Sports bodies threatened with legal action if they continue to allow men to compete in women’s sport

  • Sharron Davies’ Women’s Sports Union and ADF International formally warn 10 sports bodies they are in breach of law by failing to protect women’s and girls’ sport from transgender ideology
  • Sports bodies warned, in light of For Women Scotland Supreme Court ruling, that allowing men to compete in women’s sport is unlawful  

LONDON (23 April 2026) – Ten sports bodies have today been threatened with legal action if they fail to protect women’s sport from transgender ideology, in formal warnings from former Olympic swimmer Sharron Davies and legal experts.

The letters were sent by Olympic medallist and Conservative peer Baroness Davies MBE and Tracy Edwards MBE—the world-renowned sailor who skippered Maiden, the first all-female crew to ever sail around the world—of the Women’s Sports Union, and legal advocacy organisation ADF International.  

They warned the 10 bodies (full list at the bottom of the press release), including the Football Association of Wales, Swim England and British Gymnastics, that their policies in 11 sports which they govern are in breach of the law and requested confirmation of the immediate steps the bodies will take to remedy the situation.

While many governing bodies changed their policies to protect women’s sport following the landmark For Women Scotland Ltd v The Scottish Ministers Supreme Court ruling last year—which unanimously held that “woman” refers to biological sex in the Equality Act—the sports bodies threatened with legal action today still allow males to compete in female categories.

The letters warned: “Any governing body that continues to permit biological males to compete in the female category contravenes the Equality Act 2010 as interpreted by the Supreme Court. This exposes the organisation to immediate and substantial legal liability.”

The letters explained that Section 195 of the Equality Act and draft guidance from the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) require sports bodies to prevent males from participating in women’s and girls’ sport, to ensure safe and fair competition.

While most parts of the Equality Act do not apply in Northern Ireland, the letter to the Irish Football Association (IFA) (the governing body for football in Northern Ireland) explained that the For Women Scotland ruling is still binding across the UK.

The judgement is at the very least “highly persuasive” in interpreting Northern Ireland’s unique equality legislation and the IFA has a legal obligation to protect women’s sport categories.

The letters pointed out the safeguarding risks of allowing males to use female changing rooms, highlighted the ineradicable physical advantages of biological males, and warned about the risk of discrimination claims by female athletes “whose opportunities and achievements are displaced or diminished” and of “increased insurance and tort liability from elevated injury risk”.

The letters concluded: “If active steps are not taken to ensure that the issues raised in this correspondence are satisfactorily resolved, and women and girls engaging with your organisation remain exposed to these risks even in light of the clarified legal position, we reserve the right to take further steps, including litigation, to protect their interests.

“Biological sex is not a negotiable category; it is the essential foundation for safeguarding women and girls and preserving fair competition.”

Last month, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) announced in a new policy that only biological females would be eligible to compete in women’s categories in IOC events. The IOC said: “To ensure fairness, and to protect safety, particularly in contact sports, eligibility should therefore be based on biological sex.”

Earlier this month, the Darts Regulation Authority banned men from competing in women’s tournaments, accepting that darts is a sex affected sport, in which the women’s category must be protected to ensure fairness. 

Last week, Bridget Phillipson, the Education Secretary, said EHRC guidance on protecting women’s spaces would not be published until after Scottish and Welsh elections on May 7, despite the fact that the draft guidance was submitted for review last September.

The delay was criticised by Baroness Falkner, the former head of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, and Reem Alsalem, the UN’s special rapporteur on violence against women and girls, who said the guidance should be published “without further delay”.

Women’s Sports Union CEO, Olympic medallist and Conservative peer Sharron Davies MBE said:

“It is a true scandal that men are still allowed to compete against women in sport, a year after the For Women Scotland Supreme Court ruling. Failing to protect women’s sport from males who claim to be female eradicates fairness in competition and presents extreme safeguarding concerns, all in the name of a false ideology.

