Tag: lgbt

As War Rages In Iran, UK MoD Surveys Troops On Wearing Makeup And Nail Polish

While flames engulf Iranian oil depots following U.S. and Israeli strikes, and Iran retaliates with missiles targeting the UAE and Israel, the UK Ministry of Defence has sparked backlash by circulating a survey to troops about relaxing appearance standards. The questionnaire asks if male soldiers should be allowed to wear makeup, nail polish, and longer hair, ridiculously framing it as a push toward “gender-free” policies.

The timing of this clownish behaviour couldn’t be worse. The survey, originating from Army HQ in Andover, proposes uniform rules on hair, jewelry, and even facial aesthetics like fillers and microblading for all genders.

The review builds on recent shifts in UK military policies. In 2024, the Army reversed a long-standing ban on beards. Back in 2019, then-Defence Secretary Ben Wallace floated allowing men to use camouflage-colored makeup. And in 2017, instructions emphasized avoiding gender-specific language like “best man for the job.”

Shadow Defence Minister Mark Francois slammed the initiative, stating, “Upgrading to mascara from camouflage cream is hardly likely to deter Putin.”

An Army spokesman pushed back, clarifying, “As the Chief of the General Staff has said, the Army is focused on enhancing our lethality and fighting readiness. There are no plans to change policy – and this was not an official Army survey.”

This comes against a backdrop of escalating conflict in Iran. U.S. and Israeli forces have conducted devastating strikes on regime oil depots, with reports of “fire rain” over Tehran after the death of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei in a daytime assault. Iran has closed the Strait of Hormuz, raising fears of UK gas shortages with only days’ reserves left. Iranian drones and missiles have struck Dubai skyscrapers and airports, killing civilians.

In addition, U.S. President Donald Trump has publicly dressed down UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer for what he calls a tardy response to the crisis.

In a social media post, Trump dismissed Britain’s offer to send aircraft carriers, writing, “The United Kingdom, our once Great Ally, maybe the Greatest of them all, is finally giving serious thought to sending two aircraft carriers to the Middle East. That’s OK, Prime Minister Starmer, we don’t need them any longer — But we will remember. We don’t need people that join Wars after we’ve already won!”

Keep reading

Waste of the Day: DEI Contractors Remain in Military’s K-12 Schools

Two teachers gave a presentation about how “elementary school is the perfect time” to “show students the diversity of gender expression and gender activity.” Educators were encouraged to hold “critical conversations” about “the relationships between identity and power” and “privilege,” which were meant to result in “crying” and “explicit confrontations.”

Many DEI consultants were removed after President Donald Trump took office in 2025 and ordered a ban on federal funds being used to teach or implement DEI principles, but some of the companies hired under Biden remain.

DoDEA paid $30,175 last year to continue gym teachers’ membership in the professional society, SHAPE America, which instills its National Health Education Standards in gym classes. Board member Cara Grant said of the health standards, “We recognize that systemic disparities exist within our educational systems, disproportionately affecting marginalized communities. Our approach is not simply to level the playing field but to dismantle the structures that perpetuate inequality.”

During a DoDEA presentation on the SHAPE standards in 2021, one teacher instructed her colleagues that “talking about heterosexuality as the norm” can “inherently cause conflict.”

DoDEA also paid $141,000 last year to the curriculum development company thinkLaw.

Keep reading

Liberal Carney government moves to end debate on bill that could criminalize quoting Bible

Conservative MP Andrew Lawton warned that the Liberal government intends force an end to debate on Bill C-9, the censorship bill that has attracted a massive backlash from religious Canadians because it would remove protections for sincerely held religious beliefs, particularly regarding LGBT issues.

“The Liberals have put a motion on notice in the House of Commons to cut off debate on Bill C-9 and force all amendments to a vote with no discussion,” Lawton wrote on X on March 5. “They are censoring debate on their censorship bill.”

The motion, tabled as “Government Business,” instructs the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights to “immediately resume clause-by-clause consideration of the bill whereupon all remaining amendments submitted to the committee shall be deemed moved” and that “the Chair shall put the question, forthwith and successfully, without further debate on all remaining clauses and proposed amendments and subamendments.”

