A group of transgender Girl Scouts have collectively sold over 71,000 cookies thanks to a heartwarming annual campaign.
Every year, independent trans journalist Erin Reed curates a list of trans and non-binary youngsters who are part of Girl Scout troops and asks readers to buy a box of cookies as part of a fundraising drive to help “make a few of their days better.”
Girl Scouts in the US famously sell boxes of biscuits between January and April to help raise funds for the youth organisation, raking in an average of over $800 million per year. Girl Scouts earn cumulative prizes depending on the amount of boxes they sell.
Over one million Girl Scouts sell an average of $800 million worth of cookies each year. (Getty)
Reed, 36, first decided to help trans Girl Scouts sell their boxes in 2022 upon discovering that the non-profit’s inclusion policy allows trans youngsters to join.
She revealed in a Thursday (22 January) blog post that this year’s curated list of nearly 200 Girl Scouts members had already helped them to sell a combined 71,254 boxes. This year’s boxes are priced at $6, meaning the drive has helped to raise an estimated sum of at least $427,524 in just three weeks.
While Reed said there was no way of knowing how many of those boxes were sold as a direct result of the campaign, she noted her list had been seen by over 2 million people on Facebook alone, adding that its reach has been “enormous.”
“With weeks still left in the season, [the number of boxes sold] is certain to climb even higher,” she said.
Girl Scouts campaign a ‘rare source of joy’ for trans youth
The campaign comes as political and legislative attacks targeting trans youngsters in the US continue to rip through state and federal governments.
It’s estimated that 39.4 per cent of trans youth live in a US state that has bannedgender-affirming care in some capacity, according to the Human Rights Campaign. Other legislative attacks on trans young people include bills forcing schools to out them to their parents or guardians, restricting LGBTQ+ subjects from school curriculum, or banning them from sporting events.
Reed said her campaign started predominantly to give trans young people hope as their fundamental human rights are further stripped away from them. She said she has heard from hundreds of trans young people and their families thanking her for starting the fundraiser.
“Transgender youth in the United States are under extraordinary pressure right now,” she said. “Many have lost access to health care as hospitals capitulate to the Trump administration, while others face constant hostility from political leaders in their own communities.
“Again and again, families and scouts themselves say the cookie drive has become a rare source of joy, a reminder that people across the country see them, value them, and care about their lives.”
If you are US-based, you can still donate to any one of the 189 participating Girl Scouts by viewing Erin Reed’s list here. Buyers are recommended to purchase boxes from participants who have not yet filled their goals, and must use the “ship the cookies” option to receive their order.
Trans athletes are back in the news again and, as such, so are the myths some use to try to justify their exclusion from sports.
The US Supreme Court heard oral arguments regarding two cases that could determine the legality of laws banning trans students from sporting events on Tuesday (13 January).
Several claims based on myths around physical ability in sport were used to justify bans in Idaho and West Virginia.
Here are some of the most common arguments used to ban trans women in sports, and why they’re nonsense.
‘Teams are sex-segregated because boys are better at sports than girls’
A woman playing tennis. (Getty)
This is untrue for multiple reasons, and is rooted in underlying misogynistic perceptions of women that date back to the 1830s.
While recorded depictions of sex-segregated sports date as far back as Ancient Greece, women were seldom allowed to play sports in the 19th century because of misogynistic perceptions of them as inherently weak and helpless, according to Goal Five.
Eventually, upper-class women were allowed to play tennis and golf at local country clubs and, by the turn of the century, women gradually fought for their right to compete. By the time of the early 1900s, many regulators introduced women’s-only categories over complaints that they were “intruding” on male spaces.
Thus, sex-segregation became the norm in the sporting world and has since persisted partly due to tradition, but also to allow opportunities for both female and male athletes. Not because of “biological” advantages, but because of issues such as the gender pay gap.
Sex-segregated categories are also not innate. Many argue the practice is increasingly untenable, according to The Society Pages, and leads to further misogyny over who can and can’t compete in the women’s category, such as the controversy over Caster Semenya, who is a cisgender woman.
