Male volleyball players are much stronger and spike the ball much harder than female volleyball players. This is why the net for Mens Volleyball is nearly 8 feet high while the net for Womens Volleyball is 7 feet 4 inches high. Men hit the ball so hard that allowing Men to play on a Womens team with a Women’s Net has caused permanent injuries to Women players. For example, in September 2022, a North Carolina female high school volleyball player named Payton McNabb was severely injured when she was hit in the face by a volleyball spiked at her by a Trans biological male. Here is an image of her just after impact. See Payton in the lower left corner:

https://nypost.com/2023/04/21/nc-volleyball-player-urges-transgender-ban-for-schools-female-sports/

In addition to being dangerous, allowing males to compete on Womens Volleyball teams violates a federal law called Title IX which requires that girls and woment be given equal and fair opportunities in sports competition. Allowing a male to be on a Women’s Volleyball team deprives Women of the opportunity for fair sports competition. It also deprives women of scholarship opporunities when sports scholarships intended for women are given to males. In addition, males who who pretend to be females have taken at least 578 athletic victories from women. Despite these facts, during the past few years, sports scholarships intended for women players have been illegally given to Trans Male players.

A Secret Takeover of Girls and Womens Sports
Giving males spots on female teams has often been done in secret – without informing girls and women who are forced to compete against males. For example, in March 2022, a biological male who called himself Lia Thomas and who was ranked #550 when he competed as a male, beat 3 biological females to win the NCAA Women’s Swimming Title. The women swimmers were not told until just before the match that they would not only have to compete against this male, but that they would have to share their locker room with this male!

In May, 2024, girls participating in the Washington State Track Championship were not told that they would have to compete against a male runner until just before the race. Here is an image showing this male far ahead of the four fastest girls:

In 2024, women on the San Jose State Volleyball team were told to room with a new volleyball player without being told that the new volleyball player was a biological male! When they found out, school officials told them that they had to keep the secret that there was a male on their team hidden from the press and from opposing teams. But eventually the truth came out. When it did, in September and October 2024, five Womens Volleyball teams staged a boycott against this Trans male pretending to be a woman.

The NCAA refuses to make available information to student-athletes regarding whether any of their opponents are males who have been granted the opportunity to compete on a women’s team.

Boycott against Trans Male Volleyball Player Begins
On September 14, the Southern Utah Womens Volleyball team voted to cancel their match against San Jose State. Two weeks later, on September 28, the Boise State Womens Team voted to forfeit their match against San Jose State. A week later, on October 5, the Wyoming Womens Team voted to forfeit their match against San Jose State. Wyoming Gov. Mark Gordon supported the team saying, “it is important we stand for integrity and fairness in female athletics. The Utah State Womens Team announced that they voted to forfeit their match to San Jose State which had been scheduled for October 23.

Nevada Womens Volleyball Team votes to join the boycott
On October 14, 2024, the Nevada Womens Team announced that they had voted unanimously to forfeit their game against San Jose State which was scheduled for October 26, 2024. In reponse, Nevada univerity officials falsely claimed that federal law required Nevada to play the game. In fact, what Title IX really requires is that the Nevada Womens team be given fair and equal opportunities for sports competition. So it is Nevada University offficials who are actually violating federal law.

In response to the University claim that the game would be played, the Nevada Womens Team issued the following statement making it clear that they would not play this game: “We, the University of Nevada Reno women’s volleyball team, forfeit against San Jose State University and stand united in solidarity with the volleyball teams of Southern Utah University, Boise State University, the University of Wyoming, and Utah State University. We demand that our right to safety and fair competition on the court be upheld. We refuse to participate in any match that advances injustice against female athletes.”

Sia Liilii, a senior and one of two captains on the Nevada team, stated: "We decided that we're going to stand in solidarity with other teams that have already forfeited and that we wouldn't participate in a game that advances sex-based discrimination or injustice against female athletes".

National support for the Boycott grows
The state governor of Nevada has backed the female athletes after they forfeited their match against San Jose State. Joe Lombardo said he respects their decision and has 'safety concerns'.

The governors of Idaho, Utah and Wyoming have also said they support the boycott. Idaho Gov. Brad Little said “We need to ensure player safety for all of our female athletes and continue the fight for fairness in women’s sports.” 

On October 15, Presidential candidate Donald Trump spoke out in favor of the boycott saying if he’s elected he’ll use an executive order to outlaw transgender competitors at all levels. Trump said: “I saw the slam, it was a slam. I never saw a ball hit so hard, hit the girl in the head,” Trump said. “Other people, even in volleyball, they’ve been really hurt badly. Women playing men… we stop it. We absolutely stop it.”

Riley Gaines, host of the OutKick podcast "Gaines for Girls" and one of the most influential pro-woman voices in the country, lauded the Nevada team for their bravery: "I applaud these athletes for setting boundaries and prioritizing their safety over victory. They've shown far more courage and leadership than the president of the university and the President of this country. A movement is forming, where athletes take control of their future."  

Former Hawaii Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard, as a U.S. representative in 2020, sponsored legislation to ban transgender athletes from participating in women’s collegiate athletics. She told the Nevada Womens Team she was proud of them for having the courage to stand up for their right to fair competition.

On October 17, 2024, the Nevada GOP is issuing a statement of support for Nevada’s women’s volleyball team:

“The Nevada Republican Party stands firmly with the young women of the University of Nevada, Reno (UNR) women’s volleyball team, who recently made the decision to forfeit a match in protest of an opponent fielding a biological man. Their concerns centered on fairness and safety for female athletes. While the university has called for the game to be played in the name of equality, we believe that true equality means protecting the integrity of women’s sports. For decades, women have fought for a level playing field, and allowing men to compete in women’s categories undermines this hard-won progress and presents serious physical risks to female athletes. The Nevada Republican Party applauds the UNR volleyball team’s principled stand for fairness and safety. Women’s sports were created to empower women, and no athlete should have to sacrifice that in the name of misguided policies.”

October 17 Update: Today during a volleyball match between San Jose State and New Mexico, a spike from the Trans Male volleyball player hit a New Mexico player in the head and decked her as shown below:

Here were some social media comments:

and

 

San Jose State Womens Volleyball Player joins national lawsuit against NCAA for allowing males to compete in Womens sports

On September 23, 2024, Brooke Slusser a captain on the San Jose Womens Volleyball team joined Riley Gaines and 18 other female athletes in a lawsuit in federal court against the NCAA for allowing male athletes, like her teammate, to compete in women’s sports. Here is a link to their 208 page complaint:

https://www.iconswomen.com/take-on-the-ncaa/#filing

Slusser has publicly supported the boycott against her San Jose State team:

The lawsuit argues that allowing males onto the Womens teams violates Title IX by compromising fairness, safety, and privacy for women. Here are some quotes from this lawsuit:

The NCAA is aware of significant scientific research demonstrating that men have inherent athletic advantages over women. The NCAA and the other Defendants knew or should have known that the NCAA’s Transgender Eligibility Policies violate Title IX because they result in numerous discriminatory impacts against women (“Discriminatory Impacts”), including:

a. preventing women from even knowing whether they are competing against men in women’s sports,

b. authorizing men to compete on women’s teams or in the women’s category of competitions,

c. subjecting women to a higher risk of injury in sport by allowing men to access women’s showers, locker rooms, restrooms and other such safe spaces and depriving women of the right to know biological men are accessing their safe spaces,

f. depriving women of equal access to separate showers, locker rooms, and associated restroom facilities which protect their right to bodily privacy,

g.diminishing equal opportunities and resources for women,

h.diverting opportunities and resources to men,

i.subjecting women to a loss of privacy and emotional harm,

j.depriving women of a fair opportunity to compete in college sports,

k. depriving women of a fair opportunity to prepare to compete in college sports by allowing men to access women’s spaces including

women’s locker rooms, depriving women of a fair opportunity to compete for titles, placements, and recognition at NCAA national championships, and

m. suppressing the free speech rights of women and men advocating for the rights of biological women to a fair opportunity to compete, separate and equal locker rooms and a correct application of Title IX.

The NCAA distributes more than $600,000,000 (six hundred million dollars) annually to its members… Division I athletic departments at NCAA member institutions spend approximately twice as much on men’s programs compared to women’s programs… The NCAA Policy on Transgender Student-Athlete Participation is not supported by any scientific research or study commissioned by the NCAA.

The Male-Female Sport Performance Gap

The reason for sex-separated sport (i.e., for creating separate men’s and women’s teams or a separate women’s category) and the reason the Title IX regulations endorse sex-separated sports teams is to give women a meaningful opportunity to compete that they would be denied were they required to compete against men.

Developmental biologist Dr. Emma N. Hilton and sport physiologist Dr. Tommy R. Lundberg report that “the performance gap between males and females . . . often amounts to 10 – 50% depending on sport.” Hilton, E.N., Lundberg, T.R., “Transgender Women in the Female Category of Sport: Perspectives on Testosterone Suppression and Performance Advantage,” Sports Medicine (2021) 51:199-214, p. 199.

Hilton and Lundberg note that the sport performance gap between men and women is not limited to certain sports but applies generally to most skills necessary for success in sport.

The source of male athletic performance advantages over women is attributed by many scientists to genetic differences between males and females and the effects higher levels of testosterone have on the male body throughout male development. The developmental and physiological effects brought about by genetic differences between males and females and higher levels of circulating testosterone in males begin well before puberty. In the womb and in the 6-9 month “mini puberty” phase immediately post birth natal males experience endogenous synthesis and secretion of higher levels of testosterone than natal females, triggering differentiation in male body structure beginning even before birth. The result is “is a clear sex difference in both muscle mass and strength even adjusting for sex differences in height and weight. On average women have 50% to 60% of men’s upper arm muscle cross-sectional area and 65% to 75% of men’s thigh muscle cross-sectional area, and women have 50% to 60% of men’s upper limb strength and 60% to 80% of men’s leg strength. Young men have on average a skeletal muscle mass of >12 kg greater than age-matched women at any given body weight.”

