The Briefing with Albert Mohler - Wednesday, September 30, 2026

Episode Date: September 30, 2026

This is The Briefing, a daily analysis of news and events from a Christian worldview.On today’s edition of The Briefing, Dr. Mohler discusses the parable of the WNBA’s culture war, if transgender inmates have rights to transgender treatments (and even transgender underwear), and the story of a lesbian bar that attempted to lower restrictions on face masks that has made national headlines.Part I (00:14 – 13:33)The Parable of the WNBA’s Culture War: Transgender Activists are Trying to Transform the World as We Know ItIt’s Time for the W.N.B.A. to Pick Sides by The New York Times (Roxane Gay)Part II (13:33 – 18:48)Do Transgender Inmates Have Rights to Transgender Treatments and Transgender Underwear? The Trump Administration Pushes Sanity and Raises Big QuestionsTrump Administration Asks Justices to Allow It to Deny Hormones to Trans Inmates by The New York Times (Ann E. Marimow)Part III (18:48 – 24:51)The Story of a Lesbian Bar That Attempted to Lower Restriction on Face Masks: The Strange Controversy in Massachusetts That Has Made National HeadlinesSaturday Night at the Massachusetts Lesbian Bar Everyone Is Talking About by The New York Times (Mark Arsenault)Sign up to receive The Briefing in your inbox every weekday morning.Follow Dr. Mohler:X | Instagram | Facebook | YouTubeFor more information on The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, go to sbts.edu.For more information on Boyce College, just go to BoyceCollege.com.To write Dr. Mohler or submit a question for The Mailbox, go here.

It's Wednesday, September 30, 2006. I'm Albert Moller, and this is the briefing, a daily analysis of news and events from a Christian worldview. One of the most interesting cultural developments we just need to observe is the fact that when certain words are said, the dividing lines are basically already set. So let's just say the word transgender. Almost immediately, you have two sides, and everyone basically knows what the two sides are. And the two sides are now separated by so much moral space, by so much moral argument, that it's hard to understand how you could have someone really committed to the transgender agenda and the ideology that goes with it. And someone really committed to, let's just say, opposing the transgender agenda and understanding exactly what that agenda is. It's hard to imagine that society can come up with some kind of compromise. It's because we are looking at two conflicting worldviews, the collision of those two worldviews.

And to a greater or lesser extent, one of those worldviews is going to be public policy. There is very little chance there's something in the middle. Now, there is another part of this picture, and that is that if you look at the United States, the United States is one thing and it's 50 things simultaneously. It's one thing as a national federal government. It's another thing as 50 states. And this is known constitutionally as the doctrine of federalism, and it's central to the American experiment.

And basically, it works the opposite of how most Americans think. Most Americans tend to think that federalism says the United States government has these powers. Everything left over goes to the states. That's actually the opposite of how federalism developed. Federalism was first under the assumption that most of these things belong to the states until it is proved necessary to move them to the federal level. Now, so for instance, you'll take national defense, even the 13 early colonies banded together because they understood there needed to be a common defense.

But when it comes to, say, common educational philosophy, common structural programs, the states are very different. Now, there is also the social historical dynamic of the last, say, 60, 70 years in which there has been a real struggle between federalism, which means that the power resides in terms of so many services in the states and that we are a federation in that sense of states. Federalism means more emphasis and respect for state power. and then on the other side, those who want to see more and more of these issues handled at the national level. Now, at least traditionally over the course of the last several decades, the last few generations, the federalism has been more the argument of conservatives, and you could say also known as Republicans, and the national argument about making these issues a matter of the national government and mandates from the national government and control from the national government,

for example on educational issues, that has been largely driven by Democrats, by the ideological left. Okay. But now you're looking at the fact, I'll go back to the transgender issue. You have 50 states. And right now you have different policies in different states. But you also have the power and influence of the federal government, particularly when it comes to regulating, particularly when it comes to accrediting, particularly when it comes to allocating how monies are spent when it comes to the federal government. and that means that at this point, you've got the massive expansion of the federal government into issues like health care, where all of a sudden this becomes very, very important. And that's why who sits in the White House is thus of extreme importance. If someone sitting in the White House as president who is pro-transgender,