This means that votes will be called on all amendments, and the meeting cannot end until Bill C-9 has passed review. A report will then be sent to Parliament “no later than two sitting days after the completion of clause-by-clause consideration,” and the bill would then go through both the report stage and third reading in a single sitting day each.

“WOW,” Conservative MP Garnett Genuis responded to the news on X. “Carney is now trying to ram through C-9 ‘without further debate on all remaining clauses’ at committee. This is deeply disturbing. Call your MP now and tell them to oppose this attack on freedom of speech and freedom of religion.”

Keep reading

What’s Next In The Fight To Stop Schools From Transing Kids After SCOTUS Victory

A few weeks before Christmas in 2022, Amber Lavigne was cleaning her 13-year-old’s bedroom when she stumbled upon her daughter’s secret: a chest binder. She learned that Autumn had been wearing the garment, which girls use to flatten their breasts to achieve a masculine appearance, for about two months at school in Maine, where she had adopted a boy’s name, Leo, and was using he/him pronouns. 

It was the first of two chest binders Lavigne found that had been provided to her eighth-grade daughter by a social worker at the Great Salt Bay Community School, according to a federal lawsuit Lavigne filed in 2023, which is now pending before the U.S. Supreme Court. Her lawsuit alleges that the public school not only aided and abetted Autumn’s gender transition but also hid the information from her parents. 

“I think it’s important for parents to know that this is occurring in our public schools because I don’t think many parents believe that it’s as bad as it really is,” Lavigne said on a recent podcast. “When I was a kid, one of the first things I heard about adults is if any adult asks you as a child to keep a secret, there’s something wrong with that adult, and you need to come tell me immediately.”

“And now, I mean, it’s like we’re in upside-down land.” 

The Maine lawsuit and others like it raise one of the most contentious issues in the broader conflict over transgender policies: whether a parent’s constitutional right to direct their children’s education and medical care extends to a circumstance that society has never grappled with until the past decade or so — a youth’s rejection of their biological sex, adoption of a new name and matching pronouns, and assertion of a new gender identity. And to what extent children who are transitioning or exploring gender options have the right to confidentiality if they worry about rejection and hostility at home.

Keep reading

TN School Clears Record of Christian Teacher Punished for Refusing to Read LGBTQ+ Book to First-Graders

An elementary school in Nashville, Tennessee, has cleared the record of a Christian teacher who was punished for refusing to read a book about same-sex marriage to his first grade students. 

Teacher Eric Rivera declined to read the LGBTQ+ propaganda book to his young students, citing his Christian beliefs, and instead asked a colleague to read the book, Fox News reported. In response, KIPP Antioch College Prep Elementary issued a “final warning letter” in January to Rivera for declining to read the book, according to legal group First Liberty Institute. 

The following day, Rivera was asked to the principal’s office and threatened with firing, according to the report. School leadership reportedly told him he must maintain “fidelity” to the curriculum, “and a discipline letter was placed in his personnel file.” 

Before the incident, Rivera had no previous warnings or history of discipline, according to First Liberty. After facing pressure from school leadership, Rivera asked for a religious accommodation but was instead reassigned to a lab and technology position and then to a kindergarten class, per the report.

First Liberty sent a letter to the school on behalf of Rivera in February. After receiving the letter, KIPP Antioch agreed to clear Rivera’s record, First Liberty said on Monday. The school additionally will allow “all teachers to ask another employee to read materials objectionable to their faith.”

“We are pleased that the school has made the right decision by accommodating Mr. Rivera for his deeply held religious views,” Senior Counsel at First Liberty Cliff Martin said in a press release.  

“Our client is deeply devoted to teaching and is grateful that his record has been cleared and reasonable accommodations will be provided going forward,” he continued. 

The elementary school did not respond to the outlet’s request for comment by time of publication.

Keep reading

Proposed Bill On Automated License Plate Readers Would Safeguard Data For Illegals, Gender-Affirming Care, Abortions

Today the Judiciary Committee introduced a bill to regulate the use of automated license plate reader systems and safeguard data derived from such systems.