The impact of these differences is “an obvious performance enhancing effect, in particular in sports that depend on strength and (explosive) power, such as track and field events.” Also, “levels of circulating hemoglobin are androgen-dependent and consequently higher in men than in women by 12%.”

Testosterone Suppression Does Not Bridge the Male-Female Sport Performance Gap

Despite the science-backed dividing line for eligibility in women’s sport provided by Title IX, which is sex and sex alone, the NCAA has chosen to define eligibility in women’s collegiate sport in terms of testosterone suppression by allowing men to compete as women by suppressing testosterone to a certain level that is still above the female range. The NCAA gives men who wish to compete against women the option to suppress testosterone to a level that is still above the highest level a female can produce.

Peer reviewed scientific research papers confirm testosterone suppression does not bridge the Male-Female Sport Performance Gap. In one peer reviewed article researchers studied the effects of a year of hormone suppression on males and found that while males on hormone suppression experienced some reduction in muscle mass, they “generally maintained their strength levels.”

Wiik, Anna, et al., “Muscle Strength, Size, and Composition Following 12 Months of Gender-affirming Treatment in Transgender Individuals,” J Clin Endocrinol Metab, March 2020, 105(3):e805–e813, available at: https://academic.oup.com/jcem

In another report, researchers Hilton and Lundberg concluded “that under testosterone suppression regimes typically used in clinical settings, and which comfortably exceed the requirements of sports federations for inclusion of transgender women in female sports categories by reducing testosterone levels to well below the upper tolerated limit, evidence for loss of the male performance advantage, established by testosterone at puberty and translating in elite athletes to a 10–50% performance advantage, is lacking.”

Hilton, E.N., Lundberg, T., “Transgender Women in the Female Category of Sport: Perspectives on Testosterone Suppression and Performance Advantage,” Sports Medicine, (2021) 51:199-214, p. 211.

Hilton and Lundberg continued: Rather, the data show that strength, lean body mass, muscle size and bone density are only trivially affected. The reductions observed in muscle mass, size, and strength are very small compared to the baseline differences between males and females in these variables, and thus, there are major performance and safety implications in sports where these attributes are competitively significant. These data significantly undermine the delivery of fairness and safety presumed by the criteria set out in transgender inclusion policies, particularly given the stated prioritization of fairness as an overriding objective. If those policies are intended to preserve fairness, inclusion and the safety of biologically female athletes, sporting organizations may need to reassess their policies regarding inclusion of transgender women.

Peer reviewed scientific studies confirm testosterone suppression does relatively little to mitigate the strength, speed, size, power and other athletically relevant differences between men and women.

A review published in April 2023 reported there have been a total of 19 published peer reviewed research reports on the effects of testosterone suppression (as part of gender affirming hormone treatment or “GAHT”) on performance. Even after 3 years of testosterone suppression there are still lasting male athletic advantages in transwomen. See

“Should Transwomen be allowed to Compete in Women’s Sports?” Brown, Gregory A., Ph.D. and Lundberg, Tommy, Ph.D., available at: https://www.sportpolicycenter.com/news/2023/4/17/should-transwomen-be-allowed-to-compete-in-womens-sports

The NCAA’s Transgender Eligibility Policies Allow Men to Compete Against Women While Retaining Higher Levels of Testosterone Than Women

The ranges of testosterone produced by men and women do not overlap. Men produce far more testosterone than women and there is a significant gap between the upper end of the testosterone range for women and the lower end of the testosterone range for men. A 2018 metanalysis established that in healthy individuals there is “a clear bimodal distribution of testosterone levels, with the lower end of the male range being four- to five-fold higher than the upper end of the female range (males 8.8-30.9 nmol/L, females 0.4-2.0 nmol/L).” Clark RV, Wald JA, Swerdloff RS, et al., “Large divergence in testosterone concentrations between men and women: Frame of reference for elite athletes in sex-specific competition in sports, a narrative review.” Clin Endocrinol (Oxf). 2019; 90:15–22. https://doi.org/10.1111/cen.13840

The <10 nmol/L testosterone threshold used by the NCAA for granting eligibility to men to compete against women in most NCAA sports is five times higher than the upper end of the female testosterone range, twenty-five times higher than the testosterone level of females at the lower end of the female range, and includes testosterone levels that are within the normal male range of 8.8 nmol/L to 30.9 nmol/L. Importantly, the female range of 0.4 nmol/L to 2.0 nmol/L includes elite female athletes. This means that even after “suppression” men are allowed to compete in the women’s category with testosterone levels far higher than any female athlete could ever achieve. These facts further confirm the NCAA’s policy disparately impacts women.

Brooke provides details on harm her and her team mates are experiencing due to being required to tolerate a male on their female team

Brooke transferred from the University of Alabama to SJSU in 2023. Brooke is a scholarship athlete and currently a co-captain of the 2024 SJSU women’s volleyball team. Upon transferring to SJSU in the Fall of 2023 Brooke began sharing a residence with four members of the SJSU women’s volleyball team.

One of the teammates with whom Brooke shared a residence at SJSU in 2023 was Blaire Fleming, a scholarship athlete, who was then a junior and is now a senior volleyball player on the SJSU women’s team. Fleming is a male who identifies as transgender and who claims a female identity. Fleming has played at SJSU on the women’s volleyball team during the 2022, 2023 and 2024 seasons.

At no point during Brooke’s recruitment from the University of Alabama or during the 2023 volleyball season did either SJSU or Fleming advise Brooke that Fleming is a male, even though it was known to SJSU that Brooke was rooming with Fleming.

Brooke was frequently assigned by the SJSU athletic department to room with Fleming on road trips to competitions even though Fleming is male and without Brooke being informed by SJSU that Fleming is male.

Brooke was not aware for months after her arrival at SJSU that Fleming is male. However, towards the end of the 2023 volleyball season Brooke learned that Fleming is male when Brooke overheard a conversation between two students, who are not members of the SJSU women’s volleyball team, in which a statement was made that Fleming is a “guy.” Upon overhearing the remark, Brooke inquired and was told that Fleming is a “dude.”

Brooke was surprised to learn Fleming is male, although this was consistent with Brooke’s observation that Fleming played volleyball with jumping ability and power that surpassed that of any girl on the team.

As Fleming had not informed Brooke that he was male or transgender, and as the SJSU women’s volleyball team coaches had not told the team that Blaire was male, Brooke was initially unsure about how to proceed with this new information. Brooke ended up not discussing what she had learned about Fleming’s true sex for the rest of the 2023-24 school year while she thought about how to respond.

Brooke did learn however that the reason she had been assigned to room with Fleming so often during road trips in the 2023 season was that SJSU officials asked Fleming who he wanted to room with, and he chose Brooke. At the times she was assigned to room with Fleming during the 2023 season, Brooke had no idea that Fleming was being given the choice of which girl he wanted to room with on team road trips.

In April 2024 an online news article was published stating that Blaire Fleming was male, but Brooke was not immediately aware of the publication of this news article. When Brooke got back to her apartment near the end of the day that the article about Fleming was published, Fleming and another student asked if Brooke would go with them to get a sandwich because there was something Fleming wanted to say. At that time, Fleming told Brooke that he was born male and considered himself to be a “transgender woman.”

Brooke asked why Fleming had not shared this information with her before, particularly as they had been living together. Fleming responded that there never seemed to be a good time to bring it up.

Brooke was uncomfortable with Fleming continuing on the SJSU women’s volleyball team as she questioned whether it was safe or fair for the other women on the team and for opposing teams for Fleming to compete on the women’s team.

Soon thereafter, SJSU officials convened a meeting to address the news article about Fleming’s sex. In this meeting SJSU officials told the SJSU women’s volleyball team members that they should not speak about Fleming’s sex or gender identity with anyone outside the team.

The women’s volleyball team members were told by SJSU representatives that if the women spoke publicly about Fleming being male things would go badly for the team members. SJSU representatives stated that any information about Fleming’s sex was Fleming’s information alone and that the women on the team could not share it, that they could not share what they thought about playing with a male, and that they could not speak with others outside the team about any safety or privacy concerns that related to Fleming being male and playing on the SJSU team.

The statements of the SJSU representatives caused Brooke to understand that if she were to protest Fleming’s participation on the SJSU team or to speak publicly about harms from Fleming’s participation on the team that she would be disciplined by SJSU and could be suspended or removed from the team and/or have her athletic scholarship taken away.

The members of the SJSU team were also told that if they did not go along with Fleming’s participation on the team or if they criticized Fleming’s participation in any way that pursuant to NCAA rules and pursuant to SJSU’s own policies any team member making public statements about their concerns regarding Fleming could be removed from the team.

When the 2024 SJSU women’s volleyball team members returned to campus to begin training for the 2024 season, Brooke learned that none of the nine new recruits on the team for the 2024 season had been told that Fleming is male and participating on the women’s team as a result of the NCAA Transgender Eligibility Policies, even though this was now a well-known fact to the athletic department and virtually everyone at SJSU.

Brooke became aware that upon learning that one of their teammates was a trans-identifying male, several of the new recruits became upset, as it was too late for them to transfer, and they felt they had been misled.

During practices immediately before the 2024 season Brooke saw that Fleming was hitting the ball with more force than before and far harder than any woman she had ever played against. Brooke estimates that Fleming’s spikes were traveling upwards of 80 miles per hour which was faster than she had ever seen a woman hit a volleyball. She recalls it was “scary” having balls hit that hard at her and unlike anything she had previously experienced in her volleyball career.

Brooke recognized that Fleming’s spikes significantly increased the risk of her, teammates and opponents being concussed as Fleming hit the ball so hard that if the ball was not blocked at the net by a defender it was difficult for the players to react to Fleming’s spike and to even get their hands up in time to deflect a ball away from their face.

Many of the girls on the team spoke with Brooke about their fears of being hit by balls spiked by Fleming and concerns about potential concussions from being hit by a Fleming spike were regularly discussed among the women on the team. Brooke observed that the girls were doing everything they could to dodge Fleming’s spikes but still could not fully protect themselves.

