A rare win for women's sports — but it could vanish overnight



Last month, the United States Olympic and Paralympic Committee silently complied with President Donald Trump’s February executive order, “Keeping Men Out of Women’s Sports.” The committee amended its policies to define women’s sports categories on the basis of biological sex and directed its affiliate national governing bodies “to ensure that women have a fair and safe competition environment.”

This policy change is cause for celebration.

As it turns out, 'the thing that never happens' has happened tens of thousands of times.

For more than a decade, Concerned Women for America and a few partners have been sounding the alarm on the dangers of male participation in women’s sports. But even as the USOPC moves to protect women in its sports and spaces, CWA will not allow the women and girls who have lost medals, missed scholarships, and endured sexual harassment in locker rooms to be quickly forgotten.

On July 22, 2025 — the same day the press stumbled upon the USOPC’s hush-hush policy change — Concerned Women for America released groundbreaking research on male participation in women's sports. Analyzing data compiled from an international women’s sports database, the study found that trans-identifying males have stolen over 1,941 gold medals from women and girls in the U.S., pushing each rightful champion down to second place.

That figure includes just gold medals — and with every gold, an entire podium of girls displaced.

CWA also found that:

  • Trans-identifying male athletes have stolen over $493,173 in prize money from women in professional sports.
  • In California alone, over 521 women and girls have taken silver below a biological man.
  • Trans-identifying males have competed in more than 10,067 female sports events, amateur and professional.
  • The most frequent violations occurred in USA Track and Field events, USA Cycling races, NCAA events (in all sports), and Professional Disc Golf Association championships.

We have all seen the photos: hulking, muscular men with long hair, a touch of makeup, and victoriously lifted arms at the top of a podium with apprehensively grinning women dwarfed at second and third place to his right and left.

We have all heard the stories. Paula Scanlon was forced to change with a man in a women’s locker room. Payton McNabb suffered an almost-deadly concussion from a man’s volleyball spike, and Stephanie Turner was disqualified from a fencing championship for refusing to face a man.

Still, progressives call trans-identifying male participation in women’s sports a “non-issue.”

Just one day after the USOPC’s decision hit the press, Sports Illustrated’s Michael Rosenburg reported, “The so-called ‘problem’ of transgender athletes dominating women’s sports is a ruse.” Rosenburg is wrong, and the left is wrong.

Numbers do not lie. Trans-identifying males do dominate in women’s sports.

RELATED: Aaron Rodgers drops truth bomb with Joe Rogan

Kirby Lee/Getty Images

The USOPC policy change will benefit the women and girls competing under its authority. But this change may not last. As soon as Democrats have the White House, President Trump's executive order protecting women's and girls' sports is likely to be reversed, and the USOPC will be free to scrap its new policy.

Though the new policy is a huge step in the right direction for at least the next three years, women’s rights to safe sports should not waver with coming administration changes. Congress must pass the Protecting Women in Olympic and Amateur Sports Act. This bill is a simple amendment to existing legislation that will stipulate that the USOPC and its affiliate NGBs cannot receive federal funds if males are permitted to compete in women’s categories.

The fight for women’s rights in sports is far from over.

Every woman and girl who lost a gold medal, podium placement, cash prize, record, or scholarship to a male must have restored her rightful honors and accolades, and every leaderboard must be changed to reflect biological reality and female accomplishments. CWA will continue to urge the NCAA and all independent and nonprofit NGBs to follow in the USOPC’s footsteps and reverse any discriminatory policies that allow males to participate in women’s sports.

As it turns out, “the thing that never happens” has happened tens of thousands of times. The USOPC has made a historic decision to protect female athletes, and the fix must be made permanent by law.

This issue is not a “ruse,” and tens of thousands of women can agree that not one more woman or girl should lose a hard-earned medal to a male.

Congressman ‘Sarah’ McBride Missed The Real Reason Why Support For The Trans Movement Was A ‘Mirage’

The unpopular and dangerous extremes were always the logical conclusion trans ideology was hurtling toward.

D.C. Libraries Still Want To Indoctrinate Your Child With Radical Gender Ideology

One 'children's' book frames parents and teachers as adults who don't understand the complexities of kids wanting to trans-identify and use the opposite sex bathroom.

Did Christianity birth the trans craze? Exposing the left's shocking historical hit job



Every so often, an academic wrapped in the robes of theory decides to rewrite history — not to correct it, but to commandeer it.

