Author J.K. Rowling announced in a Saturday X post that she may have found the most &#8220;bat-s*** gender identity argument&#8221; yet, noting that the latest gem she&#8217;d come across had brought the Catholic Church into the discussion.
Rowling&#8217;s efforts to stand for women&#8217;s sex-based rights and private spaces have provoked ire from the radical trans activist crowd — they&#8217;ve labeled her a Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminist (TERF) — and they often target her on social media with the latest arguments aimed at shaming her into agreeing with them.
The attacks are so constant that Rowling doesn&#8217;t often appear to be shocked by them — she even said once that she&#8217;d gotten so many death threats that she could paper her house with them — but she admitted on Saturday that the latest one was new to her.
&#8220;You think you’ve heard the last word in bat-s*** gender identity arguments and then you see a post saying that using the new Pope’s title instead of his birth name is exactly the same as accepting that a man is a woman if he says he is,&#8221; Rowling said.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
You think you’ve heard the last word in batshit gender identity arguments and then you see a post saying that using the new Pope’s title instead of his birth name is exactly the same as accepting that a man is a woman if he says he is. <a href="https://t.co/vJRSUw29dO">pic.twitter.com/vJRSUw29dO</a>
— J.K. Rowling (@jk_rowling) <a href="https://twitter.com/jk_rowling/status/1921238199197733149?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 10, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
When the conclave concluded on May 8, and the Vatican announced that Cardinal Robert Prevost of Chicago would become Pope Leo XIV, X was flooded with activists who complained that Catholics everywhere seemed to have no objection to addressing the pontiff by his new &#8220;chosen&#8221; name, but had a problem with doing the same for those who choose new names or pronouns because they identify as transgender.
A few critics other than Rowling pushed back as well, some of them noting that Prevost had not simply &#8220;self-identified&#8221; as Leo XIV to become the Pope.

“Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes Of Grindelwald” UK Premiere – Red Carpet Arrivals

JK Rowling Says She’s Found The Most ‘Bat-S*** Gender Identity’ Argument Yet

JK Rowling Says She's Found The Most 'Bat-S*** Gender Identity' Argument Yet

Gender Identity

gender ideology

Gender Pronouns

JK Rowling

Politics

Pope Leo

Social Issues

The Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday that the Defense Department could begin implementing a ban on trans-identifying service members, prompting The Hill to publish a <a href="https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/5285674-transgender-military-ban-supreme/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">response</a> that read more like a partisan temper tantrum than an unbiased report.
In the opening paragraph, the authors complained that the Supreme Court — which is, by definition, the nation&#8217;s highest court and the final say in all legal matters — was somehow &#8220;undermining&#8221; the [obviously correct] decisions that had been issued previously by lower courts. The paragraph went on to assert that President Donald Trump&#8217;s administration had &#8220;broadly sought to restrict transgender rights.&#8221;
<blockquote>The Supreme Court on Tuesday allowed President Trump’s administration to begin enforcing a ban on transgender troops serving openly in the military, undermining two lower court decisions and handing a victory to an administration that has broadly sought to restrict transgender rights.</blockquote>
Several paragraphs detailing the decision — which thus far only lifts the injunction on the ban&#8217;s implementation — and the fact that &#8220;the Court&#8217;s three liberal justices publicly dissented&#8221; followed. And then the authors pivoted, loading up on the loaded language and turning the attack on the policy itself.
First, they took aim at Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth&#8217;s argument that trans-identifying individuals, particularly those who are dependent upon medical treatments such as cross-sex hormones or surgical procedures and follow-ups, are considered non-deployable and therefore not mission-capable. Instead of presenting evidence refuting Hegseth&#8217;s point, the authors attacked the argument itself — and claimed that it was the same logic used to bar black, gay, and female troops from serving in the past.
<blockquote>The Trump administration’s policy states that transgender individuals cannot meet the “rigorous standards” needed to serve, and allowing their participation threatens military readiness and unit cohesion, an argument long used to keep marginalized groups, including Black and gay people and women, from serving in the military.</blockquote>
What followed after that was a series of comments from critics of the ban:
<ul>
<li>Lambda Legal and the Human Rights Campaign: &#8220;By allowing this discriminatory ban to take effect while our challenge continues, the Court has temporarily sanctioned a policy that has nothing to do with military readiness and everything to do with prejudice.&#8221;</li>
<li>32 trans-identifying service members: Allowing the administration to enforce its ban on trans military service would cause transgender troops “reputational, professional, and constitutional harm that can never be undone.”</li>
<li>Attorneys for seven active duty trans-identifying service members: &#8220;An unprecedented degree of animus towards transgender people animates and permeates the Ban: it is based on the shocking proposition that transgender people do not exist,” they wrote. “Along with other recent executive orders targeting transgender people for opprobrium and discrimination, the Ban claims that having a gender identity that differs from one’s birth sex is a ‘falsehood’ or ‘false claim.’&#8221;</li>
</ul>
The article concluded with the text of Trump&#8217;s executive order barring trans-identifying service members, using it solely as a set-up for the authors&#8217; assessment that it was &#8220;one of several to deny the existence of trans, nonbinary and intersex people.&#8221;

