transgender

Washington State Citizens Fight for Parents’ Rights, Girls Sports

Supporters of parents’ rights and girls sports submitted two citizen initiatives to the Washington State Legislature. 

Restoring the Parents’ Bill of Rights, IL26-001, repeals sections of legislation passed in 2025 that stripped parents of their rights in education. 

The measure guarantees parents have access to their children’s instructional materials and school records; requires parental notification when schools provide medical services; allows parents to opt children out of surveys, questionnaires and sexual education; and assures families their religious beliefs will be respected. 

Initiative Measure IL26-638, Protecting Fairness in Girls Sports, prohibits “male students from competing with and against female students in athletic activities with separate classifications for male and female students.” 

Brian Noble, CEO of the Family Policy Institute of Washington, explained to the Daily Citizen, “Both initiatives are a demonstration of how citizens in Washington can impact policy despite conservatives being significantly outnumbered in both the Washington House and Senate.” 

He added: 

God has given us a scriptural mandate to be engaged actively on the battlefield of the public square. Scripture calls Christians to steward all that God has created, including the governmental sphere.

Let’s Go Washington collected more than 416,000 signatures for the parents’ rights initiative and more than 445,000 signatures for the girls sports measure. Valid signatures from 308,911 voters are needed to send the measure to the legislature. 

Brian Heywood, leader of Let’s Go Washington, commented on the two measures to the Washington State Standard, bluntly stating, “This is not a partisan issue, this is a common sense issue.” 

The measures have “broad support,” he added, with more than half of the signatures coming from liberals and independents. 

Both proposals are “indirect initiated state statutes,” citizen-initiated ballot measures that are first presented to the Washington Legislature. According to Ballotpedia, the Legislature then has three options:  

  1. Adopt the initiative into law without sending it to the voters.
  2. Reject or not act on the initiative, in which case it is placed on the ballot for voters to decide.
  3. Approve an alternative version, in which case both the original proposal and the legislative alternative are placed on the ballot at the next state general election.

Current reports suggest the legislature will let the measures go the voters in November. 

The Parents’ Bill of Rights has a convoluted history. In 2024, Let’s Go Washington submitted enough signatures to send Initiative 2081, the first version of A Parents’ Bill of Rights, to the state legislature. The initiative passed and was signed into law. 

But then the legislature engaged in some tricksy behavior by passing HB 1296, a law which undermined local control of schools, supposedly “balanced” student rights with parents rights and actually eliminated some parents rights. Among other things, the legislation: 

  • Increased the time for schools to share records with parents from 10 business days to 45. 
  • Removed a parent’s right to access certain public school records, including medical or health records, and records of any mental health counseling.
  • Eliminated a parent’s right to be notified by public schools prior to medical services or medications being offered or referred to his or her child (even when it will cost parents).
  • Stripped the parental right to be notified and opt a child out of personally invasive surveys, assignments, role-playing activities, recordings or other student engagements. 
  • Removed a parent’s right to be notified if his/her child is taken or removed from a public school campus to stay at a youth shelter or “host home.” 

The new measure restores the original Parents’ Bill of Rights, rolling back the damaging effects of HB 1296. 

The Protecting Fairness in Girls Sports measure is also very much needed in Washington State. In December, Washington’s alternative weekly newspaper The Stranger reported, “In Washington, trans girls and boys have played with, and against, cis girls and boys for nearly two decades.” 

“Cis” is a term made up by transgender activists to designate real boys and girls, rather than those who mimic the opposite sex with clothes, makeup, drugs, hormones and surgeries. 

Washington’s Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI) requires all local educational agencies “to allow all students, including transgender and nonbinary students, the opportunity to participate on the interscholastic sports team that most closely aligns with their gender identity.” 

The U.S. Department of Justice and U.S. Department of Education are currently investigating OSPI for allowing “males to participate in female sports and occupy female-only intimate facilities, thereby raising substantial Title IX concerns.” 

Family Policy Institute of Washington, a Focus on the Family-allied organization, supports both initiatives. Noble told us: 

FPIW has proudly supported these initiatives, and we will continue to advocate for parental rights and the safety of our children as these initiatives move through the legislative process. 

Focus on the Family also supports parental rights in education and protecting girls and women’s sports. We trust Washington Christians and conservatives will engage with the initiative process and support these to important measures. 

