This is the article that appeared in the April 2025 edition of Catalyst, our monthly journal. The date that prints out reflects
the day that it was uploaded to our website. For a more accurate date of when the article was first published, check out the news release, here.

Bill Donohue

As we approached the 10th anniversary of homosexuals marching under their own banner in New York City’s St. Patrick’s Day Parade, it behooved us to understand how this happened.

To begin with, gays were never banned from marching. As I said on radio and TV in New York for two decades, no one ever asked anyone what they did in bed and with whom. Gays were banned from marching under their own banner, and that is because to do so would deflect from what the day is all about—honoring St. Patrick. For the same reason, pro-life groups were banned from marching under their own banner.

The first gay group to march was in 1991. Mayor David Dinkins entered into a discussion with the Ancient Order of Hibernians (AOH), the parade organizers, and a compromise was reached: members of the Irish Lesbian and Gay Organization (ILGO) could march with the mid-town chapter of the AOH, accompanied by the mayor.

When ILGO sought to march in the 1992 parade, they were barred. They were accused of “outrageous behavior” when they marched in 1991, making obscene gestures in front of St. Patrick’s Cathedral and in front of the reviewing stand at 5th Avenue and 67th Street.

On January 21, 1992, the Hibernian National and State Boards issued a joint statement asserting that “no organization or organizations are allowed to use New York City’s 231st Annual St. Patrick’s Day Parade on March 17, 1992 as a vehicle to publicly insult any person or group watching or reviewing the parade.” They repeated the charge that ILGO engaged in “outrageous behavior and conduct.”

ILGO did not give up and proceeded to march, illegally, in the 1994 parade. They were arrested for marching without a permit on March 17, but that didn’t make any difference to Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Robert Sackett. On November 2, 1994, he threw out the charges, saying the arrest of the ILGO members was a “blatant denial of First Amendment rights.”

A week later, here is what I said about that ruling.

“Judge Sackett is an embarrassment of the courts. For him to simply disregard the fact that ILGO (a) had no permit to march (b) never sought one in the first place (c) was never denied the right to protest elsewhere and (d) had already lost in the courts in its bid to march in the St. Patrick’s Day Parade, demonstrates that Judge Sackett shows no respect for the law.”

In 1995, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled that banning ILGO from the Boston St. Patrick’s Day Parade was constitutional. It was a private parade, the high court said, and the organizers had a First Amendment right to freedom of association, essentially affirming their right to craft their own rules.

Meanwhile in New York, the AOH handed the parade over to a new group, the St. Patrick’s Day Parade Committee, headed by John Dunleavy. Even though the Supreme Court upheld the right of parade organizers to ban ILGO, they attempted to march in the late 1990s, and were arrested for doing so. I took pictures of them and was assaulted by one of the lesbians. I did not hit her back knowing the media would capture my retaliatory move, and blame me.

Why was ILGO so determined to march? It had nothing to do with honoring St. Patrick. This is not an opinion—it is what they said.

In 2017, Anne Maguire and Maxine Wolfe published their reminiscences on an array of subjects, one of which was the parade. Maguire, who was co-founder of ILGO, talked about the politics of the group. She explicitly said that the protests at the St. Patrick’s Day Parade “sort of dovetailed with ACT UP.” She also admitted that “the vast majority” of ILGO members were illegal aliens who sought to mobilize politically.

Maguire said that within their first year in the U.S., “somebody brought up in a meeting, ‘Wouldn’t it be kind of funny if we marched in the St. Patrick’s Day parade?'” To which most of them said, “Are you kidding me?” This is how it all began—as a lark.

They asked for a permit, were denied, and “it just completely blew up.” They saw homophobia everywhere, from being denied a permit to “ACT UP and AIDS.”

Maguire’s admission that there was a nexus between the parade and ACT UP is telling: she was referring to what ACT UP did on December 10, 1989 at St. Patrick’s Cathedral. That was the day when gays crashed the Sunday 10:15 a.m. Mass, celebrated by Cardinal John O’Connor. ACT UP activists interrupted the Mass, handcuffed themselves to the pews, blew whistles, shouted obscenities and spat the Host on the floor. One of the most prominent members at the “Stop The Church” protest who was arrested was Ann Northrop.