“I have heard horror stories from parents whose girls have been exposed to extremely inappropriate and harmful situations, due to the failure to protect exclusive female sport categories and changing facilities. All sports bodies must act now to stop the risk of these terrible situations happening again in the future.

“Some organisations have merely acted to protect sport at the elite level, while allowing men to compete against women at the amateur level. This is unacceptable—all women who play sport must be able to do so in a safe and fair environment. If they cannot, many women will simply opt out of sport. Women’s sport must be protected at all levels and the importance of this is underlined by the fact that professional female athletes are drawn from the amateur pool.

“Today, we put 10 sports bodies that fail to recognise biological reality on notice. If they don’t act to do the right thing, we will not hesitate to pursue all legal options.”

Barrister and Director of Advocacy for ADF International Robert Clarke said:

“Today, we sent a formal warning to 10 sport bodies that their failure to protect women’s and girls’ sport is a serious breach of their legal obligations.

“The fight against gender ideology’s harmful effect on women’s sport and safety is a global one, and this case is the latest front in that battle. We are serious about this work as an organisation. In the United States, ADF is litigating two cases in the Supreme Court to protect women’s sport.

“We are just as committed to protecting fair and safe competition in the United Kingdom. We will not hesitate to pursue all legal options, should these sport bodies not act to bring their policies in line with the law and biological reality.”

Tracy Edwards MBE—the world-renowned sailor who skippered Maiden, the first all-female crew to ever sail around the world—of the Women’s Sports Union, said:

“When I stood outside the Supreme Court on 16 April 2025 as For Women Scotland won their case confirming the meaning of ‘woman’ in the Equality Act 2010 is defined as ‘biological sex’, I celebrated the return of sanity. Little did I know that a year later we would still be fighting for the female category in sport, and that over 30 UK sports governing bodies would be shirking their responsibility to women and girls.

“Sharron and I set up the Women’s Sports Union to ‘support, protect and grow female participation in sport’ but we knew that getting males out of the female category would be job number one. I have written to the RYA on a number of occasions and the disappointment I feel in their reluctance to protect women and girls is profound. I have spent my sailing career promoting and facilitating women and girls into sailing and yet the misogyny 37 years after ‘Maiden’ hasn’t gone away, it has just changed shape.”

 

Ensuring fairness and safety in women’s and girls’ sport

The letters explained: “In light of the ruling in For Women Scotland and the scientific and sporting consensus, it is now well-established: male puberty confers enduring, irreversible physiological advantages.

“These include greater skeletal size and limb length, higher bone density and structural strength, significantly increased muscle mass and upper-body strength, superior aerobic capacity and cardiovascular output, and enhanced speed and explosive power (typically producing performance gaps of 10–30%, and up to 50% in strength-dominant disciplines, such as boxing where male punching power is on average 162% greater than female).”

Section 195 of Equality Act 2010 and draft EHRC guidance

Section 195 of the Equality Act 2010 authorises governing bodies to maintain separate categories for men and women in any sex-affected activity, namely any sport in which the average physical strength, stamina or physique of one sex places competitors of the other at a disadvantage.

Chapter 13 of the draft EHRC Code of Practice (2025 consultation) states that in sex-affected activities under Section 195 organisers may—and where physiological differences produce competitive disadvantage or safety risks, should—confine the female category to biological females.

The position has been applied by the courts. In Haynes v. The English Blackball Pool Federation [2025] EWCC 50, the Court dismissed a discrimination claim filed by a biological male after exclusion from female pool competitions.

Relying on For Women Scotland, the Court ruled that exclusion on biological-sex grounds was lawful and proportionate to protect fair competition in a sex-affected activity. The judgment confirmed that pool is sex-affected due to average male advantages, citing greater male strength and reach, that the threshold does not require “major” disparities, and that the analysis applies beyond stereotypically strength-based sports.