‘Transgender women are taking away opportunities for cisgender women’
There are two fundamental problems with this argument. The first is that there are virtually no trans women competitors who are at the top of their respective sports. The second is that trans women are women and, as such, deserve to compete as much as their cisgender competitors.
According to WorldAtlas, the five biggest sports by number of fans are football (soccer), cricket, hockey, tennis, and volleyball. Of those sports’ respective annual rankings, none have ever featured a trans woman.
The only people taking opportunities away from women are the national and international sports bodies that have implemented bans on trans competitors, many of which still insist they believe that trans women are women.
Football legend Gary Lineker himself deplored the rising number of bans in May 2025, describing trans people as “some of the most persecuted on the planet”.
‘Excluding trans women from women’s sports isn’t transphobic, it’s just a game after all’
Protestor holds up a sign in support of trans people playing sports. (Getty)
Puzzlingly, excluding trans women from women’s sports is one of the most commonplace anti-trans beliefs among the general public.
A YouGov poll from February 2025 found that 74 per cent of the UK public think trans women should be excluded from women’s sports, while 60 per cent feel the same way about trans men in men’s sports.
This viewpoint is likely so common because of a perception that sports are nothing more than unserious games detached from real life. That, in turn, makes the transphobia easier to digest because it isn’t viewed as ‘real’ transphobia.
The issue here is that sports are not detached from reality. Sporting is a $417 billion industry that has real sway over people’s perceptions of reality. Its influence is why riots are so common following major sporting events.
Sports are so influential, in fact, existing tension between El Salvador and Honduras turned into a brief war, known as The Football War, in 1969 after riots over the results of a 1970 FIFA World Cup qualifier. While the roots of the conflict ran much deeper, it contributed to the build-up of the war, which took place between 14-18 July 1969, hence its other name, the 100 Hour War.
Whether you’re a fan or not, it’s undeniable that sports have a huge influence over the world, from its culture to its politics. When trans people are denied the right to play, they are denied the right to participate in a major part of global society.
‘Trans women are injuring cis women during sporting events and are dangerous’
This claim is common among more anti-trans pundits and groups, many of whom are trying to demonise trans people across all walks of life.
The most notorious example used is volleyball player-turned anti-trans pundit, Payton McNabb, who was injured playing high school volleyball against a trans competitor in 2022. McNabb has since become an ambassador for the Independent Women’s Forum (IWF). The IWF have been accused of aggressively lobbying for trans-exclusionary policies.
According to a 2023 study, 214,000 female volleyball players aged 14 to 23 have been injured since 2012. Nowhere in the study does it say trans people are vastly responsible for these injuries.
There is no evidence whatsoever that suggests trans women are inherently more dangerous or prone to injuring someone than cis competitors. None at all.
‘Sports bans are okay because there aren’t that many trans athletes’
Trans rights activists outside the Supreme Court during its oral hearing on sports bans. (Getty)
This argument was used by solicitor Hashim Mooppan while speaking to the US Supreme Court on behalf of the Trump administration.
Mooppan argued that laws banning trans women from competing in women’s sports should be permissible because trans athletes represent a tiny fraction of student athletes.
A report from the National Collegiate Athletic Association found that, in 2024, there were fewer than 10 of the 550,000 student athletes nationwide are out as trans.
The issue with this argument is that it could be, and is, just as easily used to justify why trans people should be allowed to compete.
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has used that argument to justify overturning trans sports bans, arguing that the sheer public scrutiny against trans athletes far outweighs any possible damage they could cause, if any at all.
‘Trans women have an inherent, unchangeable advantage over cisgender women in sports’
This is the big one – virtually every single justification for banning trans women from women’s sports purports that, because they are assigned male at birth (AMAB), they have an inherent advantage.
One major logical problem with this is the state of women’s sports right now. If trans athletes, who have the same level of training as their cis counterparts, have an underlying advantage, surely every top-rated woman in sport would be trans?
A 2024 study backed by the International Olympic Committee found that, conversely, trans women could be in many ways disadvantaged in sporting competitions due to changes induced by feminising hormone replacement therapy (HRT).
