DC is poaching Canadian businesses. Ottawa is poaching a ... 'trans' philosopher?



Following the Aug. 21 collapse of the trade talks between Canada and the U.S., both parties have made efforts to attract talent from the other side of the border.

Whereas Washington, D.C., wants to lure money-making Canadian businesses, Ottawa appears keen to recruit woke academics — including a self-identified specialist in "trans philosophy" and a liberal "media scholar."

Talia Bettcher will supposedly work 'with community partners to develop new frameworks for understanding trans experiences.'

On Sunday, President Donald Trump stated, "Let all Canadian Companies that are doing business with America move to the United States, immediately."

Just three days before, the Canadian government announced over $541 million Canadian in research funding for prospective recruits to Canadian universities. This recruitment campaign is part of a $1.7 billion Canadian initiative that Ottawa launched in December "to attract and support more than 1,000 leading international and expatriate researchers."

The Carney Liberal government noted that recruiters were looking at academics in multiple fields including AI, cybersecurity, health, "environment and climate resilience," and "democratic and community resilience."

The Canadian government noted on Thursday that roughly $504 million in Canadian taxpayer dollars would be used over the next eight years to float 64 newly recruited researchers and roughly $37 million would be used to recruit "63 Emerging Leaders over the next year."

According to Canadian state media, 48 of the professors recruited so far are coming from the United States. Each professor will reportedly receive approximately $500,000 or $1 million Canadian in funding annually toward their research for eight years.

RELATED: A conservative group broke no laws. Police warned its convention venues anyway. This is free speech in Canada now.

Melanie Joly. David Kawai/Bloomberg/Getty Images

Canada Minister of Industry Melanie Joly made a not-so-subtle jab at the U.S. when making the announcement, stating, "At a time when parts of the world are turning away from science, Canada is doubling down. Attracting top talent will deliver breakthroughs that improve Canadians’ lives and advance Canada’s position as a global leader in science and innovation."

When asked whether the initiative amounts to Canada poaching talent from U.S. Ivy League schools, Joly said, "The U.S. administration is taking its own decisions and we're taking ours."

Among the academics whom Canada has recruited are individuals Americans might be happy to see go, including so-called "media scholar" Ethan Zuckerman.

In a blog post Thursday about his planned move from the University of Massachusetts Amherst to McGill University in Montreal, Zuckerman accused the Trump administration of attacking immigrants; whined about the recent backlash against the "Censorship Industrial Complex"; and fretted about his "physical footprint."

Talia Bettcher, another woke scholar recruited with Canadian taxpayer money, is leaving California State University for the University of Waterloo, where he will supposedly work "with community partners to develop new frameworks for understanding trans experiences."

Bettcher, a man who has masqueraded as a woman since attending the University of California, Los Angeles, in the 1990s, is a Canadian-born gender ideologue who has long lived in the U.S. as a permanent resident. While stateside, he has made a career out of penning self-referential attempts at normalizing transvestism, presented as "trans philosophy."

Charmaine Dean, the Trinidadian vice president for research at the University of Waterloo, said on Thursday that Bettcher's "selection through this highly competitive process underscores the outstanding quality and impact" of his research.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Delayed Study From Pro-Trans Researcher Finds Puberty Blockers Don’t Help Kids

The data is public. The risks are real. The responsible path is clear: Stop funding these treatments for minors.

Trump Admin Cracks Down On School-Enforced Trans Madness In Kansas

For parents preparing to send their children back to school this autumn, the administration's approach in Kansas is the blueprint for a major victory.

Pastor Josh Howerton: The left's 'neutral' worldview is more superstitious than Christianity



For years, Americans have been told that faith belongs in church while public policy should be guided by supposedly neutral, secular principles.

But BlazeTV host Allie Beth Stuckey says that distinction is a fiction, as progressives beliefs are not neutral at all — and somehow make their way into plenty of public policy.

“I also notice this idea that you know, we can leave our Christian faith behind and then when we go into the public sphere, we don this like neutral secular ideology, but this neutral secular ideology says that babies don’t become people until they go through the birth canal,” Stuckey tells Pastor Josh Howerton.