Northrop blamed Cardinal O’Connor for AIDS, not promiscuous homosexuals. How did the archbishop cause AIDS? By saying that monogamy protects against the sexually transmitted disease! This is like blaming obesity on those who diet.

Further proof that ILGO’s interest in marching in the parade was a lark, having everything to do with making a political statement and nothing to do with honoring St. Patrick, was made plain by Maguire. In 1996, a year after the Supreme Court ruled against ILGO, she wrote the following.

“What is clear about ILGO and the St. Patrick’s Day parade is that most [ILGO] people, particularly those of us who are most actively involved, had no inclination to be associated with, never mind march in, the parade. [The protest], very simply, is where our ‘coming out’ took place.”

This is exactly what the AOH had been saying all along.

In September 2014, as I previously recounted in the March Catalyst, Dunleavy was pushed aside by the vice chairman of the St. Patrick’s Day Parade Committee, John Lahey, president of Quinnipiac University. At a press conference held at the New York Athletic Club, welcoming a gay group to march, OUT@NBCUniversal, Lahey and others spoke, but Dunleavy did not. He was treated like dirt by the heavyweights who sucked up to the media. I was never invited, and we all know why.

Lahey paired with elites from other universities, corporations, lawyers and the media to take the reins from Dunleavy. Dunleavy was a former transit dispatcher, a great blue collar guy from Ireland. He was outclassed by these sharks. It did not matter to the elites that the Supreme Court declared that parade officials had a First Amendment right to bar ILGO. What mattered is that they wanted the affirmation of elites unconnected to the parade.

Lahey and company would have us believe that the parade was being threatened with a boycott from its sponsors, and that they could not have it televised on NBC without their advertising support. It is true that Guinness, Heineken and the Ford Motor Company were planning to do just that. It is also true that Manhattan College, Fairfield University and the Irish government were pressuring parade officials.

What Lahey did not say is that they could have looked for other alternatives. What about WPIX? Would they have agreed to televise the march? What about EWTN, the Catholic media giant? What about looking for new sponsors? Quite simply, they used this as an excuse to get what they wanted all along—the elites were all on the same side.

I know that their hearts were not in it because in the spring of 2014, right after the St. Patrick’s Day Parade, the issue of gays marching in 2015 was coming to a head. I met with seven owners of Irish pubs in New York City; they owned roughly 25 percent of the Irish bars. All but one agreed to my plea to boycott Guinness. Some chose to cut the price of Guinness’ competitors, thus enticing drinkers to choose an alternative; others simply took out the Guinness tap. But it was not enough to change things, and that is because parade officials wanted nothing to do with it.

On September 17, 2014, I wrote Dunleavy a letter restating how I was lied to about gays marching in the parade. I mentioned to him that one of the parade officials, John Fitzsimmons, an attorney, had called me at the end of August. I knew him well and would have fielded the call but I was in Montauk, Long Island taking a break. The call was about including a gay group in the parade in 2015. Here is part of what I said.

“I told Bernadette [the vice president] to let John know that it was okay by me [to include a gay group], as long as (a) there was a formal change in the parade rules governing marching units allowing those that have their own cause to march, and (b) a pro-life group would be marching under its own banner as well. John said he believed that a formal revision of the rules had been made, but that he had to ‘check his notes.’

“John called back saying that he checked with you about this issue, and that he also checked his notes. He said there was, in fact, a formal change in the rules, and that a pro-life group would be marching. Bernadette then urged him to pick a pro-life group so that it could be announced at the same time as the NBC gay group [which had already been approved]. He agreed to do this.”

It was plain that I had been lied to by Fitzsimmons, so I closed my letter to Dunleavy saying, “John is the source of the problem.” (Both Fitzsimmons and Dunleavy have since passed away.) I pulled our Catholic League unit the next year and we will never march again.

On the day that gays first marched in the St. Patrick’s Day Parade under their own banner, March 17, 2015, Northrop said she still wasn’t happy. She was angry that a gay group was chosen by NBC, which televised the march, saying “it’s all a corporate deal. It has nothing to do with really opening up the parade and welcoming gay people in and certainly not Irish gay people.”

