transgender

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.

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.

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

WPATH Pushed Sex-Rejecting Procedures on Kids for Financial Gain, FTC Lawsuit Alleges

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) sued the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) last week for making “false and unsubstantiated” statements which enabled the promotion of sex-rejecting procedures to minors.

The lawsuit, which Alaska, Iowa, Nebraska and Texas joined, alleges WPATH’s Standards of Care, Version 8 (SOC-8), the group’s treatment recommendations for transgender-identified people, deceived families about the scientific support for and effectiveness of pediatric sex-rejecting procedures — including puberty blocking drugs, opposite-sex hormones and surgeries.

The FTC isn’t the first to lay out SOC-8’s blatant scientific deficiencies. It is, however, one of the first to assign WPATH an alleged motive for pushing sex-rejecting procedures on American families and children: cold, hard cash.

The filing asserts:

WPATH misrepresents scientific and medical consensus and makes false, deceptive or unsubstantiated claims regarding [sex-rejecting procedures for kids] and related services for a simple reason: WPATH’s members generate significant profit because of the organization’s representations and guidance.

The vast majority of WPATH members work in the “transgender” procedures industry. Some, including three of five members of WPATH’s executive committee, perform sex-rejecting procedures. Others work in related businesses, like “gender-affirming” counseling.

WPATH lines its members’ pockets by legitimizing and expanding access to sex-rejecting procedures. According to the FTC, this has always been WPATH’s purpose, dating back to its inception in 1979.

That year was a disastrous one for the burgeoning “transgender” procedures industry. Johns Hopkins University closed down its “Gender Identity Clinic,” which opened in 1966, after a university psychiatrist published a paper “showing no objective benefit to transition.”

Other clinics followed suit, reflecting general unease over difficulty diagnosing “dissatisfaction with one’s sex traits” and inability to determine which patients would benefit from sex-rejecting procedures.

Lack of academic backing prompted insurance companies to stop covering the experimental interventions — drastically limiting the number of people who could purchase them.

The FTC’s filing claims members of the floundering “transgender” procedures industry created WPATH to recreate a semblance of academic support for their dangerous, experimental medical interventions.

The group published its first Standards of Care in 1981 to establish itself as an academic authority. In the four decades since, it has successfully masqueraded as an expert medical group, rather than a profit-driven industry lobby.

Until very recently, WPATH had nearly unilateral power to determine accepted standards of care for transgender-identified people, including what procedures insurance companies paid for. The Department of Health and Human Services’ 2025 report on the harms of sex-rejecting procedures for minors notes, “Many U.S. public and private health insurers and regulatory bodies rely on SOC-8 when making coverage determinations.”

The FTC alleges WPATH used this power to gradually expand its customer base.

In 2008, for instance, WPATH first declared opposite-sex hormones and sex-rejecting surgeries “medically necessary,” a term which generally triggers insurance coverage.

Less than two decades later, the FTC notes, SOC-8 encourages insurance companies to consider “‘medically necessary’ virtually every pediatric medical transition service that a transition doctor could perform for a fee,” including “gender affirming hair removal.”

WPATH members have also made untold millions by performing sex-rejecting procedures on kids. Lowering age limits on transgender medical interventions gives doctors a chance to cash in on the temporary sexual identity confusion kids often face.

The filing explains.

Pediatric medical transition is a profitable market for [doctors who perform sex-rejecting procedures], because most children will naturally desist, or cease experiencing discomfort with or distress about their sex traits, if clinicians delay medical transition procedures.

Similarly, if a doctor administers puberty blockers to a child, they are significantly more likely receive opposite-sex hormones and sex-rejecting surgical procedures.

The estimated lifetime cost of “transgender” medical interventions for a man ranges from $75,000 to nearly $411,000, according to the filing. For a woman, the range is even wider, spanning from about $67,000 to as much as $606,000.

“WPATH has long represented itself as the final authority for the gender-related treatment of children, advancing profit-driven ideology unsupported by science and withholding crucial information from children, parents and doctors,” Nebraska Attorney General Mike Hilgers wrote in a press release.