The latest example comes from the Conversation, in which a University of Iowa scholar, Sarah Barringer, claims that Christianity has a “transgender” heritage. You heard that right: Saints who renounced the world to live in chastity and devotion are now being posthumously enlisted in a modern identity crusade they never chose.

The modern obsession with identity — splintering the self into ever-narrower categories — is antithetical to the Christian ethos.

Let's acknowledge the truth up front: There is no such thing as a “transgender saint.” There are saints who disguised themselves, fled arranged marriages, and shaved their heads and donned robes to live among men in monasteries because that was the only place they could escape danger, obligation, or temptation.

But calling this “transness” is like calling Joan of Arc gender-fluid because she wore armor. It’s historical trespassing and spiritual identity theft dressed up as scholarship.

Faith, not fluidity

Consider St. Eugenia, St. Euphrosyne, and St. Marinos.

They weren’t confused teenagers raised on TikTok and identity slogans but were devout individuals who, in a brutal and hierarchical world, did what they had to do to escape danger, avoid forced marriage, or pursue a life of monastic devotion. Dressing as a man wasn’t some statement about “true gender” or an inner identity waiting to be expressed. Rather, it was strategy and self-preservation.

More than anything, they chose the path of intense spiritual focus in a world that gave women few choices.

They weren’t rewriting Genesis or making statements about biology. They were rejecting the noise of their time — power, status, family expectations — to live lives of sacrifice and submission to God.

These saints didn’t “identify” as anything — but only with Christ.

Leftists can't comprehend it

To retrofit their stories into modern trans narratives isn’t just ahistorical — it’s grotesque. It’s a desecration of the very virtues they lived for: humility, chastity, obedience, and detachment from self. They weren’t looking inward to define themselves. They were looking upward to lose themselves.

That is the difference. That is what today’s leftist ideologues can’t comprehend, and it's why they have no right to co-opt these lives for their own agendas.

The argument hinges on a dishonest conflation. Barringer admits these stories were “morality tales,” symbolic journeys about rejecting the world and embracing God. Yet somehow rejecting arranged marriage becomes an early form of identity politics and running from Roman militarism becomes evidence of internalized gender non-conformity.

It’s the theological equivalent of reading "The Iliad" and diagnosing Achilles with toxic masculinity.

The saints in question lived in monastic communities that demanded celibacy and asceticism. They weren’t changing genders; they were erasing self — not affirming identity, but crucifying it. Their bodies were temples, not canvases for self-expression.

To call this "transgender" is to confuse spiritual transformation with a social rebrand. One seeks union with God, but the other seeks alignment with self.

Desecrating the dead

Therein lies the real tension. Christianity, at its core, is not about affirming the self. It’s about dying to it.

“I no longer live, but Christ lives in me,” the apostle Paul wrote (Galatians 2:20) — not “I live my truth.”

But the modern obsession with identity — splintering the self into ever-narrower categories — is antithetical to the Christian ethos. You are not your urges. You are not your emotions. You are a soul, and you are called to holiness like Jesus Christ.

The irony is laughable. The same scholars who sneer at scripture’s authority now claim ownership of its saints. They reject Christianity as bigoted and outdated, yet raid its tombs for ideological mascots. It's not a demonstration of reverence for Christianity's ancient saints, but an attempt to rewrite the past to control the present.

Let the saints rest

We can't pretend this is harmless. Redefining religious tradition to fit modern ideologies amounts to spiritual counterfeiting. It muddies doctrine, breeds confusion among believers, and turns the sacred into just another stage for performance politics.

If you want to find affirmation for trans identity, look to modern movements. Don’t twist the lives of ancient saints who had no concept of gender theory and would likely be horrified by what’s being done in their names.

Christianity welcomes the broken, the wounded, the uncertain — but not by sanctifying confusion.

So no, Christianity does not have a transgender heritage. It has a long and rich tradition of souls rejecting worldly labels to pursue something higher than themselves. That’s not a forerunner to modern identity politics. It’s the antidote to it.

Let the saints rest. Let the church speak. And let the past remain sacred.

Dylan Mulvaney, 'The View' try doing theology — but it goes comically wrong



It should go without saying: Don't tune into "The View" for lessons on God and theology.

But that didn't stop the progressive talk show from recently veering into theology while interviewing transgender influencer Dylan Mulvaney, using the assertion that "God doesn't make mistakes" to defend and promote transgender ideology.

