Democrats' meltdown over SCOTUS child sex-change ruling reveals they learned nothing about 2024 blowout



A Marquette Law School poll published late last month revealed that 63% of Americans hold an unfavorable view of the Democratic Party. Polling by the Economist and YouGov indicated that the disapproval rating for the party as a whole was 58.3% as of May 25.

Democratic lawmakers evidenced their commitment to driving up these numbers and alienating the majority of normal Americans with their hysterical response to the U.S. Supreme Court's Wednesday 6-3 ruling in United States v. Skrmetti, which upheld Tennessee's ban on sex-change genital mutilations and sterilizing puberty blockers for minors.

Not only is Tennessee's Senate Bill 1 lawful, as confirmed by the high court, but such laws reflect the sensibilities of the vast majority of Americans.

A Washington Post-KFF poll found in 2023 that 57% of Americans say gender is biologically determined; 68% oppose the use of puberty blockers by children; and 58% oppose hormonal treatments for teens.

Polling conducted ahead of the 2024 election by NORC at the University of Chicago for the Los Angeles Times found that 54% of Americans favor laws to prevent minors from receiving sex-change drugs or surgeries.

A Center Square Voter's Choice Poll revealed last month that only 29% of voters think doctors should be allowed to prescribe puberty blockers to kids with parental consent. Forty-seven percent of respondents said puberty blockers should not be prescribed to minors under any circumstances.

RELATED: God's justice doesn’t sleep — and the Supreme Court just proved it

Photo by Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images

Democrats appear to be fully aware of the American public's majoritive revulsion over the mutilation and sterilization of confused children.

In the immediate aftermath of the 2024 election and just prior to stepping down as Texas Democratic Party chairman, Gilberto Hinojosa emphasized to Democrats that their messaging was not resonating with everyday Americans.

'Hate won.'

"You have a choice as a party," said Hinojosa. "You can support transgender rights up and down all the categories where the issue comes up, or you can understand that there's certain things that we just go too far on, that a big bulk of our population does not support."

An American Principles Project poll looking at the impact of campaign ads on various transvestite-related issues in the 2024 election found that 52% of voters who were made aware of failed presidential candidate Kamala Harris' support for sex changes for minors were more likely to vote for President Donald Trump.

APP president Terry Schilling concluded, "There should be no question now that Democrats' gender insanity is a massive political vulnerability for them that Republicans should continue to exploit."

Schilling then urged Republicans "not to forget the main lesson from the election and to keep the pressure on Democrats for as long as they continue to defend their extreme agenda."

Despite the unpopularity of gender ideology, the collapse of its core narratives, and the growing list of victims now speaking out about their mutilation, Democrats are leaning into their support for gender ideology, particularly for child sex-change mutilations.

"Hate won," complained Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), one of the Democrats who begged the Supreme Court in an amicus brief last year to strike the Tennessee law. "The far-right justices of the Supreme Court endorsed hate and discrimination by delivering a win for Republicans who have relentlessly and cruelly attacked transgender Americans for years."

'The fight isn't over.'

Other Democrats followed a similar script.

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), whose approval rating according to a recent Harvard-Harris poll was 26%, said in response to the high court's ruling in Skrmetti, "Republicans' cruel crusade against trans kids is all an attempt to divert attention from ripping healthcare away from millions of Americans. We'll keep fighting and we'll keep marching on."

"Today the Supreme Court chose to cast transgender children in the shadows, deciding they are not entitled to the protections of the Equal Protection Clause," wrote Sen. Cory Booker (N.J.). "By upholding Tennessee's ban on medical care for transgender children the Court has legitimized discriminatory treatment of children."

Booker suggested further that the protection of children in over 24 states from irreversible sex-change procedures is not only a "violation of the constitutional protections every child is entitled to" but puts kids "in danger."

Rep. Sarah McBride (Del.), the cross-dressing Democrat formerly known as Tim McBride, claimed that the ruling in Skrmetti "undermines doctors in delivering care to some of the most vulnerable patients in our country."

"As the proud grandma of a young trans man, I know that gender-affirming care can help trans youth live openly and authentically," wrote Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.). "The fight isn't over."

RELATED: Sacrificing body parts and informed consent to the sex-change regime

Photo by Bob Riha, Jr./Getty Images

Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, one of the Democratic lawmakers who has received a fortune in donations from the pharmaceutical industry, stated, "Trans kids suffer when they don't get medically-necessary care. This is a brazen political decision by the Supreme Court."