Throughout the 2024 pre-season and during their regular in-season practices Brooke and her teammates have been afraid of getting concussed from getting hit in the head by a volleyball struck by Fleming. Brooke has herself been hit in the head and about her body by volleyball’s hit by Fleming causing greater bruising, pain, and discomfort than what Brooke has experienced from similar hits by female volleyball players.

As a team captain Brooke personally spoke to her head coach about the risk of injury to team members from Fleming’s hitting. The SJSU coach responded that having played for a Power 5 school Brooke must have played against male practice players and tried to suggest that Fleming’s participation in practices was no different than SJSU using male practice players. Brooke responded to her coach, “You can’t lie to me. At Alabama each of the practice players was warned by the coach that if they hit harder than 70% against the girls they would not ever come back to practice. No college women’s team lets their male practice players hit like Blaire is hitting in our practices.”

Brooke told the SJSU coach that Fleming’s participation in practices, and the fact that the coaches were not asking Fleming to pull back on use of his physical power, was putting everyone on the team at risk of serious injury and she again asked the coach to take steps to protect the women players on the team. However, the SJSU coach brushed Brooke off and would not talk further about it.

Brooke and many of the girls on the SJSU women’s volleyball team agree it is unfair to the teams they are playing that SJSU has a male on their team.

They are also concerned about the risk for injury to the female athletes on teams SJSU faces due to Fleming competing against them. In a recent game against the University of Delaware, which took place in a tournament at the University of Iowa, a SJSU freshman set Fleming for a spike, and Fleming smashed the ball into the face of a woman on the University of Delaware team’s back line, knocking the opposing player to the ground. Several days after the event, the teammate who had set the ball for Fleming came to Brooke in tears due to feelings of guilt that her set to Fleming had led to the Delaware player being hit in the head. The SJSU player wondered aloud whether she had done the right thing to set the ball for Fleming and whether she was responsible for any injury the University of Delaware player suffered.

Due to public attention to Fleming’s transgender status, during the 2024 season SJSU officials have met with all the players on the SJSU women’s volleyball team and again instructed the girls on the SJSU women’s team that they are not to confirm or state to anyone that Fleming is transgender or male, nor are they permitted to criticize Fleming being on the team, or to state their personal feelings or concerns about the matter, including their safety concerns. The SJSU officials said the girls should not worry about any media attention they were getting, because the story “hasn’t hit any media source that matters.”

Conclusion
Female athletes being told to keep their mouth shut as Trans Males secretly continue to take over girls and womens sports. Now that we have heard from the inside the level of harm and danger our girls are being exposed to, it is up to all of us to put a stop to it as soon as possible.

If you would like to join our weekly meetings to put an end to the Trans Takeover of Girls Sports, send me an email to david at Washington Parents Network dot com. We look forward to meeting you!

Regards,

David Spring M. Ed.

There are about 50 million school children in the US. If 2% are taken in by the Transgender Cult, this would be one million children whose lives have been destroyed by toxic Trans Drugs. In Washington, there are about one million school children. Two percent would be 20,000. Other evidence I have cited in our previous reports indicates that the actual number of kids sucked into the Trans Black Hole is closer to 60,000. Recent studies indicate that more than 50% of these kids will eventually regret becoming addicted to Trans Drugs. Unfortunately, once a person has been sterilized by the Trans Drugs, there is no going back.

In a preview of the tidal wave of litigation about to occur over this issue, several formerly Trans kids have filed lawsuits asking for damages for the harm that was inflicted on them due to the Transgender lies they are told while they were minors. Currently, the lawsuits are against either individual doctors (who made millions of dollars in giving kids toxic drugs and sterlizing surgeries). In one case, the lawsuit is against the American Academy of Pediatricians (AAP) which also makes millions of dollars pushing the Drug Cult agenda.

It is likely that over time additional defendents will be named. This should include teachers who brainwashed kids into transitioning and school boards who promoted the Trans Drug Cult. Defendents should also include State Superintendent Chris Reykdal and State Attorney Genderl Bob Ferguson. Imagine 10,000 such cases here in Washington State – each asking for one million dollars in damages. The total could exceed $10 billion dollars – an amount we the tax payers would be on the hook to pay. Therefore, in this article, we will briefly review eight of these first Trans complaints.

For each case, we include the date filed, the name of the case and a link to the complaint with a couple of quotes from the complaint. What is important about all ten of these complaints is that each victim suffered from adverse childhood events that led to serious mental health problems before being brainwashed into transitioning – under the promise that taking Trans Drugs would resolve their mental health problems. But in each case, the drugs only made their mental health problems worse. In every case, instead of providing the child with counseling, they were given toxic drugs instead. As these cases go to trial, we are also learning more about the dark secrets of the Transgender Drug Cartel.

Case #1: 2022 December Oregon Camille Kiefel v Ruff

In December 2022, attorneys for Camille Kiefel filed a 14 page complaint in Oregon. Her is a link to her complaint:

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5f232ea74d8342386a7ebc52/t/63a0afdfc02f9322762974cf/1671475168006/Kiefel+First+Amended+Complaint+%28file+stamped%29.pdf

Here are some quotes from their complaint:

Plaintiff is a 32 year old woman who has struggled with numerous mental health issues and diagnoses since her pre-teen and teenage years. Plaintiff experienced severe childhood traumatic events leading to her feeling discomfort and dissociation with her body. Plaintiff was diagnosed with ADHD, Childhood PTSD, major depressive disorder, and generalized anxiety disorder.

In about 2016, while still experiencing serious symptoms of depression, anxiety, Childhood PTSD, and ADHD, including regular episodes of suicidal ideation, Plaintiff began to identify herself as having a “non-binary” “gender identity” and describing to therapists a feeling of distress (“dysphoria”) regarding her breasts. In the spring of 2020 Plaintiff feeling as though she had tried “everything” to help her mental health issues, identifying as “non-binary” at the time, and feeling dysphoria over her breasts, Plaintiff came to believe that breast reduction or breast removal (double mastectomy) would finally solve her mental health problems.

After an initial one hour Zoom session, Defendant Ruff made statements in the Ruff Referral that Defendant Ruff knew were factually false and/or misleading or made with conscious disregard for the truth or falsity thereof, or that in the exercise of reasonable care Defendant Ruff ought to have known were false or misleading, which statements were not based upon the information provided to Defendant Ruff by Plaintiff, and which were contradicted by Plaintiff’s medical or mental health treatment records (none of which Defendant Ruff obtained or reviewed prior to completing the Ruff Referral), including but not limited to: (a) stating that Plaintiff’s mental health conditions were “successfully managed…with the help of mental health professionals and medication management”; (b) the statement that “At this time, any other symptoms reported appear to be well enough managed that they should not impact the medical experience or outcomes”.

The Burmeister 40 minute Zoom Assessment and Burmeister Surgery Letter contain numerous statements demonstrating that Defendant Burmeister knew, or in the exercise of reasonable care ought to have known, Plaintiff was a high-risk candidate for regretting or not benefitting from undergoing a double mastectomy for the purpose of “gender affirmation” and demonstrating that Defendant Burmeister failed to conduct an individualized, comprehensive mental health assessment prior to recommending that Plaintiff undergo double mastectomy surgery.

In May 2022 Plaintiff realized that she did not have “gender identity disorder” or “gender dysphoria,” that she has accepted the fact of being a woman, that her long history of mental health problems were finally improving through engaging in non-invasive mental health therapies involving embodiment and health and wellness and physical health improvements through holistic and alternative therapies, and that having her breasts surgically removed worsened rather than improved her mental, emotional, psychological, social, and physical health and well-being, including increased suicidal ideation after and because of the Gender Surgery.

As the direct cause of Defendants’ intentional or reckless abuse of Defendants’ positions of trust and authority as mental health professionals, Plaintiff did suffer and is still suffering extreme, excruciating, severe emotional distress including but not limited to feelings of betrayal by mental health professionals, humiliation, distress, and anxiety over having lost her breasts and living with a permanently scarred, disfigured, and physically painful or discomfiting chest, deep feelings of regret over unnecessarily and permanently losing her choice ever to breastfeed a child.

Case #2 2023 February California Cloe Brockman aka Chloe Cole v Kaiser Permanente et al

In February 2023, attorneys for Chloe Brockman submitted a 110 page complaint in California State Superior Court providing evidence of Medical Neglegence against Kaiser Permanente Medical Group, 3 doctors and 51 others. Here is a link to this 110 page complaint:

https://libertycenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/Complaint1.pdf

Here is a summary of this case:

At just 9 years old, Chloe Cole began suffering from gender dysphoria. She first expressed her struggle with gender dysphoria to her pediatrician when she was 12 years old. Then, under the advice and supervision of medical professionals, Chloe was coerced into undergoing a “gender transition.” Between the ages of 13 and 16 years old, physicians placed Chloe on puberty blockers, off-label cross-sex hormone treatment, and performed a double mastectomy on her to remove her breasts.

Doctors told Chloe and her parents that Chloe’s gender dysphoria would never resolve itself. That was a lie. They also told Chloe and her parents that Chloe was at a high risk for suicide unless she socially and medically transitioned. Chloe’s doctors told her parents, “would you rather have a dead daughter or a live son?” That was a lie too.

But Chloe’s gender dysphoria did resolve itself. And despite an undeniable body of relevant medical literature, Chloe’s doctors never informed her of the possibly—the high likelihood—that her gender dysphoria would resolve itself, without cross-sex treatment, by the time she reached adulthood.

Chloe’s doctors never once informed her or her parents of non-invasive psychological or psychiatric counseling options.

Instead, her doctors fraudulently informed her that the only way to resolve her gender dysphoria was to undergo a physical, chemical, and social transition to a male role. And the result of their concealment—their fraud—is a lifetime of irreversible physical and psychological damage to Chloe.