Related articles and resources: 

Family Policy Institute of Washington

Let’s Go Washington : Rally to Support The Initiatives

Athletes Rally at Supreme Court to Keep Boys Out of Girls Sports

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

Focus on the Family Transgender Resources

How to Get In Touch With Your State Policy Group

Meet Three Heroes Working to Protect Colorado Children

President Trump: ‘There are Only Two Genders: Male and Female’

Supreme Court to Hear Title IX Girls Sports Case

Top 5 Moments From Supreme Court Arguments Over Girls Sports

Trump Signs Executive Order Protecting Women’s Sports and Spaces

Yes, Girls Care When Boys Take Their Trophies

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

The Colorado General Assembly is threatening parent’s rights if they oppose “transitioning” their child to a new “identity.”

In cases where parents divorce or separate, Senate Bill 26-018 mandates that courts take into consideration whether or not a parent supports a child’s “identity as it relates to a protected class” when “determining parenting time and allocation of decision-making responsibility.” 

The bill references a Colorado law that includes “gender identity” and “gender expression” as protected classes. 

A parent in a custody dispute who refuses to embrace a child’s rejection of his or her sex would be penalized by the court, granting preference to the parent who favors “transitioning” their child. 

This is already happening in Colorado — and across the nation — as courts and child protective service agencies are removing sexually confused children from parents, but SB 26-018 codifies this abuse of parental rights into law. 

The bill, Legal Protections for the Dignity of a Minor, also suppresses court records of a minor’s name change, hiding the child’s original name and sex. 

In Colorado, 14-year-olds can initiate a legal name change without parental consent, and one parent can petition to change a child’s name and identity, without the other parent’s permission, as long as a judge decides this is in the “best interests” of the child. 

The parent pushing a child toward dangerous, experimental “transgender” medical procedures gains an advantage in custody cases over the parent who believes in biological reality. 

This is the second year in a row Colorado’s state legislators have tried to force parents to agree with a child’s sexual identity confusion — or lose out in custody battles. 

In 2025, as the Daily Citizen reported, the state passed House Bill 1312, Concerning Legal Protections for Transgender Individuals. 

Governor Jared Polis signed the bill into law, despite vehement opposition from thousands of Colorado citizens who signed petitions, attended rallies at the Capitol, testified against the measure, and made phone calls and sent emails to the governor and legislators.

That bill originally had a provision which would have allowed the government to remove children struggling with sexual identity confusion from their parent’s custody if they “misgendered” or “deadnamed” their child — meaning they simply affirmed their child’s true sexual identity and given name.

Because of the backlash, that provision was finally dropped, but the final version of the bill still contained horrible provisions. HB 1312, now the law, allows a student to choose a different name and sexual identity while at school — and requires staff to lie by using the student’s “chosen name” and recognize his or her new identity.  

HB 1312 also requires schools to allow “each student to choose from any of the options provided in the dress code policy.” So boys may wear girls clothing — and vice versa. The law is facing litigation from several parents’ rights groups. 

Colorado is one of many states where courts and child protective service agencies are already attacking parents who do not support their child’s sexual identity confusion. 

Erin Lee, founder and director of Protect Kids Colorado, recently stated in an interview: 

I’ve now helped over a dozen families in Colorado who have lost custody of their children, even in two parent loving households, for not affirming their child’s gender confusion.

In a post on X, Lee pointed to families in Arizona, California, Indiana, Maryland, Montana and Texas where one or both parents lost custody of their children so they could be medically damaged by transgender interventions. 

The parental rights activist, who works to protect children from transgender harms, spotlighted SB 26-018 in a separate post on X, saying:

Once again, Colorado is passing laws to TAKE CHILDREN AWAY FROM PARENTS who will not trans them. If you won’t tell your child they’re born in the wrong body & sterilize them, the state will take them. (Her emphasis.) 

Lee encouraged Coloradans to fight back against this destructive legislation — as does Focus on the Family. 

Related articles and resources: 

Colorado Legislature Passes Radical ‘Transgender’ Bill With Amendments

Colorado Law Mandates Health Insurance Coverage for ‘Transgender’ Mutilations

Focus on the Family Testifies Against Nightmare Bill, Colorado’s Radical ‘Trans’ Legislation Advances

Meet Three Heroes Working to Protect Colorado Children

Parents’ Rights Groups Sue Colorado Over Radical Trans Law

Protect Kids Colorado

Radical Colorado ‘Transgender’ Bill Threatens Parents’ Rights and Free Speech

Sign These Three Ballot Petitions to Protect Kids and Parental Rights in Colorado

Top 5 Moments From Supreme Court Arguments Over Girls Sports

On January 13, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in two cases concerning Idaho and West Virginia laws prohibiting male athletes from competing in girls sports.