Contrary to Warren's suggestion, so-called "gender-affirming care" does not ameliorate confused kids' suffering. Rather, it makes matters a whole lot worse.

'Protecting children from making permanent, life-altering decisions about their bodies should be a bipartisan issue.'

Britain's National Health Service in 2020 appointed Dr. Hilary Cass, a British medical doctor who previously served as president of the Royal College of Pediatrics and Child Health, to lead an independent investigation into the efficacy of sex-change procedures on minors.

Blaze News previously reported that Cass' 388-page multi-year report revealed that:

  • the "systematic review showed no clear evidence that social transition in childhood has any positive or negative mental health outcomes, and relatively weak evidence for any effect in adolescence";
  • puberty blockers compromise bone density and have no apparent impact on "gender dysphoria or body satisfaction";
  • there is "insufficient and/or inconsistent evidence about the effects of puberty suppression on gender dysphoria, mental and psychosocial health, cognitive development, cardio-metabolic risk, and fertility";
  • there is "a lack of high-quality research assessing the outcomes of hormones for masculinisation or feminisation in adolescents with gender dysphoria or incongruence and few studies that undertake long-term follow-up"; and
  • so-called gender-affirming care is "an area of remarkably weak evidence."

Prior to the release of the Cass Review, a peer-reviewed study in the esteemed quarterly journal BMJ Mental Health revealed that "medical gender reassignment does not have an impact on suicide risk."

Journalist Mia Hughes revealed in a report published last year by Michael Shellenberger's think tank, Environmental Progress, that prominent members of the World Professional Association of Transgender Health — the organization that literally wrote the book on "transgender" care — have themselves raised issues with the drugs and procedures that Markey, Schumer, Booker, McBride, Schakowsky, Warren, and other Democrats are desperate to protect.

— (@)

WPATH members quoted in Hughes' report discussed the inability of minors to comprehend the long-term consequences of sex-change procedures, the debilitating side effects of such procedures, and problems with obtaining informed consent.

RELATED: 'Neither scientific nor medical': Leaked WPATH files shed light on the horror show that is 'gender-affirming care'

Luis Soto/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images

Alleigh Marre, executive director of the American Parents Coalition, said in a statement obtained by Blaze News, "Sadly, many on the left have been captured by radical gender activists and appear determined to allow children to be the subject of irreversible and experimental gender interventions."

"Protecting children from making permanent, life-altering decisions about their bodies should be a bipartisan issue," continued Marre. "This ruling establishes important precedent in states seeking to end or regulate gender practices for minors, which have unfortunately become increasingly easy to obtain."

"Democratic leaders would do well to recognize that the Skrmetti decision is not a judgment against any group, but a vital affirmation of common sense, parental rights, and biological reality," Kelsey Reinhardt, president of CatholicVote, told Blaze News. "These are principles that the American people have consistently supported."

The Republican National Committee noted on X, "Democrats want taxpayers to fund sex changes for MINORS! SICK!"

Attorney General Pam Bondi applauded the SCOTUS decision, encouraging "other states to follow Tennessee’s lead and enact similar legislation to protect our kids." Tennessee is one of the 25 Republican states that have laws on the books protecting children from sex-change procedures.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

EXCLUSIVE: Jim Banks Unveils Bill To Protect Workers Who Disagree With Their Radical Left Bosses

'This bill is about protecting common sense'

CO Christian Camp Risks Losing License For Not Letting Trans-Identifying Boys Bunk With Girls

Christian camp IdRaHaJe in Colorado refuses to comply with progressive gender ideology policies and faces potential shutdown.

DOJ issues head-scratching statement after trans-identifying man convicted in COVID fraud case



President Donald Trump's Department of Justice issued a confusing press release after a Louisiana man who pretends to be a woman pled guilty in a COVID fraud case.

On Thursday, Brandon Jarrow, 33, pled guilty to theft of government funds and making false statements, the press release said.

According to the DOJ, the conviction stems from two separate incidents involving COVID-related funds designated to assist small businesses. In June 2020, Jarrow filed a false application for a loan from the Economic Injury Disaster Loans program that resulted in a "theft" of $95,000 from the government. Then in February 2021, Jarrow made "false statements" to an approved lender about a "sham business," resulting in a $20,833 Paycheck Protection Program loan.