Endocrinologist Dr Joshua D Safer told the ACLU in 2020 that a person’s genetic make-up, such as their sex chromosomes, are not good indicators of athletic performance.
“There is no inherent reason why [a trans woman’s] physiological characteristics related to athletic performance should be treated differently from the physiological characteristics of a non-transgender woman.”
This argument’s misogynistic foundations are best displayed when trans women are banned from non-physical sports such as chess or snooker. In 2022, British Open snooker champion Maria Catalano claimed trans women should be banned from competitions because cisgender women’s brains are “wired differently”.
The US has twice been the only country to vote against UN human rights policies over what it has branded “globalist” woke ideology.
Last month, deputy US representative Jonathan Shrier denounced a set of resolutions protecting humanitarian workers as “nothing more than a globalist wish list of divisive cultural causes”.
The resolutions, dubbed the “Safety and Security of Humanitarian Personnel and Protection of United Nations personnel and the “International Cooperation on Humanitarian Assistance in the Field of Natural Disasters, from Relief to Development” would both implement fundamental human rights protections in line with UN mandates on human rights development across its nation states.
In the lead-up to a vote on the resolutions, US representatives claimed the resolutions contained “highly controversial” language which they believed conflated “LGBTQ and other sexual rights” with reproductive healthcare.
The north American country was the only member state to vote against the resolutions in both votes over December, according to LGBTQ+ Nation.
Justifying the decision, Shrier said in a statement that the Trump administration refused to “advance radical gender ideology in the UN”, claiming the policies “distract from and directly undermine the real work to protect and promote the rights of women and girls around the world”.
“This text reads as nothing more than a globalist wish list of divisive cultural causes including climate, sexual and reproductive health, gender, and the perverse donor-recipient industrial complex,” he continued. “It is completely at odds with the Trump Administration’s bold and pragmatic foreign policy.”
He further accused UN members of becoming “obsessed” with what he described as “gender insanity and other terrible ideas.”
“There is a notion that slightly reducing instances of this absurd language is somehow enough to remedy the affliction. it is not,” he said. “We must remove all of this insanity from our work.”
The US’ dissent marks the first time in three decades that the annual resolutions have failed consensus adoption.
Christina Markus Lassen, Denmark’s delegate acting on behalf of the European Union, urged members not to politicise the respective resolution’s basic and fundamental protections at a time when humanitarian workers are increasingly under threat from attacks.
“This sobering reality puts millions of lives at risk, triggering a massive humanitarian crisis around the globe,” she said.
Other delegates, including those from the UK and Indonesia, expressed further concern that a failure to pass the resolution would result in even more humanitarian deaths, particularly in regions such as the Gaza Strip.
There’s a good chance you may have heard the term homonationalism used in political or public debate recently.
In fact, just a couple of days ago, Spiked published an article claiming that homonationalism is “on the rise” and suggesting that it is linked to the fact that “across Europe, gay voters are moving rightwards.” But what exactly does the term mean?
First coined by Rutgers University professor and Gender Studies scholar Jasbir Puar in her 2007 book Terrorist Assemblages: Homonationalism in Queer Times, the phrase has skyrocketed in usage over the past two decades and has yet to reach its peak, according to Google.
While the term’s specific meaning is incredibly nuanced, especially in the historical context that Puar first used it, the term broadly refers to the selective acceptance of LGBTQ+ people as a way to promote nationalist ideologies or actions.
The Oxford Encyclopedia of Communication summarises the phrase as the “growing embrace of LGBT rights by (mostly Western) nations, as well as the parallel complicity of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) individuals and associations with nationalist politics.”
A stretched of US Armed Forces members at a Pride march. (Getty)
Puar coined the term while analysing how the United States attempted to justify its invasion of Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, and other second- and third-world nations during its “war on terror” in the early 2000s following the September 11 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center.
During its campaign, the US government attempted to deter widespread criticism by appropriating pro-LGBTQ+ rhetoric and constructing a narrative that the largely Muslim nations were inherently homophobic.
The majority of historical examples, Puar notes, are of Western nations using homonationalist rhetoric to justify Islamophobia by positioning Western “modernity” and liberal democracy as inherently superior compared to non-Western nations.
