Top Sociological Journal Says Young Kids Should Be Sexualized And It’s Colonizers’ Fault They Aren’t
This academic article, and any like it, must go down, as its clear objective is to violate children.This academic article, and any like it, must go down, as its clear objective is to violate children.Christian counselors fight for freedom of speech before the Supreme Court
This week, free speech is once again on the line before the U.S. Supreme Court. At stake is whether Americans still have the right to talk about faith, morality, and truth in their private practice without the government’s permission.
The case comes out of Colorado, where lawmakers in 2019 passed a ban on what they call “conversion therapy.” The law prohibits licensed counselors from trying to change a minor’s gender identity or sexual orientation, including their behaviors or gender expression. The law specifically targets Christian counselors who serve clients attempting to overcome gender dysphoria and not fall prey to the transgender ideology.
The root of this case isn’t about therapy. It’s about erasing a worldview.
The law does include one convenient exception. Counselors are free to “assist” a person who wants to transition genders but not someone who wants to affirm their biological sex. In other words, you can help a child move in one direction — one that is in line with the state’s progressive ideology — but not the other.
Think about that for a moment. The state is saying that a counselor can’t even discuss changing behavior with a client. Isn’t that the whole point of counseling?
One‑sided freedom
Kaley Chiles, a licensed professional counselor in Colorado Springs, has been one of the victims of this blatant attack on the First Amendment. Chiles has dedicated her practice to helping clients dealing with addiction, trauma, sexuality struggles, and gender dysphoria. She’s also a Christian who serves patients seeking guidance rooted in biblical teaching.
Before 2019, she could counsel minors according to her faith. She could talk about biblical morality, identity, and the path to wholeness. When the state outlawed that speech, she stopped. She followed the law — and then she sued.
Her case, Chiles v. Salazar, is now before the Supreme Court. Justices heard oral arguments on Tuesday. The question: Is counseling a form of speech or merely a government‑regulated service?
If the court rules the wrong way, it won’t just silence therapists. It could muzzle pastors, teachers, parents — anyone who believes in truth grounded in something higher than the state.
Censored belief
I believe marriage between a man and a woman is ordained by God. I believe that family — mother, father, child — is central to His design for humanity.
I believe that men and women are created in God’s image, with divine purpose and eternal worth. Gender isn’t an accessory; it’s part of who we are.
I believe the command to “be fruitful and multiply” still stands, that the power to create life is sacred, and that it belongs within marriage between a man and a woman.
And I believe that when we abandon these principles — when we treat sex as recreation, when we dissolve families, when we forget our vows — society fractures.
Are those statements controversial now? Maybe. But if this case goes against Chiles, those statements and others could soon be illegal to say aloud in public.
Faith on trial
In Colorado today, a counselor cannot sit down with a 15‑year‑old who’s struggling with gender identity and say, “You were made in God’s image, and He does not make mistakes.” That is now considered hate speech.
RELATED: Free speech is a core American value
That’s the “freedom” the modern left is offering — freedom to affirm, but never to question. Freedom to comply, but never to dissent. The same movement that claims to champion tolerance now demands silence from anyone who disagrees. The root of this case isn’t about therapy. It’s about erasing a worldview.
The real test
No matter what happens at the Supreme Court, we cannot stop speaking the truth. These beliefs aren’t political slogans. For me, they are the product of years of wrestling, searching, and learning through pain and grace what actually leads to peace. For us, they are the fundamental principles that lead to a flourishing life. We cannot balk at standing for truth.
Maybe that’s why God allows these moments — moments when believers are pushed to the wall. They force us to ask hard questions: What is true? What is worth standing for? What is worth dying for — and living for?
If we answer those questions honestly, we’ll find not just truth, but freedom.
The state doesn’t grant real freedom — and it certainly isn’t defined by Colorado legislators. Real freedom comes from God. And the day we forget that, the First Amendment will mean nothing at all.
Want more from Glenn Beck? Get Glenn's FREE email newsletter with his latest insights, top stories, show prep, and more delivered to your inbox.