Chloe was the victim of Defendants who did not have any interest in taking the time necessary to sit with her and perform the regular, weekly psychotherapy that Chloe needed. Defendants grossly breached the standard of care by pushing Chloe into this harmful experimental treatment regimen without a proper period of psychological evaluation, without evaluating and treating her serious co-morbidities, without providing informed consent, and while actively utilizing emotionally super-charged and false information to derail the rational decision-making process of Chloe and her parents. Defendants were not “caring” for Chloe, they were experimenting on her, and doing so all to their own great financial benefit.

Today, Chloe is fighting back and seeking justice—justice for herself and for other kids who struggle with gender dysphoria and are being coerced into irreversible medical “care.” Chloe’s lawsuit seeks to hold her doctors responsible for the bodily mutilation she has suffered.

Case #3 2023 June in California Kayla Jane v Kaiser Hospital Foundation

In June 2023, attorneys for Layla Jane filed a 35 page Medical Negligence complaint. Here is a link to this complaint: https://libertycenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/Complaint-06-15-23.pdf

Here are quotes from this complaint:

This case is about a team of doctors (i.e., the Defendants) who decided to perform a damaging, imitation sex change experiment on Kayla, then a twelve-year-old vulnerable girl struggling with complex mental health co-morbidities, who needed care, attention, and psychotherapy, not cross-sex hormones and mutilating surgery.

Kayla is a biological female who suffered from a complex, multi-faceted array of mental health symptoms as a child and adolescent. Her presentation of symptoms and concerns included, among other things, recurrent intense anxiety and panic, extreme mood fluctuations and self-harm.

At age 11, Kayla was exposed to online transgender influencers who prompted Kayla to entertain the erroneous belief that she was transgender. As a result, Kayla informed her parents that she was a boy. Prior to being exposed to online influences, Kayla never had expressed to anyone that she was transgender. Her parents didn’t know what to do and promptly sought guidance from various doctors and eventually the Defendants. Three Kaiser doctors, including Defendant Dr. Escalante, advised Kayla and her parents that Kayla was too young for cross-sex hormones. But Kayla and her parents eventually were referred to Defendants Dr. Watson, Dr. Taylor, and Dr. Tong, who immediately, and negligently, affirmed Kayla’s self-diagnosed transgenderism without adequate psychological evaluation. They instead promptly placed her on puberty blockers and testosterone at age 12, and performed a double mastectomy within six months at age 13. This all occurred after Dr. Watson determined in a single, 75-minute transition evaluation that Kayla was transgender.

Defendants did not question, elicit, or attempt to understand the psychological events that led Kayla to the mistaken belief that she was transgender, nor did they evaluate, appreciate, or treat her multi-faceted presentation of co-morbid symptoms.

Instead, Defendants assumed that Kayla, a twelve-year-old emotionally troubled girl, knew best what she needed to improve her mental health and figuratively handed her the prescription pad. There is no other area of medicine where doctors will surgically remove a perfectly healthy body part and intentionally induce a diseased state of the pituitary gland misfunction based simply on the young adolescent patient’s wishes.

Defendants were horribly, and inexcusably wrong, as Kayla was not transgender and was not a person that any reasonable physician could ascertain would permanently maintain a transgender identity. Consequently, she detransitioned when she was 17 years old, and she eventually started regular psychotherapy sessions for her mental health symptoms, which is the care she should have been receiving all along.

Among others, three critical facts establish that Defendants should not have recommended or performed transition “treatment” on Kayla. First, desistence in childhood cross gender identities is well studied and demonstrates that around 80%-90% of gender dysphoria cases involving minors resolve by adulthood, with gender identity realigning to biological sex. Second, minors with co-morbid health symptoms, such as Kayla, are at a particularly high risk for dissatisfaction and complications.

Third, the medical studies in this area regarding minors, particularly minor girls, are dubious at best and do not indicate improved mental health outcomes from this affirmation treatment. One of the best studies in this area is a 30-year, population-based study of adults in Sweden, which found that transgender individuals who chemically/surgically “transition” have poor mental health outcomes, increased psychiatric morbidity, suicidality, and a 19-fold increased rate of suicide as compared with the general population (40-fold for biological females). A 2023 smaller scale 2-year study of adolescents found a 49-fold increased rate of suicide as compared with the general population; in that study, two of the participants actually committed suicide and suicidality was the most common side-effect of this so called “treatment.”

At age 17 years old, Kayla began a period of detransition and no longer identifies as a male. Unfortunately, as a result of the so-called transgender “treatment” that Defendants performed on Kayla, she now has deep physical and emotional wounds and severe regrets. Kayla has suffered physically, socially, neurologically, and psychologically. Among other harms, she has suffered mutilation to her body, fertility risks, health risks, and lost opportunities for social and physical development along with her peers, and at key developmental milestones that can never be regained. Defendants were not “caring” for Kayla; they were experimenting on her.

Case #4 2023 July North Carolina Prisha Mosley v Emerson et al.
In July 2023, attorneys for Prisha Mosley, who received testosterone injections and a double mastectomy filed a 53 page complaint in North Carolina. Her is a link to her complaint:

https://www.cmppllc.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/1303610/2023/12/PrishaMosleyFileStampedComplaint71723.pdf

Here are some quotes from their complaint:

Instead of telling Prisha the truth and informing her accurately and fully, Defendants lied to Prisha. They lied when they told Prisha she was actually a boy. They lied when they told her that injecting testosterone into her body would solve her numerous mental health problems. They lied to and withheld critical information from and about a young and vulnerable teenage girl who was a victim of sexual assault and suffered from severe psychological impairment. Instead of providing competent treatment for her depression, anxiety, suicidal ideation and self-harm, they convinced her that changing her body to appear as the opposite sex would solve her mental health problems. These individuals whom Prisha trusted lied to and misled her for the purpose of making money off of her gender confusion.

Case #5 2023 July Texas Soren Aldaco v Perry, Crane Clinic, TX Health Physicians Grp

In July 2023, attorneys for Soren Aldaco filed a 29 page complaint. Here is a link to this complaint:

https://www.cmppllc.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/1303610/2023/12/AldacoPlaintiffsOriginalPetitionFinal.pdf

Here are quotes from this complaint:

Plaintiff Soren Aldaco was a vulnerable teenager struggling with a slew of mental health issues. Soren’s experiences with these providers shock the conscious. The Defendants deliberately and recklessly propelled Soren down a path of permanent physical disfigurement and worsening psychological distress.

By the tenth grade, Soren’s depression and anxiety had become crippling. Once a straight-A student, Soren now found herself falling behind both academically and socially. In addition to depression, anxiety, and the social disorders she would later discover with the help of competent counseling, Soren experienced the added psychological stress of meeting her biological father for the first time in December of 2017. The next month, as a 15-year-old, these stresses and issues coalesced and manifested into a manic episode that resulted in her psychiatric hospitalization at Mesa Springs Psychiatric Hospital in Fort Worth, Texas.

Dr. Nekkalapu did not do any meaningful or comprehensive psychobehavioral examination, did not explore Soren’s existing mental and psychological issues, and did not discuss or attempt to address her glaring comorbidities. Instead, he appeared to simply jump to—and indeed encourage—the conclusion that the sole explanation for Soren’s psychotic break was her needing to embrace a transgender identity, after only knowing her for mere minutes.

Three months after her manic episode and treatment at Mesa Springs, Soren began treating with other therapist and psychologist who helped Soren discover that in addition to her Major Depressive Disorder, ADHD, and other diagnoses, Soren also suffered from Autism Spectrum Disorder. Soren’s autism was never discussed or even considered by Dr. Nekkalapu.

On January 28, 2020, at Soren’s first ever appointment at Perry’s office—a visit lasting only approximately 30 minutes—Perry wrote Soren a prescription for her first round of cross-sex hormones, anastrozole (an estrogen blocker) and testosterone cypionate (together with the anastrozole, the “cross-sex hormones”), at an outrageously large, off-label dosage. Perry gave her instructions on how to inject herself with the drugs and sent her on her way. Notably, to this day, it is still clinically uncertain what the long-term consequences are for the use of these cross-sex hormones in minors, but certain grotesque risks are well known within the medical literature including, for women, infertility, vaginal atrophy, bone density and growth complications, and many other disfiguring side-effects.

Perry failed to discuss or address any of Soren’s numerous mental health issues and existing comorbidities and conducted no psychobehavioral mental health analysis before providing Soren’s first injection of life-altering cross-sex hormones. Soren was, at he time, only 17 years old, and Perry never sought or obtained any written parental consent from Soren’s parents to guide her down this path.

The Crane Clinic surgeons simply accepted the recommendation letter at face value, conducted no independent medical assessment of their own, ignored the red flags, and put Soren under the knife, permanently and irreversibly disfiguring and disabling her. Because of Soren’s comorbidities, age, and other similar red flags, simply approving Soren for the double mastectomy and agreeing to perform it was itself a gross breach of the medical standard of care.

Following her problematic recovery from the Crane Clinic surgery, Soren began to realize that neither the testosterone nor the double mastectomy had helped her feel entirely comfortable in her body. After considerable thought and research, around November of 2021, Soren discovered that the “gender-affirming care” she received from these Defendants was a controversial and experimental practice with little reputable research or science supporting it.

Case #6 2023 September Nebraska Luka Hein v UNMC, et al

In September 2023, attorneys for Luka Hein filed a 28 page complaint of Medical Malpractice. Here is a link to this complaint:

https://libertycenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/Luka-Hein-District-Court-Complaint-9-13-23-filed.pdf

Here are quotes from this complaint:

When Luka was just 16 years-old, her breasts were surgically amputated as the first step in her “gender affirming care” with the Defendants.

Defendants deceive gender-distressed patients by leading them to believe that chemical and surgical procedures will medically “transition” them from male to female and vice versa. This is not reality. In fact, it is not medically or biologically possible. Proceeding straight to breast amputation in a depressed, anxiety-ridden, gender-confused adolescent, who was incapable of understanding the lasting consequences of her decision, constitutes negligence.