How do governments use homonationalism?
It’s important to emphasise that progress on LGBTQ+ rights is not a prerequisite of homonationalism. In fact, nations that use the tactic often have a poor track record on LGBTQ+ rights, despite claims to the contrary, and will rarely actually take meaningful actions to improve things – for example, same-sex marriage remained illegal in the US for nearly 15 years after the “war on terror” began.
You may like to watch
Homonationalism also typically only extends support to white, cisgender, gay or bisexual men, and tends to ignore more marginalised groups such as non-white queer women or trans and non-binary people.
While the tactic is most prominently used against Muslims, Western nations have also used it to justify actions against actions in Africa, Eastern Europe, and Asia.
Following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022, political scientist Emil Edenborg warned against Ukrainians using homonationalist rhetoric to dehumanise Russians, arguing that it mirrors the problematic nature of Russian nationalism by positioning LGBTQ+ rights as “evidence of ‘our’ national superiority.”
More recently, the term has seen particular usage while discussing Israel’s justification of the war in Gaza following the 7 October attacks in 2023.
Israel has routinely used homonationalism to justify the Gaza genocide. (X/Twitter/Israel)
The Israeli government ramped up its homonationalistic rhetoric following the attack as a tactic to justify its continued campaign in Gaza, which has killed at least 71,200 Palestinians, including 20,000 children.
In November 2023, the official Israeli state X/Twitter account posted images of an IDF soldier holding a Pride flag in what appears to be war-torn ruins, with the caption: “The first ever Pride flag raised in Gaza.”
Same-sex marriage is currently illegal in Israel, where 56 per cent of citizens believe it is morally unjustifiable.
Homonationalism has also been linked to pinkwashing – defined as the act of a nation state or private institution promoting LGBTQ+ rights to divert attention from human rights abuses – and femonationalism, an unrelated term which describes how nationalist ideologies side with feminist discourse to justify racism or Islamophobia.
Critics of homonationalism have argued that its usage can often obfuscate the complex experiences of LGBTQ+ groups living in countries that use the tactic by inadvertently lumping them in with the nation state.
Others argue that criticism of homonationalistic rhetoric must consider the ways that colonialism, racism, and class influence islamophobic or nationalistic ideologies rather than assuming the tactic relates only to gender or sexuality.
Only four people in the UK have formally complained about a trans woman entering a “single-sex” facility, an eye-opening report has revealed.
A report published by advocacy group TransLucent found that only four official complaints were documented across 382 public bodies since 2022.
Between 2022 and 2024, the group’s members submitted hundreds of Freedom of Information (FOI) requests across multiple investigations to local councils, NHS hospitals, domestic abuse refuges, and other major public authorities in England.
Just four people have complained about trans people using toilets. (Getty)
Its first investigation examining council-owned buildings such as swimming pools and leisure centres found that 35 of the 40 responses reported zero complaints about trans people using toilets, changing rooms, and other facilities, while the remaining five held no relevant records.
One council did cite a single complaint, but it was about a cisgender person in the “wrong” facility, not a trans person.
Its follow-up investigation, which examined public bodies in an area covering over 16.5 million people, found just two complaints – one about policy and another which Translucent said was about “perception rather than confirmed identity”.
Anti-trans outlets to blame for trans toilet myths, group argues
The findings contradict spurious claims that trans people must be excluded from so-called “single-sex” spaces for the safety of cisgender women and girls.
While there is no evidence backing up the claim, ‘gender-critical’ groups and governmental institutions routinely cite the “safety” of women and girls in justifying anti-trans rhetoric and policy.
Research, including the 2023 Femicide Census, regularly proves that the biggest threat to women’s safety is cisgender men. On average, one woman is killed by a man in the UK every three days.
‘Gender-critical’ groups typically try to use these statistics to proliferate transphobia by falsely claiming trans women are men, and thus are culpable in that violence.
Trans people have been targeted for violence because of bathroom bans and hateful policies. (Getty)
TransLucent wrote in its report that media coverage is often responsible for much of the disconnect between rhetoric and reality.