“That’s a superstitious, nonscientific, weird belief,” she continues, noting that it's not much different than the idea that “kids can be born in the wrong body.”


“So people who believe that they get to insert their definitions, their weird beliefs into school curriculum, into public policy, they define policy,” she adds.

Our bureaucracy, Stuckey says, is “defined by progressive ideology, which is not neutral,” but instead “superstitious.”

“So why does a progressive secularist who has their own dogmas and their own pseudo religion, why is their view seen as neutral?” she asks.

Howerton couldn’t agree more.

“What you’re talking about is loaded into the phrase, ‘You can’t legislate morality.’ The worldview behind the phrase, ‘You can’t legislate morality,’ is the myth of neutrality,” he says.

“It’s a myth of neutrality that there’s some way for us to sort of just order society to where nobody’s beliefs are infringed upon,” he continues, noting that it’s easy to “rip that mask off really fast.”

“A great example of this is with abortion. So somebody may say to a Christian that has a consistent pro-life ethic ... ‘Hey, when you advocate for pro-life legislation, you’re trying to force your morality on the mother,’” he explains.

“And honestly, the answer to that question is yes. Yes, that is what is trying to happen. But the question is not whether morality is going to get legislated. The question is whose morality is going to get legislated,” he adds.

Want more from Allie Beth Stuckey?

To enjoy more of Allie’s upbeat and in-depth coverage of culture, news, and theology from a Christian, conservative perspective, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Taxpayers paid $9.6 million for a gender ideologue's puberty-blocker study. She hid it. Now we know why.



A study of puberty blockers has finally seen the light of day, despite the best efforts of the activist physician behind it.

The former medical director of what was long the nation's biggest child sex-rejection clinic suppressed the results of a taxpayer-funded study following 95 children who were given puberty blockers, expressing fear that the results might be used against her craft and ideology.

'Every taxpayer should be furious that this research was encouraged and funded.'

The study, which was obtained by the Oversight Project and published on Thursday by the Daily Signal, is every bit as injurious to the gender ideologue's preferred narrative as she apparently suspected.

Suppression

Johanna Olson-Kennedy, the president of the U.S. Professional Association for Transgender Health, has made no secret of her radicalism.

This former medical director of the gender clinic at Children's Hospital Los Angeles — a clinic that conducted medical procedures on minors and provided confused children with puberty blockers that could affect their future fertility — has, for instance, publicly argued against mandatory psychological assessments prior to sex-rejection mutilations; compared teen girls cutting off their healthy breasts to taking the SATs; and allegedly provided sex-rejection hormones to kids as young as 12 and referred little girls as young as 13 for double mastectomies.

A year prior to her clinic's closure in July 2025 — the result of a crackdown by President Donald Trump and his administration — Olson-Kennedy revealed that she and her team had suppressed the results of the years-long study funded by the National Institutes of Health regarding "long-term outcomes of medical treatment for transgender youth."

When asked why she was refusing to publish the data for which taxpayers paid at least $9.6 million, Olson-Kennedy "said the findings might fuel the kind of political attacks that have led to bans of the youth gender treatments in more than 20 states, one of which will soon be considered by the Supreme Court," reported the New York Times.

RELATED: 'Our results shocked us': HHS report confirms your darkest suspicions about trans ideology

Wiktor Szymanowicz/Future Publishing/Getty Images

"I do not want our work to be weaponized," said Olson-Kennedy. "It has to be exactly on point, clear, and concise. And that takes time."

The reason her findings were politically sensitive is because the study apparently showed that the so-called "gender-affirming care" promoted at the L.A. clinic and elsewhere was not all it was cracked up to be.

Amy Tishelman, a psychologist at Boston College who was one of the study's original researchers, noted at the time, "I understand the fear about it being weaponized, but it’s really important to get the science out there."

Tishelman acknowledged that the study had found that kids given puberty blockers — drugs that have long been used to chemically castrate sex offenders — did not see psychological improvements but suggested that "no change isn't necessarily a negative finding."

