Where do the candidates stand on LGBTQ issues?

Last week’s vice presidential debate offered Americans a refreshing dose of policy substance and civility. But despite the moderators’ mantra of “a number of subjects to discuss,” the debate largely failed to offer a clear picture of the candidates’—or their running mates’—beliefs about sexual orientation and gender identity and the federal policies likely to cascade from those worldviews.

In 2023, Gov. Tim Walz signed a bill declaring Minnesota a so-called “trans refuge” for children seeking irreversible medical intervention for their gender dysphoria. The new law allows the state to remove minors from their loving parents and shepherd those kids through a series of life-altering drug treatments and sterilizing surgeries—despite the reality that many of them would likely regain comfort with their bodies if given the chance to make it through puberty without puberty blockers or social transition.

In July, Sen. J.D. Vance introduced federal legislation offering a different path. The Protect Children’s Innocence Act “would ban the genital mutilation, chemical castration, and sterilization of innocent children by classifying the performance of so-called ‘gender-affirming care’ on a minor as a Class C felony.”

Should a physically healthy young girl be encouraged to cut off her healthy body parts with the blessing of the state? The question obviously matters for her, her family, and her future. It also matters for the nation. The question is part of a larger disagreement over human identity, revealing compelling contrasts between the two presidential tickets.

A related flashpoint for the modern gender identity debate has been the Biden-Harris administration’s unlawful redefinition of Title IX, illegitimately redefining “sex” in federal law and threatening women’s advancements in education and athletics. Other WORLD Opinions contributors have explained the threats in more depth. While the Title IX rule is currently blocked from enforcement in 26 states, the legal contest continues and will likely remain unresolved in January 2025.

How would a future President Kamala Harris or President Donald Trump handle this monumental reinvention of federal law? We don’t need to look very far for clues. Vice President Harris has proven eager to enforce the country’s evolving sexual ethic—a level of progressivism that led one California activist-attorney to gush, “She’s not just an ally—she’s a longtime, steadfast, committed, and well-informed ally … the best kind of ally to have.” The Harris campaign website notes her service as San Francisco district attorney in 2004 when she flouted state and federal laws by officiating a same-sex wedding ceremony. As California’s attorney general, Harris refused to defend a state law (Proposition 8) defining marriage as a union between one man and one woman. As a U.S. senator, Harris secured a perfect 100 rating from the Human Rights Campaign, which included her co-sponsorship of the so-called Equality Act.

In her role as vice president alone, Harris has earned numerous accolades from GLAAD for her support of LGBTQ priorities—a list that doesn’t include her ﷟cameo appearance on RuPaul’s Drag Race All Stars. And, in a 2019 American Civil Liberties Union questionnaire, then-candidate Harris did, in fact, indicate her commitment to taxpayer-funded gender surgeries for migrants and prisoners—a policy that appears to fall under the umbrella of “values” that “have not changed“ during this campaign cycle.

Former President Trump offers a different story. While his policy preferences may have been different before his rise to the presidency, Trump’s years as president reveal a track record of prioritizing First Amendment freedoms over LGBTQ ideology—a record that GLAAD smears as “attacks.” During his presidency, Trump’s Department of Education unraveled and reversed the problematic Title IX rules the Obama administration had enacted. In 2020, Trump’s Department of Justice filed a “statement of interest” in the first lawsuit to protect women’s sports, correctly indicating that Title IX must be interpreted as outlawing discrimination based on sex, rather than sexual orientation or gender identity.

More recently, Trump has signaled his commitment to overturning the Biden-Harris administration’s radical redefinition of Title IX. In a radio interview in May, Trump promised that the executive order would be changed on Day 1. In his words, “It’ll be terminated.” The former president has also repeatedly signaled his intention to preserve women’s sports as a category. In his nomination acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention, Trump promised, “We will not have men playing in women’s sports, that will end immediately.” It’s not surprising, then, that outspoken detransitioner Chloe Cole announced her intention to vote for Trump based on his commitment to “protecting children” from the rash decisions that cost her so much.

Many Americans are disappointed with their electoral options. Fair enough. But voters had best understand that one candidate has a record of upholding a correct interpretation of federal law. The other is committed to a federal regime that unburdens little girls from their body parts, female athletes from their medals, and women across America from the safety and dignity of their single-sex spaces—all in the name of “equality.” Debate moderators may not want to discuss the topic, but Americans must.