The Rev. Franklin Graham called the idea of paper gender dolls being used in the Minnesota public school system “sick,” “warped,” and “wicked.”
On Monday, Graham shared a New York Post article titled, “Taxpayer-Funded Trans Dolls With Removable Genitalia To Hit Classrooms This Fall for Kids as Young as 4 To ‘Learn About Different Options.’”
The article included an image of the dolls showing both male and female anatomy.
Franklin Graham Describes Gender Dolls as ‘Sick and Warped’
“You can’t ask for a better example of moral depravity than this. Minnesota has developed ‘MyGender Dolls‘ with interchangeable parts, including removable genitalia, to be used to encourage children ages 4-10 to explore their ‘gender identities,’” Graham posted.
“Really?” the evangelist continued. “This is so sick and warped.”
“‘Therapeutic play?’ Yeah right,” he added. “This is the wicked agenda of woke Democrat socialists, targeting your children.”
According to the New York Post, the paper dolls began as a University of Minnesota research project and will be available in “some Minnesota classrooms” for kids as young as 4. The dolls will include “internal and external genitals, along with more than 100 interchangeable pieces of clothing, accessories and hairstyles.”
The MyGender Dolls website says the product is designed for clinicians and educators to help “children tell their stories.”
“Built to help children tell their stories and see themselves represented, MyGender Dolls promote resilience, confidence, and joy through structured, engaging play,” the website says. “MyGender Dolls are designed for the clinicians and educators who show up for these kids every day—providing developmentally appropriate, evidence-informed resources that didn’t exist before.”
The site continues, “MyGender Dolls are built for the professionals who support trans and gender diverse children in clinical and educational settings.”
However, according to a report by Minnesota’s 5 EYEWITNESS NEWS, the dolls will not be in local schools, and reports claiming otherwise were incorrect.
US Department of Education Launches Investigation
The U.S. Department of Education announced Wednesday that it has launched an investigation after receiving a complaint.
“Today, the U.S. Department of Education (ED) launched an investigation into the Minnesota Department of Education (MDE) to ensure compliance with the Protection of Pupil Rights Amendment (PPRA),” the statement said, “after a complaint was received on behalf of parents regarding the use of ‘transgender dolls’ in schools.”
Facts Only
* Rev. Franklin Graham called the idea of paper gender dolls being used in the Minnesota public school system "sick," "warped," and "wicked."
* The dolls were developed as a University of Minnesota research project.
* The dolls include interchangeable parts, including removable genitalia, and over 100 interchangeable pieces of clothing, accessories, and hairstyles.
* The MyGender Dolls website states the product is designed for clinicians and educators to help children tell their stories.
* The website claims the dolls promote resilience, confidence, and joy through structured, engaging play.
* The dolls are designed for professionals supporting trans and gender diverse children in clinical and educational settings.
* A report indicated the dolls would be available in "some Minnesota classrooms" for children as young as 4.
* The Minnesota’s 5 EYEWITNESS NEWS reported that the dolls will not be in local schools, contradicting prior claims.
* The U.S. Department of Education launched an investigation into the Minnesota Department of Education regarding the use of "transgender dolls" in schools following a complaint.
Executive Summary
Franklin Graham described the use of paper gender dolls in the Minnesota public school system as "sick," "warped," and "wicked." The dolls, which feature interchangeable parts including removable genitalia, were developed as a University of Minnesota research project. The dolls are intended for children aged 4 to 10 to explore gender identities. The developers state that the dolls are designed to help children tell their stories, promote resilience, confidence, and joy through structured play, and support clinicians and educators in providing evidence-informed resources for trans and gender diverse children.
The use of these dolls is framed by critics as an agenda from "woke Democrat socialists" targeting children. While the materials claim to foster positive emotional outcomes through play, concerns exist regarding their intended audience and pedagogical context within public education settings. Furthermore, a complaint was received regarding the use of these dolls in schools, which led the U.S. Department of Education to launch an investigation into the Minnesota Department of Education to ensure compliance with the Protection of Pupil Rights Amendment (PPRA). Reports indicated that the dolls would be available in some Minnesota classrooms and included numerous interchangeable items.
Full Take
The narrative presents a conflict between therapeutic/educational intent and moral condemnation, simultaneously leveraging concerns about gender identity exploration within public education systems. The tension arises from the framing: one side describes a product as a tool for resilience and self-expression for vulnerable populations, while another labels it an act of moral depravity driven by political ideology. This contrast is not merely about dolls; it reflects a broader societal division over the role of education in shaping identity and the appropriate boundaries of public discourse regarding gender.
The dynamic of the investigation suggests a friction point where claims about pedagogical value meet legal compliance regarding protected rights. The divergence between reported availability and internal school placement indicates an underlying challenge in how research-based or therapeutic materials are integrated into mandated educational frameworks. When an investigation is launched based on parental complaints, it signals that external scrutiny is focused on whether established policies align with evolving social understandings of child welfare. This situation prompts reflection on whose definition of "learning about different options" takes precedence when public funding and institutional compliance are at stake.
Bridge Questions: If research-backed play materials are intended to promote resilience, what specific criteria should educators use to evaluate the long-term psychological impact versus immediate political sensitivities? How should educational oversight balance parental rights concerning curriculum content against established professional guidelines for supporting gender diversity in classrooms? What is the effect of framing such tools solely through moral or political lenses on the acceptance of evidence-informed developmental resources?
Sentinel — Human
The article effectively presents conflicting narratives surrounding gender dolls by layering highly polarized commentary over verifiable, documented institutional actions and claims.