Despite the interest expressed by Tishelman and others in releasing the study, it remained under wraps.

Exposure

According to the newly released report of Olson-Kennedy's study, titled "The Impact of Early Medical Treatment in Transgender Youth," two years of puberty blockers didn't make much of a difference for the mental health of the test subjects, one-quarter of whom went in reportedly having thoughts about suicide and 8% of whom previously attempted to kill themselves.

Activists and so-called experts previously claimed that puberty blockers amount to a "lifesaving option" and that "withholding puberty blockers to treat gender dysphoria will very likely have serious adverse effects on the health and well-being of young people." The Mayo Clinic still suggests on its website that puberty blockers might "improve mental well-being."

Rather than "improve" the kids' mental health, the study merely said of puberty blockers:

Over 2 years of medical intervention that started with blockers, mental health remained relatively stable and was on par with the population at large. These youth showed no worsening of their mental or emotional health and suicidality decreased from baseline to 24 months. Mean scores on mental health measures remain stable in a clinically non-significant range over two years.

In a previous progress report, Olson-Kennedy hypothesized to the National Institutes of Health that kids taking puberty blockers for two years would show “decreased symptoms of depression, anxiety, trauma symptoms, self-injury, and suicidality, and increased body esteem and quality of life over time," reported the Times.

Neal Cornett, the Oversight Project's director of state litigation, said in a statement to Blaze News, "The final report confirms what anyone sensible would know — treating troubled youth with puberty blockers and hormone treatments does nothing to improve their mental health. What it does do is support a medical-industrial complex that must provide lifelong medical care to those who suffered from its harmful medical interventions. Every taxpayer should be furious that this research was encouraged and funded for the decade the country lost its collective mind."

Cornett added, "Dr. Olson-Kennedy was no doubt concerned that the final report would call into question the rationale behind her research. That isn’t weaponization. It’s justifiable scrutiny of a practice the majority of Americans rightly oppose."

While Olson-Kennedy's study is undoubtedly a gut-punch for gender activists, major studies released in the U.S. and the U.K. have already made clear that puberty blockers are not worth the risk.

The Cass Review, an independent investigation into sex-rejection drugs and procedures that was commissioned by NHS England and published in 2024, concluded that:

  • the quality of previous studies suggesting that puberty blockers are beneficial in reducing mental distress and improving the well-being of gender-dysphoric youth is "poor";
  • the alternatively high-quality "University of York systematic review found no evidence that puberty blockers improve body image or dysphoria";
  • puberty blockers "may reduce psychological functioning";
  • most kids' gender dysphoria appears to be "resolved by puberty"; and
  • "brain maturation may be temporarily or permanently disrupted by the use of puberty blockers."

The Department of Health and Human Services' exhaustive peer-reviewed 2025 report on pediatric treatments for "gender dysphoria" also highlighted numerous physical risks associated with puberty blockers including reduced bone mineral density, compromised skeletal development, infertility, and sexual dysfunction.

Olson-Kennedy could not immediately be reached for comment.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

'Our results shocked us': HHS report confirms your darkest suspicions about trans ideology



Amid ruinous pro-trans policies advanced by Democrat lawmakers around the country and a seemingly interminable string of horrific attacks allegedly plotted and/or executed by trans-identifying radicals, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services commissioned a study on the connection between gender ideology and leftist authoritarian beliefs.

The findings in the study published on Wednesday are damning — but likely won't surprise anyone who has been paying attention.

'Greater political liberalism independently predicted higher justification of political violence as well.'

The new study commissioned by HHS, titled "Where the Clinic Meets the Movement: Does Gender Ideology Arm Left- Wing Authoritarian Psychology?," is the latest addition to the genre of scientific literature confirming what the right already knew.

The research team behind the study included Joel Finkelstein, chief science officer and co-founder of the Network Contagion Research Institute; Lee Jussim, head of the Social Perception Laboratory at Rutgers University; and Colin Wright, an evolutionary biologist who serves as a fellow at the Manhattan Institute.

Together, they developed a "Clinical Gender Affirmation Scale," measuring endorsement of five positions related to gender ideology.