Jarrow now faces up to 15 years in prison and a fine of $250,000. He is scheduled to be sentenced on August 13.

RELATED: Damning new episode of BlazeTV's 'The Coverup' blows lid off Biden's 10-year pardon for Fauci

Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

The press release also described the defendant as a "New Orleans Woman" who sometimes goes by the name Brandi Jarrow. The press release even uses a female pronoun in reference to Jarrow, though Jarrow's legal name is apparently still Brandon and a quick scroll through Brandi Jarrow's Facebook photos reveals that Jarrow looked decidedly more masculine in his early 20s.

On various posts on the Facebook account, Jarrow claimed to be "transgender," a "trans woman," and a New Orleans "queen."

The gender confusion in the DOJ press release about Jarrow's conviction is particularly notable now that President Trump has issued an executive order demanding that the federal government adhere to fixed biological definitions of sex and gender.

Jarrow even starred in a March 2021 PBS documentary entitled "A Fine Girl," which described Jarrow as a "trans woman of color" who opened an "inclusive luxury salon." The "Fine Girl" episode purported to be "a joyful, optimistic portrait of what's possible when we include and uplift trans people as essential contributors to our community." According to the PBS website, video of "A Fine Girl" expired in April 2024.

The gender confusion in the DOJ press release about Jarrow's conviction is particularly notable now that President Trump has issued an executive order demanding that the federal government adhere to fixed definitions of sex and gender that are directly tied to biological reality.

"'Women' or 'woman' and 'girls' or 'girl' shall mean adult and juvenile human females, respectively," said the EO issued on Inauguration Day. "'Men' or 'man' and 'boys' or 'boy' shall mean adult and juvenile human males, respectively."

Those definitions "shall govern all Executive interpretation of and application of Federal law and administration policy," the EO claimed.

RELATED: Hegseth gives multitudes of trans-identifying service members the boot

Photo by Andrew Harnik/Getty Images

Shane Jones, the public information officer for the United States Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Louisiana, did not respond to a request for comment from Blaze News.

In addition to federal law enforcement, Jarrow also appears to be a familiar face to local cops. In November, the New Orleans Police Department issued a "be on the lookout" request for Jarrow, whom the department characterized as a "Black Female." Police claimed Jarrow was suspected in two separate identity theft cases that occurred a week apart in September.

"In both cases the victims reported their cellphones and wallets were stolen. Through investigation, detectives positively identified Jarrow as the subject who used the victim's information to make online charges at businesses registered to Jarrow," the BOLO request stated.

H/T: The Post Millennial

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

‘Tolerant’ Leftists Shout Down Gen Z Lawmaker For Saying Boys And Girls Are Different

The time to listen to black men is apparently over if they have the temerity to stray from gender orthodoxy.

Doctor fired for speaking out against child sex changes wins big settlement against University of Louisville



University of Louisville officials have agreed to pay nearly $1.6 million to settle their case with Dr. Allan Josephson, the professor whom the university demoted, then canned for speaking out against child sex changes, after 15 years of distinguished service.

"I'm glad to finally receive vindication for voicing what I know is true," Josephson said in a statement Monday.

Gender ideology and the sex-change regime it gave rise to in the West have suffered a series of mortal blows in recent years.

The practice of so-called gender-affirming care has been outed as ruinous pseudo-science; practitioners have been damned by their own words as freewheeling mutilators; and LGBT activists' narrative in support of sex changes has collapsed in the face of mounting contradictory evidence. Meanwhile, across the country and beyond, lawmakers have passed legislation and policy affirming the meaningful and immutable distinction between men and women, preventing the invasion by men of women's spaces, and protecting children from sex-change procedures.

While popular opinion is now unmistakably against gender ideology and the corresponding medicalization of children, those who stood their ground against the sex-change regime in recent years often did so at great reputational and professional risk. Dr. Allan Josephson found this out the hard way.

'Runs counter to the messages of inclusion and welcome that we have been sending.'

Josephson, a psychiatrist, joined the University of Louisville School of Medicine in 2003, where he led the Division of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Psychology without incident until Josephson spoke on a Heritage Foundation panel in October 2017 titled "Gender Dysphoria in Children: Understanding the Science and the Medicine."