Pete Hegseth

Supreme Court Allows Military To Implement Trans Ban; The Hill Hardest Hit

Donald Trump

Media

the hill

Transgender

The Department of <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/rfk-jr-to-ban-petroleum-based-food-dyes?author=Nathan+Gay&amp;category=News&amp;elementPosition=undefined&amp;row=0&amp;rowType=Vertical+List&amp;title=RFK+Jr.+To+Ban+Petroleum-Based+Food+Dyes" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Health and Human Services</a> (HHS) on Thursday released a comprehensive review of medical interventions for minors experiencing gender confusion, finding that risks for such treatments cannot be ignored and are not supported by science.
The review identified a number of risks associated with intervention, including infertility, sexual dysfunction, and cardiovascular disease.
&#8220;Despite increasing pressure to promote these drastic medical interventions for our nation’s youth, the review makes clear: the science and evidence do not support their use, and the risks cannot be ignored,&#8221; an HHS press release sent to The Daily Wire reads.
&#8220;The &#8216;gender-affirming&#8217; model of care includes irreversible endocrine and surgical interventions on minors with no physical pathology,&#8221; the review summary <a href="https://opa.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/2025-05/gender-dysphoria-report-exec-summary.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">said</a>. &#8220;These interventions carry risk of significant harms including infertility/sterility, sexual dysfunction, impaired bone density accrual, adverse cognitive impacts, cardiovascular disease and metabolic disorders, psychiatric disorders, surgical complications, and regret.&#8221;
It also determined that there is &#8220;no independent association between gender dysphoria and suicidality,&#8221; and &#8220;no evidence that pediatric medical transition reduces the incidence of suicide, which remains, fortunately, very low.&#8221;
The review found that the supposed benefits from medical intervention are severely in question and do not outweigh the risks. HHS also said that the perception of a &#8220;consensus&#8221; in support of these treatments is being pushed by medical associations, while dissent is stifled.
&#8220;U.S. medical associations played a key role in creating a perception that there is professional consensus in support of pediatric medical transition,&#8221; the summary review said. &#8220;This apparent consensus, however, is driven primarily by a small number of specialized committees, influenced by WPATH (World Professional Association for Transgender Health). It is not clear that the official views of these associations are shared by the wider medical community, or even by most of their members. There is evidence that some medical and mental health associations have suppressed dissent and stifled debate about this issue among their members.&#8221;
The evidence for benefits from pediatric medical intervention is &#8220;very uncertain,&#8221; the review stated, &#8220;while the evidence for harm is less uncertain.&#8221; Thus, the review suggested, medical professionals should not offer them, even if they are requested.
&#8220;When medical interventions pose unnecessary, disproportionate risks of harm, healthcare providers should refuse to offer them even when they are preferred, requested, or demanded by patients,&#8221; it said. &#8220;Failure to do so increases the risk of iatrogenic harm and reduces medicine to consumerism, threatening the integrity of the profession and undermining trust in medical authority.&#8221;
The review also recognized detransitioners, or individuals who received medical treatment for their gender confusion but later regretted such intervention.
&#8220;The voices of whistleblowers and detransitioners have played a critical role in drawing public attention to the risks and harms associated with pediatric medical transition,&#8221; HHS said. &#8220;Their concerns have been discounted, dismissed, or ignored by prominent advocates and practitioners of pediatric medical transition.&#8221;
Evaluating other forms of treatment for a gender-confused minor, HHS ridiculed the notion that psychotherapy could be deemed &#8220;conversion therapy.&#8221;
&#8220;There is a dearth of research on psychotherapeutic approaches to managing gender dysphoria in children and adolescents,&#8221; the department said. &#8220;This is due in part to the mischaracterization of such approaches as &#8216;conversion therapy.&#8217; A more robust evidence base supports psychotherapeutic approaches to managing common comorbid mental health conditions. Psychotherapy is a noninvasive alternative to endocrine and surgical interventions for the treatment of pediatric gender dysphoria. Systematic reviews of evidence have found no evidence of adverse effects of psychotherapy in this context.&#8221;
The department underscored how minors and their families &#8220;require, and are entitled to, accurate, evidence-based information to guide their decisions,&#8221; and said this comprehensive review is for them, as well as policymakers, clinicians, therapists, and medical organizations.

Gender Symbols

HHS Releases Damning Review Of Gender Treatments For Minors: ‘The Risks Cannot Be Ignored’

