John Stonestreet – Family Council

Pixar’s LGBTQ Reversal: Guest Column

Jan 20, 2025John StonestreetLGBTLGBT, Transgender

If this were a movie trailer, I might begin this commentary with the line, “In a world where Dylan Mulvaney almost destroyed Bud Light. . . .” As it turns out, the 2023 incident when a transgender activist crashed sales of America’s best-selling beer was a turning point. Since then, we’ve seen a number of companies respond to public pushback on gender ideology. In fact, the latest example may be the most surprising.

A couple of weeks ago, Hollywood Reporter revealed that the animation giant Pixar’s new original streaming series Win or Lose “will no longer include” a planned transgender storyline. A spokesperson for Disney confirmed the report, explaining,

When it comes to animated content for a younger audience, we recognize that many parents would prefer to discuss certain subjects with their children on their own terms and timeline.

This welcome news could not be more different than the tune Disney has been singing for years. In 2017, the director of the live-action Beauty and the Beast trumpeted its “exclusively gay moment.” 2022’s Lightyear featured a same-sex kiss, and Disney’s Strange World featured a gay relationship. And of course, it’s a big change from 2022, when then-CEO Bob Chepek led Disney in open political activism against Florida’s so-called “Don’t Say Gay” bill. Chepek ultimately lost the battle, along with his job.

In all these instances, there was no hesitation by Disney to push “certain topics” on children or their parents. What is behind the about-face? Perhaps it’s because Disney and its studios have experienced their own “Mulvaney moment.” According to Hollywood Reporter, Pixar decided to remove the trans subplot in Win or Lose about the same time as major layoffs in that studio and in its parent company. Those cuts followed a steady lineup of box office flops involving LGBTQ themes. In fact, Disney has been bleeding out financially for a while, with one news site describing how “high-budget movie failures, combined with challenges in their streaming and theme park operations” left the Mouse House in a “rocky” spot by the second half of 2024.

The idea that parents are best suited to handle these controversial topics with their kids would have been viciously denounced back in 2020 as “homophobic” and “transphobic.” Scathing opinion pieces in The New York Times and other outlets would have called consumers to boycott and punish Disney. Apparently, even at the happiest place on earth, times are changing.

There are other examples. A former Pixar employee told IGN that Inside Out 2, which released in June, was also supposed to include an LGBTQ subplot. However, writers were told to make the main character “less gay.” As it turns out, the “less gay” film turned the year around for Pixar, earning its biggest box office return ever.

While it’s too early to declare victory here, it does feel as if an ideological fever has broken. Woke ideology, especially on the issue of gender, has culturally faltered. In fact, more companies and candidates see it as a financial and political liability.

If an entertainment juggernaut like Disney is forced to give up on the propaganda, what does that mean for this movement that has seemed untouchable for so long? What does that say about the proclamation that certain beliefs and activists are “on the right side of history” and Christians on the “wrong side”?

Perhaps the most important lesson to take from Disney’s and Pixar’s about-face is to soundly reject the “inevitability narrative.” Cultural degradation is not certain, and Christians do not have to perpetually retreat. Sometimes, pushing back makes a difference, especially for companies forced to feel the bottom line and for politicians forced to feel it at the ballot box. If enough people are willing to stand up and challenge powerful interests promoting perversion, history can appear to switch sides … or at least slow its march in the wrong direction.

Ironically, we have Dylan Mulvaney to thank for this shift, at least in part. Trans activists pushed too far and too fast. However, there are plenty of others: Billboard Chris, Riley Gaines, Ryan Anderson, Alliance Defending Freedom, Abigail Shrier, and the 1792 Project are just a few, notable woke warriors. Not on that list are the churches and pastors and Christian leaders who thought the risk of speaking out would be “too costly” for their platform or would “get in the way of the Gospel.” They were the ones on the wrong side of history.

West Virginia vs. Canada on Protecting Vulnerable Lives: Guest Column

Jan 13, 2025John StonestreetEuthanasia and Assisted SuicideAssisted Suicide, Euthanasia, Life, Pro-life, Sanctity of Human Life

Contrary to what Canadian officials have claimed, the “safeguards” put in place for the nation’s “medical assistance in dying” (MAID) practice are not sufficient. Highlighting the province of Ontario alone, a report in the New Atlantis notes that hundreds of serious violations have occurred, but none have been reported to law enforcement.

In Ontario, the coroner’s office is responsible for monitoring euthanasia malpractice. Although Chief Coroner Dirk Huyer has boasted that “Every case is reported. Everybody has scrutiny on all these cases. . .,” physician whistleblowers have identified over 400 “issues with compliance,” ranging from patients killed who were not capable of consent to communication breakdowns with pharmacists providing the deadly prescriptions. For example, physicians are legally required to notify pharmacists about the purpose of the euthanasia medications prior to dispensation, but only 61% of physicians complied with this regulation.

More troubling are various reported cases of providers expediting euthanizing drugs to patients sooner than the legally required 10-day waiting period. In one case, euthanasia provider Dr. Eugenie Tjan administered the wrong drugs. When the patient did not die, the doctor had to administer different drugs to complete the assisted suicide. Huyer failed to report this, eventually admitting this was a “blatant” case of violating Canadian laws: “The family and the deceased person suffered tremendously.”