This morning, the Daily Citizen listened to the Court’s oral arguments – so you don’t have to.

The two cases, Little v. Hecox and State of West Virginia v. BPJ, could have massive implications for the future of girls sports and determine whether states can recognize biological reality and reserve girls and women’s sports for females. You can read the Daily Citizen’s summary of the cases.

Following oral arguments, it seemed likely a majority of the Court would uphold Idaho’s and West Virginia’s laws protecting female athletes.

Here are the top five moments you might have missed.

1. Justice Samuel Alito Defends Reality of Biological Sex

Justice Samuel Alito asked Kathleen R. Hartnett, attorney for the male Idaho student who filed the lawsuit over the state’s Fairness in Women’s Sports Act, for a definition of what it means to be a “boy or a girl or a man or a woman.”

“We do not have a definition for the Court,” Hartnett replied, admitting she would not define what “sex” means.

“How can a court determine whether there’s discrimination on the basis of sex without knowing what sex means?” Alito replied.

2. Alito Defends Female Athletes

In a back-and-forth with Hartnett, Justice Alito also defended female athletes who don’t want to be forced to compete against males.

“There are an awful lot of female athletes who are strongly opposed to participation by ‘trans’ athletes in competitions with them,” Alito said, asking, “What do you say about them? Are they bigots? Are they deluded in thinking that they’re subjected to unfair competition?”

“No, your honor,” Hartnett replied. “I would never call anyone that.”

3. Justice Kavanaugh Calls Growth of Girls Sports “Inspiring”

Posing a question to Hartnett about how permitting males into women’s and girls sports could harm female athletics, Justice Brett Kavanaugh pointed to the great growth in female sports in the last five decades.

“One of the great successes in America over the last 50 years has been the growth of women and girls’ sports, and it’s inspiring,” Kavanaugh said.

There “are a variety of groups who study this issue, think that allowing transgender women and girls to participate will undermine or reverse that amazing success and will, you know, create unfairness,” he added.

“For the individual girl who does not make the team or doesn’t get on the stand for the medal or doesn’t make all league [due to a male athlete], there’s a – there’s a harm there, and I think we can’t sweep that aside.”

He asked,

[There’s] a lot of people who are concerned about women’s sports and think this raises a big problem. And I just want to make sure you can explain that.

4. Alito Reiterates Reality of Biological Sex

In another back-and-forth, Justice Alito questioned Hartnett about what a woman is, and how “sex” must have a biological basis.

“Suppose … a student who has the genes and the reproductive system of a male and had those at birth and has never taken puberty blockers, never taken female hormones, never had any gender-altering or affirming surgery, says, nevertheless, I am a woman. That’s who I am. Can the school say, ‘No, you cannot participate on the girls’ team?’” Alito asked.

“Yes, they can,” Hartnett replied.

“But that person – is that person not a woman in your understanding? If the person says, I sincerely believe I am woman, I am, in fact, a woman – is that person not a woman?” Alito pressed.

“I – I would respect their self-identity,” Hartnett replied. “But in terms of the statute, I think the question is, does that person have a sex-based biological advantage.”

5. Alito Finally Gets a Definition of What “Sex” Means

Justice Alito asked Hashim M. Mooppan, Principal Deputy Solicitor General at the U.S. Department of Justice, who argued in favor of Idaho’s law, what “sex” means under Title IX.

“We think it’s properly interpreted pursuant to its ordinary traditional definition of biological sex, and I think probably given the time it was enacted, reproductive biology is probably the best way of understanding that,” Mooppan replied.

“All right,” Justice Alito replied. “Thank you.”

Decisions in the cases are expected by the end of June.

The Daily Citizen will keep you updated about Little v. Hecox and State of West Virginia v. BPJ.

Related articles and resources:

Supreme Court to Hear Title IX Girls Sports Case

U.S. Supreme Court Takes Up Cases on Boys in Girls Sports

Photo from Getty Images.

Supreme Court to Hear Title IX Girls Sports Cases

The U.S. Supreme Court is set to hear arguments in two cases about Idaho and West Virginia laws protecting girls sports from male athletes claiming to be female.

The landmark cases will be heard Tuesday, January 13, with the outcome determining if states can uphold biological reality and limit girls and women’s sports to those who are female.

Twenty-six states have similar laws safeguarding girls and women’s sports, all of which could be affected by the Court’s ruling.