First, Mulvaney claimed "God doesn't make mistakes" while explaining that his "conservative Catholic" family has come to terms with his decision to be transgender after he allegedly discovered his transgender identity at age 4. Later, while discussing transgender athletes, Whoopi Goldberg doubled down on the astounding theological claim.

  • Mulvaney: "I think my mom said something along the lines of, ‘God doesn’t make mistakes.’ ... I don’t think God sees me as a mistake, and I actually am still really trying to keep a relationship with the higher power because I think that, you know, trans and queer people are entitled to that if that’s what they’re looking for."
  • Goldberg: "I'm not sure what's going on or why this is an issue. The same for me as when people say, 'Oh, you know, I don’t know how I feel about you.' You do. God doesn’t make mistakes. And the challenge is not to the trans people. It’s to the people who are not trans. That’s what God is looking to see, how you treat people."

Not so fast

On the surface, their claim about God is true.

Make no mistake about it: God doesn't make "mistakes." God creates every human being in His image with inherent worth, dignity, and purpose. This is an elementary understanding of Christian theology in general, and with regard to human bodies specifically, the basic claim of Christian anthropology.

Instead of defending trans ideology, they showed how God's perfect design and the trans agenda cannot coexist.

But a closer examination of their assertion reveals a blinding contradiction: affirming trans ideology stipulates that God does make mistakes. That's because the framework of trans ideology is built on the idea that a trans-identifying person is "born in the wrong body" and that their "true" self is distinct (and different) from the truth of their biological body.

Not only does trans ideology assume that God makes mistakes, but the ideology necessarily affirms the idea that human intervention is required to remedy God's "mistakes."

Trans ideology attempts to overturn divine sovereignty and replace it with the secular god of human self-perception, a principle of our post-truth age.

But here is the truth: Our biological sex is not an accident, and our bodies are not mistakes that require human intervention to "correct." And because God is sovereign and because He doesn't make mistakes, it is our responsibility and duty to trust Him — especially when we don't understand or when our internal perception about our identity (and biological sex) is confused.

Every human is fearfully and wonderfully made, crafted by the hand of a loving God.

Commandment, broken

What Mulvaney and Goldberg claimed about God, when analyzed in its context, is a clear violation of the second law of the Ten Commandments.

"You shall not bear the name of the Lord your God in a vain and empty manner," Exodus 20:7 declares.

The command is not limited to our speech acts about God but certainly includes them. To use God's authority, as Mulvaney and Goldberg did, to defend an ideology contrary to God's design is a clear violation of the commandment because they are promoting a lie about God Himself (i.e., that transgenderism is congruent with His will and His plan for humanity).

Saying that "God doesn't make mistakes" in defense of trans ideology is a clear misrepresentation of God. They twisted a divine truth for their own means, ultimately using God as a rhetorical prop for the pro-trans agenda.

In other words, they bore the Lord's name in a vain and empty manner.

Irony alert

Claiming that "God doesn't make mistakes" to defend and promote trans ideology actually undermines the trans agenda.

If God's creation is without mistake, then the core idea of trans ideology — that a trans-identifying person was "born in the wrong body" and requires human intervention to correct the "mistake" — is wrong. If God doesn't make mistakes, then He did not mistakingly put anyone in the "wrong body."

The irony is strong.

Mulvaney and Goldberg want to use God's authority and His perfection to defend trans ideology, but they instead expose a flaw in their own worldview: If God's design of each human is intentional and without mistake, then the idea that a trans-identifying person needs to "correct" their body is an admission that trans ideology is built on a false premise, a lie. If God doesn't make mistakes, then there is no need for trans "corrective" measures.

The weight of the contradiction dismantles their argument.

In the end, their attempt at theology failed and backfired. Instead of defending trans ideology, they showed how God's perfect design and the trans agenda cannot coexist.

The only mistake here is the ideology that demands humans "correct" God's mistake-free design.

Cross-examining Christ: Biden judge distorts Jesus to slam Trump — but at what cost?



WWJD: What would Jesus do?

Based on a concept that St. Augustine developed — and then was popularized centuries later in the 1990s — WWJD became a topic of debate in a federal courtroom last month when U.S. District Court Judge Ana Reyes, a Biden appointee, asked Justice Department attorney Jason Lynch how Jesus Christ would respond to one of President Donald Trump's executive orders defending women from trans ideology.