Luka was in the partial care program until September 7, 2017. The progress notes from the program are replete with references to family conflict, social isolation, anxiety, depression, and difficulty attending school. The treating therapists spent their time addressing “family relationships, strategies to decrease anxiety at home, and strategies to complete homework”. The partial care program psychiatrist prescribed ADHD medication and diagnosed Luka with: (1) severe recurrent major depression without psychotic features; (2) generalized anxiety disorder; and (3) attention deficit disorder without hyperactivity.

Rather than counsel Luka through these difficulties, Megan Smith-Sallans referred her to the gender clinic for “top surgery”. When Luka’s parents expressed hesitancy about breast removal surgery, it was implied that if they did not consent, Luka would take her own life. This was a manipulative tactic to get Luka’s parents on board with surgery. Luka had no suicidal ideation for almost one year prior to surgery

Dr. Johnson failed to discuss the most consequential risk of double mastectomy at 16: that Luka might regret the loss of her breasts when she was older and more mature in her thinking. Dr. Johnson also failed to advise Luka that historically most gender-questioning adolescents become comfortable in their bodies by the time they are through their teen years.

Case #7 2023 October Rhode Island Isabelle Ayala v American Academy of Pediatrics

In October 2023, attorneys for Isabelle Ayala filed a 62 page lawsuit. Her is a link to their complaint: https://www.cmppllc.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/1303610/2023/12/202310231612AyalaOriginalComplaint.pdf

Here are quotes from this complaint:

Plaintiff Isabelle Ayala is an unfortunate victim of a collection of actors who prioritized politics and ideology over children’s safety, health, and well-being. Isabelle brings this complaint against Defendants for civil conspiracy, fraud, medical malpractice, and other related causes of action in connection with their collective failure to treat her properly in the name of a so-called “gender-affirmative” model of care, a then-new and experimental model of treating transgender and gender diverse children and adolescents that Defendants created, promoted, and have continued to advocated for despite (1) immediate criticism that its stated evidence base was misleadingly presented and/or failed to actuallysupport any of its recommendations, conclusions, or proposed treatments, and (2) a growing international skepticism for the evidence base for the recommended interventions and concerns about their harms.

Despite immediate and sustained criticism pointing out the misrepresentations and apparent lack of evidentiary backing in this policy statement, as well as a continually growing body of international research undercutting the policy statement’s conclusions and recommendations, Defendants have doubled- and tripled-down on their commitment to the policy statement and its “affirmative model” of treatment, while continuing to promote and profit off it

Early traumatic experiences in her life had left Isabelle in a severely compromised mental state at age fourteen and in need of compassionate, professional medical care. As her mental health issues began manifesting in her belief that she was a boy, Isabelle and her family turned to the group they had identified as “the experts” in this area. Rather than seeking Isabelle’s best interest, they lied to her and her family and coerced them into immediately sending Isabelle down their path of “gender-affirming” medicalization that has forever damaged Isabelle’s physical and mental health. They misled Isabelle into believing that taking testosterone would resolve her mental health issues, particularly her depression and anxiety, and restore her overall health and well-being.

Rather than resolving her numerous health issues, Isabelle’s depression and anxiety worsened, ultimately leading to an unsuccessful suicide attempt approximately six months after first taking testosterone. She still has mental health issues and deals with episodes of anxiety and depression, further compounded by a sense of regret; and she has since contracted an autoimmune disease that only the males in her family have a history of.

The suit alleges that while Ms. Ayala was in their care, Dr. Rafferty and his mentor at Brown, pediatrician Michelle Forcier, engaged in a conspiracy with the AAP – one that the suit claims directly harmed Ms. Ayala – for him to draft the medical organization’s policy statement on pediatric gender-transition treatment. In particular, the suit argues that the statement, which was published in 2018, violates consumer protection laws by deceiving the public with non-evidence-based claims.The policy statement has become a cornerstone of the contemporary American approach to caring for gender dysphoric children.

The AAP has remained largely opaque regarding the policy statement in the wake of the lawsuit, which alleges that the document is compromised by a “lack of scientific basis and outright misrepresentations.” The legal complaint refers in particular to a scathing critique of the policy statement that Canadian psychologist and sex researcher James Cantor published in 2019.

The portion of Ms. Ayala’s suit that focuses on Dr. Rafferty and his colleagues caring for her—and ultimately prescribing her testosterone for gender dysphoria—hinges in particular on a March 2017 meeting between the care team, Ms. Ayala, and her parents. Her mother was reluctant to consent to the testosterone prescription. One of the care providers then suggested to the mother that her child would kill herself absent hormonal treatment. The mother subsequently relented. The suit alleges that this suicide-related assertion amounted to non-evidence-based coercion, given the lack of research directly supporting the claim that gender-transition treatment for minors lowers the risk of suicide death.

In an April 2019 email exchange a fellow pediatrician asked Dr. Rafferty about a friend’s depressed trans-identified teenage child who had recently attempted suicide. The doctor asked Dr. Rafferty, “Is there data to support the intuition that gender reaffirming hormones help prevent suicide attempts?”

Dr. Rafferty’s reply was equivocal. “The perfect study does not yet exist – actually, no population study answers the question of whether hormones are right for any particular person.”

As for the question of whether gender-transition treatment is indeed evidenced-based, following the 2018 publication of Dr. Rafferty’s policy statement, new analyses conducted by evidence-based medicine experts have cast a shadow of doubt across the pediatric gender medicine field. Since 2020, a half-dozen systematic literature reviews—the gold standard of scientific evidence—have emerged that have found the research backing pediatric gender-transition treatment wanting and inconclusive. 

Most notably, in April came the publication of the United Kingdom’s Cass Review, a four-year effort that offered withering criticism of pediatric gender-transition treatment as based on “remarkably weak evidence.” In response, the UK promptly joined four Scandinavian nations in sharply restricting pediatric access to gender-transition treatment.

On Tuesday, a group of 20 Republican attorneys general, led by Idaho’s Raúl R. Labrador submitted a letter to the AAP requesting responses to a series of probing questions that suggested that the organization may have violated state consumer protection laws by claiming—falsely, the letter asserts—that puberty blockers are “reversible.”

“That claim is misleading and deceptive and requires immediate retraction and correction,” the letter states.

This isn’t the first time a state attorney general has sought internal documents from medical groups that are leaders in the pediatric gender medicine field. In June, a federal judge unsealed a trove of internal emails from Wpath, the influential medical-activist group largely based in the United States, that was subpoenaed by Alabama’s attorney general. 

These documents revealed that in 2022, Rachel Levine, the Biden administration health official, had pressured Wpath – for explicitly political purposes – to remove from its forthcoming revision of its influential transgender-care guidelines all age restrictions on gender-transition treatment. Then, shortly before WPATH published the new guidelines in the fall of that year, an AAP representative threatened Wpath that if it did not remove the age restrictions, the AAP would not only not endorse the guidelines, it would come out publicly against them. Wpath promptly acceded to this demand, and did so without engaging in its standard scientific process for reaching internal consensus, the subpoenaed documents demonstrate

Case #8 2024 April Cristina Hineman v Planned Parenthood Federation of America

In April 2024, attorneys for Cristina Hineman filed a 35 page complaint against Planned Parenthood. Here is a link to this complaint:

https://www.cmppllc.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/1303610/2024/07/Final-Complaint-4-23-24.pdf

Here are quotes from this complaint:

Plaintiff Cristina Hineman is an example of the growing number of young people who have been victims of so-called “gender-affirming care,” characterized by the immediate, no-questions-asked “affirmation” of one’s desired gender identity, irrespective of the underlying reasons for such desire and without any mental health assessment.

At every step of the way, Cristina was failed by the medical and mental health providers that she and her family sought out for help with her depression, anxiety, social exclusion or rejection disorder, and other mental health conditions.

As she entered into her teen years, Cristina began dealing with significant mental health issues. Cristina began to suffer from anxiety and major depressive disorder, social exclusion disorder, self-harm, and passive suicidal ideation. After visiting online websites, Cristina became convinced that her numerous mental health struggles would resolve if she adopted a different gender identity. When she told her mental health providers that she was adopting a transgender identity, they unquestioningly “affirmed” this suddenly onset new identity, without conducting appropriate mental health evaluations or offering Cristina appropriate psychological counseling. They would eventually encourage her to pursue life-altering cross-sex hormones and even a double-mastectomy of her healthy breasts

Cristina’s mental health struggles, however, continued to persist and worsen. But convinced that gender transition was the only thing that could fix her, a mere week after switching her identity from agender to transgender male, she went to Planned Parenthood, where, after a single, roughly thirty-minute visit, she was prescribed life-altering cross-sex hormones. The clinicians at that Planned Parenthood would continue to prescribe her testosterone without question for well over a year, and in fact would increase her dosage at Cristina’s request (rather than their own clinical judgment). Those clinicians, however, were simply following the orders from Planned Parenthood Federation, which mandates the treatment protocols Planned Parenthood affiliates, individual health centers, and their clinicians and practitioners must abide by for any patient seeking “gender-affirming” cross-sex hormones; and those mandated protocols are that a Planned Parenthood clinician must give any patient “gender- affirming” cross-sex hormones upon request, without any mental health evaluation or even review of records.

Cristina ultimately sought “top surgery,” or an unnecessary removal of her healthy breasts, all the while cheered on by her supposed mental health providers. Settling on the cheapest option she could find, Cristina had a double mastectomy performed on her.

It was almost immediately thereafter that she experienced profound regret and realized that transitioning was not resolving her mental health issues but was in fact worsening them, that surgery and hormones had not made her a man. After this realization, she began to detransition.

Cristina is now 20 years old and recognizes that she had been betrayed by the lack of care and concern Defendants showed her in facilitating life-altering medical decisions. The scars across her chest and the irreversible changes to her body from prolonged usage of testosterone are constant reminders that she needed an unbiased medical expert willing to evaluate her properly and provide the care she needed.

Conclusion

While Trans Drug companies make billions of dollars selling trans drugs and Trans Doctors make millions of dollars doing Trans Gender Mutilation surgeries, tens of thousands of kids are left to deal with a lifetime of cancer and regret. These kids deserve more than a day in court and a financial settlement. We owe it to these kids to end this child abuse and put the perpetrators of this horrendous crime behind bars.