 

Full list of sport bodies to which a letter was sent:

  1. Football Association of Wales
  2. Irish Football Association (governing body for football in Northern Ireland)
  3. British Powerlifting
  4. Swim England (which governs both diving and water polo)
  5. British Gymnastics  
  6. Royal Yachting Association
  7. Parkrun
  8. British Baseball Federation
  9. BaseballSoftballUK
  10. Rounders England

Read the full letter to Parkrun:

Images for free use in print or online in relation to this story only.

(Pictured: Tracy Edwards and Sharron Davies, Sharron Davies, Tracy Edwards, Robert Clarke)

Brussels authorities face legal challenge after arresting individuals expressing concerns about puberty blockers 

  • Demand letter issued to Belgian Police following arrest of campaigner „Billboard Chris“ (Canada) and Lois McLatchie Miller (UK)
  • Pair were arrested for holding conversations in public space about gender ideology: “children cannot consent to puberty blockers”

BRUSSELS (9 December 2025) – A UK citizen and Canadian campaigner are seeking compensation after they were arrested by Brussels authorities for peacefully expressing views about the harmful effects of puberty blockers on children. 

On 5 June 2025, Belgian police detained Chris Elston (known online as „Billboard Chris“) and ADF International’s Lois McLatchie Miller while they were conducting man-on-the-street interviews about gender ideology and the harmful effects of puberty blockers on children. To prompt conversation, they held signs reading: “Children are never born in the wrong body,” and „Children cannot consent to puberty blockers“.  

“It is scandalous to expose children to puberty blockers, and it is scandalous to silence and jail those who speak out about it. No one should fear arrest for defending children's safety.”

- Lois McLatchie Miller
McLatchie Miller had initially called the police for help after being harassed repeatedly by hostile men on the street while trying to conduct interviews. An aggressive crowd formed around the pair. Upon arrival, 14 police officers decided to arrest McLatchie Miller and Elston rather than the aggressors. The pair were taken into custody, held for several hours, and had their signs confiscated and destroyed. 

Right to Free Speech Violated

Responding to the incident at the time, the U.S. State Department said: „We are aware of these reports and are looking into the matter. The State Department strongly supports the peaceful freedom of expression for all“. 

With the support of ADF International and Belgian legal counsel, Elston and McLatchie Miller have issued a formal demand letter to the Brussels Chief of Police, as well as to the ombudsman, the city, the police inspectorate, and the state.

Estás viendo un contenido de marcador de posición de YouTube. Para acceder al contenido real, haz clic en el siguiente botón. Ten en cuenta que al hacerlo compartirás datos con terceros proveedores.

Más información
Desbloquear contenido Aceptar el servicio requerido y desbloquear los contenidos
The letter asserts that the authorities’ actions violated their freedom of expression and physical integrity under Belgian and international human rights law. It requests: a thorough and impartial investigation into the incident; official acknowledgment of rights violations; appropriate compensation and steps to ensure that such actions will not recur.  “Billboard Chris and Lois McLatchie Miller were arrested while holding consensual conversations on the street about the basic truth about the dangers of gender ideology. Any society that denies the basic right to express the truth is on a path to totalitarianism.  “Whether online or on the street, it is clear that free speech has reached a crisis point in Europe. EU governments cannot claim to uphold human rights while repeatedly violating the right to free expression.  “Belgian authorities not only failed to uphold the fundamental right to speak freely, they turned the power of the state against two individuals who were peacefully exercising their rights at the behest of increasingly aggressive bystanders, said Dr  Felix Böllmann, Director of European Advocacy for ADF International.  Elston, who regularly speaks about protecting children from harmful gender ideology in public squares across Europe and North America, including by sharing his conversations on social media, has publicly stated that he intends to return to Brussels and expects authorities to safeguard his right to speak freely.  “I’m speaking in the public square about one of the most significant medical human rights scandals of our day – the deliberate damaging of children’s bodies for an ideology which teaches they were born in the wrong body.  „Children don’t need drugs or scalpels – they are perfect just as they are, and need affirmation to love the skin they’re in. My engagement is based on mountains of medical evidence that has been established across the world. A society that punishes citizens for stating truth is on a dangerous path,” Elston said.   McLatchie Miller added: “Puberty blockers, and the cross-sex hormones that so often follow them, are highly dangerous drugs that can cause long-lasting damage to children – impacting their bodily development, bone density, mental health, lifelong fertility, and more. It is scandalous to expose children to these drugs, and it is scandalous to silence and jail those who speak out about it. No one should fear arrest for defending children’s safety.” 