'Sex recession': Study suggests Americans have lost their mojo
Movies and television programs reportedly have significantly more sexual content, nudity, and immodesty now than those shown just a few decades ago. The so-called "adult entertainment" industry has, meanwhile, exploded, with one projection suggesting that it will grow from an estimated global market size of $58.8 billion in 2023 to $74.7 billion by 2030.
While depictions of sex are ubiquitous in the media, a new study suggests that the real thing is disappearing from the lives of everyday Americans.
The delay and avoidance of marriage appear to be another major factor.
Citing General Social Survey data, the Institute for Family Studies recently indicated that "Americans are having a record-low amount of sex."
Whereas in 1990, 55% of adults ages 18 to 64 reportedly were having sex at least once a week, that number reportedly dropped to less than 50% by the turn of the century. As of last year, the percentage of adults ages 18-64 having sex weekly had fallen all the way down to 37%.
When it comes to individuals ages 18-29 who reported not having sex in the last year, the number held steady at around 15% of respondents until 2010. However, between 2010 and 2024, that number skyrocketed to 24% in the General Social Survey.
There appear to be numerous factors at play, including shifting social norms; libido-killing prescription drugs; the pandemic; decreasing alcohol consumption; the interpersonal impact of social media, gaming, and the smartphone; and pornography. The delay and avoidance of marriage appear to be another major factor.
Dr. Brad Wilcox, professor of sociology at the University of Virginia and director of the National Marriage Project, and Lyman Stone, director of the Pronatalism Initiative at the IFS, noted in a 2019 article in the Atlantic that married people have sex more often but that the share of adults who are married was falling to record lows.
Whereas 46% of married men and women ages 18-64 reported having weekly sex, only 34% of their unmarried peers reported the same, said the new IFS study. However, married couples are also facing a so-called "sex recession," as 59% of married adults ages 18-64 reportedly had sex once a week in the period between 1996 and 2008.
RELATED: American fertility rate hits all-time low as Dems clamor for foreign replacements
The new IFS study noted that younger generations are having less sex than their predecessors did in part because of a "decline in steady partnering, especially in marriage, and a decline in sexual frequency within couples."
This "sex recession" has some obvious implications besides youngsters' joylessness.
Data released by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in July revealed that U.S. fertility rates dropped to an all-time low in last year, with 1.599 children being born per woman. For comparison, the latest reported fertility rates in Australia, England and Wales, Canada, and China are 1.5, 1.44, 1.26, and 1.01, respectively.
The fertility rate necessary for a population to maintain stability and replenish itself without requiring replacement by foreign nationals is 2.1.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Don't be fooled: Why the Pride Month 'surrender' is another corporate lie
Something fascinating is happening in corporate America.
According to data from Gravity Research, 39% of corporations are scaling back external Pride Month engagements in 2025, a sharp increase from last year, when only 9% backed off. Only four NFL teams changed their logos to mark Pride this June, with most remaining silent.
Corporations didn’t back away from Pride because of conviction but calculation.
But here’s what makes this particularly interesting: Corporate Pride Month activism isn’t some long-standing American tradition. It’s a very recent phenomenon that represents a dramatic departure from how businesses operated for most of our nation’s history.
Corporate America’s enthusiastic embrace of Pride Month only became widespread in the last decade.
Before 2010, you’d be hard-pressed to find Fortune 500 companies plastering rainbow logos across social media, celebrating drag queens, or embracing “queerness.” This wasn’t because companies opposed LGBTQ individuals — but rather because they understood something fundamental: Corporations exist to provide goods and services, not to take positions on deeply personal matters of sexuality and identity.
The data: Americans want corporate neutrality
Recent polling reveals that corporate Pride Month activism was never as popular as media coverage suggested.
According to the consulting firm Weber Shandwick, 72% of consumers and 71% of employees expect political neutrality in the workplace. In a Pew Research Center survey, 48% said it was either “not too important” or “not at all important” for companies to make public statements on social issues, compared to 41% who thought it was important.
These numbers reveal a fundamental disconnect between corporate behavior and consumer preferences. While companies competed to demonstrate progressive credentials, nearly half of American consumers preferred businesses stay out of social and political issues entirely.
The traditional understanding: Sexuality is a private matter
For most of American history, corporations and society operated under a simple principle: Sexuality is a private matter.
This was based on practical wisdom about what makes for a functioning society and a successful business.