Reyes posed the bizarre question after reading aloud an email that she had received from a Christian who sought to evangelize her.

Reyes said:

Now, that email assumes that I don’t have a relationship with Jesus already. But let’s assume that I don’t, and I want to know what Jesus would think about something because I want to have a closer relationship with him, as I’ve been told to do.

What do you think Jesus would say to telling a group of people that they are so worthless, so worthless, that we’re not going to allow them into homeless shelters? Do you think Jesus would be, “Sounds right to me”? Or do you think Jesus would say, “WTF? Of course let them in”?

To his credit, Lynch, though dumbfounded, refused the bait and told Reyes, "The United States is not going to speculate about what Jesus would have to say about anything."

Though Reyes acknowledged that her question is "unfair" and "impossible," she declared, "But you can't tell me that transgender people are not being discriminated against today."

Shocking as it may be, this exchange actually took place in a federal courthouse last month — and the problems are obvious.

DOJ files complaint

After the hearing, the DOJ filed a complaint against Reyes that accused her of violating the Code of Conduct for United States Judges.

The complaint, among other allegations, accused Reyes of questioning Lynch about his "religious beliefs and then using him unwillingly as a physical prop in her courtroom theatrics."

That specific accusation raises an important question: Did Reyes' question violate the Constitution?

Constitutional law professor Josh Blackman thinks it does. Citing the Religious Test Clause (Article VI, Section 3) — which states that "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States" — Blackman argued that Reyes asked Lynch a "purely theological question."

"It is, in every sense, a test about religious belief," he explained. "And the question is premised on the existence of Jesus as a deity."

Jesus, defiled

Potential misconduct aside, Reyes, acting like an anti-Trump activist, tried to use Jesus as her prop, stripping the risen Christ of his identity and reforming him into her own image: a political activist.

But Jesus is not a foul-mouthed LGBTQ activist.

The question is nothing more than a rhetorical sleight of hand full of irony.

When Reyes invokes Jesus, she is attempting to use Jesus' moral authority to bolster her case that the Trump administration is immoral. But her mischaracterization of him shows that she rejects Jesus' actual teachings.

Yes, Jesus preached a gospel of love; loving God and loving your neighbor is the greatest commandment (Matthew 22:36-40). But Reyes neglects the other side of the equation: To love in the biblical imagination is not simply affirmation — but necessarily includes obeying Jesus' teachings.

"Anyone who loves me will obey my teaching," Jesus said (John 14:23).

Importantly, Jesus does not abrogate the Old Testament. In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus is clear that he is not abolishing the Old Testament but fulfilling it, later explicating the true meaning of many of the Old Testament commandments, including laws related to sexuality. Jesus, moreover, reaffirms what Genesis teaches about men, women, and human sexuality.

"Haven’t you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate" (Matthew 19:4-6).

While Reyes thought she was appealing to Jesus' moral authority, what she really did was recast Jesus into a progressive mold. She ignored the fact that Jesus came to redeem the world from sin, she ignored the fact that Jesus called for repentance, and she ignored the fact that Jesus told his followers to take up a cross and follow him through death to eternal life.

Ultimately, Reyes' argument is build on a false dichotomy: that Jesus either would have demonstrated her version of compassion, which in this case means affirming transgender ideology, or he would be cruel.

What we're left with is a "Jesus" who looks nothing like the King of Kings, the righteous Lord who demands repentance and faith.

What would Jesus do?

For a moment, let's entertain Reyes' question because it's clear that Jesus neither would have said "Scram!" nor "You're just fine as you are."

First, Jesus would not intentionally mischaracterize his interlocutor because his kingdom is build on truth.

To that point, the Trump administration has not described trans-identifying persons as "worthless," and neither would Jesus. Sin doesn't make us worthless. Rather, God created every human with such incalculable value that he took on human flesh and stood in our place to reconcile us to himself. And because we are valuable, Jesus would probably meet the real needs of those presenting themselves to him, as he repeatedly did throughout his earthly ministry.

Second, Jesus would share the good news about his kingdom.

"The kingdom of God has come near. Repent and believe the good news!" Jesus said (Mark 1:15).

It goes without saying: Repenting and believing the good news definitionally means turning away from all behavior that is incongruent with the kingdom of God. This includes all sexual immorality, which is not only a sin against God but a sin against ourselves.

In other words, Jesus not only meets our physical needs but our eternal needs, too. And in so doing, Jesus invites us to live in truth.

