UPenn Will Finally Revoke Transgender Swimmer’s Medals, Apologize to Female Athletes

The Washington Stand reports the University of Pennsylvania plans to revoke transgender swimmer “Lia” Thomas’ medals and apologize to female athletes forced to compete against Thomas.

In 2022, Thomas — a biological male who claims to be female — made headlines for shattering women’s swimming records and winning the women’s 500-yard freestyle at the NCAA Division I championship.

The NCAA even went so far as to nominate Thomas for its 2022 Woman of the Year Award.

However, in 2024 a group of female athletes filed a lawsuit arguing the NCAA violated their federal rights under Title IX by letting Thomas compete as a woman.

Earlier this year, President Trump signed an executive order protecting fairness in women’s sports under Title IX. As a result, the U.S. Department of Education says UPenn has agreed to restore female athletes’ swimming records, issue apologies to female swimmers, and take steps to make sure biological males don’t compete in women’s athletics.

All of this reminds us once again that ignoring basic biological realities about male athletes and female athletes robs women of opportunities to receive recognition for their achievements.

Letting men compete in women’s sports reverses 50 years of advancements for women and effectively erases women’s athletics.

It hampers their abilities to compete for athletic scholarships, and it hurts their professional opportunities as adults. In some sports, it can even be dangerous.

In 2021 Arkansas passed Act 461 by Sen. Missy Irvin (R — Mountain View) and Rep. Sonia Barker (R — Smackover) preventing male student athletes from competing against girls in women’s athletics at school. This good law protects fairness in women’s sports in Arkansas.

At the time, some people questioned if it was really necessary to pass Act 461, but four years later, it’s clear Arkansas lawmakers made the right call. Since then, some 29 states have passed similar measures protecting fairness in women’s sports.

It’s also worth mentioning that pollsters at Gallup have found most Americans agree that athletes should compete according to their biological sex — not their gender identity.

We deeply appreciate our elected leaders and policymakers who work hard to protect fairness in women’s sports both in Arkansas and across the country.

Articles appearing on this website are written with the aid of Family Council’s researchers and writers.

Colorado Must Stop Censoring Its Citizens: ADF

The following is from our friends at Alliance Defending Freedom:

Colorado amended its anti-discrimination law in a way that would force XX-XY Athletics to violate its core beliefs.

XX-XY Athletics is an athletic apparel company that exists to protect women’s sports and spaces. Its mission and message are grounded in the fact that men and women are physiologically different: sex is binary, biological, and immutable, and women deserve the chance to be champions in their own sports. But Colorado’s law makes it illegal for businesses like XX-XY Athletics to refer to males who identify as female by their given names or with biologically accurate pronouns. If XX-XY Athletics speaks the truth, it could face cease-and-desist orders, expensive investigations, hearings, and civil and criminal penalties. Unfortunately, Colorado has passed laws censoring its citizens for years, and this is only the latest example. ADF attorneys filed a lawsuit on XX-XY Athletics’ behalf challenging Colorado’s censorship because all Americans should be able to speak their beliefs without facing government punishment.

XX-XY Athletics v. Sullivan case details.

Free Only to Agree: The Limits of Freedom

Many western countries are putting the right of conscience and speech to the test. 

In March, Chris Elston, known as “Billboard Chris,” was detained in Australia for protesting the harm done to children in service of radical gender ideology. He was detained again in Belgium in June, this time along with Lois McLatchie Miller, a senior legal communications officer for Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) International. The two were simply standing in a public space, offering to talk to anyone interested about the realities of transgender treatment, wearing billboards that stated, “Children cannot consent to puberty blockers” and “Children are never born in the wrong body.” Though they called the cops to ask for protection from harassment, they were told to remove the signs or face arrest. After being detained and strip searched, they were released without charge. 

Thought and speech has not always been treated this way. Because the West was deeply influenced by Christian consensus, citizens enjoyed the liberty, to various degrees, to challenge dominant paradigms and ideologies. That liberty is, based on what we’ve seen in Belgium and Britain and other nations, on shaky ground, from both state and institutional pressures. In some places, praying to yourself is considered unruly protest.  

Just recently, Lila Rose of LiveAction shared the story of Naomi Best, a therapy student at Santa Clara University, an ostensibly Roman Catholic school in California. As part of the coursework, the university insisted that therapy students view extreme pornography and share their own sexual history. When she asked for the same exemption regularly given to Muslim students, they refused. When she described what happened in the pages of the Wall Street Journal, Best was kicked out of the program. As she pointed out

If we don’t have a set of therapists with diverse worldviews, and with tolerance for people with diverse worldviews, we will alienate people who need psychological care, and we will cause more harm than good. 

Totalitarian states such as East Germany and Soviet Russia guaranteed citizens the freedom of worship but would levy fierce and often violent penalties for spreading religion outside church walls. In those countries, freedom of conscience was only the freedom to believe in one’s heart and head and maybe, one’s house of worship. Worldview diversity was never something allowed to enter the public square. 

The First Amendment guaranteed more. In just 45 words, it protects conscience rights that are public. Thus, nonsensical campus chants that “speech is violence” or “silence is violence” are, in law, separated from actual violence. The founders wanted a country in which citizens could think and worship as they believed but could also assemble together and take those beliefs out into the world. Both Belgium and Britain, which is currently debating whether saying things that offend Islam should be illegal, could use something like that, written down into law, about now.  

Of course, all freedoms have limits. In the United States, that limit is not one’s own head or heart but real harm done to another. Certainly, that must be constantly clarified and adjudicated, but it’s a far better arrangement than a limit based on how someone else might feel.  

The First Amendment is a bulwark against speech police and one of the Founding Fathers’ greatest legacies. It’s a structured freedom that is part of the inheritance of the Christian view of humanity, recognized as both sacred and sinful. It’s a legacy that will not last if people are not willing to express their deeply held beliefs and defend the right to do so.

Copyright 2025 by the Colson Center for Christian Worldview. Reprinted from BreakPoint.org with permission.