It argued that anti-trans outlets often create a “perception of widespread problems where none exist” by conflating hypothetical concerns with actual incidents.
As a result, it continued, organisations have felt compelled to implement restrictive bathroom policies based on fear of complaints rather than actual data.
“The term ‘single-sex spaces’ (for which there is no legal definition) has become politically charged, with its meaning shifting from practical safety considerations to ideological positioning,” they wrote.
“Our FOI data addresses this by focusing on recorded complaints – formal objections that organisations must document and investigate – rather than informal expressions of discomfort or political opposition to trans inclusion.”
TransLucent urged organisations to use the research as a foundation for policies “grounded in empirical risk data rather than hypothetical scenarios”.
“Behind the statistics are real people navigating daily life. Trans women using public toilets, accessing healthcare, or seeking refuge from domestic abuse are not engaged in political protest; they are simply trying to live safely and with dignity.”
A former New York Times editor has claimed the newspaper’s management is “militant” about their anti-trans views.
Trans journalist and campaigner Billie Jean Sweeney claimed senior staff members at the 175-year-old news publication’s shut down “all avenues” of internal criticism over its reporting of trans issues in the lead-up to the 2024 US election.
Speaking to Trans News Network, she said the organisation allowed staff to raise questions and criticisms over senior staff decisions through “Employee Resource Groups” but subsequently shut the groups down.
“One the things that happened was that [NYT chairman A.G. Sulzberger] kind of came around and gave a stump speech to every part of the paper, including the international desk,” Sweeney claimed. “He talked for 40 minutes about how we were going to cover the election ‘fairly’ and that sort of thing. The international desk wasn’t really that involved in the coverage of the election, so it was a little off-key for us. We were all like, ‘why are we talking about this?’”
New York Times chairman A G Sulzberger. (Getty)
Around the same time, Sulzberger reportedly gave a speech at the Reuters Foundation in March 2024 claiming the New York Times had “protected” young people through its coverage of trans youth.
Sweeney said things only escalated from there, claiming that pockets of dissent from NYT’s views on trans rights were silenced through “militant” actions such as the cancellation of internal forums for voicing opinions.
The American publication’s infamous trans reporting has routinely faced criticism from a variety of human rights groups, campaigners, and media watchdogs.
In 2023, a coalition of more than 100 LGBTQ+ organisations signed an open-letter accusing the New York Times of frequently publishing inaccurate and biased articles about trans people which, they wrote, endanger the rights and safety of the community.
Journalist Ari Drennen noted in 2023 that one of the outlet’s articles, which contained misinformation about trans youth care, had been used to justify a Missouri executive order heavily restricting gender-affirming care for trans under-18s.
Trans people could be able to update their email address with their new name under an upcoming Gmail update.
The world’s largest email provider is reportedly rolling out a new function which will allow users to update their “gmail.com” addresses.
The email service, operated by Google, currently forbids users with a Gmail handle from changing their email address.
However, according to the blog 9 to 5 Google, an updated section to its support page suggests developers are “gradually rolling out” a change which will allow addresses to be changes.
The new section, which is currently only present on Google’s Hindi support pages, reads: “If you’d like, you can change your Google Account email address that ends in gmail.com to a new email address that ends in gmail.com.”
When users change their email address, the old handle will reportedly become an ‘alias’ address, meaning that emails sent to the old address will automatically forward to the new one.
Google notes that users who change their address will be unable to create a new email address for 12 months and will be unable to delete the new handle.
If fully implemented, the change could allow trans users to remove their deadname – a name commonly given to them at birth which may not match their correct gender identity – from their email address without having to create a completely new account.
While Gmail currently allows users to change their display name on emails, the current inability to change the actual email handle to remove a user’s deadname is a common problem among people in the community.
One individual complained about the restriction in a post on Reddit, saying they were reluctant to make a new account given how much they have stored on Google’s services such as Google Drive or Google Contacts.
“I think I’d rather not have any trace of my deadname publicly visible, but I’m not sure if I should get rid of my whole account or just try to hide it behind a proxy email,” they wrote.
Members of the Google Pixel Hub Telegram group commended the change, with one user writing it would be “huge if true.”