Gender

Health

Health and Human Services

Medical Research

Non-binary

transgender surgery

Detransitioner Claire Abernathy hadn’t even made it to high school yet when her doctors encouraged her to undergo a double mastectomy. Despite <a href="https://www.iwf.org/2025/04/28/new-identity-crisis-documentary-mother-and-daughter-expose-medical-industrys-transgender-manipulation-and-lies/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">her concerns</a> about the procedure, her mother, Carrie, was told that affirming Claire’s gender identity was the only way to prevent her from killing herself.
Now, years later, both mother and daughter <a href="https://www.iwf.org/2025/04/28/new-identity-crisis-documentary-mother-and-daughter-expose-medical-industrys-transgender-manipulation-and-lies/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">opened up</a> to IW Features about how the medical system manipulated them into making permanent and irreversible decisions — the consequences of which they are still grappling with today.
The worst part? They’re not alone.
The Abernathy family is part of a growing segment of our population coming to terms with the damage done by gender ideologues. Hopefully, they will serve as inspiration for other families fighting not just gender confusion, but a manipulative industry that turns this confusion into profit.
The adolescent brain is a work in progress. We all know this to be true — after all, why else would we restrict young men and women from getting a tattoo until they’ve turned 18 or from purchasing alcohol until they’ve turned 21? It doesn’t matter how much a kid feels like an “old soul.” A young person’s prefrontal cortex, which is responsible for decision-making and impulse control, continues to <a href="https://hillcrestatc.com/teen-brain-development/">mature</a> well into their mid-20s.
Because teens go through this lengthy, often angsty developmental stage, they’re that much more susceptible to risk-taking behaviors and less capable of fully understanding long-term consequences. This is why <a href="https://www.nhtsa.gov/risky-driving/drunk-driving" target="_blank" rel="noopener">one in five</a> teen drivers involved in a fatal crash had some alcohol in their system — because teens are more likely to underestimate the effects of alcohol on their bodies and overestimate their ability to drive inebriated. Similarly, <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1016/j.soscij.2016.08.004" target="_blank" rel="noopener">studies</a> show that as many as one-third of tattooed adolescents regret inking up their bodies. And unsurprisingly, <a href="https://www.mdedge.com/psychiatry/article/98697/dermatology/teenage-tattoos-are-most-often-regretted" target="_blank" rel="noopener">research</a> indicates that the younger a teen is when they get a tattoo, the more likely they are to regret it later.
So why aren’t America’s trusted, highly esteemed medical professionals drawing the same conclusions about so-called “gender-affirming” procedures? While comprehensive data on regret following medical interventions in gender-confused minors is still emerging, stories like Claire’s are proof that medicalization can and does have victims. At least if you cop some bad ink, you might be able to get it <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/snl-pete-davidson-spending-six-figures-remove-all-tattoos" target="_blank" rel="noopener">lasered off</a> later. But the permanence of gender-affirming procedures adds a sickening layer of complexity and potential for regret.
Teens might swear up and down they know what they want with their lives, like an unattainable dream job or goals to jet-set around the world childless and unbothered. But I’m willing to bet that teens can, and often will, change their minds. I know I did. If you asked 16-year-old Andrea if she wanted to get married and have children, she would have laughed in your face. And, if you asked her if she felt comfortable in her female body, she probably would have similarly scoffed.
Puberty is a really rough time for any young person. That’s not only something Claire expressed to me during her interview, but it’s a reality I have lived myself. I can recall the first conscious moment I felt insecure about my body: I was in elementary school, watching a movie starring young Lindsay Lohan, and I saw how her thighs didn’t touch when she sat down on a car seat.
<a href="https://depts.washington.edu/thmedia/view.cgi?page=fastfacts&amp;section=bodyimage">Studies</a> show that as many as 40% of nine and 10-year-old girls are already trying to lose weight, and as many as 70% of normal-weight teen girls <a href="https://archive.nytimes.com/well.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/06/23/many-normal-weight-teens-feel-fat/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">think</a> they’re overweight. Should parents of young girls who wrongfully believe they are fat indulge their child’s delusions and allow her to diet, or worse, get liposuction? If that sounds ridiculous, that’s because it is.
Yet, that’s exactly what the medical and entertainment industries are telling parents of gender-confused children that they must do.
<iframe loading="lazy" title="Identity Crisis: Mother and Daughter Expose Medical Industry&#039;s Transgender Lies" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/nj1OUvFZM4A?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe>
In my home state of California, $28,890,512 has been spent on youth “transgender” medical interventions, according to <a href="https://stoptheharmdatabase.com/state/california/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">StopTheHarm</a>. Ethically speaking, plastic surgeons are supposed to assess the physical and emotional maturity of teen patients before they go under the knife for cosmetic procedures. So why does nearly every story of detransition reveal that medical professionals rarely, if ever, address underlying psychological issues — Borderline Personality Disorder, ADHD, Autism Spectrum Disorder, etc. — in gender-confused youth ? And why is it that the only solution offered by most medical professionals is for these youth to have their healthy body parts modified?
And what can parents realistically do? Carrie’s experience reminds me of the old adage: Mother knows best. She knew something was off when the medical professionals rushed to transition her daughter, but was guilt-tripped and persuaded into proceeding with medicalization.
Looking back, Carrie said she realizes she should have trusted her parental intuition. Parents are often the first line of defense in protecting their child’s well-being. They should feel empowered to trust those instincts, especially when it comes to irreversible medical decisions. Carrie said it best when speaking with me: “You are the expert on your own child.”
Indeed, the Abernathy story is a timely reminder of the very real consequences of sidelining parental concerns and the dire importance of scrutinizing medical practices that clearly prioritize profit and ideology over patient well-being.
* * *
Andrea Mew is the managing editor of Independent Women Features. She is the producer of its new <a href="https://youtu.be/nj1OUvFZM4A" target="_blank" rel="noopener">documentary</a> “Identity Crisis: Mother and Daughter Expose Medical Industry&#8217;s Transgender Lies” and the author of the related breaking <a href="https://www.iwfeatures.com/documentary/detransitioner-and-mother-were-sold-the-lie-of-gender-transition-now-theyre-exposing-the-real-costs/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">feature article</a>.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Rear view of mother and daughter embracing sitting on bed

‘I Feel Robbed’: After A Double Mastectomy At 14, This Detransitioner Is Speaking Out

Medical

Opinion

Teenagers

Women

April is Sexual Assault Awareness Month. It is also a moment when many trans activists and aligned organizations have taken the opportunity to bring up studies and statistics about the high rate of sexual assault for those who identify as trans. These topics are inexorably linked — something I know firsthand, as both a sexual assault survivor and a detransitioner.
My desire to transition was largely due to being sexually assaulted when I was 14. I believed I could escape myself and my sex through medicalization. I know now that, in truth, I never changed sex. And undergoing hormones and surgery did not help my mental health or heal my torment. That required facing the trauma in therapy and doing the real work of recovery.
The trans community is right that sexual assault is a real and horrible reality for too many people who identify as trans. The same is true for those who detransition — we often have histories of sexual abuse. But what the trans activists are not honest about is the timing of the sexual assault and how it relates to trans identities themselves.
Like me, most of the people with trans identities I have interacted with (both online and offline) experienced sexual assault prior to their identifying as transgender, not because of it.
I remember talking with other members of the trans community online and in my doctor-recommended support group when I was a teen. We spoke about abusive or violent sexual encounters we had experienced. Many of us were extremely young when we experienced abuse, or were still forced to endure it while simultaneously trying to medicalize our bodies. Our relationships with ourselves were fragmented and in crisis, and our relationships with each other were an unhealthy bond forged by trauma. We all believed we wouldn’t be so burdened when we could finally transform into the opposite sex.
Sexual assault is a life-changing experience. Anyone who has experienced it knows what I mean. It takes away your power and your autonomy and makes your body feel unsafe. Activists try to sell transitioning as a cure to such vulnerable people. They insist that transitioning offers the victims of sexual assault the promise of greater control over their bodies. It allows the victims to change it into something they believe is less likely to be hurt. Transitioning is described by doctors and activists alike as a type of rebirth; many people try in vain to transition into a person who was never assaulted at all.
<div id="attachment_910733" style="width: 1034px" class="wp-caption aligncenter"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-910733" class="size-large wp-image-910733" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/04/MixCollage-22-Apr-2025-10-27-AM-4476-1024x576.jpg" alt="Credit: Prisha Mosely/Independent Women's Forum" width="1024" height="576" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/04/MixCollage-22-Apr-2025-10-27-AM-4476-1024x576.jpg 1024w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/04/MixCollage-22-Apr-2025-10-27-AM-4476-300x169.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/04/MixCollage-22-Apr-2025-10-27-AM-4476-768x432.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/04/MixCollage-22-Apr-2025-10-27-AM-4476-1536x864.jpg 1536w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/04/MixCollage-22-Apr-2025-10-27-AM-4476-2048x1152.jpg 2048w" sizes="(max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px" />Credit: Prisha Mosely/IWF</div>
It is cruel and unethical for a doctor to change the body of a sexual assault victim. Our bodies were never the problem. An identity crisis is not a medical condition. Trauma is not cured with hormones and surgeries, nor are future assaults prevented that way. Any doctor selling transition to someone reeling from the distress of a sexual assault is harming their patients. There are protocols and standards of care when it comes to victims. Evidence-based and ethical, trauma-informed care is the least the medical community can do for patients who were sexually abused. Instead, many doctors are taking the easy way out and making a profit off the distress and pain of the most vulnerable by selling “cures” that will never come to fruition.
The sexual assault I experienced changed my life when I was young, but transitioning destroyed my health and stole parts of my life away from me. If my doctors had not affirmed my self-hatred and my womanhood and instead listened to my pain and suffering because of my trauma and left my body alone, I would still be healthy. I am still a sexual assault victim, only now, I am missing pieces of myself. True, my breasts will never be touched again without my consent — but now I cannot ever give consent for them to be touched either, all because a doctor decided that the thoughts in my head meant that mutilating my body could heal me.
I have healed now from the terrible trauma of sexual assault, but the chemical and surgical changes my doctor made to my body are irreversible. No person who has been a victim of harm deserves more harm as a result, even if they are broken enough to ask for it. Doctors have a responsibility to say “no” instead of aiding their patients in self-harm. I hope that no doctor will ever be as cruel to another patient who identifies as trans as they were with me — or that lawmakers make it impossible for them to do so.
This Sexual Assault Awareness Month, I urge lawmakers, doctors, and the public to reexamine what’s behind the growing obsession with trans identity and permanently altering girls’ and boys’ healthy bodies. Take it from me: the abuse I suffered altered my life forever. Mutilating my body didn’t make it better, but only added additional trauma and hardship. Sexual assault survivors deserve so much more than that.
* * *
Prisha Mosley is an Independent Women ambassador and detransitioner. IW Features, the storytelling platform of Independent Women, featured Prisha’s story as part of its “Identity Crisis” docu-series, which highlights the irreversible harms of gender ideology. Prisha’s story, including her pregnancy journey, was documented in two parts, which can be found <a href="https://www.iwfeatures.com/documentary/mentally-ill-teen-betrayed-by-health-professionals-who-recommended-testosterone-and-top-surgery/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">here</a> and <a href="https://www.iwfeatures.com/documentary/a-detransitioners-pregnancy-journey/">here</a>.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Transgender person from behind, wearing pink and white striped sweatshirt, holds transgender flag