Third, Jesus would probably turn the question back onto Reyes as he often did to those questioning him. Perhaps, he would even challenge Reyes with the same question he asked his disciples: Who do you say that I am?

The real question isn't "What would Jesus do?" or "What would Jesus say?" The question is: Are we willing to follow Jesus instead of using him to bolster our own agendas?

Richard Dawkins' atheism collides with reality — then it crumbles



Is there a God-shaped hole in every human heart?

The metaphor refers to the sense of longing that humans feel outside the Garden of Eden, the place where humans freely dwelt with God, and it asserts that only God the Creator — as opposed to anything God created — can fill this hole.

Enter prominent atheist Richard Dawkins, who recently felt it necessary to declare the God-shaped hole to be a myth.

Dawkins' assertion is not surprising. He is, after all, one of the most prominent figures of the New Atheism movement, and he never hides his disdain for religion. But what is surprising is why Dawkins decided to reassert his rejection of Christianity and the God-shaped hole.

Dawkins' stand

In December, Dawkins resigned from the honorary board of the Freedom from Religion Foundation in protest of the FFRF's decision to remove an essay titled "Biology Is Not Bigotry" from its blog. In that essay, biologist Jerry Coyne, another member of the New Atheism movement, had rebuked another blog essay that promoted trans ideology and asserted that "a woman is whoever she says she is."

In his resignation letter, Dawkins accused the FFRF of having "caved" to the "hysterical squeals" of the far left, referring to backlash from the LGBTQ community.

That Dawkins would object to the promotion of trans ideology is itself not surprising. Despite his commitment to atheism, Dakwins affirms the truth of biological sex.

Irony abounds

Dawkins' resignation from the FFRF provoked responses that highlight the irony of his supposed principled stand against trans ideology.

Irony 1: Debbie Hayton, a biological man who identifies as transgender, argued that Dawkins' God-less worldview constructs the scaffolding that helps trans ideology seem plausible.

Hayton observed:

[M]aybe the key lesson from this sorry debacle is that it is not so easy to expunge the need for religion from human beings than atheists might like to think. If there is a god-shaped hole in us then without established religion, something else is likely to take its place.

In other words, atheism creates a vacuum — for morality, ethics, and all of life's biggest questions — that can and will be filled by "something else," such as trans ideology.

Dawkins later responded to Hayton's claim in an essay titled, "The myth of the God-shaped hole."

"Christianity provides reasons for rejecting trans nonsense. Therefore Christianity provides the only reasons for rejecting trans nonsense. Some syllogism!" he mocked.

Dawkins called it "patronizing" and "insulting" to "imply that, if deprived of a religion, humanity must ignominiously turn to something equally irrational."

Irony 2: But as writer Sarah Haider, herself an atheist, observed, "Except in this case, that may be exactly what has happened!"

Her point? While she also rejects the God-shaped hole, it's clear to her that religion creates a "floor" that, by and large, doesn't make it vulnerable to ideas, like trans ideology, that clearly run afoul of common sense. On the other hand, atheism and the supposed "reason" on which it is built contain inherent "vulnerabilities."

Clearly, one such vulnerability is that it provides a petri dish for trans ideology to flourish.

What Dawkins misses

While it is ironic that a trans-identifying person and an atheist can recognize the pitfalls of Dawkins' worldview, the real problem is that he seems to misunderstand Christian anthropology.

Christianity doesn't simply provide "reasons for rejecting trans nonsense" on the basis of biological sex. Rather, Christians reject trans ideology on the basis of human teleology. Trans ideology not only rejects biological reality, but it rejects, from the Christian perspective, why and for what purpose God created humans in the first place.

The Bible is clear: God created humans, and our bodies, for a purpose — and that purpose, or telos, is key to understanding what humans, and our bodies, are ultimately for.

This is where Dawkins' atheism and his rejection of Christian teleology contradict his crusade against trans ideology.

Theologian Carl Trueman even believes that Dawkins' worldview forces "a dramatic reduction in the importance of biology" because we live in a world that has made biology "a problem or a challenge to be overcome," and Dawkins does not explain why chromosomes, for example, should be granted "decisive authority" when such authority is not given to biological challenges, like cancer and sickness.

"Why should we not treat the difference in biological makeup and functions between men and women as just another set of problems for technology to dispatch to the dustbin of history?" Trueman asks. "Gender theory may seem far-fetched, but if the body has no intrinsic telos and evolution grants authority only to efficient causality, it is hard to understand why an evolutionary scientist would necessarily regard it as problematic."