As bad as the issue of Girls Rights is here in Washington at the moment, there is hope on the horizon. In December 2024, the US Supreme Court will hear arguments on whether States can ban giving toxic transgender drugs to minors. It might also decide whether tax payers should be forced to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for these toxic drug treatments – which lead not only to sterility but also to cancer and brain tumors.

The issue of banning Transgender drugs is indirectly related to the series of Title IX cases on which the Supreme Court has already spoken in its August 2024 decision. In addition, should the Supreme Court rule that Transgender status is not a protected class, the outcome should help change the radical position of the Ninth Circuit which has recently made several bad rulings based on their assumption that Transgender status was a protected class. Equally important, it will be an opportunity for the Supreme Court to agree with the latest research on the harm of Transgender drugs.

The Fourteen Amendment Equal Protection Clause forbids States from discriminating based on race or sex. However, the Supreme Court has not said whether the Fourteen Amendment Equal Protection Clause extends to “Gender Identity” in cases that do not involve Title VII Employment law. There is good reason to conclude that gender identity is not a protected class and is radically different from sex or race. Both sex and race are objectively measured, biologically determined and unchangeable while “gender identity” is a subjective term which can change from one day to the next. In addition, the Transgender Drug Cult involves lying to minors to convince them to take toxic drugs promoted by drug companies that make millions of dollars off these drugs.

In 2023, Tennessee and Kentucky joined 23 other states to ban the use of puberty blockers and cross sex hormones currently being given to hundreds of thousands of minors in the US with the lie that taking these drugs will magically change a confused and troubled child into the opposite sex. These State Drug Bans led the Biden administration to sue these States. Federal Courts in the Sixth Circuit and Eleventh Circuit found in favor of the State Drug Bans. The Supreme Court will review two decisions from the following cases (both from the Sixth Circuit): US v SKRMETTI, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TENNESSEE and Jane Doe 1 v KENTUCKY.

The Supreme Court decision will also influence an 11^th Circuit decision that found in favor of an Alabama Transgender Drug Ban. The Alabama case was called Eknes-Tucker v. Governor, of the State of Alabama. You can read this case at this link: https://casetext.com/case/eknes-tucker-v-governor-of-the-state-of-ala

The Alabama court concluded that Transgender status is not a protected class by the 14^th Amendment and that the Alabama Ban “does not further any particular gender stereotype but rather simply reflects the biological differences between males and females.”

Here is a quote from the Alabama decision: “Alabama produced a declaration in which Carol Freitas, a biological female who previously experienced gender dysphoria, claims that "[taking transgender drugs] was the biggest mistake she ever made" and that she instead should have been treated for depression and post-traumatic stress disorder related to her "internalized homophobia and childhood abuse." In terms of medical opinions from foreign countries, Alabama produced documents showing that public healthcare entities of Sweden, Finland, France, Australia, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom have raised concerns about the risks associated with puberty blockers and cross-sex hormone treatment… The Supreme Court has instructed courts addressing substantive due process claims to be reluctant to recognize rights not mentioned in the Constitution." Alabama argues that the ban "serves the compelling State interest of protecting children from unproven, life-altering medical interventions."

On July 8, 2023, a judge for the Sixth Circuit overturned a lower court ruling which had found against the Tennessee Transgender Drug ban. You can read this decision here: https://casetext.com/case/l-w-v-skrmetti-2

In summary, the judge found that the Tennessee law has a rational basis of preventing harm to minors as Transgender Drugs have been shown to not be safe. The judge also found that a previous Supreme Court decision called Bostock only applies to a federal employment law called Title VII. In addition, while parents "have a substantive due process right 'to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of their children'" parents do not have a right to give their minor children “new medical or experimental drug treatments." (quoting Troxel, 530 U.S. at 66, 120 S.Ct. 2054).

On September 28, 2023, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a decision in favor of the Tennessee and Kentucky Transgender Drugging bans. You can read their decision here: https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-6th-circuit/115185810.html

Here are quotes from this Sixth Circuit decision:

“Nineteen States have laws similar to those in Tennessee and Kentucky. See Ala. Code § 26-26-4; Ark. Code Ann. § 20-9-1502(a); Fla. Admin. Code Ann. R.64B8-9.019; Ga. Code Ann. § 31-7-3.5; Idaho Code § 18-1506C; Ind. Code § 25-1-22-13; Iowa Code § 147.164; La. Stat. Ann. § 40:1098 (effective Jan. 1, 2024); Miss. Code Ann. § 41-141-1-9; Mo. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 191.1720; S.B. 99, 68th Leg., 2023 Sess. (Mont. 2023); Neb. Rev. Stat. § 72-7301-07; H.B. 808, 2023 Sess. (N.C. 2023); N.D. Cent. Code. § 12.1-36.1-02; Okla. Stat. tit. 63, § 2607.1; H.B. 1080, 98th Leg. Sess. (S.D. 2023); S.B. 14, 88th Leg. Sess. (Tex. 2023); Utah Code Ann. § 58-68-502(1)(g); W. Va. Code § 30-3-20 (effective Jan. 1, 2024). At least fourteen other States, meanwhile, provide various protections for those seeking (drug) treatments for gender dysphoria. See Ariz. Exec. Order No. 2023-12; Cal. Penal Code § 819; Colo. Rev. Stat. § 12-30-121(1)(d); Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 52-571n, 54-155b; 735 Ill. Comp. Stat. 40/28-10; Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 12, § 11 et seq.; Md. Exec. Order No. 01.01.2023.08; Minn. Stat. § 260.925; N.J. Exec. Order No. 326; N.M. Stat. Ann. § 24-34-4; N.Y. Educ. § 6531-b(2); H.B. 2002, 82nd Leg., 2023 Reg. Sess. (Or. 2023); Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 15, § 150; Wash. Rev. Code § 7.002.002.”

“The government has the power to reasonably limit the use of drugs. If that's true for adults, it's assuredly true for their children. While our longstanding traditions may give individuals a right to refuse treatment, there is no historical support for an affirmative right to specific treatments.”

“The Tennessee and Kentucky laws treat similarly situated individuals evenhandedly.…The laws regulate sex-transition treatments for all minors, regardless of sex. Under each law, no minor may receive puberty blockers or hormones or surgery in order to transition from one sex to another. Tenn. Code Ann. § 68-33-103(a)(1); Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 311.372(2). Such an across-the-board regulation lacks any of the hallmarks of sex discrimination. It does not prefer one sex over the other. It does not include one sex and exclude the other. It does not bestow benefits or burdens based on sex.”

The Biden Administration appeal of the Sixth Circuit decision presents two questions to the US Supreme Court:

1. Whether Tennessee’s SB1, which categorically bans gender-affirming healthcare for transgender adolescents, violates the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause.

2. Whether Tennessee’s SB1 violates the fundamental right of parents to make decisions concerning the medical care of their children guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.

On February 2, 2024, Tennessee filed a 49 page brief supporting the Trangender Drugging Ban. Here is the link to download and read this brief.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-466/299673/20240202161313831_23-466%20-477%20Brief%20in%20Opposition%20Final.pdf

Here are quotes from this brief:

“In recent years, the number of minors receiving gender-dysphoria diagnoses have exploded. States have also seen a corresponding surge in unproven and risky medical interventions for these underage patients. It is undisputed that these hormonal and surgical interventions carry serious and potentially irreversible side effects, including infertility, diminished bone density, sexual dysfunction, cardiovascular disease, and cancer.

States across the country have responded to these developments by enacting laws designed to ensure that potentially irreversible sex-transition interventions of uncertain benefit are not performed on minors who may not be able to fully grasp their lifelong consequences and risks. Tennessee, for example, prohibited three types of medical interventions for minors— puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and sex-transition surgeries.

The questions presented are:

Whether the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits States from enacting laws protecting children from sex-transition medical interventions with risks of lifelong harm.

Whether the substantive component of the Due Process Clause gives a parent a right to demand cross-sex medical interventions for children that a State has found to be unproven and excessively risky.”

Also on February 2, 2024 Alabama filed a 38 page brief in support of the Tennessee Transgender Drugging ban. This brief provides a summary of why the WPATH Transgender Drugging standards are not supported by any credible science. Here is the link to download and read this brief.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-477/299629/20240202143043426_2024.02.01-%20Ala.%20Amicus%20Br.%20iso%20TN-KY%20BIO%20FINAL.pdf

Here are quotes from this brief:

“For many years, petitioners’ preferred interest groups went unchallenged. Comprised of transgender activists and clinicians interested in—and financially dependent on—sex-modification procedures, groups like WPATH promulgated so-called “standards of care” that promised that providing sex-change procedures to a 12-year-old girl uncomfortable in her body was the only way to treat her discomfort. Never mind that the puberty blockers followed by testosterone would likely leave the girl infertile.”

“Then things began to change. Stories of rushed transitions and regret made their way into the media. Once-lauded multidisciplinary pediatric gender centers were shut down. Gender clinics founded on the promise of helping suffering children saw their patients get worse after transitioning. And healthcare authorities, particularly in Europe, began reviewing the evidence for themselves... These and other countries rejected the WPATH model of “care” and severely restricted the availability of sex-modification procedures for youth.”

“WPATH is no normal medical organization. Its guidelines purport to be evidence-based, but WPATH admits it skipped the foundational step of conducting a systematic evidence review when it crafted its treatment recommendations for adolescents. It routinely suppresses scientific inquiry, silencing scholars who question the WPATH standard of “care” and censuring members who go public with their concerns.”

“The First and Fifth Circuits—and, until recently, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services— found that “the WPATH Standards of Care reflect not consensus, but merely one side in a sharply contested medical debate.”

“As one doctor at Vanderbilt’s gender clinic bragged, transitioning services are “huge money makers.” A surgeon profiled by the New York Times “has built a thriving top surgery specialty” by advertising her services to children on social media… American interest groups that endorse gender-transition procedures are just that— interest groups, with a strong financial interest in promoting the procedures their members make a living by providing.”