The five positions derive from official guidance issued by organizations that "represent the official scientific and clinical establishment on care for individuals who identify as transgender," according to the researchers.

RELATED: El-Sayed gives bizarre defense for cutting off kids' genitals ... on Fox News

Bob Riha Jr./Getty Images

The five consensus positions with which respondents were asked to agree or disagree included:

  • "Failure to affirm a transgender person's gender identity increases the risk of serious psychological distress to the trans person."
  • "People should be supported in expressing their transgender identity."
  • "Using the name a person chooses as part of their gender transition is a necessary form of support."

'Biological-sex classifications and traditional parental or familial authority is seen as structures of harm.'

Using a questionnaire provided to over 1,200 majoritively Democrat-leaning Americans, the researchers tracked whether there was any correlation between endorsement of these organizations' consensus positions in the CGAS and left-wing authoritarianism.

"Our results shocked us," said Colin Wright.

"All correlations were substantial," said the study.

"The relationship was not merely descriptively correlational; endorsement of CGAS was a strong statistical predictor of left-wing authoritarianism."

The study noted that endorsements of both the CGAS and left-wing authoritarianism "were significantly positively correlated with justification for political violence" against President Donald Trump, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement facilities, wealthy Americans' property, the police, and two recent victims of assassination — Charlie Kirk, the founder of Turning Point USA, and Brian Thompson, the late CEO of UnitedHealthcare.

"CGAS was a consistent and statistically significant predictor of political violence justification," said the study. "... Political identity was also a significant predictor across all six outcomes, indicating that greater political liberalism independently predicted higher justification of political violence as well."

RELATED: Christian family seeks SCOTUS win against trans insanity in 'case about swinging d**ks'

Daniel Knighton/Getty Images

Since the American Psychological Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the World Professional Association for Transgender Health, and the American Academy of Pediatrics have supported the five positions at some point, the findings of the research "raise a question of scientific responsibility," continued the study.

The researchers cautioned, however, that gender ideology "was not simply standing in for being politically left-wing; it explained additional variation in political violence justification beyond political identity. Thus, its association with political violence cannot be reduced simply to ordinary left-right political identification."

According to the researchers, gender ideology appears to function as a framework through which left-wing authoritarian tendencies can be concentrated.

After all, it not only provides left-wing authoritarians with potential targets to go after — including straights, Republicans, conservative Christians, and law enforcement — but "mandates institutional norm enforcement" by way of compelling speech, crackdowns on parental resistance, and institutional discipline.

This framework also provides left-wing authoritarians with "a third form of ideological fuel: a conventional order to dismantle. As such, biological-sex classifications and traditional parental or familial authority is seen as structures of harm requiring a moralized project of institutional correction."

"This study raises important questions about what happens when ideology is given the authority of medicine," said Assistant Secretary for Health Adm. Brian Christine. "The association between sex-rejecting clinical beliefs, authoritarian attitudes, and the justification of political violence warrant[s] serious scientific scrutiny."

Christine noted further that "HHS will continue to pursue rigorous research that examines these relationships and gives the American people the evidence they deserve."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

TRANS COWS? Why are male cattle suddenly lactating?



Most consumers assume that beef is one of the simplest foods on their plate. But what happens before cattle reach the dinner table might be more complex — and worse than you think.

“Even with seemingly healthy foods, they actually can be tainted in a way that could have severe health impacts on us. Like say, take beef,” BlazeTV host Sara Gonzales says.

“Beef is good for you,” she continues, “But then you start thinking about cows and all the hormones that get pumped into the cows that then get passed onto us when we eat beef.”

“And apparently these hormones are having such an adverse effect on these cows that I mean, I guess you could say it in a way that it’s turning some of them trans,” she adds.


In a study from West Texas A&M University, just over 20,000 finished cattle originating from 33 feed lots were examined. Among native steers, 14.55% were lactating. Among dairy cross steers, 19.66% were lactating.

And while those doing the research don’t agree with her, regenerative farmer Mollie Englehart believes that this may have to do with the hormones being pumped into the cows.