Josephson — who previously expressed concerns over the medical procedures to which children experiencing so-called gender dysphoria were being subjected — explained:

Gender dysphoria is a socio-cultural, psychological phenomenon that cannot be fully addressed with drugs and surgery. Thus, doctors and others should explore what causes this confusion and help the child learn how to meet this developmental challenge.

According to court documents, the psychiatrist's opinion apparently did not sit well with Brian Buford, the director of the university's LGBT executive center, who contacted the medical school's then-dean Toni Ganzel, suggesting that Josephson "might be violating the ethical standards for psychiatry" and drawing unwanted national attention for an opinion that "puts our reputation at risk and runs counter to the messages of inclusion and welcome that we have been sending."

Ganzel, in turn, noted that Josephson's remarks did not "reflect the culture" that the school was "trying so hard to promote," said court documents.

The concern-mongering over Josephson's perceived "highly conservative position" quickly snowballed. The doctor's colleagues began hectoring him about his remarks, and by the end of the November 2017, they were pressuring him to resign as division chief for daring to express an opinion out of line with the new orthodoxy.

Under mounting pressure, Josephson agreed to resign as division head effective early December 2017. This did not, however, satisfy the ideologues in his midst who were apparently keen on institutional uniformity of vision on this issue.

Court documents indicate that officials in the school's LGBT executive center as well as Josephson's division colleagues plotted to undermine him, partly by challenging his "inductive reasoning as unscientific and ask how much he's earned as an expert witness over the last two years on sexuality issues."

'Public universities have no business punishing professors simply because they hold different views.'

Josephson was told not to treat non-straight patients and apparently surveilled, with his conduct detailed on what one division official dubbed an "Allan tracking document." Those colleagues who took issue with his remarks also criticized Josephson's work performance and productivity.

By February 2019, it became clear that the school had decided not to renew the doctor's contract. Shortly thereafter, Josephson filed suit against several university officials, alleging First Amendment retaliation.

The university fought the case all the way up to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, which ruled in September that:

  • Josephson's speech was constitutionally protected, as it addressed a matter of public concern;
  • the university officials failed to demonstrate that Josephson's "remarks had a significant disruptive effect on the Medical School's operations"; and
  • a reasonable jury could find that each of the defendants "retaliated against Josephson because he engaged in speech protected by the First Amendment."

Apparently aware they were fighting a losing battle, university officials apparently agreed to pay nearly $1.6 million in damages and attorney fee to settle the lawsuit.

"After several years, free speech and common sense have scored a major victory on college campuses," said Travis Barham, senior counsel at Alliance Defending Freedom, the group that represented Josephson.

"As early as 2014, Dr. Josephson saw the truth behind dangerous procedures that activists were pushing on children struggling with their sex," continued Barham. "He risked his livelihood and reputation to speak the truth boldly, and the university punished him for expressing his opinion — ultimately by dismissing him. But public universities have no business punishing professors simply because they hold different views."

"Hopefully, other public universities will learn from this that if they violate the First Amendment, they can be held accountable, and it can be very expensive," added Barham.

Josephson stated, "Children deserve better than life-altering procedures that mutilate their bodies and destroy their ability to lead fulfilling lives. In spite of the circumstances I suffered through with my university, I'm overwhelmed to see that my case helped lead the way for other medical practitioners to see the universal truth that altering biological sex is impossibly dangerous, while acceptance of one's sex leads to flourishing."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Trump judge sides with North Dakota Catholics, blocks 'anti-religion' Biden regulations



A Trump judge sided Wednesday with Catholic organizations in North Dakota, shielding them from the enforcement of a Biden Equal Employment Opportunity Commission rule and guidance that required their complicity in employees' efforts to kill their unborn children as well as gender ideology.

The outcome was unsurprising given U.S. District Court Judge Daniel Traynor's suggestions in September when granting a preliminary injunction to the Bismarck Diocese and the Catholic Benefits Association that "this case is not hard" and that the Biden EEOC's rule served as a "reminder of the danger of government action that is clearly anti-religion."

Background

The Biden EEOC went out of its way to issue regulations and enforcement guidelines that ran roughshod over Christian employers' constitutional freedoms.