there is enormous federal policy under that executive control. And now what we have is the opposite. President Trump has been very, very clear about his opposition, particularly to, to transgender treatments, whatever you want to call them, for children and teenagers, and thus he has been using the power of the federal government from day one, by the way, of his second term. And I say this with great appreciation. From day one of his second term, even in his inaugural address, President Trump has made clear he not only does not what the federal government paying for these things, he wants to use the power of the federal government to protect children

and teenagers from what he sees as essentially abuse. And I think the majority of Americans agree with Now, on the transgender issue right now, here's what's very interesting. If you look at the 2024 election, both parties are basically in agreement that the Republicans made a lot of, hey, they gained a lot of ground on the transgender issue. Television advertisements just drew the attention of a lot of American voters to the fact that children and teenagers were undergoing these procedures. They said no. The transgender agenda is one of the very few issues in terms of the sexual and moral revolution where conservatives have actually gained ground. Now, I just want to tell you that that has to do with reality, and that reality is male and female. That's a very hard thing to overcome.

The average American who even on many of these moral issues has shown up very confused, they're still pretty clear about male and female. All right, when you have a controversy about this, at least in general terms, over the course of the last two years, a lot of it has focused on minors, on children and teenagers. And by the way, that's the first place to start. When we say the principle is first do no harm, we first have to speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves. But this is where you see massive supports.

Not 100%, but it's overwhelming support for pulling the federal government back from funding and thus allowing some of these transgender treatments for children and teenagers. That's not to say that's the only concern. We're still concerned about adults as Christians, very concerned. But when it comes to federal policy, this is clearly the right place to start.

But as you look at this, you also come to recognize when you get to adults, it's not working. The transgender argument is just not working. So here it's not so much a paternalistic impulse that you see driving public policy. It's instead just some basic moral concern. So let me take you to a big article that ran in Sunday's edition of the New York Times. It was in the opinion section. It's by Roxanne Gay, identified as a contributing opinion writer and editor of the portable feminist reader. the headline is, the WNBA should take care of its own.

The subhead and athletically can be a reflection of the world as it could be, not merely as it is. Okay, I just want to tell you up front, this is really interesting. Now, Roxanne Gay is not only an academic. She is writing as someone who's been contributing to these arguments for a long time. She is also a contributor to the New York Times. She is a professor. She holds the Gloria Steinem endowed chair in media culture and feminist studies. at Rutgers University. Rutgers, of course, is in New Jersey. It is the main, the most well-known

to the state universities there in New Jersey. As you probably recognize, this is an endowed chair honoring Gloria Steinem, the founder of Ms. Magazine, probably the most influential single feminist in the 20th century who died just a matter of weeks ago. We discussed that on the briefing. Roxanne Gay writes this article, and it is basically an article half page in Sunday's print edition of the New York Times, and she is coming out saying boldly, the WNBA needs to take a very aggressive bold stance in defense of the transgender ideology. Roxanne Gay writes, and I quote, but alongside the growth in increased public attention, she means to the WNBA, the League is also facing a pair of crises, not necessarily of its own making, how to welcome trans women

if and when it becomes necessary and a rise in racism directed towards black players. She says how the league and the players navigate that will determine its future, one made possible by a loyal fan base that is largely composed of the very people most vulnerable to these ideological attacks. Okay, just to keep the thought flowing, I'm going to quote from her next sentences, quote, as L.A. Sparks courtside ticket holders, my wife and I, this is a woman writing about her wife and herself, my wife and I take in as many games as we can each season. the WNBA athletes are fascinating both on and off the court. Unlike their male counterparts, many players are openly gay or bisexual. Some have dated one another and broken up, and their romantic dramas play out off the courts. But in the public eye, this year's All-Star weekend was particularly spicy. All of it only endears the WNBA to me more. Quote, the players are generally progressive and willing to voice what they stand for. This is especially noteworthy

because professional athletes like musicians, actors, and other celebrities are often told to stay in their lane not to be political. Okay. So she says, and she's very happy about this, that the WNBA has not followed that advice and has been in recurrent cycles of controversy very politically engaged. She also says something that I think the average, well, maybe I'm going on on a limb here, but I think the average American probably doesn't know the extent to which you've got so much lesbian and bisexual identity going on in the the players in the WNBA. And as this writer celebrates a woman married to a woman, you also have here basically a soap opera on top of the professional sports league.