“One member of the guidelines authoring committee even bragged that the committee did not even have “some little data”—it “had none”—to justify the language in the guideline allowing doctors to prescribe cross-sex hormones to youth under 16.”

On September 3, 2024, the Society of Evidence Based Medicine filed a 50 page brief further explaining that giving kids toxic trans drugs is not supported by scientific evidence. Here is the link: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-477/323919/20240903143746537_23-477%20Amicus%20Brief%20SEGM.pdf

Here are some quotes from their brief: “The practice of youth gender medicine has no parallels in modern medicine. Every aspect of the practice—from the diagnosis, which is unable to differentiate those who may be helped by treatment from those who will be harmed, to the highly invasive interventions themselves, which cause certain harms, such as sterility, while producing only uncertain benefits—challenges the conventions of evidence-based medicine.

In 2020, when systematic evidence reviews began to send a strong signal that the harm-benefit ratio of gender transitions is unfavorable for most youth, the prior medical consensus regarding treatments of youth gender dysphoria collapsed. Several European health authorities sharply restricted the practice of medical gender transition for minors. At the same time, in the U.S., the medical establishment chose to ignore this new scientific evidence. Research shows that among children whose gender dysphoria emerged before puberty, 61% to 98% come to identify with their sex before adulthood. In the last year, several studies have shed light on the fact that gender dysphoria in adolescence is not a permanent diagnosis. At least three re- cent studies examined the diagnostic prevalence of the gender dysphoria diagnosis in youth. These studies found that as few as 40% to 50% of ad- olescents with a gender-related diagnosis retain that diagnosis after five to seven years, and trends indicate this number will continue to go down with longer follow-up. Here are the three recent studies:

Christian J. Bachmann,, Yulia Golub, Jakob Holstiege, Falk Hoffmann, Gender Identity Disorders among Young People in Germany: Prevalence and Trends, 2013–2022. An Analysis of Nationwide Routine Insurance Data, Deutsches Ärzteblatt International, (May 31, 2024).

The Gender Dysphoria Diagnosis in Young People Has a “Low Diagnostic Stability,” Finds a New German Study, Society for Evidenced Based Gender Medicine (July 19, 2024) https://segm.org/gender-dysphoria-diagnosis-desistance-germany

Leor Sapir, Adolescent Gender Dysphoria Is a Temporary Diagnosis for Most Teens, The City Journal, (August 30, 2024), https://www.city-journal.org/article/adolescent-gender-dysphoria-is-a-temporary-diagnosis-for-most-teens

A recent analysis by Sapir of insurance records of 85% of insured US population found that only 42.3 to 49.9% percent of youth retain their gender dysphoria diagnosis over a seven-year period (see graph below).

WPATH removed minimum age requirements for hormones and most types of surgery due to last-minute political pressures from the U.S. government (Admiral Levine), “social justice” attorneys, and the American Academy of Pediatrics, as recent court disclosures reveal.

The studies emerging from the NIH-funded research reveal a concerning picture. The psychological benefits appear marginal, at best, with an alarming finding of young people committing suicide during treatment at the rate that is at least forty times the expected rates (2/315). Here is the recent study: D. Chen, et al, Psychosocial Functioning in Transgender Youth after 2 Years of Hormones, New England Journal of Medicine, (2023) at 240–250, 288.

The studies of the harms of puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones are reporting changes in the young people’s bodies that are consistent with heightened risk of diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and potential bone health issues. Here are the recent studies:

Natalie J. Nokoff, et al, Body Composition and Markers of Cardiometabolic Health in Transgender Youth on Gonadotropin-Releasing Hormone Agonists, Transgender Health 6, no. 2 (April 1, 2021) at 111–19

Natalie Nokoff, et al., Body Composition and Markers of Cardiometabolic Health in Transgender Youth Compared With Cisgender Youth, The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism 105, no. 3 (March 1, 2020) at e704–14

Despite the increasing mountain of scientific evidence on the harm of giving kids toxic transgender drugs, on September 3, 2024, Washington AG Bob Ferguson filed an Amicus brief with other states siding with the Transgender Drug Cult. You can read this brief here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-477/323942/20240903152555724_U.S.%20v.%20Skrmetti%20California%20Amicus%20Brief.pdf

Needless to say, Ferguson and his accomplices ignore all of the real scientific evidence.

Will the US Supreme Court even get a chance to render an opinion?

The outcome in this Supreme Court review could be affected by the presidential election in November 2024.

If Donald Trump wins the election, he has stated he will withdraw the Biden administration’s pair of appeals once in office. This would have the effect of allowing the lower court rulings in favor of State Transgender bans to stand.

On the other hand, if Harris wins the election, the Supreme Court will be forced to issue an Opinion. Either way, it is likely this issue will be resolved some time in 2025.

Our goal at Washington Parents Network is to help States and the US Supreme Court make the right decision using the latest available science. We will keep you posted. In the meantime, we look forward to your questions and comments.

Regards,

David Spring M. Ed.

Washington Parents Network

On September 9^th, 2024, a three judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a ruling that the Arizona law protecting single sex sports fairness violated the 14^th Amendment of the US Constitution. In short, their ruling requires Arizona to allow Biological Males to participate in Girls Only sports. This ridiculous ruling follows on the heels of a nearly identical ruling declaring that an Idaho law protecting single sex sports fairness also violated the 14^th Amendment to the US Constitution. This crazy decision was just weeks after the US Supreme Court ruled 9 to zero that Title IX is about protecting the rights of girls – not protecting the rights of transgender students. This ruling also comes just a couple of months after biological males won the Girls Track Championships in both Washington and Oregon. In this article, we will expose and explain how to refute the Trangender Cult Lies these two decisions were based on.

We begin by explaining why Trangenderism is nothing more than a Cult. We define a cult as a group that uses magical thinking to create a myth that promotes a radical and even deadly lifestyle based on a series of lies. Believing that a person can magically change their gender just by changing their pronouns and then taking toxic drugs is an example of a dangerous cult because changing ones name and taking drugs does not change the biological fact that one is either a male or a female.

In our previous articles, we explained how the entire Transgender Industry has nothing to do with helping Gender Confused children – but instead is driven by the Transgender Drug Cartel which makes billions of dollars getting at-risk kids suffering from underlying mental health problems hooked on toxic transgender drugs. Here is a link to our most article that includes links to more than 100 scientific studies covering this issue: https://washingtonparentsnetwork.com/4-why-kids-should-be-given-counseling-instead-of-drugs

In that article, we explained that the Transgender Cult is based on “fake science” which uses unsupported statements by so-called “experts” and undefined terms such as “gender identity” and badly designed experiments such as self-report surveys known to suffer from confirmational bias and “rigged” experiments used by drug companies in order to sell drugs and make billions of dollars in profits. Fake science can be recognized by a combination of the following seven characteristics:
#1 The underlying motive is greed.
#2 Data is manipulated also known as Cherry Picking the Data.
#3 The time order of events is ignored
#4 No attempt is made to isolate variables.
#5 No attempt is made to determine long term outcomes.
#6 Claims are made about studies that are not supported by the actual data in the study.
#7 Debate is eliminated by asserting that the experts all agree and that the “science is settled.”

Real science does not support any of the claims made by Transgender Con Artists. Therefore, the first step in refuting Transgender Lies is closely examining the claims made by Transgender advocates to exposing the Fake Science Tricks being used to advance their transgender narrative.

We will use the 9/9/2024 Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision, called Doe v. Horne, to see how this is done. Here is a link to their 55 page ruling: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2024/09/09/23-16026.pdf

Download the ruling and read it carefully. You will quickly see that the ruling is based on the “expert opinion” of Dr. Daniel Shumer who is mentioned for the first time on Page 12 and then cited repeatedly throughout the ruling. Page 12 includes several false claims made by Dr. Shumer that are not supported by any scientific studies. Even worse, most of the claims he makes on this page have been soundly refuted by numerous scientific studies. For example, Shumer claims that “there is a consensus among medical organizations that gender identity is innate and cannot be changed through psychological or medical treatments.”

As we noted in our previous articles, there is no biological basis for gender identity. Instead “gender identity” (which is more accurately called gender confusion when the so-called identity does not match a child’s actual sex) is a cultural construct (in other words a cult myth) that resolves itself and disappears by adulthood in at least 85% of cases if the child is not subjected to Transgender Indoctrination and Transgender Drug addiction. Here is the link to a review of ten of these studies: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.3109/09540261.2015.1115754#abstract

While many medical organizations promote Transgenderism, the reason they support it is that they are often fully captured by the Drug Cartel which makes billions of dollars getting gender confused kids addicted to their toxic drugs. In fact, many medical doctors are little more than Drug Pushers for the Drug Cartel. For example, the Court of Appeals ruling noted that both of the two plaintiffs began taking a puberty blocker named Supprelin at age 11. While the retail price for Supprelin is over $50,000, some patients have been charged $100,000 for a 12 month inplant. The maker of this drug, Endo Pharmaceuticals, noted that the FDA has only approved this drug for a very rare condition called Central Precocious Puberty (CPP). It is not approved to give a Gender Confused child. In 2024, Endo Pharmaceuticals pled guilty to lying about a previous drug. The plea deal included a $1.086 billion criminal fine and a $450 million criminal forfeiture, according to the DOJ. https://www.fiercepharma.com/pharma/bankrupt-endo-agrees-2b-opioid-settlement-federal-government

Supprelin acts in a manner similar to another common puberty blocker called Lupron. You can read about the harm of Lupron in this article: https://washingtonparentsnetwork.com/4-why-kids-should-be-given-counseling-instead-of-drugs

In a court document, one gynecologist said a salesperson told him he “could earn $100,000 annually” by treating women with Lupron. The settlement resulted in a corporate guilty plea for conspiracy to violate prescribing laws and one of the largest fines at the time, $875 million. https://www.justice.gov/archive/opa/pr/2001/October/513civ.htm

Dr. Shumer owes his career to getting hundreds of gender confused kids addicted to toxic transgender drugs. To understand his greed-motivated background, download his First Doe v. Horne 27 page Declaration: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.azd.1331502/gov.uscourts.azd.1331502.5.0.pdf

While you are at it, download the second Shumer 23 page Declaration: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.azd.1331502/gov.uscourts.azd.1331502.65.2.pdf

And download the third 24 page Shumer Declaration: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.azd.1331502/gov.uscourts.azd.1331502.113.0.pdf

Next read the first Shumer Declaration. Note that he has been paid at an hourly rate of $300 per hour for actual time spent to “review of records and preparation of reports.” No total is given but in addition, he is paid a day rate of $1920 for deposition and trial testimony. This is only one of more than 10 cases Shumer is involved in – making it likely that he has been paid more than $100,000 for promoting the Transgender Cult.