“Many of us have had Gmail since the beginning when we didn’t know it would matter this much,” they wrote. “Many others got their accounts as kids under the same lack of realisation, and some people have changed their names.”
While the changes aren’t fully live yet, 9 to 5 Google noted that news on the update came earlier than expected.
Alastair Campbell has claimed senior BBC officials are “in the JK Rowling camp” when it comes to trans rights, following claims the organisation has a ‘pro-trans’ bias.
The 68-year-old journalist and former Labour strategist claimed he has often had “stand-up rows” with a large portion of the broadcaster’s senior staff, who he says share ‘gender-critical’ views.
It comes after BBC director general Tim Davie resigned over a leaked internal memo accusing the BBC of misleading viewers by editing a speech by US president Donald Trump.
Ex-BBC advisor Michael Prescott also claimed in the memo that the BBC was pushing a “pro trans agenda” by allegedly censoring content on LGBTQ+ issues.
Speaking with co-host and former Tory MP, Rory Stewart, during a livestream of his podcast, The Rest is Politics, Campbell said: “On transgender [people], I’ve had some stand up rows with really senior people at the BBC who are so far over in the kind of JK Rowling camp.
“And I think most young people – I’m not pretending I’m young here Rory, but I do talk to a lot of young people – I think they think on the trans issue that the BBC is the opposite of what Michael Prescott’s report is saying that it is.”
JK Rowling’s views on trans rights are well-documented and she regularly expresses her ‘gender-critical’ views online.
Criticism of BBC’s trans coverage
The BBC has, over the past few years, regularly faced criticism for its coverage of trans issues, with campaigners claiming it is institutionally anti-trans.
Most infamously was its October 2021 article spuriously claiming that cisgender lesbians were being “pressured” into having sex with trans women.
The article cites three anonymous cis women who claimed they had faced harassment for only dating “biologically female” women.
In the article, the BBC referenced a poll by gender-critical campaign group Get the L Out, which reported that 56 per cent of people had been pressured into having sex with trans women. The poll had a sample size of just eighty anonymous users on X/Twitter.
It faced further criticism in 2024 after featuring quotes from the Bayswater Support Group, an organisation infamous for its support of so-called conversion therapy.
Earlier that year, a report from The Bureau of Investigative Journalism (TBIJ)uncovered leaked messages from Bayswater’s internal forums showing members admitting they are “abusive” towards their children.
PinkNews has contacted the BBC press office for comment.
New research has revealed that transphobia in the UK has left 84 per cent of trans people feeling unsafe.
The YouGov poll, commissioned by the Good Law Project and published last week, revealed that almost two-thirds of transgender and non-binary people in the country had been verbally abused in public, and almost 25 per cent had suffered physical violence.
Fifty-nine per cent of trans people also reported facing barriers in accessing general NHS care.
Trans people’s right to access public spaces has become a major issue in the UK. (Getty)
Conducted in the wake of the UK Supreme Court’s judgement which determined that the 2010 Equality Act’s definition of a woman related to biological sex only, the poll also asked about key issues facing trans people in the UK such as access to public facilities. More than half of those who responded said they had difficulty going into changing rooms, while 49 per cent said the same about using public toilets.
Younger trans people were more found to be more likely to fear accessing certain spaces, with 81 per cent saying they found entering changing rooms difficult.
Respondents were also asked to rate the trustworthiness of UK institutions and political parties. The police were the least trusted, with 76 per cent saying they don’t trust them very much or at all.
The Equality and Human Rights Commission, which has been accused of “deeply disturbing” actions, was found to be distrusted by 66 per cent of transgender men and women. The UK’s human rights regulator has submitted guidance on public facilities provision based on proposed updates which call for the exclusion of trans people from facilities consistent with their gender identity.
Reform UK was the least-trusted political party among trans people, with 98 per cent expressing some or total distrust. Conservatives (96 per cent) and Labour(91 per cent) were not far behind.
Trans people facing ‘abject terror’ in UK, activists claim
Good Law Project’s trans rights lead, Jess O’Thomson, said the poll revealed the stark reality in the UK, with people living in “abject terror”.