Images for free use in print or online in relation to this story only

Pictured: Chris Elston, Lois McLatchie Miller

UN Expert Report Calls on Governments to Prohibit “Gender Transition” for Children  

UN undermines parents' rights by pushing gender ideology.
  • UN Special Rapporteur on violence against women and girls calls on states to ensure the terms “women” and “girls” refer exclusively to biological females, and to enshrine this definition in law.
  • Report further calls for a prohibition on the social, legal, and medical „transition“ of children who claim to experience gender dysphoria, among other safeguards
UN undermines parents' rights by pushing gender ideology.

GENEVA (25 June 2025) – A new report presented today by Reem Alsalem, UN Special Rapporteur on violence against women and girls, warns that states are failing to address both persistent and newly emerging forms of sex-based violence, including in relation to gender ideology.

The report, entitled “Sex-based violence against women and girls: new frontiers and emerging issues,” urges governments to reaffirm legal protections for women and girls based on their female biological sex, in accordance with their international human rights obligations. 

In response to an “international push to delink the definition of men and women from their biological sex,” the report outlines concerns around the removal of sex-specific language and its negative impact on the legal recognition and protection of women’s rights. Bringing together submissions from 180 stakeholders, including ADF International, the report holds that these developments result in violations of women and girls’ human rights. 

The report calls for states to “ensure that the terms ‘women’ and ‘girls’ are only used to describe biological females and that such a meaning is recognized in law.” Further, it urges the prohibition of the prohibition of legal and social transitioning of children who claim to experience gender dysphoria, “as well as their subjugation to experimental, irreversible medical interventions related to gender reassignment.”  

“This report delivers a timely and urgent message as international awareness solidifies around the dangerous human rights implications of gender ideology, especially its impact on the well-being and healthy development of children. The report underscores how the erosion of legal clarity around sex, an objective and immutable biological reality, has had devastating implications for the dignity, safety and rights of women and girls."

- Giorgio Mazzoli, Director of UN Advocacy at ADF International

 

“This report delivers a timely and urgent message as international awareness solidifies around the dangerous human rights implications of gender ideology, especially its impact on the well-being and healthy development of children,” responded Giorgio Mazzoli, Director of UN Advocacy at ADF International. “The report underscores how the erosion of legal clarity around sex, an objective and immutable biological reality, has had devastating implications for the dignity, safety and rights of women and girls. As the Special Rapporteur told governments at the UN Human Rights Council today, ‘you cannot protect what you cannot define’. We urge all States to act without delay to implement the report’s recommendations”. 

Risks of puberty blockers to children highlighted by UN Expert

The report states: “The long-lasting and harmful consequences of social and medical transitioning of children, including girls, are being increasingly documented. They include: persistence or intensification of psychological distress; persistence of body dissatisfaction; infertility, early onset of the menopause and an increase in the risk of osteoporosis; sexual dysfunction; and loss of the ability to breastfeed in cases of breast mastectomy (to mention a few).” 

It further notes: “That has rightly led several countries, such as Brazil, the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the United Kingdom to change course and restrict children’s access to puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones and surgery on sexual and reproductive organs. Allowing children access to such procedures not only violates their right to safety, security and freedom from violence, but also disregards their human right to the highest standards of health and goes against their best interests.”  

The Special Rapporteur also explicitly calls for the protection of single-sex spaces for the protection of women, including in prisons and healthcare settings. 

Submitted under Human Rights Council resolution 50/7, the report draws from state submissions, recent case law, and existing human rights frameworks, including the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW).  