H.B. No. 5449, An Act Concerning Automated License Plate Reader Systems, would dictate how public agencies and law enforcement could operate automated license plate reader systems or use the data from such systems.

Data collected by these systems cannot be retained for more than seven days unless there’s a warrant or a court order, or if the data is for the purpose of collecting highway usage fees.

The bill describes a number of restrictions for usage of data collected by automated license plate reader systems.

No public agency or law enforcement agency operating a system may use the data for:

  • Monitoring or investigating an individual based on an individual’s actual or perceived race, ethnicity, criminal history, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, sex, pregnancy status, disability, citizenship, nationality or income level;
  • Identifying individuals engaged in activities protected under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution;
  • Investigating a suspected immigration violation or otherwise assisting in any civil or criminal immigration enforcement activity;
  • Investigating or prosecuting any individual who has sought, received, or provided reproductive health care services or gender-affirming health care services;
  • Collecting data on the premises of or nearby a reproductive or sexual health facility, facilities that provide gender-affirming care services or a nonprofit or community organization that primarily serves immigrants (which presumably includes illegals), excluding any property under federal jurisdiction;
  • Sharing with other individuals or entities, except under certain circumstances;
  • Participating in any multistate, intrastate, or national data-sharing system or network, except under certain conditions; or
  • Permitting a public agency to have real-time, bulk or automatic access, except in specific cases.

The bill also says automated license plate reader data “shall not be disclosable under the Freedom of Information Act pursuant to chapter 14 of the general statutes” though it will disclose locations of any still or video image recording device used as part of an automated license plate reader system and other data derived from audits of the system, usage logs, etc., so long as all automated license plate reader data has been redacted.

There would also be limits on contracts or agreements with private vendors that might interact with automated license plate reader systems and data to restrict them from selling, sharing, transferring, disseminating or otherwise providing access to the data, except as authorized in the bill.

Agencies could be sued for failing to follow HB 5449.

Keep reading

UCSF clinic director threatens to kill female protester at CA Dem convention

A University of California, San Francisco administrative director has been identified as the transgender activist who threatened to kill a woman at the California Democratic Party state convention.

“I’m gonna hunt you down and f*cking kill you!” Madeline Mann (née Cudworth Stiness), an administrative director of clinical and translational science training at UCSF, said to Beth Bourne before shoving her and fleeing the scene in a video that has since been viewed hundreds of thousands of times on social media.

The incident occurred Feb. 21 in the lobby of the Moscone Center in San Francisco, where the California Democratic Party was holding its state convention.

Ms. Mann, 57, had attended a Rainbow Families Action event that organized a trans rights march ending at the convention. She arrived about 10 minutes after Ms. Bourne, who was protesting in the lobby with a sign critical of double mastectomies on minor girls.

“How much money does a surgeon make off giving a girl top surgery?” Ms. Bourne said in the selfie-style video as the pro-trans activist stood beside her. “Kaiser Permanente charges only a $100 co-pay, and the surgeon makes $25,000.

“I was approved for a phalloplasty in two appointments over Zoom,” she continued. “You know, they make a phalloplasty out of the skin tissue on your thigh and forearm. It’s like a skin sausage. It’s a fake penis. $130,000.”

Ms. Mann stood silently at first. She then leaned into Ms. Bourne’s ear and uttered the death threat before shoving her away and storming off, video shows.

Keep reading

SCOTUS Blocks California School Policy Hiding Kids’ ‘Gender Presentation’ From Parents

The U.S. Supreme Court delivered a major win for California parents seeking to protect their children from LGBT ideology in state schools on Monday.

In its per curiam opinion, the high court vacated a stay (“pause”) issued by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals on a December injunction by a California-based district court judge. That permanent injunction prohibited enforcement of a California policy that permitted or forced school employees to “mislead[] the parent or guardian of a minor child in the education system about their child’s gender presentation at school.”

In his order, District Judge Roger Benitez, a Bush 43 appointee, further required California officials to notify school personnel of his ruling and to include in materials for parents and faculty a statement acknowledging parents’ “federal constitutional right to be informed if their public school student child expresses gender incongruence.”

