In these United States of America. In 2026, When people speak openly about concerns around some leaders failing to protect girls, we are labeled "hate
In these United States of America. In 2026, When people speak openly about concerns around some leaders failing to protect girls, we are labeled “hateful.” Personally, I have experience with this and I happen to know that that’s the first go-to for people when they do not like that you are speaking up for marginalized and vulnerable persons. It’s standard.
It’s like the “default” move people make when they are playing games. Like in tic-tac-toe, the strongest first move is almost always the center square. (I played a lot of board games as a kid).
Even still, both Minnesota Attorney Governor Keith Ellison and Governor Tim Waltz’s response to girls’ safety and rights was … I’m stunned. These people have speechwriters and advisers.
Minnesota’s leadership has continued to defend policies allowing boys to participate on girls’ teams based on gender identity, even as the legal challenges have gone through the court system. Attorney General Ellison has repeatedly argued that excluding students based on how they choose to identify rather than biology causes harm and has defended the state’s position in court. What gives me pause though is there has not been even the appearance of balance. What about the girls? (Because to be clear, these battles have predominantly been boys pushing to be on girls teams and in girls spaces that have been set up specifically to balance out inequality with males in the first place).
Second, after the Supreme Court upheld Idaho’s and West Virginia’s laws allowing states to separate school sports by biological sex, many people expected Democratic leaders to acknowledge at least some of the concerns raised by girls and their families about competitive fairness, privacy, and safety. Instead, leaders such as Walz and Ellison seemed hyper focused almost exclusively on scolding anyone with an interest in protecting and advancing the rights of girls. It was pretty stunning to see.
For many women and girls, the disappointment is not simply about the policy outcome. It is about recognition. Some have said they wanted to hear public officials say something like:
“Girls have legitimate interests that deserve protection.”
“This is a difficult issue because two groups have important concerns.”
“We will continue protecting all students from bullying while also protecting fairness and privacy for girls.”
Instead, many felt their concerns were dismissed or characterized as unnecessary or harmful. That reaction has been a recurring theme in commentary from parents, athletes, and women’s rights advocates over the last several years.
One thing that has become increasingly apparent is that this debate is no longer just about athletics. It has become a broader conversation about how governments balance competing rights claims and whether leaders visibly acknowledge the interests of every affected group. Who elected them to be leaders of one specific group of people but not other groups?
Then there was this.
(Were the advisers off for the holiday or …the entire summer?)
The case is Tou Lue Vang. Minnesota’s Board of Pardons, which includes Gov. Tim Walz, Attorney General Keith Ellison, and Chief Justice Natalie Hudson, granted him a pardon in June 2026. He had been convicted of first-degree criminal sexual conduct involving a child. Reports say the victim, now an adult, supported the pardon, which is legally significant, but it does not erase the public concern: a child was sexually abused, and the state later used mercy power on behalf of the offender.
Because is she going to get lifetime counseling, education, and care or something? Survivors are always expected to wing it and do the best they can while leaders go hard for people who tear your life apart at the seams.
For a very long time pockets of people have been raising their voices about seeing leaders defend policies that many girls experience as unsafe or unfair, while also pardoning a men convicted of sexually abusing a child. Even when officials argue rehabilitation, forgiveness, immigration consequences, or victim support, many women and parents hear something colder underneath: the girl’s harm becomes one factor among many, while the adult male’s future becomes the emergency.
Because really, more and more, the programs that meant to help Survivors are disappearing. We hear leaders speaking about funding programs that help harmed people less and less often.
When girls describe concerns about fairness, privacy, or safety, do political leaders publicly recognize those concerns as legitimate in their own right? Do people in this country really believe that girls have a right to safety?
For a long time we have had our suspicions. Over the past week, answers have arrived. No, they were not the ones that we had hoped for. But I try to be intentional about welcoming clarity.
I keep saying it over and over. They could not even acknowledge the girls.
If it matters, because it seems to, I am not MAGA. I am not a Republican. But I was once a little girl.
Affirmations for Women and Girls
I do not have to ignore my instincts to make someone else comfortable.
I can be compassionate without surrendering my safety.
I do not measure my kindness by how much risk I am willing to accept.
My safety is worthy of planning, protecting, and preserving.
I am not responsible for managing another person’s disappointment at my boundaries.
Peace grows where healthy boundaries are honored.
I am allowed to ask questions before I offer trust.
I do not have to earn the right to protect myself. It is already mine.