“We’re proud to work with the Federal Trade Commission and state attorneys general to hold WPATH accountable for deceiving parents and medical professionals and causing harm to children and nationwide.”

“Patients and their families have been deceived into believing the organization is an authoritative, medical body, when, in truth, their recommendations are based on politics and ideology,” Iowa Attorney General Brenna Bird added.

“Parents and children deserve better.”

The Daily Citizen couldn’t agree more. We thank the FTC, Alaska, Iowa, Nebraska and Texas for bringing this action in service of children and families harmed by WPATH. Please pray justice be done in this case.

Additional Articles and Resources

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

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

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’

Transgender Organization Suggests Hormones and Surgeries Should Start Even Earlier for Gender-Confused Teens

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

Detransitioner to Surgeon: ‘You Killed the Woman I was Supposed to Become’

As a 25-year-old woman, I’m tired of seeing women my age being coerced into rejecting their womanhood as if it were a disease.

Trans ideology has so many women removing healthy body parts and labels it “healthcare” and promotes it as “very safe.”

I just read the following yesterday:

Now, I live every single day with a numb, hollow chest covered in the disfiguring scars you chose to carve into me. I’m left to cope with the constant, agonizing reminders of the damage you inflicted. There is an electrical current that constantly hums and zaps beneath my skin, a manifestation of the trauma you inflicted and sewed into my nerves.

These are the words of Claire Abernathy, a 21-year-old “detransitioner” who recently shared her riveting story in “An Open Letter to the Surgeon Who Removed My Breasts” over at Genspect.

Claire underwent a double mastectomy at just 14 years old.

At that age, I couldn’t foresee my life 10 years ahead, let alone a lifetime.

But despite that an adult willingly chose to mutilate this young girl seemingly without any remorse. It was done by a man who was supposed to be a healer. That is why she will not call him a doctor.

Before I begin, let it be clear that I will not honor you with the title of “doctor.” A doctor is a healer, a protector of life and health who adheres to the sacred oath of doing no harm. You are a sick man who used a medical degree as permission to disfigure children, and I refuse to grant you a title you have so thoroughly disgraced.

How have we gotten to this point? How can a self-proclaimed “expert” deliberately harm a patient? How does that even happen?

The definition of who they are more aligns with a criminal, a manipulator who profits off innocent, vulnerable people for their own gain.

And Gen Z women are being manipulated by the millions. They are being told to bind their chests, take puberty blockers, take testosterone and get double mastectomies because “being” a woman is unbearable. But all of these end in destruction — not just of the body, but the mind and soul.

It was recently found that over 1 in 250 girls were taking testosterone by age 17 in Oregon from 2016 to 2023. The data is staggering and shows just how many young girls are being persuaded to reject their womanhood and become sterilized.

Claire writes that for the last seven years since her “top surgery” she’s lived with “physical and psychological wreckage,” and many detransitioners detail the same thing.

Chloe Cole, who had a double mastectomy at age 15, said that after the procedure her “mental health and suicidality issues worsened significantly” and she has permanent side effects from her nerve endings being severed, just like Claire describes in her writing.

Fox Varian, who had a double mastectomy at age 16, told a New York court in her malpractice suit that the surgery left her with nerve pain and felt like “searing hot … ripping sensations across my chest.”

Earlier this year, the 22-year-old was awarded $2 million in damages, with $1.6 million for past and future pain and suffering and another $400,000 for future medical expenses.

But this is not enough to undo the damage. Because nothing could do that.

This is what “transgender” ideology brings, though. My fellow Gen Z girls and women did not need medications, surgeries and more pain. They needed adults willing to dissent against this damaging ideology and do the work to help them embrace their God-given womanhood. They needed doctors focused on treating their underlying mental health conditions. They needed professionals who cared enough to reject the lies and speak the truth. They needed someone to protect their precious and priceless ability to bear and nurture children.

That is what these emerging women need, and we all share the responsibility to fight for them to have it.

Photo credit: Claire Abernathy / Genspect / Substack