California parents’ victory was short-lived, however, because the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals froze Benitez’s order a few weeks later. In its unanimous ruling, the appellate court’s three-judge panel of Democrat appointees claimed that state officials “have shown that ‘there is a substantial case for relief on the merits,’” and said it was “skeptical of the district court’s decision on the merits.”

The 9th Circuit’s decision prompted plaintiffs to file an application with SCOTUS, in which they requested that the high court vacate the 9th Circuit’s stay and allow Benitez’s injunction to take effect.

In its unsigned opinion, SCOTUS granted the plaintiffs’ request to vacate the 9th Circuit’s injunction “with respect to the parents because this aspect of the stay is not ‘justified under the governing four-factor test.’” The high court noted that the parents are likely to succeed on the merits of their claims and that they will suffer “irreparable harm” if the 9th Circuit’s ruling is allowed to remain in place.

The court’s order does not apply to the plaintiff teachers suing over the policy, however. Associate Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito said they would have granted the plaintiffs’ application in full.

Associate Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented.

Keep reading

University of South Alabama denies association with ‘queer animals lab’; Content deleted from school website immediately after inquiry

The University of South Alabama (USA) has released a statement saying that, despite social media posts and resources to the contrary, “There is no ‘queer animals lab.'”

The “Queer Research Lab,” was promoted by the Comparative Cognition and Communication (C3PO) Lab. The C3PO lab is a program of the USA Department of Psychology.

The school says that despite the lab’s branding on many posts and on a resource document, it was instead the personal account of Dr. Heidi Lyn, the lab’s main researcher. Lyn operates several personal social media accounts that were not branded with the lab logo. 

“Her use of the term ‘queer animals lab’ was inaccurate and meant to capture the attention of viewers of her personal social media,” the statement from a university spokesman explained.

Lyn’s personal Facebook page is littered with anti-ICE, No Kings, and anti-Trump posts, while her personal Instagram page shows her dressed as a “Book Ban Fairy” and various Star Wars characters.

Keep reading

Families Receive $1.5 Million After Supreme Court Victory Over LGBT Storytelling

A Maryland school district that lost a recent U.S. Supreme Court case will pay $1.5 million to parents who weren’t allowed to opt their children out of LGBT story time, the families’ attorneys said.

The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which represented the plaintiffs in the landmark Mahmoud v. Taylor case, announced the settlement on Feb. 20. The defendant, the Montgomery County Board of Education—which oversees Montgomery County Public Schools, the largest school district in the state—was also ordered to comply with court orders mandating advance notice and opt-out provisions.

“Public schools nationwide are on notice: running roughshod over parents’ rights and religious freedom isn’t just illegal—it’s costly,” Eric Baxter, Becket senior counsel and the lead attorney in the case, said in a Feb. 20 statement.

“This settlement enforces the Supreme Court’s ruling and ensures parents, not government bureaucrats, have the final say in how their children are raised.”

The Feb. 19 order from Judge Deborah Boardman of the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland did not specify the settlement amount but did say the plaintiffs are “entitled to reasonable attorney fees and costs” outlined in a separate agreement. Three families and “Kids First,” an unincorporated association of parents and teachers, are listed as the awardees.

The Supreme Court announced its 6–3 ruling on June 27, 2025, and directed the litigation of remaining issues, including any settlement, to continue in lower courts.

The case dates back to 2022, after a group of Christian, Muslim, and Jewish parents told the board of education that, for religious reasons, they wanted to remove their elementary school children from book readings about same-sex romances between young children, gender transitions, and pride parades. The parents were denied permission to do so, even though the district and the state have policies and laws allowing opt-outs and requiring advance notice of such materials.

The Supreme Court’s majority opinion, written by Justice Samuel Alito, stated that the government cannot condition the benefit of free public education on parents’ acceptance of instruction that threatens the religious beliefs and practices that parents choose to instill in their children.

Baxter said the court had ongoing jurisdiction over the district to ensure compliance.

“It took tremendous courage for these parents to stand up to the school board and take their case all the way to the Supreme Court,” Baxter said in a statement.

Keep reading