A global push against harmful gender ideology

This publication follows a recent decision by the US Supreme Court in United States of America v. Skrmetti to uphold a Tennessee law protecting children from gender-ideology experiments, demonstrating a global shift toward dismantling gender ideology. 

In the United Kingdom, the closure of London’s Tavistock Clinic and the publication of the Cass Review signaled a clear rejection of gender ideology experimentation on young people. 

As highlighted in a recent amicus brief to the U.S. Supreme Court from 17 international parental rights organisations, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Norway, Italy, Hungary, and Slovakia are among the list of European countries that have taken legislative, judicial, or administrative steps to protect minors from gender ideology.

In Latin America, Chile moved to ban gender “transition” for children in May, following bans in Argentina and Brazil.

“Governments have an obligation under international law to eliminate all forms of violence and discrimination against women and girls. This requires urgent and concerted action to reverse the harms caused by the ongoing erasure of their sex-based rights under the pervasive influence of gender ideology. Practices of so-called ‘gender transition’ for minors must be prohibited under the law, and every effort made to uphold the dignity, integrity, and future for every woman and child,” Mazzoli added.

Images for free use in print or online in relation to this story only

Foreign Censorship on U.S. Social Media Platforms – Australian Case Validates Vance’s Concerns

  • Melbourne Tribunal to hear “monumental” free speech challenge from 31st March-4th April
  • Musk’s “X” and Canadian “Billboard Chris” bringing case against Australian “eSafety Commissioner” for censoring online post criticizing gender ideology
  • VP Vance, Secretary of State Rubio have raised repeated concerns about the impact of censorial foreign governments on American-based social media platforms

MELBOURNE (27 March 2025) – The Administrative Review Tribunal in Melbourne is set to hear a “monumental” free speech case next week, commencing March 31st, as concerns mount worldwide about online censorship.

Canadian internet sensation and children’s safety campaigner “Billboard Chris” (Chris Elston), alongside Elon Musk’s U.S.-based social media platform “X”, will challenge the Australian authorities’ decision to censor an online post criticizing gender ideology across Australia.

The case demonstrates the tangible reality of global censorship concerns raised repeatedly by Vice-President J.D. Vance, both at a Munich Security Conference in February and in a press conference with UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer.

Speaking about free speech restrictions in the context of the UK, Vance said:

“We also know that there have been infringements on free speech that actually affect not just the British — of course what the British do in their own country is up to them — but also affect American technology companies and, by extension, American citizens.“

Speaking recently in Paris, Vance added that while “we want to ensure the internet is a safe place”, restrictions on online content should focus on protecting children from predatory abuse, rather than preventing “a grown man or woman from accessing an opinion that the government thinks is misinformation.”

The actions of the eSafety Commissioner demonstrate a concerning rise in censorship in the digital age – where bureaucracies can subjectively interpret which speech is deemed “offensive” or “wrong”, leading to the curtailment of free speech rights.

Robert Clarke, Director of Advocacy for ADF International, which is backing Elston’s legal defence, said:

“The decision of Australian authorities to prevent Australian citizens from hearing and evaluating information about gender ideology is a patronizing affront to the principles of democracy.

“The confidence of the Australian eSafety commissioner to censor citizens of Canada on an American platform, shows the truly global nature of the free speech crisis.

“Speaking up for free speech is critical at this juncture, and we’re proud to be backing Billboard Chris as he does just that.”

Chris Elston, a.k.a “Billboard Chris”, commented:

“My case is an example of the free speech crisis here in Australia and across the West. More and more, the public is waking up to the fact that puberty blockers are a form of child abuse. Gender ideology can only thrive under censorship – when we are deprived of shining a light on the madness.”

THE CASE: Freedom of online speech in the balance

On 28 February 2024, Elston took to “X” to share a Daily Mail article titled “Kinky secrets of UN trans expert REVEALED”.