Successful companies in the past focused on product quality, customer service, and employee performance. They didn’t make customers’ private lives part of their brand identity. A bakery sold bread, a bank managed money, and a sports team played games. Personal relationships and sexual behavior weren’t part of the public conversation.
This approach served everyone well. Employees could focus on work without having private lives become matters of public scrutiny. Customers could purchase goods without navigating their provider’s stance on intimate matters.
When sexuality remained private, it retained dignity and personal meaning that gets lost when it becomes part of public performance and corporate branding.
When corporations became activists
The transformation of corporate America into an activist force regarding sexuality represents a fundamental shift. Historically, Fortune 500 companies practiced strategic framing and calculated positioning rather than deep ideological convictions.
By 2020, it seemed almost impossible to find a major corporation that wasn’t actively promoting Pride Month or taking public positions on transgender issues. The pressure for conformity was intense. Companies that didn’t participate risked being labeled discriminatory and being attacked, either online or physically.
But this represented something unprecedented in American business history. Never before had companies so systematically promoted particular views about sexuality, marriage, and gender identity.
This wasn’t about equal treatment under company policy; it was about the active promotion and celebration of specific sexual behaviors and identities.
The hidden costs of corporate activism
Unfortunately, business leaders failed to anticipate the substantial hidden costs of sexual activism. DEI initiatives often grew outside central compliance functions, creating legal risks.
According to employment attorney Michael Elkins, companies face “a catch-22”: uncertainty between “the fear of getting sued for having a program or the fear of getting taken to task by eliminating the program.”
Research shows diversity training programs — a cornerstone of corporate activism — often fail spectacularly.
"The positive effects of diversity training rarely last beyond a day or two, and a number of studies suggest that it can activate bias or spark a backlash," explains the Harvard Business Review.
Yet, companies spend millions on these ineffective programs.
Additional costs include compliance expenses; legal review; employee relations issues when activism conflicts with worker values; management time diverted from core business; and reputational risks.
By contrast, those companies that maintain appropriate boundaries can avoid these costs and focus these and other resources on their mission.
The market backlash
The corporate retreat is also the result of the market finally imposing discipline on misguided activism.
Anheuser-Busch InBev lost a total of $1.4 billion in sales due to the backlash it received over its partnership with Dylan Mulvaney, a transgender influencer. In addition, AB InBev’s stock fell 20% and the Mexican-brewed Modelo Especial dethroned Bud Light as America’s top-selling beer, a title that Bud Light had held for over two decades.
Target faced similar financial and reputational consequences and this year has either moved Pride Month products to a less-trafficked area of the store or removed them altogether, citing worker safety concerns.
These weren’t just minor market adjustments — they represented massive consumer rejection of corporate sexual activism.
Why 'but companies have always taken stands' misses the point
Critics argue that companies have always taken social positions, but this misunderstands what’s different about this “celebration.” Historical corporate social engagement focused on broadly supported community issues: education, disaster relief, economic development, and patriotism.
What’s unprecedented here is the systematic promotion of specific views about sexuality and gender identity.
The argument that this retreat is a temporary political positioning misses the deeper dynamics taking place. As Forbes contributor Alicia Gonzalez noted, “The corporate retreat in DEI issues is coming from the same companies that swore five years ago that diversity and inclusion were deeply held values. As soon as the political winds changed, they backtracked.”
This reveals that corporate activism was based on perceived social pressure — not genuine conviction.
Building long-term change
If approached strategically, the corporate retreat creates an opportunity for decency to be restored to civil society.
Consumer action works. Boycotts against Bud Light and Target led eight other companies to abandon DEI policies, including Tractor Supply Co., which lost $2 billion in less than a month.
Consumers should actively support businesses that maintain an appropriate focus on their core mission. In addition, consumers must research companies’ positions before purchasing and choose only those that avoid divisive positions. Customers should extend this action beyond boycotts by providing positive support for businesses operating according to traditional principles.
Business leaders must return to serving customers effectively, rather than advancing social causes. Companies maintaining institutional focus avoid legal, financial, and reputational risks.