So you got them. You got two wins so far as she's concerned. But you'll notice that she sees this as an asset. She sees this as a strength. When the article comes with a headline, the WNBA should take care of its own. She means stalwartly defending those who are, well, LGBT. but when it comes to the T, she says it's really not an issue yet, but she wants the league to commit basically to incorporating transgender players as soon as it becomes, well, either possible

or necessary. However, she might frame it. She cites Sophie Cunningham, who of course is a well-known WNBA player who came out saying that she doesn't believe when it comes to teenagers that boys should play on girls' sporting teams. Now, very clearly, Roxanne Gay is on the other side of this equation. And she just goes at it more or less saying that when it comes to the WNBA, they better get used to the idea of having a trans player or trans players. She says that the opposition to saying, for example, having transgender players in the WNBA, she says that it, quote, draws from an unholy miasma of racism, homophobia, and of course selective misogy. So there you have it. If you don't think that biological males should play on teams that are supposedly women's teams,

or for that matter, girls, you represent, quote, an unholy myasma of racism, homophobia, and of course, selective misogyny. So there you go. And so you see how this worldview collision I talked about in the beginning, it's irreconcilable. I mean, when you have people who operate out of a Christian worldview, and frankly, out of just a natural law worldview, or you might just say an anatomical worldview, those people look at the other side as just as irrational and wrongheaded as when it comes to Roxanne Gay, she sees conservatives. This is one of those situations in a worldview conflict that we just need to step back for a moment and say, there is no way to adjudicate this.

You bring in a negotiator. There is no way to say we will meet halfway on this. And so I think this is just a big clarifying moment. And so we should actually be grateful to Roxanne Gay for making this argument so honestly and so pervasively, comprehensively, in terms of this half page in Sunday's edition of the New York Times. Writing about the other side, remember, she's coming from the very vocal LGBTQ ideology. She concludes by saying that, quote, politicians, cranks, and conservative pundits are trying to remake a diverse professional league into something small, empty, and

exclusionary. Okay, let's just pause for a moment and consider those words. Those are really interesting words. Those words are stacked on each other. Let me go back. Let's just say these words again, something small, empty, and exclusionary. She concludes, quote, their ambitions are not inevitable, though. The WNBA has an invaluable opportunity right now. The league can be a reflection of the world as it could be, not merely as it is. End quote. Okay. Massive, massive issues there for us to see. She pretty much admits that the world as it is is a world in which, well, let's just say, a significant number of Americans, if not a majority of Americans, say a biological male, should not be on a female team. But she's saying that the right course is simply to charge straight

ahead. The WNBA has an invaluable opportunity right now. And she says, thus, the league can be a reflection of the world as it could be, not merely as it is. Okay, so here we understand that those who are pressing this agenda really do see themselves remaking the world. I think many of them, especially on the T, LGBTQ, and of course, remember that plus sign, I think those who are really ideologically committed to T, understand this means not only the remaking, say, of pronouns and language and, and furthermore, just the expectations about identity and sexual identity, gender identity, and all the rest. It means a complete transformation of the entire culture. And that's the final point I just want to say of agreement with this writer. I do believe she's not underestimating

the issue. If indeed the transgender ideology shoots this way through the entire culture, hardly going to recognize this culture once that happens. Okay, now continuing on this issue, it's very interesting that this has drawn some attention when it comes to public policy in prisons. And once again, the Trump administration is really the impetus for this. A headline in the New York Times, Trump administration asked justices to allow it to deny hormones to trans inmates, similar papers with very similar headlines, allowing the administration. We're told the Trump administration's asking the Supreme Court to allow. it to deny hormones to trans inmates. The subhead is very interesting. Just listen to this.