The article, and accompanying tweet, criticised the appointment of Australian transgender activist Teddy Cook to a World Health Organization “panel of experts” set to advise on global transgender policy.

Cook complained about the post to Australia’s eSafety Commissioner, who requested that “X” remove the content. The social media platform owned by free speech advocate Elon Musk initially refused, but following a subsequent formal removal order from the Commissioner, later geo-blocked the content in Australia. X has since also filed an appeal against the order at the Administrative Review Tribunal in Melbourne.

Billboard Chris, with the support of ADF International and the Australian Human Rights Law Alliance, and alongside Elon Musk’s “X”, is appealing the violation of his right to peacefully share his convictions. 

The case will be heard in Melbourne for five days on the week beginning March 31st.

Members of the public are invited to support Chris’s legal case here. 

Images for free use in print or online in relation to this story only

STATEMENT: Chilean Senate protects children, takes a stand against dangerous gender ideology

  • Chile joins a growing group of countries taking steps to reject gender ideology as Senate passes critical law prohibiting the use of public funds for “gender transition” for minors.  
  • Law to be confirmed unless challenged by the Constitutional Court in the coming weeks. 

WASHINGTON, DC (3 December 2024) Chile has joined a growing group of countries that are taking steps to reject gender ideology. 

The following statement may be attributed to Tomás Henríquez, Director of Advocacy for Latin America:  

“The Chilean Senate has passed a critical law that prohibits the government from spending any public funds on surgical or hormonal interventions for children under the age of 18 for so-called ‘gender/sex reassignment’.  

The first of its kind in Latin America, this sets a major precedent for the protection of children not just in Chile, but also in all Latin American countries. Chile is to be commended for taking an important step in saying no to the dangers of gender ideology.  

Now, other countries must do the same. Every child is precious just as they are and has the absolute right to be safeguarded from a radical ideology that promotes dangerous drugs and surgeries with devastating consequences.” 

BACKGROUND: 

The Senate vote took place following the release of a report from a Chilean Congressional investigative committee that strongly recommended the immediate suspension of all programs related to the so-called “gender transition” of children. 

The report investigated the PAIG program, or Growing with Pride, a government policy aimed at Chileans that expressed “gender identity” confusion. 

From the report: “The PAIG is implemented in 37 hospitals in the country and the psychosocial pairs have the power to carry out family interventions, within educational spaces, referral to hormone therapies, as well as the power to take legal action against ‚resistant parents‘ who oppose the gender transition of their children or seek greater prudence when advancing in the different stages of it.” 

The report revealed that a combined 4,142 children and adolescents have entered or have been treated in the PAIG program, “despite the lack of consensus in the medical-scientific community and the setback in several European countries on applying treatments.“ 

The law passed in the Chilean Senate on 20 November 2024. The government had communicated it would study mounting a challenge to the amendment at the Constitutional Court, which may materialize in the coming weeks. 

Images for free use in print or online in relation to this story only.

A ‘Culture Conversation’ with Nancy Pearcey, American Christian Author and Apologist

How should Christians respond to the transgender movement?

Nancy Pearcey is a prominent author and Christian apologist who dedicates her scholarship to the intersection of faith and culture. Pearcey explores how Christianity must be lived as a worldview that touches on every area of life.

Pearcey offers a steadfast and courageous witness for today’s Christians, advocating for a conception of the human person as an integrated being, body, and soul, who should be valued accordingly. Our Sophia Kuby sat down with Pearcey to explore how this understanding should inform the Christian response to the issues of our day.

You are currently viewing a placeholder content from YouTube. To access the actual content, click the button below. Please note that doing so will share data with third-party providers.

More Information
Unblock content Accept required service and unblock content

Watch the full interview above:

Q: Arguably, your book Love Thy Body is more relevant today than even when you wrote it in 2018. You identify the dualistic, fragmented view of the person as the key to understanding where we are headed as a society. Why is that?