“I first need to say that the researchers do not agree with my theory,” she tells Gonzales, explaining that Dr. Ty Lawrence, who oversaw the study, believes that it’s “that basically the cattle are just so fat that ... the fat itself is becoming an estrogen-producing organ and then signaling the pituitary gland, and there’s a cascade that makes the males lactate.”

However, it is explained in the Merck Veterinary Manual that estradiol, which Englehart says is the “first ingredient in most of these hormone implants that they put in cows' ears,” has a list of adverse events that involve teat development in both heifers and steers.

“In the '80s, we tried to decide if we could possibly not have dairy cows have babies and just make milk. And estradiol was used in that study to induce lactation,” she says.

Englehart also points to a claim a British university made previously that transgender women’s milk is just as nutritious as a woman’s milk. They also used estradiol to induce lactation in those men who wanted to breastfeed children.

“So estradiol is a common thing across the whole spectrum,” she adds.

Want more from Sara Gonzales?

To enjoy more of Sara's no-holds-barred takes on news and culture, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Enes Kanter Freedom said the quiet part out loud



What does it look like when an ideology that has long insulated itself from criticism suddenly has to defend its premises in public? We may be watching that happen in the WNBA.

For years, critics of transgender ideology have often been dismissed as hateful rather than answered. But slogans become harder to maintain when they collide with an institution whose very existence depends on distinguishing women from men.

The deeper problem is the familiar one: Believing something does not make it so. Reality pushes back.

Enter Enes Kanter Freedom.

At Sunday’s Chicago Sky-Indiana Fever game, Freedom cheered after Fever guard Sophie Cunningham hit a three-pointer. A couple of possessions later, Sky guard Natasha Cloud yelled toward him, “She’s not going to sleep with you.” According to Freedom, Cloud then cursed at him. Video showed the two exchanging words before Freedom stepped toward the floor and security escorted him from the arena.

Freedom was wearing a shirt that defined “woman” as “adult human female.” He believes the shirt helped provoke the confrontation. In any case, the incident exposed the contradiction at the center of the debate.

After the game, Cloud posted: “To every trans kid/person, You are apart of MY community & tribe. You belong. You’re loved. You’re seen. You’re perfect as you are. & you will always be protected by me.”

That is a humane sentiment. But protection is not the same thing as agreement, and compassion does not settle the underlying question: What is a woman?

Freedom’s shirt gives the correct biological answer. That answer is not incidental to the WNBA. The “W” exists because female athletes are physically distinct enough from male athletes that women have their own competitive league. Saying so 20 years ago would have been unremarkable.

The modern dispute is not merely about how people dress, live, or describe themselves. It is about whether a person’s stated gender identity can override biological sex in language, law, medicine, and athletics. Critics are frequently told that refusing to affirm such claims causes grave harm. Some activists go further and describe restrictions on transgender policies as “genocidal.”

That rhetorical trick does real work. If disagreement is violence, then argument itself becomes suspect. The critic no longer has to be answered; he can simply be condemned.

But the WNBA makes that escape difficult. A women’s basketball league cannot avoid asking what qualifies someone to play in the women’s league.

RELATED: Former congressman sends warning to WNBA over blocking male player: Get ready for court

Michael Reaves/Getty Images

That’s why Freedom and former NBA player Royce White have been able to make their point through satire. If self-identification alone determines sex for purposes of women’s athletics, why could a male player not simply declare himself a woman and demand eligibility? The predictable answer is that he would not be sincere. But sincerity is not a biological category, and the objection quietly concedes that some external standard remains essential.

The deeper problem is the familiar one: Believing something does not make it so. Reality pushes back.

If I walk into a bank and announce that I identify as a billionaire, the teller will still check my account balance. My conviction may be sincere. It does not create a billion dollars.

Of course, sex and wealth are not identical categories. The analogy has a narrower purpose: Subjective conviction cannot, by itself, determine every fact about the world.

The cultural argument over sex became combustible because it moved beyond the old libertarian bargain — adults may live as they choose — and began demanding public affirmation, institutional accommodation, and changes to categories built around biological sex.