The question, then, for Dawkins is: What are humans for? What is our purpose?

Christianity provides an answer: God created humanity as male and female in God's image with a specific vocation to multiply and steward creation in partnership with Him. The Bible teaches that humans were created for relationship with God and each other, and humanity's purpose in creation has eternal significance.

Reality strikes

Dawkins can mock the idea of the God-shaped hole, but the cracks in his worldview tell the real story.

If human beings do not have a divine telos, then why should biology (and evolutionary theory built on efficient causality) hold any more authority than feelings and, say, trans ideology? Dawkins' argument against trans ideology — and his worldview in general — is built on sand, making it vulnerable to the crushing waves of whatever philosophy is most fashionable at the moment.

Trans ideology has flourished precisely because Western culture rejects the divine telos.

Rather than accepting a God-given purpose, our culture believes that authentic purpose is found in self-actualization. In such an environment, it makes sense why self-identity — being your "most authentic self" — can override biology.

But Christianity provides a coherent teleology. Christianity not only teaches that humans were created with a purpose, but it tells us what that purpose is. Christianity, therefore, denies that humans are mere biological machines. We are not cosmic accidents.

In the end, Dawkins' rejection of the God-shaped hole only leaves it deeper and emptier than he found it — yet the hole still longs to be filled.

Trans individual apparently threatens to kill Nancy Mace over bill barring men from women's restrooms



Republican Rep. Nancy Mace of South Carolina was apparently threatened by a man who identifies as transgender after the congresswoman proposed legislation that would require individuals to use the restroom that corresponds to their biological sex.

In a social media post, the transgender individual, who goes by Venus, apparently threatened to kill Mace as well as other activists who are outspoken against transgenderism.

"This video goes out to Congresswoman Nancy Mace," Venus said in the video posted to Instagram. "Congresswoman Nancy Mace, I do hope that one day I do find you in that woman's bathroom, and I grab your ratty looking f***ing hair and drag your face down to the floor while I repeatedly bash it in until the blood's everywhere and you're dead."

'I think that we should just all come together and murder everyone.'

Mace exposed Venus' rant and responded to his apparent threats in a Tuesday post on X.

"This is the exact type of man I don’t want in the women’s restroom with me," Mace said in the post.

These alleged threats came after Mace introduced a bill that would bar men who claim to be women from using the women's restroom. Mace proposed the legislation after Democratic Rep. Sarah McBride of Delaware, a biological male, was elected to the House as the first openly transgender lawmaker.

Venus' alleged threats, however, did not stop with Mace.

"Clarence Thomas, I have not forgotten about you," he continued, according to the video. "Be on the lookout."

"And why is J.K. Rowling still alive?" he said in the post, video showed. "We should be focusing our efforts and our resources, not on assassinating Trump, but instead on assassinating J.K. Rowling. That f***ing wench needs to die. She needs to burn on the stake and die."

Venus then seemingly advocated for murder on a broad scale, calling for transgender people to "come together and murder everyone," claiming it would "solve all [their] problems."

"I condone murder, I condone it," he continued on the video. "I think that we need to hold our politicians accountable by murdering them, and I think we need to hold J.K. Rowling accountable by murdering her too. I'm like, so very serious about this. I'm so passionately serious about this."

"I think that we should just all come together and murder everyone," he said, according to the video. "I think, you know, like, think would be better. You know? Like, we would just be so much happier in life if us as trans people just came together and murdered a bunch of people. Like, I think that really would, like, solve all of our problems."

Following Mace's legislation, McBride pointed the finger at "right-wing extremists," who he claims are just "manufacturing culture wars."

"Every day Americans go to work with people who have life journeys different than their own and engage with them respectfully, I hope members of Congress can muster that same kindness," McBride said in a Monday post on X.

"This is a blatant attempt from far right-wing extremists to distract from the fact that they have no real solutions to what Americans are facing," McBride continued. "We should be focused on bringing down the cost of housing, health care, and child care, not manufacturing culture wars. Delawareans sent me here to make the American dream more affordable and accessible and that’s what I’m focused on."

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

‘Absolutely brilliant: ‘The Bachelorette's' Josh Seiter sheds trans guise, reveals it was a social experiment the whole time



Everyone was confused when hunky, tatted up Josh Seiter from season 11 of “The Bachelorette” revealed via Instagram that he was actually a woman. Overnight, it seemed he went from uber masculine to a yas queen, complete with women’s clothing and heavy makeup.