It’s never enough for narcissistic gays—it’s always about them.

To show how crazed Northrop is, consider that she once celebrated the news that human cloning could make men obsolete. “Essentially, this is sort of the final nail in men’s coffins. Men are now totally irrelevant, if [cloning] is, in fact, true and possible and becomes routine. Men are going to have a very hard time justifying their existence on the planet, I think.” Male hatred is not unusual among radical lesbians, but this comment is hard to beat.

Ten years after the first gay group marched up Fifth Avenue, there is still no pro-life group allowed to march. Each year Irish Pro-Life USA, founded by John Aidan Byrne, requests a permit to march, and every year he is denied. Parade organizer Hilary Beirne never gets back to him.

In other words, the St. Patrick’s Day Parade officials allow homosexual groups to march but not pro-life Catholics. In short, we can thank the Irish elites, in the U.S. and Ireland, for ganging up on John Dunleavy.

This is the article that appeared in the April 2025 edition of Catalyst, our monthly journal. The date that prints out reflects
the day that it was uploaded to our website. For a more accurate date of when the article was first published, check out the news release, here.

Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel released a report in December on sexual abuse in the Diocese of Lansing. It is seriously flawed, though she received no pushback from the media; they accepted the report at face value. We did not, and with good reason: Nessel’s animus against the Catholic Church is indisputable (see our website for the evidence).

This is the fourth diocesan report on this subject: reports on the dioceses of Marquette, Gaylord and Kalamazoo were previously issued. The Lansing report found that there were 56 diocesan officials who were accused of sexual abuse between the 1950s and the 2010s. Unlike most probes on this subject, this one includes alleged adult victims as well as minors.

The alleged offenders include one male teacher, three religious brothers and 52 ordained clergy (four deacons and forty-eight priests). Of the 56, two-thirds are dead. Of the one still in active ministry, the allegation was found to be unsubstantiated by the diocese.

The report found that two-thirds of the alleged victims were males; a quarter were females; the rest targeted males and females. Most of the cases took place during the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s.

Our review of Nessel’s report found serious mistakes that inflated the total number of alleged victims and deflated the number of male victims.

• The report lists alleged male and female victims as John Doe and Jane Doe, respectively. There were 120 John Does and 42 Jane Does listed. However, there were also 40 other alleged victims in the report who were not listed as either John Doe or Jane Doe. Of the unlisted, 37 were male and three were female.
• The report lists several instances where there is no mention of a John Doe, yet they are still included in the tally. For example, there is no record of John Doe 30 nor of Jane Doe 10.
• In some cases, the report lists Jane Doe where the victim was male. Also, in one case Jane Doe was not a victim, but rather the wife of a male who alleged abuse. In another case, a Jane Doe was a sibling of a John Doe but did not claim she was abused.

Why would the report inflate the total number of alleged victims and deflate the number of male victims? It is obvious to any honest scholar who has covered this issue—to protect homosexuals from scrutiny. For decades now there has been a persistent cover-up of the role that homosexual priests have played in the clergy abuse scandal (see Bill Donohue’s book, The Truth about Clergy Sexual Abuse). The guilty parties include the media, government officials, educators and activists.

Another serious problem with the report is that it disregards the Diocese of Lansing’s records on abuse cases. Of the 56 accused in the report, only 21 are listed in the Diocese of Lansing’s credibly accused list (Nessel’s report relies heavily on data reported on the website of bishop-accountability.org, which is hardly a reliable source).

Upon investigation, the Lansing diocese found that many of the accusations were not deemed to be credible: It is not easy to substantiate accusations about alleged offenses that took place decades ago. In several cases, the Diocesan Review Board could not find any evidence of abuse. In four cases, the accused passed a polygraph exam. Yet they were still included in the report!

Attorney General Nessel is not interested in curbing sexual abuse. If she were she would stop stalking the Catholic Church and start probing the public schools. That’s where this problem is on-going.