Sexual Abuse Forever Altered My Life. Mutilating My Body Didn’t Make It Better.

Gender Transition

Sexual Assault

What Is A Woman

The United Kingdom&#8217;s highest court ruled Wednesday that the legal definition of &#8220;woman&#8221; is based on biology and does not include trans-identifying men who say they are women.
In the landmark <a href="https://supremecourt.uk/uploads/uksc_2024_0042_judgment_aea6c48cee.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">judgment</a>, the British Supreme Court ruled that the meaning of &#8220;woman&#8221; in equality legislation is a &#8220;biological woman and biological sex,&#8221; and the &#8220;concept of sex is binary, a person is either a woman or a man.&#8221;
The ruling is a watershed moment in Britain&#8217;s shift on gender ideology, which has faced a referendum in Europe in recent years, especially as the harms of transgender drugs and procedures on children have come to light and sparked legal challenges.
The court case was about whether trans-identifying men with a &#8220;gender recognition certificate&#8221; that legally recognizes them as female are protected from discrimination as a woman under the 2010 Equality Act.
The court ultimately ruled that interpreting sex as simply as what someone&#8217;s gender certificate says would be &#8220;incoherent,&#8221; according to a summary of the ruling.
“The terms woman and sex in the Equality Act 2010 refer to a biological woman and biological sex,” Lord Patrick Hodge, one of the court&#8217;s senior judges, <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2025/04/16/uk/uk-supreme-court-ruling-definition-woman-intl/index.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">told</a> the court. “The provisions relating to sex discrimination can only be interpreted as referring to biological sex.”
The five judges cautioned that they were not ruling broadly on whether trans-identifying men were women, saying that was beyond the role of the court.
Lord Hodge said the ruling should not be seen as “a triumph for one or more groups in our society at the expense of another – it is not.”
Critics of gender ideology were ecstatic nonetheless.
A group called For Women Scotland filed a challenge in 2018, butting heads with the Scottish government, which argued that trans-identifying men were legally women.
For Women Scotland celebrated with tears and hugs in the courtroom before a victorious exit, where they cracked open a bottle of champagne outside with other campaigners against gender ideology.
Other groups celebrated as well.
<p class="paragraph inline-placeholder vossi-paragraph" data-uri="cms.cnn.com/_components/paragraph/instances/cm9js9dgx000c3b6oni5n6mv7@published" data-editable="text" data-component-name="paragraph" data-article-gutter="true" data-analytics-observe="off">“The court has given the right answer: the protected characteristic of sex – male and female – refers to reality, not paperwork,” the group Sex Matters said.
The LGB Alliance, which presented arguments in court, called the ruling a “watershed for women.”
In response to the ruling, the British government said it supports &#8220;single-sex spaces.&#8221;
“This ruling brings clarity and confidence, for women and service providers such as hospitals, refuges, and sports clubs,” a British government spokesperson <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2025/04/16/uk/uk-supreme-court-ruling-definition-woman-intl/index.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">said</a>. “Single-sex spaces are protected in law and will always be protected by this Government.”