The Bureau of Prisons Policy, which has been blocked by lower courts, would give transgender prisoners access to psychotherapy and antidepressants instead of certain gender transition medical treatments. Okay. So I don't have numbers to give you, and I have seen numbers, but I just want to tell you, when you're talking about the transgender population and you're talking about prison, Well, in some cases, that becomes an extremely problematic number. And it's because regardless of whether the number is really high or low, and it depends upon some of these reports, and that also comes down to some of the claims being made, let's just say the moral issue is you have a male body in a female space. If you have a man, a biological man, in a woman's prison, and you could have the opposite, though that's not really the issue. The issue as in athletics is more male bodies in female spaces.

And once again, you see one of these issues that just can't be mediated in the middle. We can't just have a policy that says some transgender male bodies could be in female spaces. It's going to be a yes or no question. And it's going to be a yes or no answer eventually. Okay. So the Trump administration, and once again, I say this with appreciation, the Trump administration has said that when it comes to the federal government, regardless of where they are, and the Trump administration's pushed back on having male bodies and female spaces. But the issue that has attracted the press attention right now has to do with the medical treatments.

And those who are really in the T, capital T, transgender movement who have operated out of the transgender ideology, their argument is the federal government must treat this as a merely medical issue and just like any other medical issue must assume responsibility for prisoners to continue their medical treatments. Okay. The Trump administration has come back making a medical argument. And so a lot in the media aren't talking about this, but the Trump administration just didn't say, that's ridiculous. The Trump administration came back and said, you know, if it comes to medical treatments, then there are certain hormonal treatments that might be called for, but not transition itself, not surgical transition, etc. The article says here, quote, at the Bureau of Prisons, that means the Federal Bureau of Prisons, officials are taking the position that the benefits of hormone therapy are unclear for adults with gender dysphoria.

The policy allows trans prisoners to receive psychotherapy and antidepressants but not hormone therapy or items like undergarments that match their identities. Okay. Yeah, I actually did say that. We're talking about underwear in prison. And now we are told the Trump administration has the, well, you can see the judgment in this, has the wrong policy of who gets to wear what underwear in federal. prisons. Yes, we have become that country. But then the Times article tells us, quote, Lawyers for transgender prisoners has said gender transition treatment, which can include cross-sex hormones, social transition, and in some cases, surgery, is the only approach known to effectively treat gender dysphoria. The treatment has come under scrutiny for adolescents, but has been accepted as effective for adults for several decades, and is supported by the major medical and mental health organizations in the United States. Thus, those who are identified as

trans inmates, quote, argue the administration's policy violated their constitutional rights, including the Eighth Amendment's protection against cruel and unusual punishment, end quote. Okay, so let me just ask you to have a little historical imagination here. Let's just imagine for a moment that somehow we could have a conversation with George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, just think about that. And let's just convene them. And let's talk about the U.S. Constitution. Let's talk about the Bill of Rights, including the Eighth Amendment.

And then we asked, did you mean that men who are federal prisoners should be allowed to be housed in women's prisons and to have access to the medication, the hormones, and if necessary, says the word, surgical transition? What in the world do you think would be the response? Let me just point out that that means the irrationality of it just underlines the fact that it is implausible to say that those who frame the U.S. Constitution meant a man wearing women's underwear in a woman's prison. Let's just say that is incomprehensible. To argue now that that is a constitutional right, it means that you have to look at the constitution and say, okay, what it meant in the beginning really has no bearing here. We're now going to use the Eighth Amendment to say, that allows, well, everything I just said. And, of course, vice versa, but when it comes to the federal prisons, that's not so much the

issue. The issue is male bodies in female spaces, wearing. I'll just say whatever. Okay, one final thing, and I want to tell you, we're not going to get into anything too complicated here, but the headline is in major media that a lesbian bar has now undergone a great deal of controversy over its proposed change to a mask mandate. Okay, so I'm just going to tell you the summary of this,

and it really is a lot more interesting than you might think at first. One of the reasons why it caught my attention is because all the major media had picked up on this story one way or another. The Boston Globe was really the originating press source here. But everybody's picking up, including People Magazine. Listen to this. Massachusetts lesbian bar responds after article about controversy over its mask mandate, policy goes viral.