A: This dualism, this split, may be the most important key to understanding what happens in our culture today. We tend to treat euthanasia, abortion, transgenderism, the hookup culture etc., as individual issues. But if we can recognize the underlying worldview, it will be so much easier to respond because we’re digging deeper as to what’s really driving the secular culture on these issues.

What’s under the surface translates into a split about the human person such as body and mind or values and facts, science and morals, all of these splits. Once you understand that, there really is no surprise anymore, no matter how radical it gets.

Once you split the body from your mind and your identity you have something entirely disincarnated. And the body has no significance. Like everything makes sense in a way. It’s not right, but Christians need to understand this worldview because that way you are not surprised by secular conclusions.

Q: You explain how [dualism] it’s the same secular worldview that drives euthanasia. How so?

A: For proponents of euthanasia, if you are mentally disabled, if you no longer have a certain level of cortical functioning, then you are no longer a person, even though you’re obviously still human. And at that point, in this view, you’re not a person anymore. You’re only a body.

And so, you can be unplugged—your treatment withheld, your food and water discontinued, and your organs harvested. So, once again, you see how being human is no longer enough for human rights. You have to achieve a certain level of awareness or cognitive ability in order to earn the status of personhood. And anyone who falls short is considered a non-person. So, we are seeing the emergence of a new category now which is the human non-person.

On the other hand, the pro-life view is inclusive. If you are a member of the human race, you’re in, you count. You have the full rights as a member of the moral community.

What’s under the surface translates into a split about the human person such as body and mind or values and facts, science and morals, all of these splits. Once you understand that, there really is no surprise anymore, no matter how radical it gets.

Once you split the body from your mind and your identity you have something entirely disincarnated. And the body has no significance. Like everything makes sense in a way. It’s not right, but Christians need to understand this worldview because that way you are not surprised by secular conclusions.

Q: There is a worldview thread connecting abortion and euthanasia to questions of sexuality. Can you explain?

A: The connecting thread is the division of the body from the person. We see this in the hookup culture. The entire premise is that sex can be purely physical, cut off from the whole person.

The mistake people make is to assume that there are two very distinct elements in a relationship: one emotional and one sexual, and they pretend like there are clean lines between them. There is a fundamental despair stemming from the belief that the body doesn’t mean anything. [It’s] no wonder the hookup culture is leaving behind a trail of wounded people.

People are trying to live out a secular ethic that does not fit who they really are. The Christian ethic is incarnational. And science is on our side. Science has shown the interconnection of body and person, for example, with the discovery of hormones like oxytocin. We are designed to bond. And Scripture teaches that we are embodied spirits. Both body and spirit are part of our identity.

And so, you can be unplugged—your treatment withheld, your food and water discontinued, and your organs harvested. So, once again, you see how being human is no longer enough for human rights. You have to achieve a certain level of awareness or cognitive ability in order to earn the status of personhood. And anyone who falls short is considered a non-person. So, we are seeing the emergence of a new category now which is the human non-person.

On the other hand, the pro-life view is inclusive. If you are a member of the human race, you’re in, you count. You have the full rights as a member of the moral community.

What’s under the surface translates into a split about the human person such as body and mind or values and facts, science and morals, all of these splits. Once you understand that, there really is no surprise anymore, no matter how radical it gets.

Once you split the body from your mind and your identity you have something entirely disincarnated. And the body has no significance. Like everything makes sense in a way. It’s not right, but Christians need to understand this worldview because that way you are not surprised by secular conclusions.

Q: How do you respond to those who hold the view that you can be born into the wrong body?

A: What we need to realize is that it is a profoundly disrespectful view of the body to pit the mind against the body and then say it’s only the mind and feelings that count.

Would God create people to be torn in two conflicting directions like this? Not the Christian God. Things like conflict, self-division, and self-alienation are results of the fall, not creation. And yet today, it’s widely accepted that if somebody feels that sense of inner division, a conflict between the body and the mind, then it is your feelings and desires that count.