One rule in particular, the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, proved especially troubling for the Bismarck Diocese and the CBA, the latter of which serves over 9,000 employers nationwide, as it would have both required them to provide paid leave and other accommodations to employees seeking abortion and restricted their ability to criticize employees' decision to kill their children.

The EEOC also issued enforcement guidance under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which the plaintiffs' original complaint noted would effectively require Catholic employers to "use false pronouns, to avoid speaking the truth regarding human sexuality around certain employees, and to permit opposite-sex employees to intrude into private spaces reserved to those of the other sex."

The Bismarck Diocese and the CBA sued the EEOC and former EEOC Chair Charlotte Burrows in July 2024, seeking an injunction against the rule and guidance.

'The goal may be to find new ways to infringe on religious believers' fundamental rights.'

The plaintiffs — well positioned at the outset legally to take on the Biden administration, as a federal court in Mississippi had already enjoined the EEOC rule at issue in another case — argued that the EEOC had run afoul of the Administrative Procedure Act and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act; violated their First Amendment freedoms of speech and association along with the Free Exercise Clause; and infringed upon church autonomy.

Judge Traynor evidently agreed.

Biden admin notches another loss

Traynor permanently blocked the EEOC this week from interpreting or enforcing the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act and implementing regulations against the Diocese of Bismarck and the Catholic Benefits Association "in a manner that would require them to accommodate abortion or infertility treatments that are contrary to the Catholic faith, speak in favor of the same or refrain from speaking the same."

The Trump judge also blocked the EEOC and its agents from interpreting or enforcing Title VII in a manner that would require the Bismarck Diocese, the CBA, and future Catholic members to speak favorably about abortion or sex changes, require them to remain silent about their opposition to either, or require them to indulge transvestites' desire to use the pronouns or private spaces belonging to the opposite sex.

Traynor previously acknowledged that the suit fell "into a long line of cases that should be unnecessary in a country that was built on the concept of freedom of religion."

"One would think after all this litigation, the government would respect the boundaries of religious freedom," wrote Traynor. "Instead, it seems the goal may be to find new ways to infringe on religious believers' fundamental rights to the exercise of their religions."

The judge, a member of the Federalist Society, suggested that the "repeated illegal and unconstitutional administrative actions against one of the founding principles of our country, the free exercise of religion," possibly signal that it is indeed now "a post-Christian age."

'The Court has upheld our religious freedom rights.'

Attorney Martin Nussbaum told the Associated Press that his clients are "very thankful to the federal judiciary for vindicating religious freedom rights" in this case.

"One of the things that we've seen is an emerging practice on behalf of some of the federal administrations — we also see this in certain states — a desire not only to mandate immoral benefits but to impose speech codes that would be contrary to Catholic values," said Nussbaum. "But the speech codes go beyond pronouns to even speaking about what Catholic teaching is, and we're just grateful to this court for protecting the freedom of speech of Catholic organizations as well."

Bishop David Kagan of the Bismarck Diocese stated, "The Court has upheld our religious freedom rights, and that is all we ever wanted."

A Better Balance, a liberal activist group that previously opposed President Donald Trump's Supreme Court nominees, condemned the ruling. Inimai Chettiar, the group's leftist president, suggested the case was "extremist" in nature and claimed the ruling was "part of a broad trend of attacks on women's rights and reproductive freedom."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Top UK court deals devastating blow to cross-dressing activists



Britain's Supreme Court ruled unanimously Wednesday that the legal definition of "woman" excludes male transvestites.

Conservatives and feminists such as J.K. Rowling celebrated the court's affirmation of reality. Meanwhile, gender ideologues and LGBT activists who recently suffered other monumental defeats in the isles — namely Britain's ban of puberty blockers and the landmark Cass Review's confirmation that so-called gender science is bunk — melted down, characterizing the ruling as potentially harmful.

The court was tasked with sorting out the "correct interpretation" of the 2010 Equality Act, specifically the terms "woman" and "sex." The act provides protection against discrimination on the basis of various immutable characteristics.

The case found its way to the U.K.'s highest court on account of a legal dispute between the feminist organization For Women Scotland and the leftist Scottish government.

The feminist organization For Women Scotland kicked things off in 2018 by challenging Scottish legislation that would include male transvestites in quotas for women. The Scottish government maintained that men who secured gender recognition certificates identifying them as female were women where the law was concerned, reported the BBC. The case snowballed from there.