Okay, so this is about a bar located in western Massachusetts. It's identified as being in Greenfield, Massachusetts. And it has now achieved a great deal of controversy because it was going out of business. the owner of the bar, by the way, at one point admits she's living in her car and has built up an awful lot of debt. And it also turns out that there's an aspect of lesbian culture. And by the way, both the male and the female homosexuality, over the course of the period since World War II, lesbian and gay bars have been very much a part of gay culture. But this bar was established as an intentional gathering place for lesbians. but there was the rule that you have to wear an N95 mask or its equivalent at all times.

And by the way, you think, well, that might be a problem in a bar where they're selling drinks. Well, it turns out that's a big problem because you have all these lesbians in the room who are not buying drinks. And by the way, I know. I did this on your behalf. I just asked the question, how in the world can you drink anything? And the fact is they have rules about how fast you pull the mask down. you take your sip, you pull the mask back up. Okay, the bar is going out of business because it's not selling enough alcohol.

Okay, that's a moral issue in itself. But the big worldview dimension here is that this has created furor in the lesbian community. Well, how big could that be? We'll wait just a minute. When you talk about this particular community, listen to this. Quote, Western Massachusetts would appear to be a customer-rich environment for such a business. Nearby Hampshire County has the largest percentage of lesbian, couple households in the country according to the 2020 census, end quote.

Okay, there are some other communities in Massachusetts that are also, I think, in a race to vie for this statistic. But it does show you there's an entire culture here. And that culture, by the way, is absolutely committed to continuing a mask mandate. And then you ask the question, why? Well, this is where it gets even more interesting. And it is because in some of these, quote, sexual minority cultures, there is an extraordinary percentage of persons who claim to have long COVID or the kind of COVID that continues and is still a

problem. Okay, so you start looking into this and yes, it turns out that even the Centers for Disease Control and others have noted that in certain spaces, particularly where people are identified by quote, alternative sexual identities, the percentage of persons who claim be affected by long COVID goes way up. And when it comes to the lesbian community, at least a significant part of the lesbian community believes you should be mask. And in this bar, that means every night. All the bar proposed was one night a week where you didn't have to wear a mask. And that blew everything sky high such that it's made all the major newspapers and news outlets in the country.

Of course, this also raises some disease questions, some epidemiology questions. You know, how could there be such a higher number of persons who are identified with sexual minority labels who are affected by something like, long COVID. Well, here again, you also have medical authorities who admit when it comes to the definition of long COVID, well, it is a very controversial definition. It's one of these issues that becomes an amalgam of things such that. I'm not saying it, just hear me clearly. I'm not saying long COVID doesn't exist. I am saying that when you look at this in social terms, it is interesting that something like a social contagion clearly is in play. And by the way, it is in play in a very big way. And evidently, you do not want to change policy in a lesbian bar and make lesbians mad. By the way, I've looked at some of the printed materials, and you have, for instance, members of the lesbian community, they're saying that they are actually also members of, quote, the long COVID community, and they are immunocompromised. And thus, it is an act of violence to be in their lesbian bar without an N95 mask or its equivalent on.

I just want to point out an insight that I heard in terms of Christian ethics decades and decades ago. That insight is this. If you're going to reject biblical law, if you're going to reject the Christian worldview, you will not end up with fewer rules. You will end up with even more rules. Because if morality is something that's just going to be socially negotiated, guess what? It's going to be endlessly negotiated on everything, even when it comes down to how many nights a week

you have to wear a mask in a lesbian bar. All right, I hope I handled that with discretion. All I can tell you is there are certain things I never expected to talk about, even on the briefing. And yes, I'll admit this. This story is one of them. But there it is. Thanks for listening to the briefing. For more information, go to my website at Albertmuller.com.

You could follow me on X or Twitter if I'm going to X.com forward slash Albert Moller. For information on the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, go to sbtsbts. For information on Voice College, just go to voicecollege.com. I'll meet you again tomorrow for the briefing.