The Christian ethic is holistic. The mind and emotions are meant to be in tune with our body. And so, it’s an ethic that overcomes self-division and self-alienation, and ultimately leads to a sense of internal unity, wholeness, and self-integration.

Q: So how does this apply to the worldview driving the transgender movement?

A: This involves the same split view of the person, the same devaluing of the body. Transgender activists argue explicitly that your gender identity has nothing to do with your physical body, with your biological sex.

I watched a BBC documentary that said that at the heart of the debate is the idea that your mind can be at war with your body, and it is the mind that wins. So, in this view, your body has been reduced to a meat skeleton. I recently came across a Kickstarter page for a documentary titled “I Am Not My Body.” That title says it all. My body is not part of my authentic self.

This is a radically separate, divided, fractured, fragmented view of what a person is. That’s the core of what’s being taught to young people all the way down to kindergarten—that your body has no meaning at all.

Q: How should Christians respond to this extreme devaluation of the body?

A: Even secular people are saying that transgenderism involves body hatred. So what this means is that Christians have a wonderful opportunity to show that a Biblical ethic expresses a positive view of the way God made us as physically embodied beings, that the biological correspondence between male and female is not some evolutionary accident. It’s part of the original creation that God pronounced very good.  

There is a turning point for people who identify as transgender when they can say: “I finally came to trust that God had made me my sex for a reason, and I wanted to honor my body by living in accord with the Creator’s design.” This is a beautiful language. This is not guilt, shame, and self-loathing. This is positive: I want to honor my body.

So, number one, we must learn how to use positive language. “Live in tune with your body. Live in harmony with the Creator’s design.” Let’s face it, Christians are known for having a negative message. We have to start with a positive message that our body is God’s creation, and that a Biblical ethic shows us how to honor and respect it.

Next, we have to be proactive. I’ve told Brandon’s story. Brandon was sort of the classic case before he was even walking. His babysitter told his mother, “He’s too good to be a boy,” by which she meant he was gentle and sweet-natured. By elementary school, he was coming to his parents weeping, saying: “I don’t fit in anywhere,” because he didn’t feel like a boy.

By his early teens, he was scouring the internet for information on sex reassignment surgery. So, what did his parents do? They made sure he knew they loved him just the way he was. They did not try to change him.

They said it is perfectly acceptable to be a gentle, sensitive boy. It does not mean you are really a girl. His parents said it may mean that God has gifted you for one of the caring professions like counselor or healthcare worker. His parents’ favorite line, which they said over and over again, was: “It’s not you that’s wrong. It’s the stereotypes that are wrong.”

Brandon did not transition. He did finally accept that it is scientifically impossible to actually change your sex.

Q: As we assess the toll that these ideologies are taking across the world, is there hope? What does the future hold? 

There is good news. First, there are an increasing number of people who are “de-transitioning.” People who have gone through this are turning around and accusing the clinics of fast-tracking them. Some are bringing the clinics to court.

There are a couple of cases working their way through the courts in the US, and some states are banning medical interventions for minors. European countries are changing their policy. They are pulling back in England, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Norway, France, Wales, Scotland, Germany, and the Netherlands.  

We must continue to assert the revolutionary nature of Christianity, which teaches that the material world is made by the supreme deity, who is a good God, and therefore it is intrinsically good. Yes, the world is fallen, but the fall is like a beautiful masterpiece that a child takes a magic marker and scribbles on.  

Yes, it’s defaced, but the original beauty still shines through. And that’s what we need to help people see—that the world still shows the original beauty of God’s creation. The Incarnation is the ultimate affirmation of the dignity of the human body. And what’s more, when Jesus was executed on a Roman cross, he did escape the physical world, as Gnosticism teaches we should aspire to do. But what did he do then? He came back in a physical body—a bodily resurrection.

God is not going to scrap the material world as if He made a mistake the first time around.  

He’s going to restore it. The resurrection of the body, as affirmed in the Apostles Creed, is an astonishingly high view of the physical world. There’s nothing like it in any other religion or philosophy.