Womens’ Rights Supreme Court Judgement In London

UK Supreme Court Rules Trans-Identifying Men Are Not Women

UK Supreme Court Rules Legal Definition Of 'Woman' Is Biological

Britain

Transgenders

United Kingdom

World

A major court has ruled that parents don’t have the right to know that their child is changing genders while at school.
The <a href="https://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/sites/ca1/files/opnfiles/23-1069P-01A.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">opinion</a>, from the First Circuit Court of Appeals, determined that it does not violate parental rights for a school to transition a child without the parents’ knowledge.
“[P]arental rights are not unlimited,” the court ruled. “Parents may not invoke the Due Process Clause to create a preferred educational experience for their child in public school.”
“As per our understanding of Supreme Court precedent, our pluralistic society assigns those curricular and administrative decisions to the expertise of school officials, charged with the responsibility of educating children,” the court continued. “And the Protocol of nondisclosure as to a student&#8217;s at-school gender expression without the student&#8217;s consent does not restrict parental rights in a way courts have recognized as a violation of the guarantees of substantive due process.”
The decision comes from a case in Massachusetts, where in 2020 a Baird Middle School student referred to in court documents as B.F. began questioning her identity after she received “unsolicited LGBTQ-themed video suggestions” on her school-issued computer. The student, in sixth grade at the time, was given an assignment along with her fellow students to create biographic videos about themselves and to include their pronouns in those videos.
It is unknown how B.F. referred to herself in the assignment, but in the following months, she began receiving the “unsolicited LGBTQ-themed video suggestions” and started questioning whether she &#8220;might be attracted to girls&#8221; and if she had gender identity issues, according to court documents.
By December 2020, B.F. told her teacher that she was “depressed and struggling with insecurity, low self-esteem, poor self-image, and a perceived lack of popularity.” The teacher told B.F.’s parents, Marissa Silvestri and Stephen Foote, what their daughter had said, and the parents agreed to get her the help she needed.
But on February 28, 2021, B.F. announced to her teacher and other school officials that she was “genderqueer” and would use her preferred pronouns and go by a new name. B.F. told school officials that she hadn’t explained this all to her parents yet and asked that she be referred to by her birth name and proper pronouns when discussing things with her parents. Teachers immediately switched to the new name and pronouns, and the school librarian started meeting with the student to talk to her about gender identity and to give her “LGBTQ-related resources,” according to court documents. The school counselor also told the girl she could use whichever bathroom she wanted at the school.
At the same time, B.F.’s 12-year-old sibling also suddenly decided to start using a different name and pronouns.
The parents learned in early March 2021 – just days after B.F.’s declaration – learned about her new name and pronouns from her teacher. The parents spoke with the school principal and superintendent to express concern that school officials had ignored their request not to engage with their child “regarding mental health issues.” When the parents eventually sued the school and its officials, they argued that transitioning the child at school amounted to mental health treatment because social transitioning is &#8220;recognized as a medical/mental health treatment for children with gender dysphoria.&#8221;
Educators at Baird ignored the parents and continued to refer to B.F. by her new name and pronouns. The school counselor also contacted the student through text messages and online chat to keep encouraging B.F. to discuss any gender-related concerns on a weekly basis. At one point, the counselor asked B.F. if her parents were providing her “with appropriate care.” The counselor also asked if B.F. felt comfortable discussing these issues with the counselor her parents were paying for.
When the parents sued, the school district moved to dismiss the case, and the case eventually moved forward to the First Circuit, which ruled the parents had no right to know that the school was transitioning their child behind their back.
The First Circuit’s ruling is filled with biased language, using “they/them” pronouns for B.F. because is it allegedly “gender neutral.”
As Frederick Claybrook, Jr., <a href="https://fedsoc.org/commentary/fedsoc-blog/wrong-foote-forward-first-circuit-tramples-parental-rights">noted in an article</a> for The Federalist Society — an organization that supports limited government — this is the first time a federal court of appeals has waded into parental rights when it comes to transgender issues. Until now, Claybrook states, the courts &#8220;have dodged&#8221; the issue as it relates to parental rights.
“When district courts have ruled in favor of parents, for example in a <a href="https://adflegal.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/Ricard-v-475-Geary-County-Schools-2022-05-09-Memorandum-and-Order.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">District of Kansas case</a> and in a <a href="https://casetext.com/case/mirabelli-v-olson">Southern District of California case</a>, the school districts have not appealed,” Claybrook writes. “When parents have lost, for example in <a href="https://casetext.com/case/parents-v-montgomery-cnty-bd-of-educ" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Parents v. Montgomery County Board of Education</a>, they have proceeded to circuit court, but those courts to date have dodged addressing the merits.”
The Fourth and Seventh Circuits, Claybrook noted, have both ruled that parents don’t have a standing to complain schools were keeping things secret from them because they didn’t know for sure the schools were keeping things secret from them. Supreme Court Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas, who dissented from denial of certiorari in the Seventh Circuit, said that the school’s existing policy meant parents weren’t speculating about anything, and suggested circuit courts were avoiding the merits of the cases.
Jonathan Turley, a renowned law professor, <a href="https://x.com/JonathanTurley/status/1894444445656899712" target="_blank" rel="noopener">posted</a> about the First Circuit case on X, writing that there “is no more cherished right that citizens possess than raising their children.”
“Indeed, the right to raise one&#8217;s children according to your own faith and values is the touchstone of freedom,” Turley continued. “Conversely, the subordination of such rights is the harbinger of state tyranny. True pluralism allows families with different norms and values to thrive. Public schools are effectively demanding that parents give up their rights to critical aspects of rearing their children as a condition for public education. It is a virtual slogan for school choice.”

John Joseph Moakley Courthouse – Seaport District – South Boston – Boston Massachusetts

Major Court Rules Parents Have No Right To Know A School Is Transitioning Their Child