"This examination of the language of the EA 2010, its context and purpose, demonstrate that the words 'sex,' 'woman' and 'man' in sections 11 and 212(1) mean (and were always intended to mean) biological sex, biological woman and biological man," the court noted in its 88-page ruling.

'Women are women and men are men: you cannot change your biological sex.'

"Interpreting 'sex' as certificated sex would cut across the definitions of 'man' and 'woman' and thus the protected characteristic of sex in an incoherent way. It would create heterogeneous groupings," stated the court. "As a matter of ordinary language, the provisions relating to sex discrimination, and especially those relating to pregnancy and maternity, and to protection from risks specifically affecting women, can only be interpreted as referring to biological sex.

Just in case there was any remaining doubt, the court clarified that a female posing as a man and carrying a GRC is a woman where the law is concerned and a male posing as a woman and carrying a GRC is a man.

The court evidently did not buy the suggestion that admitting that men are not women under the law would cause disadvantage to transvestites, noting they were still protected from discrimination under the Equality Act.

Judge Patrick Hodge, deputy president of the U.K. Supreme Court, stated that the ruling should not be read as "a triumph for one or more groups in our society at the expense of another."

Contrary to Hodge's suggestion, the ruling amounted to a major victory for those Britons keen on keeping opportunistic men out of women's spaces. After all, the court ruled that male transvestites with GRCs can be excluded from single-sex spaces such as women's bathrooms, changing rooms, and hostels.

"If sex means biological sex, then provided it is proportionate, the female-only nature of the service would ... permit the exclusion of all males including males living in the female gender regardless of GRC status," said the court. "Moreover, women living in the male gender could also be excluded under paragraph 28 without this amounting to gender reassignment discrimination."

"Absolutely jubilant here, tears!" For Women Scotland tweeted upon learning of the ruling.

Conservative Party Leader Kemi Badenoch noted, "Saying 'trans women are women' was never true in fact and now isn't true in law, either."

Badenoch characterized the ruling as a "victory for all of the women who faced personal abuse or lost their jobs for stating the obvious. Women are women and men are men: you cannot change your biological sex."

J.K. Rowling noted, "It took three extraordinary, tenacious Scottish women with an army behind them to get this case heard by the Supreme Court and, in winning, they've protected the rights of women and girls across the UK."

The three women Rowling referred to are Trina Budge, Marion Calder, and Susan Smith, the directors of For Women Scotland.

The leftist Scottish government vowed to remain an inclusive country after its defeat Wednesday, reported the Telegraph.

A spokesman for the government said, "We want to reassure everyone that the Scottish government is fully committed to protecting everyone's rights, to ensure that Scotland remains an inclusive country."

"This judgment further reinforces that the Equality Act does not, and never has, allowed for the self-identification of sex under the Act," the Edinburgh-based policy analysis group Murray Blackburn MacKenzie noted in a statement.

"Nonetheless, policies based on self-identification remain in place across the U.K., in hospitals, police forces, schools, and prisons. The U.K. and devolved governments, and the Equality and Human Rights Commission, need to take responsibility for their role in this, take urgent steps to clear up the confusion, and ensure the ruling has effect on the ground," added the policy group.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Canadian transvestite cancels US music tour because of America's reality-affirming visa policy



Canadian singer Bells Larsen, a woman who pretends to be a man, announced Friday that she canceled all of the American shows on her spring tour, blaming the Trump administration's requirement that visa applicants state their actual sex on their applications.

The female singer, who planned to exclusively play in blue states, indicated that she received an email last week from the American Federation of Musicians "stating that I am no longer able to apply for a Visa because US Immigration now only recognizes identification that corresponds with one's assigned sex at birth."

Contrary to Larsen's suggestion, which was uncritically embraced by leftists online — including the United Musicians and Allied Workers union — the singer is entirely capable of applying for a visa. However, to do so successfully would require her acknowledgment that she is indeed a woman.

On his first day in office, President Donald Trump signed an executive order rejecting gender ideology and instructing the government to recognize only two sexes, male and female.

The president directed Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem to "implement changes to require that government-issued identification documents, including passports, visas, and Global Entry cards, accurately reflect the holder's sex."

'I truly don't know which phrasing holds more truth.'

Rubio gave guidance in February instructing all visa-issuing posts to ensure that the sex listed on an issued visa corresponds to the visa holder's immutable biological classification as either male or female.

