Don’t think for a minute that Springfield Dems are done genuflecting to homosexuals and cross-sex impersonators with the passage of the “Perversion Positive” sex ed bill, the “Free Tampons for Boys” bill, and the “Babies for EVERYONE” bill, which forces insurance companies to pay for “infertility” treatments for single people without sexual partners and homosexuals in naturally non-reproductive relationships. Oh, no, no, no. Morally fluid Springfield decree-makers have barely gotten started.

They also passed along partisan lines a bill (Illinois General Assembly – Full Text of SB1730 (ilga.gov) that amends the Business Corporation Act of 1983, which was written to address the underrepresentation of women and racial minorities on corporate boards. If signed into law, it will take effect this coming January and will require that “public corporations … report the self-identified sexual orientation and self-identified gender identity of its directors.”

If Governor J.B. Pritzker signs this bill into law, any publicly held domestic or foreign corporation with its “principal executive office in Illinois” will be required to submit an annual report to the secretary of state that includes the homoerotic predilections and “trans”-cultic practices of members of its board of directors.

The secretary of state will then send this information to the University of Illinois, which will issue a Chinese-social-credit-like “rating” to each corporation and issue edicts “identify strategies” to coerce corporations to get more homosexuals and cross-sex impersonators on their boards pronto.

Why—some Illinoisans are wondering—is Big Brother constructing ways to force corporations to procure more board members who prefer erotic relations with persons of the same sex and more board members who fancy themselves to be the sex they aren’t and never can be? Silly people, the reason is obvious. Corporate ethics and profitability are constituted by the number of homosexuals and cross-sex impersonators sitting on corporate boards.

There is, however, a problem with this law. This short but powerful tool for “equity” mentions “demographic diversity” three times, and yet, there is no mention of polyamorists—also known as consensual non-monogamists—autogynephiliacs, transableists, or cupiosexuals? Do any corporate boards in Illinois have members who identify as polyamorists, autogynephiliacs, transableists, or cupiosexuals? Does the secretary of state or University of Illinois have that information? If not, why not?

Despite portraying themselves as warriors for “demographic diversity” and “inclusion,” Springfield Democrats apparently want to remain mired on the wrong side of history.

Pulling my tongue out of my cheek, I will try to clarify the intellectual waters that leftists muddy with redefinitions and bad analogies: Neither “sexual orientation”—which really only means homoeroticism—nor cross-sex impersonation is analogous to biological sex or race. Whereas biological sex and race (or skin color) are non-behavioral, objective, 100% heritable, and in all cases immutable conditions, both homoeroticism  and cross-sex impersonation are constituted by subjective and often fluid feelings and volitional behaviors—like polyamory, autogynephilia, transableism, and cupiosexuality. There remains no rational or ethical justification for lawmakers to coerce companies to base board membership on potential board members’ sexual feelings.

The Great Awokening in Illinois continues, and while it does, let’s see how many more corporations and families flee Illinois.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Springfield-LawmakersGenuflect-to-LGBTQ-Communitym4a.mp3

The recent “March for Women” in Washington, D.C., might have been  a bit vague in its goal, but it sure was vulgar its execution. It also provided nice fodder for this series on identity politics.

This is from the Free Beacon — not The Onion. Really. I’m not kidding. Here is the title and subtitle of a post from freebeacon.com:

Transgender Activists Upset Over ‘White Cis Women March’
Women’s march ‘dangerous space’ with ‘oppressive message’ that ‘having a vagina is essential to womanhood’

If you’re keeping score, here’s the basic substance:

Transgender activists are upset that the women’s march over the weekend was not inclusive to biological men who identify as women, as the protest presented an “oppressive message” that having a “vagina is essential to womanhood.”

Saturday’s event to oppose the inauguration of Donald Trump was largely a “white cis women march,” with too many pictures of female reproductive organs and pink hats, according to trans women and “nonbinary” individuals interviewed by Mic.com.

A fight is brewing between “trans-exclusionary radical feminists,” or “TERFs,” and transwomen, according to the article, “How the Women’s March’s ‘genital-based’ feminism isolated the transgender community.”

The women’s march had an over-reliance on slogans and posters depicting gender norms, like using pink to represent women and girls, said some transgender activists who boycotted the march.

Okee dokee. You can confirm that this isn’t from The Onion by clicking here. Here is just one more excerpt from someone offended by the event:

‘I believe there’s a lot of inequality that has to do with genitals—that’s not something you can separate from the feminist movement,’ the transwoman added. ‘But I feel like I’ve tried to get involved in feminism and there’s always been a blockade there for trans women.’

On the topic of “misguided” “genital-based womanhood” that was espoused by the women’s march, let us quickly move to our paraphilia of the day: Autoandrophilia. First you need to know that for the sake of time I will occasionally include similar paraphilias — in this case, the connecting theme is the need for a terrific imagination. For the sake of space, I’m going to post the abbreviated definitions — you can follow the individual links to learn more. Since I have no idea what the proper listing order should be, let’s just go with, uh, ladies first:

Autoandrophilia: A biological female imagining herself as a male

Autogynephilia: A biological man imagining himself as a female

Autonepiophilia: The image of one’s self in the form of an infant.

Autopedophilia: The image of one’s self in the form of a child.

Autozoophilia: The image of one’s self in the form of an animal or anthropomorphized animal.

I hope our readers won’t mind the abbreviated label “auto*philia” representing all of the above.

Let’s close with a question: Will wannabe auto*philia-loving journalists form professional journalism associations (such as this one) to monitor and exploit the Fourth Estate in the service of breaking down barriers and normalizing auto*philia?

Here’s another question: if America is to be truly free, shouldn’t all sexcentric-identified individuals be treated equally under the law?

Lastly, here is related short interview by Fox News’ Tucker Carlson — here’s the headline and lead-in:

Obama’s transgender bathroom mandate and strange bedfellows

One Christian organization and a radical feminist group are the most unlikely tag team partners in a challenge to former president’s transgender bathroom order.

Image credit: www.webneel.com.

Articles in this series, from oldest to newest:

Identity Politics and Paraphilias: Introducing a Series

Identity Politics and Paraphilias: Incest

Identity Politics and Paraphilias: Body Integrity Identity Disorder

Identity Politics and Paraphilias: Impact & Transgenders

Transgenderism a Choice or Disorder?

Why the Term “Sexual Orientation” is Nonsense

Identity Politics and Paraphilias: Man’s Search for Meaning

Subscribe to the IFI YouTube channel
and never miss a video report or special program!