In addition, a favorable verdict — protecting girls and women’s sports — could support lawsuits against states and sports organizations that have capitulated to “transgender” ideology and allowed males to compete as females.

The first case, Little v. Hecox, deals with Idaho’s Fairness in Women’s Sports Act. The state was the first in the nation to pass such legislation, signed into law March 30, 2020.

Just two weeks later, the American Civil Liberties Union, which used to support women’s rights in education, filed a lawsuit challenging the Fairness Act on behalf of Lindsay Hecox, who was born male but lives as if he were a woman.

Hecox wanted to run with the ladies on Boise State University’s cross country team. The ACLU argued that Idaho’s Fairness Act violated Title IX, which prohibits sex discrimination in education, along with the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause.

The complaint stated:

Under Title IX, discrimination “on the basis of sex” encompasses discrimination against individuals because they are transgender, because they are women and girls (whether cisgender or transgender), and because they depart from stereotypes associated with sex (which can include stereotypes about sex characteristics that are or are not typically associated with being male or female).   

Basically, the suit is saying that “transgender girls” (who are male) are girls and that they should not be excluded on the basis of “stereotypes associated with sex.” According to the ACLU’s logic, these “girls” can have “stereotypical” male features such as male genes, reproductive organs, bone structure and musculature.

Idaho’s attorney general defended the measure, with attorneys for Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) filing a motion on behalf of two female collegiate athletes, Madison Keyon and Mary Kate Marshall, to intervene in the lawsuit.

Although a federal district court allowed the women to intervene, it halted enforcement of the Fairness Act. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit upheld that ruling.

Idaho Attorney General Raúl Labrador, along with ADF attorneys, appealed the case to the Supreme Court, which agreed to hear the Idaho and West Virginia cases in July 2025. 

The second case is State of West Virginia v. BPJ.

In 2021, West Virginia was the fifth state to pass a law protecting female athletics. The Sports Act, HB 3293, clarified that male and female sports teams in public secondary schools and colleges must be based on biological sex.

Again, the law was challenged in court by the ACLU along with Lambda Legal, another radical LGBT activist group.  

The complaint was filed on behalf of Becky Pepper-Jackson (B.P.J.) and his mother, Heather Jackson, who is raising the boy as if he were a girl.

ADF intervened “in the lawsuit on behalf of Lainey Armistead, a former collegiate athlete who played soccer at West Virginia State University.”

ADF is co-counsel with West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey. A federal district judge ruled in favor of the state law, but that sensible ruling was overturned by the U.S Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit.

So West Virgina appealed to the Supreme Court, which consolidated the case with Idaho’s.

Pepper-Jackson was 11 years old when the suit was filed; now he is 15. His and his mother’s complaint reads:

H.B. 3293 is based on unfounded stereotypes, false scientific claims, and baseless fear and misunderstanding of girls who are transgender, which are insufficient to justify discriminatory treatment under any level of scrutiny.

West Virgina responded to the lawsuit:

Allowing biological males to compete in female sports is unfair to biological females due to males’ inherent physical advantages. … It is thus plain that a public school may lawfully prohibit, consistent with the Constitution, males from participating in women’s sports in order to protect equal opportunity concerns that arise from the physiological differences between the two sexes.

Every time a male-bodied athlete competes in a female sport, girls lose out. Thousands of female athletes have been bumped off winner’s podiums by males masquerading as women. The website shewon.org lists 3,257 female athletes around the world who have lost 4,627 medals, sports records, scholarships or other opportunities to male-bodied athletes.

In addition, girls and women are unwillingly exposed to male bodies in locker rooms and showers; are forced to change in front of male athletes; lose the opportunity for female-only camaraderie; and have their safety threatened.

Please pray for the justices as they consider these cases.

The Daily Citizen will keep you updated about Little v. Hecox and State of West Virginia v. BPJ.

Related articles and resources:

ACLU Lawsuit Challenges Idaho Law Protecting Girl’s and Women’s Sports

Biologically Male Collegiate Athlete Wins Female Runner of the Week Award

Biologically Male Runner Decides to Compete as a Woman in College Cross Country

Collegiate Women Athletes File Motion to Keep Biological Males Out of Women’s Sports in Idaho

Idaho Governor Signs Laws Protecting Women’s Sports and Keeping Birth Certificates Based on Biology – Activists and Media Call this ‘Discriminatory’

Meet Three Heroes Working to Protect Colorado Children

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

U.S. Supreme Court Takes Up Cases on Boys in Girls Sports

West Virginia Passes ‘Save Girls Sports’ Act

Yes, Girls Care When Boys Take Their Trophies

Photo: West Virginia State University soccer player Lainey Armistead, courtesy of Alliance Defending Freedom.