The guidance noted that:

generally, the sex listed on the foreign passport should be considered as prima facie evidence of the applicant's sex as defined in the E.O. However, there may be instances when a consular officer becomes aware that the sex listed on the foreign passport may not be the applicant's sex as defined in the E.O. In such cases, the adjudicator should confirm the applicant's sex as defined in the E.O., indicate that sex on the visa, and add a case note documenting any discrepancy between the passport and the visa to prevent issues at the [point of entry].

Canadian passports are unreliable when it comes to evidencing an applicant's sex because Canadian passport holders can request a gender identifier for the opposite sex and even for "another gender" besides male or female.

The request form winks at this unreliability, notifying Canadians that the sex identifier on their travel document "may not be universally accepted for entry or exit by border authorities of another country."

Larsen apparently failed to read the fine print.

"To put it super plainly, because I'm trans (and have an M on my passport), I can't tour in the States," wrote the female singer. "I hesitate to include a 'right now' or an 'anymore' at the end of my previous sentence, because — in this sociopolitical climate — I truly don't know which phrasing holds more truth."

Larsen suggested that her announcement was somehow ironic because her new album is about her adoption of a male persona following elective mastectomies and testosterone therapy, adding, "This new policy has crushed my dreams."

'President Trump promised the American people a revolution of common sense.'

After doing her best to use the manufactured controversy to promote herself, Larsen implored her fellow Canadians to vote in the upcoming federal election in which conservative populist Pierre Poilievre seeks to unseat as prime minister the self-identified "European" World Economic Forum frequenter Mark Carney.

Earlier this month, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services announced it was updating its policy manual to clarify that it recognizes only two biological sexes, male and female.

"President Trump promised the American people a revolution of common sense, and that includes making sure that the policy of the U.S. government agrees with simple biological reality," Department of Homeland Security assistant secretary for public affairs Tricia McLaughlin said in a statement. "Proper management of our immigration system is a matter of national security, not a place to promote and coddle an ideology that permanently harms children and robs real women of their dignity, safety, and well-being."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Florida teacher will lose job after apparently indulging student's gender delusion behind parent's back



A Florida teacher will soon be out of a job after she allegedly used a student's "preferred" name without parental consent.

Melissa Calhoun is an English teacher at Satellite High School in Satellite Beach near Cape Canaveral along the Atlantic Coast. According to her LinkedIn page, she has worked with Brevard Public Schools for nearly 12 years, seven of which have been spent at Satellite High.

However, her contract has not been renewed for the 2025-2026 school year after she allegedly violated a state law passed in 2023 barring teachers from calling students by any other name except their legal name without parent permission. The district became aware of the situation after receiving a complaint from the student's parent.

'BPS supports parents’ rights to be the primary decision-makers in their children’s lives.'

News reports have fixated on the fact that the law technically forbids teachers to use common nicknames such as Jon instead of Jonathan without parental consent. However, Blaze News confirmed with a BPS representative that Calhoun was using a name that did not correspond with the student's biological sex.

Additionally, during an investigation into the name issue, Calhoun admitted she "knowingly did not comply with state statute," Brevard Public Schools spokesperson Janet Murnaghan said, according to Florida Today. The district then issued her a letter of reprimand before ultimately deciding against renewing her contract.

"The state will be reviewing her teaching certificate based on these actions," said a statement from Murnaghan. "Teachers, like all employees, are expected to follow the law."

Calhoun is believed to be the first Florida teacher to lose a job over the preferred-name law.

So far, radical advocacy groups in the area are rallying behind Calhoun. The ACLU of Florida claimed she was just "being respectful," while Quinn Diaz of Equality Florida said she was just creating a "positive" learning environment.

"This dedicated teacher is being fired for recognizing a student in the same manner that we acknowledge our family, friends, and peers who use a nickname, their middle name, or a shortened name," Diaz added.

However, if the statements from BPS are any indication, the decision to discontinue Calhoun's employment was about respecting the law passed by democratically elected officials as well as the rights of parents.

"BPS supports parents’ rights to be the primary decision-makers in their children’s lives, and Florida law affirms their right to be informed," Murnaghan said.

Neither Calhoun nor the Brevard Federation of Teachers union responded to a request for comment from Florida Today.

H/T: Libs of TikTok

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!