RELATED: Sophie Cunningham supporters speak out: WNBA is just passing the blame

Justin Casterline/Getty Images

For Christians, there is an even deeper dispute about what a human being is and whether the body is something received or something the will may redefine. I have argued elsewhere that the conflict ultimately reaches Christian anthropology.

But one need not settle that theological question to see the WNBA’s problem. A league created for women must know what a woman is.

The controversy surrounding Freedom is no mere spectacle. The issue is no longer confined to university seminars or activist language. It has arrived courtside, where a definition printed on a T-shirt can become more controversial than a player shouting at a fan.

Ideologies protected from criticism often appear strongest just before ordinary people begin noticing the absurdities and contradictions. Once the questions can be asked publicly, slogans are no longer enough.

The WNBA is discovering that in real time.

The WNBA's war on reality: Will the league survive the transgender madness?



The Women's National Basketball Association is struggling to define the very category it was created to promote, and BlazeTV host Steve Deace couldn’t be less impressed.

“Something called the Women’s National Basketball Association is having a deep probing conversation of what the term ‘woman’ means. It’s not right-wing parody. It’s not a Babylon Bee spot. It’s not a meme. It’s not a troll,” Deace tells XX-XY Athletics founder Jennifer Sey.

“This is literally what is occurring right now,” he continues, adding, “Make sense of it, please.”

“They’re not discussing what a woman is. They’re discussing how do we get through this without doing anything,” Sey tells Deace. “That’s what they’re discussing.”


“They’re in a panic, and they’re going, ‘How do we say something but do nothing?’ That’s basically what they’re talking about,” she adds.

While other leagues have made it clear that they will not be allowing men in women’s sports, the WNBA remains one of the last leagues with a clear “agenda.”

“And that agenda is not women’s basketball. It’s politics,” Sey says. “That’s all it is. It’s woke politics. That's their agenda. It’s a joke. The whole league is a joke.”

And if you look at it from a financial perspective, it makes even less sense.

“They’ve never made money in 30 years. They’re totally subsidized by the NBA. They have a chance right now to actually make money. They have a golden goose in Caitlin Clark. They won’t lead with her. They won’t market her,” Sey explains.

“Little girls are showing up across the country. They’re buying her jersey. They’re buying tickets. It’s like they don’t want to run this like a business. They just want to be in the politics,” she says.

“Not to mention all the behind-the-scenes shenanigans. I mean, half of them are married to each other. Like this is not a legitimate business. It’s a clown car,” she adds.

The league is digging itself into a hole, and it could pull itself out of it, but Sey tells Deace that it won’t.

“I think the only sensible thing they can do is to stand up and say, ‘This is the WNBA. We were wrong. It’s not about inclusion. This is elite female athletes, and it’s female athletes only,’” she explains.

“And you know what would happen, Steve, if they did that? It would be two weeks of noise from the activist class, and then it would be over, and they’d get back to basketball,” she continues, adding, “But they won’t do it because they’re not in this for basketball.”

Want more from Steve Deace?

To enjoy more of Steve's take on national politics, Christian worldview, and principled conservatism with a snarky twist, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

El-Sayed gives bizarre defense for cutting off kids' genitals ... on Fox News



Abdul El-Sayed, the Islamic Democrat hoping to win an open U.S. Senate seat in Michigan, has mounted a bizarre defense of a barbaric practice that he wants American taxpayers to fund: sex-rejection mutilations for children.

On "Jesse Watters Primetime" on Fox News Monday, El-Sayed — who holds a medical degree but has seemingly never put it to clinical use — repeatedly dodged when the eponymous host pressed him with difficult questions, especially regarding medical care.

'Abdul, Michigan's not going for that.'

Growing visibly frustrated with El-Sayed's evasiveness during their nearly half-hour exchange, Watters asked the Democrat flatly, "Sex changes for minors. Do you support that?"

"Look, you know, I remember having great conversations with my conservative friends about Right to Try legislation — the idea that the government shouldn't tell you what kind of health care you should have," said El-Sayed. "I just think the government shouldn't tell you what kind of health care you should have, and if you're a minor, it's between you, your doctor, and your parents."