Children

Court

Education

LGBTQ

Massachusetts

Parenting

Public Schools

“There is a Passion natural to the Mind of man, especially a free Man, which renders him impatient of Restraint.” — George Mason
“If I were king, I would not allow people to go around burning the American flag. However, we have a First Amendment which says that the right of free speech shall not be abridged — and it is addressed in particular to speech critical of the government. That was the main kind of speech that tyrants would seek to suppress.” — Justice Antonin Scalia
* * *
We are both third-year law students at the Antonin Scalia Law School at George Mason University and we recently experienced speech suppression by university officials that completely goes against the spirit of the two figures our school represents. We objected to the idea of men in women’s restrooms — and vice versa. Fortunately, after we filed a <a href="https://adflegal.org/case/cerankosky-v-washington/?utm_source=dailywire&amp;utm_medium=oped" target="_blank" rel="noopener">lawsuit</a> with the help of Alliance Defending Freedom, our school quickly reversed course and has revised the policy used against us.
We are both part of a “Scalia Law ‘25” GroupMe discussion board for students in our graduating class, and late last September, a fellow third-year law student notified the group that he had been chosen as the official law school student representative for the Graduate and Professional Studies Assembly (GAPSA). He noted that GAPSA reports to the GMU administration, promised to do his best to advocate for all law students, and informed us that he had already shared some “concerns.”
One of the “concerns” he shared with GAPSA was a proposal to add feminine hygiene products to all restrooms “regardless of gender marker.” This, of course, implies a belief that one’s sense of “gender identity” is subjective, meaning that men could access women’s restrooms. We were immediately concerned for our personal safety and found that this proposal conflicted with our religious beliefs. The proposal put forward by the other student had the opposite effect of his promise to alleviate our concerns and advocate for us.
At the end of his post, the student asked if there was anything we would like to address. We voiced our opinions, highlighting our privacy and safety concerns with his proposal. Other students agreed by “liking” our posts. We also pointed out that conservative students have just as much of a right to be represented as everyone else. Despite soliciting our concerns and promising to represent all students to GAPSA, this student responded by mocking our opinions, condescending that it wasn’t any of our “business what gender someone identifies with.” While he mocked our beliefs, we respectfully responded that, as women, it is absolutely our business if men have access to our restrooms.
Two weeks later, the university’s Office of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion slapped us with no-contact orders prohibiting us from having any communication with the student.
We weren’t notified that the student had complained to the DEI Office, nor were we warned that we could potentially receive no-contact orders. Under GMU’s <a href="https://adfmedialegalfiles.blob.core.windows.net/files/CerankoskyExhibits1to12.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Title IX policy</a> at that time, the orders applied both on- and off-campus and remained in place until the DEI Office — in its sole discretion — rescinded them.
When we expressed our concerns with school officials, they tried to <a href="https://adfmedialegalfiles.blob.core.windows.net/files/CerankoskyExhibits1to12.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">shrug</a> it off by saying the orders were not “disciplinary” and were reciprocal, meaning the other student has no-contact orders with us. When we raised the issue that these orders suppressed our free speech, the school told us we’re allowed to have our opinions; the no-contact orders are a result of the “effect” of our speech.
They tried to convince us that there’s a difference — but if we must tiptoe around sharing our opinions because others may disagree, that chills our speech and violates our constitutional rights. With those orders, we faced expulsion from the school if the student alleged a violation of the orders. There are even state bar exams that ask if we have faced any sort of disciplinary action while at school.
As such, we decided to file a lawsuit against the school, and GMU did the right thing and settled the case with us. Officials lifted the no-contact orders, ensured that these kinds of orders would not be used to suppress speech — now giving our school one of the best policies in the country. We also received financial compensation.
Universities and law schools should be vibrant centers in the marketplace of ideas. GMU is right to change its policy to uphold the vision of its namesake that respects the rights of all students.
* * *
Selene Cerankosky and Maria Arcara are third-year law students at the Antonin Scalia Law School at George Mason University.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Statue of George Mason on campus of George Mason University, Fairfax, Virginia

We Took A Stand For Biological Truth At Our University — And Won

Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF)

American Universities

Bathrooms

Diversity Equity and Inclusion (DEI)

George Mason University

Title IX

Virginia

Acclaimed author J.K. Rowling announced on Saturday that she may have found the winning entry for &#8220;Bats*** Take of the Year,&#8221; and she shared her findings in an X post.
In addition to creating the famed &#8220;Harry Potter&#8221; book series, Rowling has been a vocal advocate for sex-based rights and, in particular, protections for single-sex spaces for women who are survivors of domestic abuse. For that reason, radical transgender activists have labeled her a Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminist (TERF) and have repeatedly targeted her for abuse and harassment on social media.
Rowling highlighted one such attack in her Saturday post, saying it ought to be a contender for one of the craziest comments of the year.
She shared a screenshot of just the text of the post — without displaying the person&#8217;s identity: &#8220;Has it ever occurred to you that by constantly suggesting that men get into women&#8217;s spaces to rape by wearing a dress and a wig that they might be following your suggestion? Your endless bulls*** harms both women and trans people.&#8221;
Rowling responded to the post, saying, &#8220;It&#8217;s only February, but this will take some beating at the 2025 Bats*** Take of the Year Awards. &#8216;It&#8217;s women&#8217;s fault if trans-identified men commit sexual assault in previously women-only spaces, because by saying that&#8217;s a thing that happens, women put the idea in men&#8217;s heads.'&#8221;
The author also responded to a recent post from trans-identifying male politician Sophie Molly, who had complained that trans people were less welcome in the United Kingdom than ever.
&#8220;Trans people are being treated with the utmost contempt and disdain. The polls have recorded a steep downward trend in support for trans people since 2018,&#8221; Molly posted.
&#8220;Turns out threatening and enacting violence, trying to get opponents sacked from their jobs, fighting to remove women’s rights, expecting to be treated as a holy victim caste and screaming ‘bigot’ at all who disagree isn’t the most effective form of activism. Who’d have thought,&#8221; Rowling replied.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Turns out threatening and enacting violence, trying to get opponents sacked from their jobs, fighting to remove women’s rights, expecting to be treated as a holy victim caste and screaming ‘bigot’ at all who disagree isn’t the most effective form of activism. Who’d have thought. <a href="https://t.co/BNwN1ZK3a5">https://t.co/BNwN1ZK3a5</a>
&mdash; J.K. Rowling (@jk_rowling) <a href="https://twitter.com/jk_rowling/status/1889996709465571778?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">February 13, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
&nbsp;

J.K. Rowling May Have Already Found Winning Entry For ‘Bats*** Take Of The Year’

J.K. Rowling May Have Already Found Winning Entry For 'Bats*** Take Of The Year'

Celebrities

Women's Rights

How much difference can one word make? 
 
Some Virginia legislators seem curiously eager to find out—and if they do, the people of the commonwealth may be worse for the experiment. 
 