USA Today reporters investigated all 50 states to see how they handle the sexual abuse of students. They gave Michigan an overall grade of “F.” They said its background system was “weak” and was “left to local school districts.” Also, mandatory reporting laws were determined to be “weak.” In terms of transparency, they found “no information online about teacher disciplinary actions and misconduct.” To make matters worse, information on teacher misconduct was “not shared with other states.”

There is plenty here for Nessel to mine. It’s time for her to investigate public school kids who have been abused in the past, as well as those currently being raped by teachers.

Also, since Nessel did not confine her probe to minors who have allegedly been abused by priests and other staffers, an examination of sexual misconduct in the public schools must include an investigation of teachers, administrators and other school personnel who have been accused of molesting or harassing other adults, including the parents of their students.

We contacted every lawmaker in the state to do what should have been done a long time ago: insist on a probe of sexual misconduct in the public schools. It’s time to stop religious profiling and treat every segment of society equally.

This is the article that appeared in the April 2025 edition of Catalyst, our monthly journal. The date that prints out reflects
the day that it was uploaded to our website. For a more accurate date of when the article was first published, check out the news release, here.

On February 19, we contacted U.S. Attorney General Pamela Bondi letting her know that we are delighted that President Trump established a Presidential Commission on Religious Liberty, and that he chose her to head a task force on anti-Christian bias. We pledged to do everything we can to assist her in this effort.

In his letter to Bondi, Bill Donohue said the following.

“The Catholic League has more documentation on this issue than any organization in the nation. We are currently collecting documents for you to make it easier to access our work; we will be sharing this with you when the process is complete. Please see our website, catholicleague.org, for detailed news releases, essays and reports on anti-Christian bigotry.”

This is the article that appeared in the April 2025 edition of Catalyst, our monthly journal. The date that prints out reflects
the day that it was uploaded to our website. For a more accurate date of when the article was first published, check out the news release, here.

No one has done a better job addressing modern-day child abuse than Sen. Josh Hawley. That is why Bill Donohue wrote to him on February 24 asking him to expand his reach.

Donohue commended him for introducing a bill, “The Jamie Reed Protecting Our Kids from Child Abuse Act,” that would allow minors who were harmed by sex-transition procedures to bring lawsuits against those who participated in this abuse.

Good as this is, Donohue implored him to address the role played by the medical schools, the American Medical Association and other professional associations. “They provide legitimacy for these acts of child abuse,” he said. He offered several examples how this is done.

The medical watchdog, Do No Harm, reports that in a five-year period, 2019-2023, approximately 14,000 children underwent sex-change operations. There is big money in this scam—the hospitals charged nearly $120 million. They have the support of elite medical schools, the AMA, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Psychological Association and the American Psychiatric Association.

Mass General is the original and largest teaching hospital of Harvard Medical School. It has a specialized gender-affirming care unit. Surgeries include the creation of a vagina and a penis. Boston Children’s Hospital is also a teaching hospital at Harvard Medical School; it operates “the first pediatric and adolescent transgender health program in the United States.”

Other medical schools that do the same work include Johns Hopkins, Stanford Medicine, the University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, the Columbia University’s Vagelos College of Physicians & Surgeons, the David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Yale Medicine and the Duke University School of Medicine.

While all of these institutions matter, the AMA is the most influential. What it professes is alarming: “Designating sex on birth certificates as male or female, and making that information available on the public portion, perpetuates a view that sex designation is permanent and fails to recognize the medical spectrum of gender identity.”

“Self-identification is no substitute for biological truisms,” Donohue said. “There are but two sexes—male and female—and no amount of chatter about ‘the medical spectrum of gender identity’ can change this verity. Quite simply, what the AMA professes is anti-science.”

Donohue explained that given its commitment to subjectivism, “it is not surprising to learn that the AMA supports transgender persons joining the military.” Regarding children, it has a policy that says “Exclusionary Bathroom Policies Harm Transgender Students.” This means that boys who claim to be girls should be free to shower with girls. It also believes that male prisoners who falsely claim to be female should be housed in women’s prisons, no matter how violent the men are.

Donohue concluded, “You have done yeoman work. Please consider expanding your reach to address the damage that the AMA is doing.”

This is the article that appeared in the April 2025 edition of Catalyst, our monthly journal. The date that prints out reflects
the day that it was uploaded to our website. For a more accurate date of when the article was first published, check out the news release, here.