Finally, investors should question whether investing according to Environmental, Social, and Governance scores measured by how much divisive social activism the company embraces actually serves shareholder interests. Financial losses at companies like Anheuser-Busch demonstrate that catering to social activist demands will destroy shareholder value rather than create it.
Restoring institutional focus
What’s at stake isn’t just corporate messaging but the nature of the social contract.
The traditional American approach favored institutional focus and neutrality. Schools educated children, businesses provided goods and services, sports leagues entertained fans. These institutions were able to serve everyone, no matter their background or political stance, because their mission and business model didn’t require agreement on controversial personal matters.
When every institution promotes particular views about sexuality and gender, people with traditional values can’t fully participate in public life.
Restoring institutional focus benefits everyone, with LGBTQ individuals judged on performance rather than sexual identity, people with traditional values not forced to choose between convictions and participation, and institutions focused on their core functions.
The opportunity before us
Pride organizations nationwide now face sponsorship challenges. San Francisco Pride has a $200,000 budget gap, Kansas City’s KC Pride lost $200,000 (half its budget), and New York’s Heritage of Pride needs $750,000 after corporate withdrawals.
This suggests that corporate Pride Month activism was never sustainable. Market forces have provided a correction that political pressure couldn’t achieve.
Now, the goal must be to rebuild a culture where institutions serve proper functions — and personal matters remain private.
Success requires market discipline, which means consistently rewarding appropriate focus while imposing costs on divisive activism. Recent conservative boycotts have worked. As Suzanne Bowdey notes, “For once, Americans are making companies think twice about their extreme politics.”
Combined with legal frameworks protecting institutional neutrality, this moment could restore proper relationships between public institutions and private life.
The data suggests that most Americans are ready for change. The question is whether we’ll build something lasting or celebrate temporary victories while ignoring underlying problems. Corporations didn’t back away from Pride because of conviction but calculation. They never had principles, just profits. When the pressure lifts, they’ll go right back to what they did before as if nothing has changed.
If we want lasting change, it has to be built on truth — not trends.
This article is adapted from an essay originally published at Liberty University's Standing for Freedom Center.
The Only Way To Make Abortion Unthinkable Is To Wipe Out The Feminism Fueling It
Feminism is the ideology that pro-lifers need to focus our energy against. Until we do, feminism will just keep on fueling abortion’s engine, one precious and innocent baby at a time.5 Reasons Why Corporate America Is Abandoning DEI
DEI is a calamitous, insidious evil that, if not systematically expunged from American institutions, will destroy them and us.Britain's NHS to re-evaluate all transgender treatments in wake of investigation revealing they're based on pseudoscience
Britain's National Health Service is re-evaluating all so-called "gender-affirming care" treatments in the wake of a damning new report, which underscores the sex-change regime is built on weak and unreliable evidence.
Dr. Hilary Cass, a British medical doctor who previously served as president of the Royal College of Pediatrics and Child Health, was appointed by NHS England in 2020 to lead an independent investigation into the U.K.'s sex-change regime and its youth-facing services.
Cass recently submitted her final report, entitled "The Independent Review of Gender Identity Services for Children and Young People," and it does not paint a flattering picture of so-called "gender-affirming care."
Cass previously intimated in her 2022 interim report that gender ideologues in smocks had more or less been freewheeling. The interim report specifically noted that the so-called Gender Identity Development Service had "not been subjected to some of the normal quality controls that are typically applied when new or innovative treatments are introduced."
The interim report further suggested that the controversial and now-defunct Tavistock gender clinic was "not a safe or viable long-term" option for young people.
Cass' final 388-page report, released just weeks after England's top health authority confirmed that minors will no longer be prescribed puberty blockers at so-called gender identity clinics, makes the same point but goes much farther, recommending:
- a moratorium on prescriptions of powerful hormone drugs to minors;
- an understanding that children who undergo cross-sex medical interventions may later come to deeply regret it;
- a holistic assessment of prospective patients' needs and screenings for "neurodevelopmental conditions, including autism spectrum disorder, and a mental health assessment";
- a re-evaluation of the policy on cross-sex hormones and "extreme caution" when considering their use in minors;
- the mandatory provision of fertility counseling and preservation to children before permitting them to seek a "medical pathway";
- assurances that clinical services operated at the "highest standards of evidence";
- support services for de-transitioners; and
- other reviews of current policies, services, and approaches.