Senate Joint Resolution 249 (and its House counterpart, H.J. 9) is now working its way through the state’s General Assembly. If enacted by two consecutive legislatures and approved by the people, the proposed amendment would alter Virginia’s constitution to say that any lawful marriage must be recognized by state and local officials without regard to sex, race, or—and here’s that ominous word—“gender.”
What’s the difference between “gender” and “sex?” Well, the latter is fixed: a person is born and remains either a man or a woman. The former is fluid, distilled from the notion that one’s sexual identification is somehow different from (and more important than) one’s natural biology … and can change sometimes even over the course of a day.
Amending the state’s foundational document to put gender in the same category as sex and race in issuing marriage licenses would be a radical step—and there are five reasons for state legislators to think twice before taking it, especially now during National Marriage Week.
<h3>First, when government officials elevate gender and gender identity in law, we’ve seen chaos and the abuse of longstanding fundamental rights.</h3>
Look at some of the biggest cultural issues in America today: men in women’s sports, school officials withholding information from parents about their child’s gender confusion, and activists pushing puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones for children. These were born out of legally separating sex from gender identity. Bad ideas—especially those enshrined in the constitution—have victims. And more often than not, it’s our children who suffer the most.
<h3>Second, passing this amendment will issue activist judges a license to pursue a radical agenda. </h3>
Adding “gender” to the Virginia Constitution could give these judges a basis for pushing a more comprehensive constitutional embrace of “gender” and potentially block legislators from passing laws that accurately reflect the distinctions between women and men.
<h3>Third, the amendment is unnecessary.</h3>
The sponsors of this resolution profess concern that rights to interracial and same-sex marriage might somehow be taken away. But both are already protected by federal law: Interracial marriage was settled by the U.S. Supreme Court in the Loving decision (1967); same-sex unions were affirmed in the high court’s Obergefell ruling (2015). What’s more, the Virginia General Assembly passed a law last year virtually identical to the one in question. What they want this amendment to do has already been done—and the legislators pushing this resolution have to know that. Which means …
<h3>Fourth, they must have another reason for pushing it.</h3>
If these legislators are—as they claim—only worried about preserving same-sex marriage, they could have just added the word “sex” to their proposed amendment. A person’s gender identity has never been the basis for holding back a marriage license. The whole argument for same-sex unions was to change the historic definition of marriage as the legal binding of two people of the opposite biological sex. Gender has never come into the discussion.
<h3>Fifth, this resolution includes a conspicuous exclusion. A prior version included religious liberty protections, but they were removed.</h3>
What can the reason be for excising religious liberty guarantees from the proposed amendment? Those protections ensure that those who sincerely believe marriage is the sacred union of one man and one woman are not compelled to assist or participate in other celebrations of marriage. The religious protections that were part of that near-identical law passed last year drew significant ire from opponents during a hearing related to the bill and now have been eliminated from the language under consideration. There’s no reason for that omission, apart from a deliberate intent to curtail religious freedom in regard to this issue.
All of which raises a lot of questions about the intentions of those sponsoring this far-reaching resolution. And those concerns give Virginians who value the rights, health, and safety of women—of engaged and caring parents wanting the best for their children—and of conscientious people of faith—a lot of reasons to look closely at Senate Joint Resolution 249 and its House companion. 
 
One word, carefully placed, could bring a great deal of unwanted change to Virginia. Here’s hoping a word to the wise is timely enough to change that.
 * * *
Gregory S. Baylor is senior counsel and director of the Center for Religious Schools with <a href="http://www.adflegal.org/">Alliance Defending Freedom</a> (<a href="https://twitter.com/ADFLegal">@ADFLegal</a>).
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Richmond Virginia State Capitol

How A Single Word Is Poised To Play Havoc With Virginia’s Laws, Culture

How A Single Word Is Poised To Play Havoc With Virginia's Laws, Culture

Constitution

Democrats

Leftists

Marriage

Even with seemingly the entire country shifting away from diversity, equity, and inclusion, the Senate Democrats are beefing up their DEI bonafides as they launch their effort to win back the upper chamber.
The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee – the campaign arm of Senate Democrats – recently retooled its leadership team for the 2026 election cycle. One of the top hires, <a href="https://www.axios.com/2025/01/24/dscc-executive-director-2026-midterms" target="_blank" rel="noopener">according to Axios</a>, was for an operative named Jessica Knight Henry to be its chief diversity and inclusion officer.
The new hire immediately posted <a href="https://2244cf6a.streaklinks.com/CS7JN6C09HVAR8ZlkgshFXdA/https%3A%2F%2Fdocs.google.com%2Fforms%2Fd%2Fe%2F1FAIpQLScJ-5moKTzv7pSqNuM-qSLJ4r9KON9CthFfpLwQBd2A20IocA%2Fviewform" target="_blank" rel="noopener">a resume bank</a> on LinkedIn for the 2026 election cycle asking candidates to submit optional “DEI information” to help “build diverse, strategic teams” at the DSCC. The resume bank also gives numerous gender identities for applicants to choose from, including “Woman (cis),” “Man (cis),” “Trans* woman / Transfeminine,” “Trans* man / Transmasculine,” “Non-binary,” “Prefer not to say,” and “other.”
The resume bank also asks candidates for their sexual orientation, providing options such as “Heterosexual or straight,” “Gay or lesbian,” “Bisexual,” “Pansexual,” “Asexual,” “Prefer not to say,” and “Other,” which can be left blank.
Recent polls have found that Americans have gotten tired of DEI practices. A poll from CRC Advisors provided <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/exclusive-poll-finds-majority-of-voters-oppose-race-and-gender-identity-based-hiring" target="_blank" rel="noopener">exclusively</a> to The Daily Wire found that 66% of respondents opposed the idea of their company “relying on race, gender identity, and sexuality-based hiring and promotion practices?” A majority of Democrats and liberals – 54% each – also said they oppose the discriminatory practice.
A similar <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/official-polls/voters-back-trump-ending-dei-programs-poll-shows-federal-deadline-looms" target="_blank" rel="noopener">poll</a> conducted by Fox News around the same time found that nearly one-third of voters said it was “extremely important” that Trump move to cut DEI initiatives.
Companies have also moved to distance themselves from the practice, <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/target-rolls-back-dei-joining-other-major-companies-like-walmart-meta" target="_blank" rel="noopener">including Target</a>, saying it understood “the importance of staying in step with the evolving external landscape.” Target is now scaling back its pledge to invest more than $2 billion in black-owned businesses, adding more than 500 black-owned brands, and increasing the exposure of diverse brands through paid media. As part of its scaling back, Target will no longer focus on diversity when choosing suppliers, The Daily Wire reported.
Walmart, McDonald’s, Meta, and many others have also said they would be scaling back their DEI practices. Some companies, like Costco and JP Morgan Chase, publicly refused to end their racist hiring practices.
In addition to businesses, some schools have also announced they would scale back their DEI efforts, <a href="https://x.com/sfmcguire79/status/1886420818344730965?s=12" target="_blank" rel="noopener">including</a> the University of Minnesota.
In one of his first acts as president, Trump signed an <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/ending-illegal-discrimination-and-restoring-merit-based-opportunity/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">executive order</a> to eliminate DEI from the federal government. In response, incoming Federal Communications Commission Chair Brendan Carr <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/federal-agency-eliminates-all-dei-programs-after-trumps-executive-order" target="_blank" rel="noopener">announced</a> that he eliminated DEI practices from his agency.
“Promoting invidious forms of discrimination runs contrary to the Communications Act and deprives Americans of their rights to fair and equal treatment under the law. It also represents a wasteful expenditure of taxpayer resources,” Carr said. “Nonetheless, the FCC joined other private and public sector institutions in promoting discriminatory DEl policies during the Biden Administration. The FCC did so by embedding DEl in its strategic priorities, budget requests, advisory groups, rulemaking proceedings, and many other components of its official work.”
The Pentagon, under Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, has also gutted its DEI programs from the U.S. military, The Daily Wire <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/pentagon-guts-dei-programs-from-u-s-military" target="_blank" rel="noopener">reported</a>.
“Diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEl) policies, as defined in the January 27, 2025, Executive Order, are incompatible with the values of DoD,” Hegseth wrote. “The DoD will strive to provide merit-based, color-blind, equal opportunities to Service members but will not guarantee or strive for equal outcomes.”
Democrats currently have just 47 Senators, the fewest they&#8217;ve had since 2014. To reclaim the majority in the 2026 midterms, they will have to win back control of four seats, which, given <a href="https://rollcall.com/2025/01/07/senate-vulnerable-2026-midterm-electio/">the map</a> and the <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/dems-favorability-underwater-by-26-points-while-trump-enjoys-net-positive-rating-poll-shows">party&#8217;s unpopularity with voters</a>, will be a major lift.