The extremely bizarre movie, “Conclave,” won some awards at the Screen Actors Guild, and other film festivals, but it walked away with only one Oscar, and not a coveted one.

Few go to the movies anymore, so if you missed out on this one, let us explain why it didn’t pan out the way those associated with the movie thought it would.

The movie was about the election of a new pope. While there were artistic elements of some merit, the only reason it garnered any attention was because of the ending. That’s when we learn that the newly elected pope has a uterus. In fact, the pope is “intersex.”

It failed because most audiences did not take the flick seriously. Instead, they snickered.

It appears that the desired outcome—to jar the public, especially Catholics—to change their mind about the Church’s teachings on sexuality and welcome a pope with a uterus—did not succeed in getting through. When the audience giggles, it’s a sure sign they failed to receive the memo. That’s why the movie was a flop.

This is the article that appeared in the April 2025 edition of Catalyst, our monthly journal. The date that prints out reflects
the day that it was uploaded to our website. For a more accurate date of when the article was first published, check out the news release, here.

Eight-in-ten Americans are against boys and men competing against girls and women in sports and showering with them. Even two-in-three Democrats take this position. But the elected Democrats in Congress are not listening.

On March 3, a bill that would bar males from participating in women’s sports, “The Protection of Women and Girls in Sports Act,” failed to achieve the 60-vote margin needed to fend off a filibuster. The Democrats killed the bill. The vote split along party lines: 51 Republicans supported the bill and 45 Democrats opposed it. On January 14, the House voted in favor of the bill, splitting again along party lines, 218-206; two Texas Democrats voted with the Republicans.

Why would the Democrats, who got clobbered in the election, want to go against the express will of the people, including members of its own party? Money explains part of it: some very rich individuals and foundations are committed to the radical LGBTQ agenda. Ideology also matters: the Democratic Party has become the party of sexual engineers, supported overwhelmingly by the teachers unions.

Still, why go against the grain? Isn’t it political suicide to push an agenda that the public abhors?

After the Democrats lost in November, Rep. Tom Suozzi, a moderate Democrat from Long Island, said, “The Democrats have to stop pandering to the far left. I don’t want to discriminate against anybody, but I don’t think biological boys should be playing in girls’ sports.” Another Democrat, Rep. Seth Moulton from Massachusetts, said, “I have two little girls. I don’t want them getting run over on a playing field by a male or formerly male athlete, but as a Democrat, I’m supposed to be afraid to say that.”

When it came time to vote, both Souzzi and Moulton caved and voted to deny girls and women their right to compete against athletes of their own sex; their right to privacy was also shattered.

Some Democrats do get it. Former Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell noted that during the presidential campaign, Donald Trump made hay out of the Democrats for supporting gender ideology. Ads that were run saying, “Kamala is for they/them; President Trump is for you,” resonated with the voters. “Week by week when that ad hit and stuck and we didn’t respond, I think that was the beginning of the end.”

It’s not just seasoned Democratic politicians who understand how pivotal this issue is—liberal celebrities get it.

Bill Maher lambasted a former Obama speechwriter for defending the rights of transgender students against their parents. “You want to lose every election? Just keep coming down on the side of parents coming in second in a ‘Who get to decide what goes on with my kid contest.'”

Celebrity fitness trainer Jillian Michaels brought the transgender issue up in a recent TV interview, saying to Democrats, “This is why your entire party got their butts kicked in the election.” Sports commentator Stephen A. Smith told Democrats that Trump is “closer to normal” on this issue. He wondered why they were catering to “the transgender community” when they “pertain to less than 1% of the population.”

Comedian Andrew Schulz said the Democrats can’t even have a conversation and “make jokes about pronouns” or “make a gay joke.” Radio host Charlamagne tha God, noting how the Democrats have sunk their teeth into the transgender issue, opined, “Democrats will never win another election ever again.”

To deny the reality of nature-based differences between men and women is as irrational as it is anti-science. But that is what the Democratic Party has become.

It really is mindboggling. The Democrats, who pride themselves as the champion of women’s rights, are doing more to destroy them than any other segment of the population. They have morphed into the most misogynistic force in American society. As the celebrities observe, good luck with that.