Beyond making these recommendations, the Cass report also offers a number of penetrating observations about the sex-change regime.
The report notes 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."
While "social transition" apparently had no discernible impact on mental health, the report indicated that those children so groomed were much more likely to undergo sex-change medical interventions at a later stage.
The report also noted that while puberty blockers "exert their intended effect in suppressing puberty," they compromise bone density and have no apparent impact on "gender dysphoria or body satisfaction."
"There was insufficient/inconsistent evidence about the effect of puberty suppression on psychological or psychosocial wellbeing, cognitive development, cardio-metabolic risk or fertility," added the report.
As for cross-sex hormones, the Cass report noted that the University of York's systematic review found "a lack of high-quality research assessing the outcomes of hormone interventions in adolescents with gender dysphoria/incongruence, and few studies that undertake long-term follow-up."
The university is quoted as emphasizing, "No conclusions can be drawn about the effect on gender dysphoria, body satisfaction, psychosocial health, cognitive development, or fertility."
The Cass report also indicated there was no evidence to support the conclusion that cross-sex hormones reduce the elevated risk of deaths among those suffering from gender dysphoria. This finding corresponds with the conclusion reached in an explosive Finnish study published February in the esteemed journal BMJ Mental Health, which found that sex-change medical interventions "do not have an impact on suicide risk."
Besides underscoring the "weak" and unreliable nature of the evidence in support of "gender-affirming care," the Cass report also indicated that clinicians "are unable to determine with any certainty which children and young people will go on to have an enduring trans identity."
That's a critically important point because many kids sterilized and transmogrified by the sex-change regime could have otherwise gone on to lead healthy lives and naturally start families.
Blaze News previously reported that Finland's leading child psychiatrist Riittakerttu Kaltiala told her government that the vast majority of kids will grow out of the delusion that their gender and sex are misaligned.
The mutilation of children who would otherwise outgrow their confusion is all the more egregious because children cannot properly consent to sex-change procedures, as members of the World Professional Association for Transgender Health have recently been exposed admitting behind closed doors.
Cass' report notes that for "most young people, a medical pathway will not be the best way to manage their gender-related distress. For those young people for whom a medical pathway is clinically indicated, it is not enough to provide this without also addressing wider mental health and/or psychosocially challenging problems."
Cass further suggested in her foreword that this is "an area of remarkably weak evidence, and yet results of studies are exaggerated or misrepresented by people on all sides of the debate to support their viewpoint. The reality is that we have no good evidence on the long-term outcomes of interventions to manage gender-related distress."
The Telegraph reported that British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak has welcomed the recommendations made in the report, noting the massive spike of gender dysphoria among children, especially girls, in recent years.
"We simply do not know the long-term impacts of medical treatment or social transitioning on them, and we should therefore exercise extreme caution," said Sunak, who indicated the conservative government has already halted the routine use of puberty blockers in children under the age of 16.
The charity group Sex Matters said in a statement Wednesday, "Hilary Cass's report demolishes the entire basis for the current model of treating gender-distressed children. Its publication is a shameful day for NHS England, which for too long gave vulnerable children harmful treatments for which there was no evidence base. It's now clear to all that this was quack medicine from the start."
Helen Joyce of the not-for-profit Sex Matters stated, "This is the end of paediatric gender medicine as we know it."
The Lesbian Project welcomed the report, noting that it "hopes that real change will now be implemented on the ground in health services, in order to fully excise the fanatical activism that has led to the scandalous mistreatment of a vulnerable cohort of children and adolescents."
Gender ideologues are not happy that their narrative has effectively been bulldozed in recent weeks and months.
In advance of the report's release, LGBT activist Cal Horton at Oxford Brookes Business School penned a piece of propaganda for the International Journal of Transgender Health claiming the "Cass Review itself can be understood as an example of cis-supremacy, within a cis-dominant healthcare system lacking accountability to trans communities."
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Defunding Child Sexualizers Like The Kinsey Institute Should Be A No-Brainer For Republicans
Rolling back evil sexual ideologies will be a long, difficult fight, but defunding their champions is a good and easy place to start.Today's top stories
www.theblaze.com