Five months later, Seiter shed the mini skirts and bikinis, washed the lipstick off, and revealed that it was all a big social experiment aimed at proving the absurdity of the left’s gender ideology and the role the mainstream media plays in viralizing extreme gender narratives.

On Wednesday, Seiter joined Sara Gonzales on “Sara Gonzales Unfiltered” to discuss his investigation into the illogical, unhinged world of gender politics.

Sara began by playing a montage of some of Seiter’s Instagram reels that featured him living as a trans woman.

Some of his best videos featured him lamenting that Target doesn’t carry tuck-friendly lingerie for “large appendages,” protesting outside the DNC in a dress with a sign that read “Trans 4 Palestine” because “if [he] was in their country, they would accept [him] with open arms,” and explaining how he “adopted gender-neutral speech with [his male cat] Ollie,” who had been acting “a little more effeminate.”

You’re likely reading these examples and thinking that surely people understood this was satire, but you’d be wrong. Seiter’s act fooled the majority of people on the right and the left (not Alex Stein though — he called it from the beginning that Seiter was a master troll).

“Millions of people thought I was a trans woman,” Seiter confirmed.

“You see it's a thin line between outrageous comedy and them ‘living their truth,’ and I think that's such a scary indictment — that it's hard to tell the difference between the two. And I think that's a good sign that what they're doing is ridiculous and deserving of ridicule,” he told Sara.

“I just really wanted to expose the hypocrisy of [trans ideology] and show that anyone can claim to be a woman, but it doesn't in fact make it true, and it doesn't mean it's deserving of other people's respect,” he explained, adding that the movement is “an affront to women” and is essentially “erasing women.”

While his trans Instagram life certainly produced a lot of laughter, Seiter says that was never the goal. As someone with a bachelor’s degree in sociology and a Juris Doctor degree from Chicago Kent College of Law, Seiter is no comedian.

When he saw the trans movement gaining rapid speed, he began “gathering background information and doing research”; then he “drew up a hypothesis,” “tested that hypothesis ... with an experiment,” and finally looked at “the results from the experiment.”

The findings “confirm my hypothesis that yes, this is all ridiculous; these people are delusional,” Seiter explained.

Sara calls the ruse “absolutely brilliant.”

To hear more of the interview, watch the episode above.

Want more from Sara Gonzales?

To enjoy more of Sara's no-holds-barred take to news and culture, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

NEW report: Apalachee gunman allegedly posted about mass shooting plan because of 'lack of trans acceptance'



Last week, on September 4, 14-year-old Colt Gray opened fire on his classmates and teachers at Apalachee High School in Statham, Georgia. The tragedy left two students and two teachers dead. Colin Gray, Colt’s father, has also been arrested and charged.

This information is all out in the open and being discussed on virtually every news platform.

However, it’s not the full story.

Sara Gonzales has details about the tragedy that are undoubtedly being downplayed or even covered up by the corrupt mainstream media.

- YouTubeyoutu.be

“According to Andy Ngo on Twitter, law enforcement sources speaking to CNN reveal that the Discord account belonging to the Georgia mass school shooting suspect allegedly had posts about plans for a mass shooting over grievances about the lack of trans acceptance,” she reports.

“So plan on this story getting no coverage now,” adds Grant Stinchfield, host of "Stinchfield Tonight."

“Can we now go to all the people that coerced him and mind-polluted him and caused him to fall off the cliff and told him he can pick his gender? ... All of them are culpable,” says Jaco Booyens, host of "The Bottom Line.”

Sara then points to the Covenant School shooter, whose manifesto was recently leaked after being kept under lock and key for well over a year because the shooter was trans and her journal proved the shooter’s violence was directly tied to radical leftist ideologies.

“You're not allowed to ask questions once we find out that [the shooter is] part of the special interest group,” she says, condemning the mainstream media’s decision to “just disappear things” when they don’t fit the accepted narrative.

“It is amazing the sheer number of these mass shooters that are now identifying themselves as trans individuals,” says Stinchfield.

“It’s a social engineering project. ... This is how you break a nation,” says Booyens.

To hear more of the conversation, watch the episode above.

Want more from Sara Gonzales?

To enjoy more of Sara's no-holds-barred take to news and culture, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.