This is the article that appeared in the April 2025 edition of Catalyst, our monthly journal. The date that prints out reflects
the day that it was uploaded to our website. For a more accurate date of when the article was first published, check out the news release, here.

March 10 was “Abortion Provider Appreciation Day.” It’s a time when those who love abortion rally to the side of medical personnel who make a living by killing kids in utero.

We looked into the origins of “Abortion Provider Appreciation Day” and found that its original proponents were ideological extremists.

Those who started this day in 1987 belonged to a radical group called Refuse and Resist! (“R&R!”). They opposed a “Christian fascist, fundamentalist morality.” Funded by the Ford Foundation, “R&R!” was pro-abortion and anti-death penalty.

The two most famous members of “R&R!” were William Kunstler and Abbie Hoffman. Kunstler spent a good part of his life defending anyone who hated America. His clients included the Communist Party, the Black Panther Party and the Chicago Seven. Hoffman was a member of the Chicago Seven, the group that was convicted for crossing state lines in 1968 to start a riot at the Democratic National Convention. Others were either members of the Communist Party or supporters of it.

Their real interest was not abortion. What they wanted was a sexual revolution that was tied to a political revolution. In other words, men like Kunstler used women to further their radical agenda.

This is the article that appeared in the April 2025 edition of Catalyst, our monthly journal. The date that prints out reflects
the day that it was uploaded to our website. For a more accurate date of when the article was first published, check out the news release, here.

When President Trump addressed a joint session of Congress last month, he took direct aim at the greatest child abuse scandal of our time—allowing minors to undergo sex-reassignment surgery.

Instead of persuading sexually confused young people, who are going through a rough patch, that they should not seek to change their sex (80 percent will decide against doing so if given the time to think it over), some therapists, teachers, administrators, doctors and nurses are encouraging them to do so.

Trump wasted no time signing an Executive Order banning the schools from indoctrinating children with transgender ideology. He also cut off funding institutions that engage in the sexual mutilation of young people. “And now I want Congress to pass a bill permanently banning and criminalizing sex changes on children—and forever ending the lie that any child is trapped in the wrong body.”

His most cogent observation was, “Our message to every child in America is that you are perfect, exactly the way God made you.”

That is a quintessentially Christian response.

This is the article that appeared in the April 2025 edition of Catalyst, our monthly journal. The date that prints out reflects
the day that it was uploaded to our website. For a more accurate date of when the article was first published, check out the news release, here.

The sexual abuse of children is one of the most evil acts that anyone can commit. That is why accusations must not be made casually—this is serious business. Yet that is exactly what is happening when Democrats charge that enforcing norms to ensure that males cannot compete against females in sports leads to child sexual abuse. That is a lie.

On March 3, Democrats in the Senate voted against “The Protection of Women and Girls in Sports Act,” effectively killing it (60 votes were needed and the 51 mustered by the Republicans were not enough). The bill sought to amend Title IX to prohibit schools from allowing boys and men to compete with girls and women in athletic programs.

Common sense dictates that because males are, on average, stronger and faster than females, there should be separate sports for males and females. Common decency dictates that males and females should have separate locker rooms and shower facilities. But common sense and common decency are not commonplace among Democrats.

It is bad enough to allow men to crash women’s sports—all in the name of showing tolerance for transgender individuals—but it is worse when some of those who support this travesty maintain that stopping them from doing so will cause the sexual abuse of minors.

When the House took up this bill, Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries called it the “Republican child predator empowerment act.” He explained that the bill “risks unleashing child predators on the children of America in the sports context.” Similarly, New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said the bill allows “genital examination into little girls in this country.”

Massachusetts Rep. Jim McGovern claimed the bill is an example of Republicans’ “creepy obsession with your kids’ private parts.” Vermont Rep. Becca Balint said that the “logical conclusion” of the bill is to violate the bodies of young girls. More recently, Rep. Jennifer McClellan went even further claiming “the only way” to enforce this bill is “to pull children’s pants down to determine what sex they are.”