Proposed Executive Order Would Protect Parental Rights

A pro-family, pro-child coalition urged the Trump administration this week to issue an executive order protecting parental rights and the religious freedom of Christian parents and foster parents.

The proposed order, which the coalition workshopped with the White House Domestic Policy Council on Wednesday, would:

  • Explicitly affirm parents’ constitutional right to raise their children according to their religious beliefs.
  • Repeal federal foster care rules preventing or obstructing people who affirm biological sex from becoming foster parents.
  • Prohibit organizations from using federal funds to remove children from parents who do not affirm same-sex attraction or sexual identity confusion.
  • Remove federal funding from organizations which help children conceal sexual identity confusion from their parents.

These four recommendations would prevent federal and state governments from unconstitutionally withholding adoption and foster care licenses from Christians or taking children with sexual identity confusion away from loving, Christian parents.

States like Colorado, Massachusetts, Vermont, Oregon, Washington and California require prospective foster parents to affirm a child’s same-sex attraction and sexual identity confusion.

In 2024, the Department of Health and Human Services released regulations giving progressive, “gender affirming” foster care placement organizations privileged status over biology-affirming ones.

Policies like these prevent people like Jessica Bates, Bryan and Rebecca Gantt, Brian and Katy Wuoti and Mike and Kitty Burkes from fostering or adopting some of the estimated 400,000 children in the U.S. foster care system.

Parents in many states can also lose custody of their children for failure to affirm their same-sex attraction or sexual identity confusion.

The Indiana Department of Child Services took custody of Mary and Jeremy Cox’s 16-year-old son after the couple refused to affirm his “transgender identity.” A court eventually found the Cox’s had not abused their son — but the state never gave him back.

He remained in the department’s care to receive treatment for an eating disorder which had worsened while he was away from home.

The Coxes are just one of innumerable heartbreaking examples of state agencies taking children from loving parents who affirm biological. Erin Friday, one of the coalition leaders who met with the White House on Wednesday, says the number of families in this situation far exceeds most people’s expectations.

“The public is unaware that children are being kidnapped by child protective services and family judges because these cases are usually sealed or there are confidentiality laws that prevent parents from going public,” she told The Daily Signal.

Christian parents need not have their child taken to suffer under child protective agencies’ scrutiny.

Erin Lee received an unexpected visit from the Colorado Department of Human Services after she tried to hold her daughter’s public school accountable for secretly teaching gender ideology.

“We managed to evade losing our children that day, but I’ve met many parents who weren’t so lucky,” Lee, who eventually saved her daughter from damaging sexual identity confusion, told the Daily Wire.

She continued:

I also had a six-year-old and an infant at the time and I shudder to think that I could have lost all three of my kids for being a good parent, for being unwilling to lie to my daughter and send her down a path of self-hatred and destruction.

Laws and policies penalizing Christian parents and prospective foster parents for questioning “gender affirming care” are increasingly ludicrous given the mounting evidence proving sex-rejecting procedures harm minors.

The Department of Health and Human Services’ own, peer-reviewed report found “transgender” medical interventions — including puberty blockers, wrong-sex hormones and surgeries — pose “significant, long term and too often ignored” harms to children.

It’s about time America’s foster care systems reflect reality.

Additional Articles and Resources

Wait No More

Wait No More Suitcase Bundle

When Government is Hostile to Christian Foster Parents

President Trump to Sign Executive Order Strengthening Foster Care

Christians Banned as Fathers to the Fatherless

Christian Families Are Not Second-Class Foster Parents

‘Art Club’ Documentary—One Family’s Escape from Gender Ideology, and the Bigger Trend Sweeping the Nation

Radical Colorado ‘Transgender’ Bill Threatens Parents’ Rights and Free Speech

Riley Gaines Asks For Colorado Parents to Help Save Girls’ Sports and Defend Parental Rights

Court Frees Christian Mom to Adopt, Stops Oregon’s Gender Ideology Adoption Mandate

Indiana Family Loses Custody of Son Over Religious Beliefs; Supreme Court Won’t Hear Case

Thank You, Senator Scott, For Leading Charge to Stand Up for Parents and Children in Foster Care

Massachusetts DCF Denied a Catholic Couple’s Foster Care License — Now, They’re Being Sued for Religious Discrimination