Senate Democrats

Senate Dems Double Down On DEI As Rest Of Country Runs The Other Way

Senate Democrats Doubling Down On DEI As Others Move Away From Racist Ideology

U.S.

New U.S. passports with the gender-neutral marker &#8220;X&#8221; will be paused after an executive order from President Donald Trump.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio has <a href="https://abcnews.go.com/US/state-department-halts-passport-gender-marker-applications/story?id=118062178" target="_blank" rel="noopener">directed</a> the State Department to freeze passport applications that request &#8220;X&#8221; to be marked for gender. Under the new policy, passports already issued with &#8220;X&#8221; as the gender will still be valid.
The move comes after Trump&#8217;s day one executive <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/defending-women-from-gender-ideology-extremism-and-restoring-biological-truth-to-the-federal-government/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">order</a> to officially &#8220;recognize two sexes, male and female,&#8221; and defined a woman as an “adult human female.” The order reversed the policy of allowing people to change their sex on passports and personnel records.
Since 2010, Americans have been allowed to change their sex on their passports. Initially, the change required forms showing a physician&#8217;s approval, but in 2021, then-Secretary of State Antony Blinken scrapped that requirement. In 2022, he added the “X” gender marker, a change announced on Transgender Day of Visibility.
&#8220;My Administration will defend women’s rights and protect freedom of conscience by using clear and accurate language and policies that recognize women are biologically female, and men are biologically male,&#8221; the president&#8217;s order reads.
Trump&#8217;s order also attempts to ban housing men in women’s prisons, as well as taxpayer-funded medical gender transitions for federal prisoners. This move is likely to be challenged in court by liberal opponents. The order aims to protect women’s privacy in migrant shelters and rape shelters.
Federal funds are prohibited from promoting gender ideology under the order, which also includes protections for Americans’ First Amendment rights not to use preferred pronouns in the workplace and public schools.
<a href="https://get.dailywire.com/subscribe/plus/?_gl=1*1lail3r*_gcl_aw*R0NMLjE3MzIyMDEyNDkuQ2owS0NRaUEwZnU1QmhEUUFSSXNBTVhVQk9JSkM0VnNsMFVreURxYXUxVWVEVWdOdjZkNzR2Y1pEeEZQeHVBcGl2R3BLaTdBMjVzT1p5TWFBdG1nRUFMd193Y0I.*_gcl_au*NDUxNDQ0NzYwLjE3MzY3ODI2NDY.*_ga*MTc2NzM0NDQ2NS4xNzI4OTA5Nzkx*_ga_CZKR9ZYKJP*MTczNjk1NzYwMy4zNDAuMS4xNzM2OTU3NzE2LjYwLjAuMA.." target="_blank" rel="noopener">CELEBRATE #47 WITH 47% OFF DAILYWIRE+ MEMBERSHIPS + A FREE $20 GIFT</a>
Gender ideology became a flashpoint during the election, especially as parents across the country sounded the alarm on child medical gender transitions and controversial lessons around the topic in public schools.
Former Vice President Kamala Harris also attracted negative attention on the issue after the Trump campaign released wildly successful television ads highlighting her support of far-Left policies, including taxpayer-funded transgender surgeries for illegal migrants and federal prisoners.
“Kamala is for they/them. President Trump is for you,” one ad’s narrator said.
Rubio was unanimously confirmed as Secretary of State by the U.S. Senate on Monday, making him the first confirmed Cabinet member of the second Trump administration. He was sworn in on Tuesday.
&#8220;There will be changes,&#8221; Rubio <a href="https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/marco-rubio-sworn-secretary-state-discusses-foreign-conflict/story?id=117937809" target="_blank" rel="noopener">said</a> at his swearing-in ceremony. &#8220;But the changes are not meant to be destructive. They&#8217;re not meant to be punitive.&#8221;
The State Department must move at the &#8220;speed of relevancy,&#8221; Rubio said.

Menu