When the Senate voted on the bill, Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto said that because the bill would ban male school athletes from competing with females, the law would “allow anyone to subject girls to invasive physical exams just because of the way they look,” leading to “an increased risk for abuse and harassment.” Sen. Dick Durbin agreed, saying the bill would allow “the right to physically inspect a girl or a young woman if the other opposing team accuses them of being transgender.”

Not one of these persons offered a scintilla of evidence to back up their outrageous claims, and no one from the media challenged them. However, they unwittingly undercut their position that self-identification determines one’s sex: if that were the case, why would the Democrats argue that “the only way” to determine one’s sex is to pull down their pants?

We decided to check the links that Google AI provides as evidence that banning males from competing with females in sports leads to child sexual abuse. What we found was another unsupported assertion. Florida Rep. Jessica Miranda said the bill “would require children to have genital exams to play high school sports,” claiming this was “nothing short of state-sanctioned sexual abuse.” So much for AI: This is not evidence—it is an opinion.

It is not as though evidence is lacking altogether. Roughly half the states have laws ensuring that males cannot compete against females, and as a result not one of them has experienced child sexual abuse. That’s because most of them insist on just one criterion: provide a birth certificate. This is true in Florida, as well, making mince meat out of Rep. Miranda’s bogus theory.

Democrats need to stop making false accusations about child sexual abuse and start explaining why they want to destroy women’s sports and women’s privacy.

This is the article that appeared in the April 2025 edition of Catalyst, our monthly journal. The date that prints out reflects
the day that it was uploaded to our website. For a more accurate date of when the article was first published, check out the news release, here.

It is commonplace for LGBTQ activists, as well as many in the media, education and government, to complain about the high rates of violence that transgender persons experience. But with the exception of the Catholic League, virtually no one is telling the truth about this condition: the majority of the violence committed against transgender persons is committed by other transgender persons.

A recent tragic incident puts this in perspective. A 24-year-old woman who falsely considered herself to be a man, Sam Norquist, was tortured to death in upstate New York. The police decided it was not a hate crime because all five people charged with the crime are themselves transgender persons.

This is reason enough to do away with the concept of “hate crimes.” It is purely subjective. More important, we need to address the crisis in transgender violence. It is not frat boys who are beating up transgender individuals—they are doing it to themselves.

Research on this subject that we have previously cited (see our website) is consistent with more recent research.

In May 2023, the Journal of Family Violence published an article co-authored by nine researchers, “Intimate Partner Violence and Mental Health Among Transgender and Gender Diverse Young Adults.” They found that the rates of psychological, physical and sexual abuse among transgender persons committed by those just like themselves is startling. They studied young adults in New York City and concluded that those who consider themselves “gender diverse,” meaning they do not consider themselves to be either male or female, experience the highest rates of violence.

A study of 3,560 transgender and gender diverse California adults was published in June 2024 by the Journal of the American Medical Association. It found that they were “significantly more likely to face physical, sexual, and intimate partner violence in the past year relative to cisgender respondents [those who accept their sexual status].” This was especially true of transgender men, meaning women who falsely identify as male.

It was reported in July 2024 that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) found that 44 percent of lesbians and 61 percent of bisexual women experienced rape, physical violence, or stalking committed by those in their same community. Also in July 2024, The Williams Institute at the UCLA School of Law reported that “between 30% and 50% of transgender people” are victims of violence committed by other transgender persons.

In December 2024, the Radiological Society of America published a study of 263 men who consider themselves to be female (transgender women) and compared them to women who accept their nature-given sex. It found that transgender women had eight times as many head injuries, 36 times as many facial injuries and five times as many chest injuries. Forty-two percent of the men who think they are female were violently attacked by other transgender women.

In 2025, the Human Rights Campaign, the large LGBTQ organization, updated data from 2017 and found that “More than half, or 54 percent of transgender and non-binary individuals have experienced intimate partner violence (IPV) in their lifetimes.” The American Journal of Public Health also published data showing how violence marks this community.

There needs to be a national discussion of this issue. We need to get to the bottom of it and find out why transgender persons, and those who think they are neither male nor female, are so violent, and why they take it out on those in their own community. We also need to stop blaming normal men and women for their violence.