"You want to 'try' on kids?" said the revulsed host.

El-Sayed responded, "If you disagree with that, if you disagree that health care decisions need to be made by a doctor and their parents and a patient, then I just think we agree to disagree," neglecting to mention that under Medicare for all, which he supports, the taxpayer would effectively be made complicit in any such decision.

"But you want to put government inside a clinic or a hospital selectively," El-Sayed told Watters.

RELATED: Sacrificing body parts and informed consent to the sex-change regime

Watters pressed the issue, asking El-Sayed whether he, as a doctor, "thinks it's OK for a parent to slash his kid's ding-a-ling off. You think that's OK?"

"Do you really want to have this conversation?" responded El-Sayed. "Are you circumcised?"

Watters confirmed that he was indeed circumcised, then noted that "circumcision is different than castration."

"It's a problem that you think that you get to decide what happens between a parent, a doctor, and a patient," said El-Sayed. "I'm just saying that yes, circumcision is a surgery on a kid's ding-a-ling, so if you really want to bring that up, you can. I just think you guys are really selective."

"That's wacky. Abdul, Michigan's not going for that. That is sick stuff," said Watters.

Monday night, Michigan GOP senior communication adviser Greg Manz retweeted a clip of the exchange between El-Sayed and Watters along with a statement previously given to Blaze News: "Michigan taxpayers footing the bill for abortions and irreversible gender reassignment surgeries, even for children — it doesn't get more extreme than that."

The "war room" account for Republican candidate Mike Rogers called opponent El-Sayed a "conman" who "is too extreme for Michigan."

Despite El-Sayed's insinuation that circumcision and sex-rejection surgeries are in the same ballpark, they are worlds apart.

Male circumcision simply involves the removal of the foreskin covering the tip of the penis, but so-called feminizing genital surgery — the sex-rejection procedure performed on confused male victims' genitals — is a complicated and horrific procedure.

RELATED: El-Sayed's mom worked for designated terror group that financed bin Laden ahead of 9/11: Report

Bob Riha, Jr./Getty Images

According to the American Society of Plastic Surgeons, in this procedure,

  • the testicles are cut off;
  • the skin along the shaft of the penis is separated from the penile tissue and preserved to construct a fake vagina;
  • a portion of the glans of the penis along with some blood vessels and nerves are fashioned into a fake clitoris;
  • a space is hollowed out between the bladder and the rectum;
  • the skin that once encased the victim's penis is turned inside out and put into the space;
  • the urethra is shortened;
  • the "scrotal skin is rearranged and used to surgically construct a labia majora"; and
  • a temporary catheter is shoved into the victim's bladder.

The sex-rejection procedure that is performed on females is also a complicated affair that requires multiple mutilations, including the removal of skin, fat, nerves, arteries, and/or veins from other parts of the body and a lengthening of the urethra to construct a fake and nonfunctioning penis.

El-Sayed won't take a stand against such procedures, but most Americans think they're unconscionable.

According to a nationwide Gallup poll conducted in May, 57% of U.S. adults believe that "changing one's gender" is morally wrong. A 2026 SLU/YouGov Poll conducted in Missouri found that 67% of voters opposed sex-rejection medications for minors and 73% opposed sex-rejection surgeries.

A February 2025 Pew Research Center survey found that 56% of American adults want to make it illegal for health care professionals to provide minors with sex-rejection "medical care." A Washington Post-KFF poll found in 2023 that 68% of Americans oppose puberty blockers for trans-identifying kids ages 10 to 14, and nearly 60% opposed hormonal treatments for teens ages 15 to 17.

El-Sayed has repeatedly vowed to "fight to expand Medicare to cover all necessary health care" and "extend it to every single American from cradle to grave without premiums, copays, or deductibles." He has acknowledged that this scheme will not only require higher taxes but would pay for so-called "reproductive rights" and "gender-affirming care."

El-Sayed's campaign did not immediately respond to Blaze News' request for comment.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!