying “sex hormone effects on neurodevelopment” and “controlled puberty in transgender adolescents.”

A large portion of the experiment fell under the direction of Dr. Stephen M. Rosenthal — the co-founder and medical director of UCSF’s Child and Adolescent Gender Center and one of the four doctors, including Olson-Kennedy, responsible for the UCLA experiment.

What a coincidence.

According to the college’s grant proposal, Rosenthal played a key roll in sourcing kids to experiment on:

Dr. Rosenthal will be a leading member of a [national] network of pediatric gender clinics’ medical directors and will assist in the dissemination of information regarding the study…for the purposes of establishing a referral stream for enrollment.

HHS’ third, and smallest, ongoing grant promises a cool $3 million to the Research Institute at Nationwide Children’s Hospital to study, “The impact of pubertal suppression on adolescent, neural and mental health trajectories.”

More than 130 children participated in the study, which compared the wellbeing of those on puberty blockers with the wellbeing of those who haven’t.

In its grant proposal, the hospital admits that puberty blockers aren’t well researched:

Puberty blockers are the WPATH and Endocrine Society standard of care but [they] may also disrupt puberty-signaled neural maturation in ways that can undermine mental health gains over time and impact quality of life in other ways.
The overall impacts of [puberty blocker] treatments have not been systematically studied in order to probe these effects.

The implications of these grants are staggering, proving not only that the government uses taxpayer money to experiment on children, but that gender activists don’t answer to the people funding them. These government grantees aggressively recruit kids into the transgender medical pipeline and aren’t afraid to hide study results to bolster their own narrative.

American families deserve to know what their taxes pay for. Kids deserve to know their government isn’t interested in conducting inhumane experiments — least of all on them.

Seems like a pretty simple ask.

Additional Articles and Resources

Kansas Governor Vetoes ‘Help Not Harm’ Bill — Child Advocates Call for Override

Doctor Refuses to Publish Major Study Finding Puberty-Blocking Drugs Don’t Help Children

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

UK Bans Puberty Blockers for ‘Transgender’ Minors

American Society of Plastic Surgeons Backs Away From Supporting ‘Transgender’ Surgeries

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

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

The WPATH Files Exposes ‘Surgical and Hormonal Experiments on Children’

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

Transgenderism and Minors: What Does the Research Really Show?