Also, according to the report, about one quarter of all euthanasia providers in Ontario have received at least one slap on the wrist response from the coroner’s office regarding a compliance issue in 2023 alone. According to national law, all reports should be opened as criminal investigations, but Huyer failed to report even one. Instead, he determined that all issues in question required only an “informal conversation” with the practitioner. Dr. Tjan, for example, received an email of warning and remains licensed.

Making this story worse is that medically assisted suicide is now the fifth leading cause of death in Canada. The failure to minimize and regulate euthanasia there only confirms fears long articulated by critics. In fact, anywhere some form of doctor assisted death has been legalized, predictions of “slippery slopes” have been realized. For example, 10 states including the District of Columbia, have legalized physician-assisted suicide since 1994. In at least five, restrictions and regulations around the practice continue to be loosened, leading to increased harm.

The good news is that it has been a few years since the last U.S. state legalized some form of doctor assisted suicide. Perhaps the only positive development of Canada’s quick slide down this slippery slope is that America has seen the horrors: what at one point seemed an inevitable march of our own, has slowed. Last year, in fact, West Virginia voters narrowly passed an amendment to proactively outlaw “medical assistance in dying” in that state. Among other things, the amendment recognizes that the state fundamentally exists not to give citizens whatever they want, but to protect the gift and right to life endowed by the Creator on all people, no matter how vulnerable. In this sense, West Virginia offers a useful model that other states can emulate.

What’s Wrong with Wanting Grandchildren?

Jan 2, 2025John StonestreetFamilyFamily

With more millennials choosing no kids, would-be grandparents mourn the end of their family line.

People often joke that if they’d known becoming a grandparent was so much fun, they would have done it before having kids. Having grandchildren is widely considered one of life’s great joys, one which, historically, most adults experienced. Today, however, a growing number of people will never have this experience.

Grandparents in America are becoming rarer. In 2014, 60% of people over 50 had at least one grandchild. By 2021, that had fallen to just over half. The historic decline in birth rates means that many who devoted their early lives to raising families will spend their later years watching those families end. The main reason for this is that many millennials, the generation now entering middle age, have chosen not to have kids.

Writing at The New York Times recently, Catherine Pearson gave voice to “the unspoken grief of never becoming a grandparent.” People she interviewed confessed “a deep sense of longing and loss when their children opt out of parenthood, even if they understand at an intellectual level that their children do not ‘owe’ them a family legacy.”

Parents of children who don’t want children find themselves in a difficult spot, especially those who have bought into the expressive individualist idea that children are a choice, and the only reason to have them is to enhance personal happiness. If their children don’t want children, these parents are supposed to be okay with that decision. Apparently, many aren’t.

For example, one would-be grandmother assured Pearson, “This decision was right for my kids,” before adding sadly, “I’m not going to have grandchildren. So that part of my life is just over.” Others who face silent golden years when they expected the patter of little feet are still hoping to convince their adult children to reconsider. One mother said she gently reminds her intentionally childfree daughter that she might not always feel this way—that the woman her daughter will be in ten years “will not recognize the person she is today.”

According to Pearson, she received a largely hostile social media reaction to her article, mostly from millennials. Their “how dare you feel entitled to grandchildren?” reaction puts a “silencing effect” on the whole conversation. In generations past, hopeful grandmas and grandpas would encourage families, but they now simply keep quiet as their children remain unmarried into their thirties, often citing climate change, racism, and school shootings as their reasons to be childless. One 69-year-old mom said her daughter has “made it perfectly clear … that this subject is not to be discussed.”

It’s difficult to imagine a more practical “ideas have consequences” moment than this. The inability of so many to articulate why not having grandkids is a tragedy and to be honest about their grief reveals much about our values. We’ve lost even the language to say what people for most of history took for granted. It is good and normal to want to see your descendants, and it hurts when that hope is dashed.

This moment also illustrates how ideas and their consequences are intergenerational. The view that children are unnecessary burdens or optional accessories did not start with millennials, but it has reached its logical conclusion in that generation. The rapid disappearance and replacement of once-common family relationships, including siblings, cousins, aunts, uncles, and grandparents has made the world lonelier for young and old alike.

Christians should “mourn with those who mourn,” which is what Pearson’s article attempted. The pain of never becoming a grandparent should be acknowledged and legitimized, and parents should not be bullied into unconditionally affirming every choice their grown children make. Kids aren’t products, so no one is “owed” grandkids, and not everyone will or should get married, but some choices are better for society than others. The record number of people in our world choosing to remain barren points to a deep societal sickness.

Christians should also witness to a countercultural way of life, including a positive perspective on children. At least, we can make sure they know they’re not burdens or accessories, that they bring joy, and that we hope—Lord willing—the same joy may one day find them.

None of this by itself will turn our demographic future around. But until it’s once again okay to look forward to seeing our children’s children, there won’t be much of a demographic future in the first place.