You may like to watch
Elaborating, O’Thomson, said: “They are afraid of being harassed, outed and discriminated against. It is appalling that nearly half of trans people report they are now finding basic toilet access difficult, despite the EHRC’s claims that they are protecting people.
“The fact that only 14 per cent of trans people feel safe in this country represents a devastating humanitarian crisis.”
Earlier this month, the European commissioner for human rights, Michael O’Flaherty, expressed concern regarding potential anti-trans laws in the wake of the Supreme Court ruling. Any “blanket practices or policies” excluding trans people from gendered spaces would pose significant breaches to international human rights laws, he said.
O’Flaherty recommended drafting “clear guidance on how inclusion of trans people can be achieved across all areas” and how “exclusion can be minimised to situations in which this would be strictly necessary and proportionate, in line with well-established human rights principles.”
Activists have thrown a spotlight on past comments made about rape by prominent anti-LGBTQ+ Republicans.
An online post from left-wing outlet Occupy Democrats revealed the comments made by six officials over the years, apparently justifying or downplaying the rape of women and girls in the US.
The post on Facebook and Instagram included quotes from Clayton Williams, Todd Akin, Rick Santorum, Richard Mourdock, Jodie Laubenberg and Lawrence Lockman.
Fact-checked by Snopes, the quotes included Todd Akin (R-MO) saying: “If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to shut that thing down.”
Rick Santorum was a US senator for 12 years (Getty)
Santorum, a notoriously anti-LGBTQ+ former US senator, was quoted as saying: “Rape victims should make the best of a bad situation.”
Another of the quotes, made by Williams during his failed campaign to become governor of Texas governor in 1990, read: “Rape is kinda like the weather. If it’s inevitable, relax and enjoy it.” He died in 2020.
In the 80s, Lockman, a former member of the Maine house of representatives, described LGBTQ+ people as biologically insane.
According to a 2014 article from blogger Mike Tipping, Lockman also became involved in anti-abortion activism. During his stint as a director of the Pro-Life Education Association in the 90s, he said: “If a woman has [the right to an abortion], why shouldn’t a man be free to use his superior strength to force himself on a woman? At least the rapist’s pursuit of sexual freedom doesn’t (in most cases) result in anyone’s death.”
You may like to watch
He later apologised for his remarks, saying he held “no animosity toward anyone by virtue of their gender or sexual orientation”.
Laubenberg, who died last month at the age of 68, sat in Texas house of representatives from 2003 to 2019.
During a debate about abortion legislation in 2013, while opposing the addition to a bill that would have made an exception for women who had been raped, she reportedly said: “In hospital emergency rooms, we have funded what’s called rape kits that will help the woman, basically clean her out [to avoid pregnancies]… basically like an emergency contraception, where they can also do the morning-after pill.”
Rape kits are not used to terminate pregnancies, but to gather and preserve physical evidence for any possible prosecution.
Asked about abortion and contraceptive rights, former US senate hopeful Mourdock was quoted in the post as saying: “Even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that is something God intended to happen.”
He later clarified his comments in a press conference following the debate, saying that he had intended to say that “God creates life,” and that any interpretation of his comments to mean God “pre-ordained rape” were “sick” and “twisted.”
“What I said was, in answering the question form my position of faith, I said I believe that God creates life. I believe that as wholly and as fully as I can believe it. That God creates life. Are you trying to suggest that somehow I think that God pre-ordained rape? No, I don’t think that. That’s sick. Twisted. That’s not even close to what I said. What I said is that God creates life.”
Snopes contacted Santorum, Mourdock and Lockman for comment: the only three people mentioned in the meme who are still alive. They have yet to receive a response.
Studies have shown that survivors of sexual violence in the US are significantly more likely to attempt suicide than their peers. One report from 2020 revealed that 13 per cent of respondents had tried to take their own life.
Suicide is preventable. Readers who are affected by the issues raised in this story are encouraged to contact the Samaritans on 116 123 (samaritans.org), or Mind on 0300 123 3393 (mind.org.uk). Readers in the US are encouraged to contact the National Suicide Prevention Line on 1-800-273-8255.