Note that while Shumer makes dozens of claims, he only cites one scientific study in his first 27 page Declaration. Here is the study: Handelsman, et al., Circulating Testosterone as the Hormonal Basis of Sex Differences in Athletic Performance, (2018). Here is the link: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6391653/

Read this study and you will see that it falsely claims “Prior to puberty, there is no sex difference in circulating testosterone concentrations.”

This study then cited the following study to support this claim: Courant et al, 2010 Assessment of circulating sex steroid levels in prepubertal and pubertal boys and girls. Here is the link: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19933393/

Read this study and you will see that it took samples from 81 healthy schoolchildren (42 boys and 39 girls) without any signs of puberty. Ages 8 to 10. Here is the actual conclusion of this study: “We found significantly higher levels of estrogens as well as androgen metabolites in prepubertal girls compared with age-matched boys.”

Here is a graph of their results:

In short, the actual study showed very large differences in sex hormones between boys and girls age 8 to 10. This is the exact oppose of what was claimed by Handelsman and then repeated by Shumer and then repeated by the Ninth Circuit judges. The lesson is that to refute Transgender Lies, you need to take the time to download and read the underlying research. Do not assume that Trangender advocates are reporting scientific studies accurately. In nearly every case that I have researched (which includes more than 100 studies), the actual data is the exact opposite of what it is claimed to be. It is obvious that the Ninth Circuit judges never bothered to read the underlying scientific data.

This 2010 study not only refutes the claim that there are no sex hormone differences between prepuberty boys and girls – it also refutes the claim that athletic advantages are determined solely based on testosterone levels. Note that girls have higher levels of three different types of testosterone before puberty. Yet at the same time, a recent study found that “Prior to puberty in elite youth track and field athletes, there is a consistent sex difference of about 5%, such that males run faster and jump higher and further than females.” See Atkinson et al., Sex Differences in Track and Field Elite Youth age 10 to 11, April 2024. Here is the link: https://sportrxiv.org/index.php/server/preprint/view/324/774

Here are the graphs:

Here is a quote: “The top 50 performances were recorded for 100m, 200m, 400m, and 800m track running, long jump, and high jump. RESULTS: Males ran faster than females at every age in the 100, 200, 400 and 800 m. When combining all running events, the sex difference (%) was 4% between 7-12 years. For long jump, the sex difference was 6.8% between 7-12 years.”

So if girls ages 8 to 10 have much more testosterone than boys, how is it that boys have a 5% advantage on all track and field events?

The reason according to Dr. Shumer is that boys get more encouragement than girls and have more sports opportunities than girls. Here is a quote from his third declaration: “Given the far greater social encouragement and skills training provided to boys than to girls, it is not surprising that boys have the highest-ranking performances in USA Track & Field. Girls have far fewer opportunities to play sports and therefore far less coaching and skill training than boys in every age group. For example, during the 2018–2019 year, fifty-seven percent of high school athletics participation opportunities went to boys, with only forty-three percent going to girls, translating into over one million more opportunities for boys than girls.”

Do a search of this term: “Sports participation rates of boys and girls.”

Here is a link to the first result:

https://projectplay.org/state-of-play-2023/participation

Here is a graph from the first result:

It does appear from the graph above that boys have more opportunities than girls. However, here is a quote from the first result:

“Between 2019 and 2022, girls participation for ages 13-17 increased three percentage points while boys dropped one point. Boys still comprise 1.2 million more high school sports roster spots than girls, according to the National Federation of State High School Associations, primarily due to large football rosters. “

Approximately one million boys under age 12 play football versus almost no girls. Once football is removed, the differences in participation rates is greatly reduced – to about 36% for boys versus 35% for girls. Since Track and Field participation is about equal, the only reason there are differences is that boys have a competitive advantage over girls – an advantage that has nothing to do with Testosterone!

In short, Dr. Shumer is just making stuff up to keep his financial gravy train going. Sadly, the Ninth Circuit judges did not bother to check the facts. Instead, they just keep repeating Dr. Shumers false claims.

As one more example of the extent Dr. Shumer goes to in order to decieve the court, at the end of his second declaration, he falsely states: “Finland, Sweden, and the UK are all moving to providing care through regional multidisciplinary clinics, the type of care commonly provided in the US.”

While getting rid of their national gender centers is a part of what is changing, the real truth is that every one of these nations (and several other nations) have stated that the Transgender Drug Cult dogma supported by Dr. Shumer is not supported by scientific evidence and instead has been shown to be extremely harmful to children. For example, in the U.K., they now prohibit Gender Transition curriculum from even being taught in their public schools. In short, nations all across the world are doing the exact opposite of what Dr. Shumer advocates. Yet, he has the audacity to claim that there are following the same Transgender drug dogma he and his Drug Industry Overlords advocate in the US.

Rather than ignoring the fact that prepuberty boys have an athletic advantage over girls, we should do a better job of explaining to the court why prepuberty boys have an athletic advantage over girls. In his third Declaration, Dr. Shumer falsely claims: “There is no scientific basis for Dr. Hilton’s speculation that boys gain an athletic advantage over girls based on sex-specific genetic architecture that results in approximately 6,500 differences in gene expression.”

Here is the study Dr. Shumer is discounting:

Genetic Differences between Human Males and Females
In terms of differences between human males versus females, Genetics confirms that there are more than 6,500 significant genetic differences between human males and females. Nearly all of these 6,500 variations are at the cellular level – meaning they affect every cell in the body including every neuron in a person’s brain. A 2017 study identified and analyzed differences between genetic markers linked to the human X or Y chromosomes. Here is a link to this study: https://bmcbiol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12915-017-0352-z

Over 30 different areas of the body are affected:

Varying one or two hormones after a child is ten years old still leaves a biological male with 6,498 measureable differences compared to a biological female. For example, the mitochondria in male cells have a higher metabolic rate than the mitochondria in female cells. This difference appears within two days of conception. Because mitochondria are the “energy factories” of our cells, this alone can account for male advantages in sports. But there are many other genetic differences that can account for male advantages.

Serotonin differences in the brain are only one of these 6500 genetic differences. Serotonin production is regulated by a group of genetic markers that act (are expressed) much differently in males and females.

The serotonin levels in male brains is about 52% greater than in female brains. Here is a link to this study:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC24674/

This is likely one of the reasons why girls are more sensitive to stress and why girls are more likely to suffer from Depression than boys. Here are brain scans of 8 male and 7 female subjects:

For nonautistic children, serotonin synthesis capacity was more than 200% of adult values until the age of 5 years and then declined toward adult values. Serotonin synthesis capacity values declined at an earlier age in girls than in boys. Serotonin content, serotonin uptake sites, and serotonin receptor binding are all higher in the developing brain, compared with adult values, and start declining before puberty.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10072042/

A study, published in JAMA Network Open Pediatrics, examined nearly 9000 children between nine and eleven years of age, using Functional MRI neuroimaging tools between August 2017 and November 2018. What the researchers found were huge differences in brain functioning. Here is the link: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2801653

Below is the graph:

In another recent study of brain differences using three independent cohorts (N ~ 1,500 young adults aged 20 to 35), the researchers also found huge differences in brain functioning. Here is the link: https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2310012121

Here is the graph:

Here is a quote: “These findings strongly suggest that what’s going on in a woman’s brain at rest is significantly different from what’s going on in a man’s brain at rest. These findings strongly suggest that the determinants of cognitive functions in male brains are profoundly different from the determinants of cognitive functions in female brains.”

Here is a 2022 study of huge sex differences in heart mitochondria:

Here is the link: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-022-31544-5

Here is the quote: “We observed that expression of genes encoding mitochondrial proteins are higher in males than females in human cohorts.”

No reasonable scientist would claim that there is not a relationship between heart mitochondrial functioning and athletic performance.

Here is a study of human energy production (a proxy for mitochondrial production) throughout our lifetime: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abe5017

Here is the graph:

Note that males have higher total energy production as early as age 5.

In short, the claim by Dr. Shumer that none of the 6500 known genetic differences between human boys and girls can be linked to athletic performance advantages is absurd.

Conclusion… We need to read scientific studies and do a better job of presenting these studies to federal judges

Trangender advocates falsely claim that there is no evidence of Trans boys taking state titles away from biological girls. In fact, five biological males who identify as female won girls’ state track titles at outdoor-season spring meets in Connecticut, New Hampshire, Maine, Oregon and Washington. In addition, 28 national girls or women’s sports titles were won by trans-identified men between 2003 and 2022, with “the trend accelerating over the past three years.” Each male victory has a multiplier effect, displacing many girls or women from opportunities designed for them. Allowing 2 boys to compete against girls denied girls awards 235 times. Over 1,000 awards have been taken from girls with more awards being robbed ever week. https://www.shewon.org/

Sadly, there is a problem with attorneys, judges and so-called medical experts. None of them appear to be interested in reading actual scientific studies. It will be up to all of us who are concerned about protecting sports fairness for girls to do a better job of first getting better informed about the differences between real scientific studies versus fake science and second doing a better job of presenting these scientific studies to federal judges.

This is educational effort is a major reason I am writing this series of articles on the Transgender Cult on our website, Washington Parents Network.com. As always, I look forward to your questions and comments.

Regards,

David Spring M. Ed.

David (at) Washington Parents Network.com