Yesterday the Facebook Overlords threw me in the Zuckerland Gulag for 30 days for violating their speech codes by posting this in the comments section of a friend’s Facebook page:

… some tr*nnies are able to create very convincing skin costumes (think “Buck Angel”), and it will be much easier for the next generation of tr*nnies who aren’t permitted to go through puberty to do so. But right now most men aren’t able to pass as women.

My comment was in response to a post about men who deceive others by masquerading as women.

My choice of the terms “tr*nnies” and “skin costumes” was intentional, but the reason for those choices was not to insult. My choices are motivated by a refusal to capitulate to the language rules of the “trans” cult. The left has absorbed the lessons of Saul Alinsky who wrote in Rules for Radicals that “He who controls the language controls the masses.” Many conservatives—far too many—are allowing themselves to be controlled.

There is nothing intrinsically insulting about the term “tranny.” In fact, it has a long history of use by “trans”-cultists. Wikipedia explains the history of the term:

Trans activists like Justin Vivian Bond and Kate Bornstein and drag queens such as Ru Paul and Lady Bunny, have advocated for use of the term. Bond said in 2014 that banning the word does not eliminate transphobia but rather “steal[s] a joyous and hard-won identity from those of us who are and have been perfectly comfortable, if not delighted to be trannies.” At the same time, RuPaul said “I love the word tranny”, and that the word was not being redefined by the transgender community, but only by “fringe people who are looking for story lines to strengthen their identity as victims.” Bornstein said the word was used in the 1960s and 1970s in Sydney, Australia by trans people as “a name for the identity they shared.” … Cristin Williams reviewed historic uses of the term and found the first published instance in 1983, originating among gay men, and expressed doubt that it originated many years prior to this. … In 2017, Facebook’s anti-hate speech algorithms started blocking posts containing tranny.

In order to both enhance their victim status and to erase from the public square any expressions of moral disapproval of cross-sex impersonation, the “trans” cult and its collaborators are attempting to control the language.

They seek to control our language in order to control culture by making it impossible to express ideas they detest. They seek both to ban words and to determine how terms are used. In Transtopia, pronouns no longer correspond to biological sex but to subjective feelings about one’s biological sex. Rather than referring to normal men and women as “men” and “women,” we’re expected to refer to them as “cismen” and “ciswomen.” Women are referred to as “bodies with vaginas” or “persons who menstruate.” And all that leftists need do to win compliance is whine that their feelings are hurt by language they hate, and abracadabra conservatives comply.

The term “transwoman” refers to a man who pretends to be a woman. Since the “trans” cult says “transwomen” are women, how long before they demand that people drop the “trans” from “transwomen”? If they claim their feelings are hurt by the term “transwoman,” if they claim “transwoman” is hateful and discriminatory, will conservatives comply with their Orwellian diktats? Will conservatives refer to cross-dressing men as “women”?

My guess is yes, and the end goal of eradicating all public recognition of sex differences will be that much closer.

It should be noted that Christians view “transphobia” and “homophobia” as insulting, bigoted, ignorant, intolerant pejoratives that make them feel uncomfortable. Does that matter to leftist sexual anarchists? Rhetorical question.

I use the term “skin costume” to accurately describe how chemically and surgically constructed bodily changes function. These so-called “treatments” are designed to conceal the sex of “trans”-cultists, making is easier for them to deceive others, including in private spaces. “Trans”-cultists are, in effect, creating skin costumes.

As we learned from the recent controversy involving Benet Academy, a prestigious Catholic-in-name-only private high school, the disciples of the ongoing sexual revolution not only want to make it impossible for conservative Americans to express their moral views of sexuality but they also want to make it impossible for Christians to train up their children in the way they should go.

Benet Academy rescinded a coaching offer to a woman when they found out she was a lesbian in a faux-marriage—a relationship that obviously violates both Catholic doctrine and Scripture—and then the school crumbled like a stale cookie when apostates and heretics squeezed them.

And public schools, where Christians continue to send their children to be “educated,” now introduce wicked leftist ideas about homosexuality and cross-sex impersonation starting in kindergarten. All dissenting ideas are banned because the left has successfully convinced Americans that such ideas make some students feel “unsafe.” Of course, whether they are unsafe or not depends on which moral claims are true.

One cannot rationally argue that moral opposition to homosexual acts and cross-sex impersonation is hateful or destructive unless it can be proven that God does not exist, that his will for humans and plan for history are not revealed in Scripture, or that Scripture is false. And those conclusions fall far outside the purview of public school teachers and politicians.

If God exists and if his perfect will for humans and plan for history are revealed in Scripture, then it is support for the “LGBTQ+” ideology that is destructive. Affirmation and dissemination of the false, socially constructed and imposed “LGBTQ+” ideology will result in not only temporal suffering but also in unimaginable, eternal suffering.

What the “LGBTQ+” community is trying to do with laws that require government schools to teach positively about disordered sexuality, with censorship of dissenting ideas, and with Orwellian language rules is to prevent Christian parents from training up their children in the way they should go. Expect to see increasing assaults on Christian private schools via laws and lawsuits. Next the “LGBTQ+” community will come after the accreditation of Christian colleges—both Catholic and Protestant. And then homeschooling will be in its sights.

Do not capitulate on even seemingly trivial issues. Don’t submit to the manipulative efforts of the “LGBTQ+” community and their collaborators to shame you into using their deceitful language. And don’t send your child to any institution that employs adults who hate or are ashamed of the gospel.  What the left wants is for your children to lose their religion.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/Losing-Our-Religion.mp3

---

Benet Academy, a prestigious and expensive private high school that identifies as Catholic, has just capitulated to the cacophonous voices of apostates and heretics in its midst.

The drama began several days ago when the school located in the affluent Chicago suburb of Lisle, Illinois rescinded an offer to Amanda Kammes to be the head coach of the girls’ lacrosse team. They rescinded the offer after learning that Kammes, who is a 2001 graduate of Benet, is legally married to a woman, which means she flouts the beliefs of the Catholic Church.

Following a protest and petition signed by over 3,000 woke Benet “parents, students, alumni, and friends” who oppose the Catholic school’s effort to uphold Catholic teaching, the spineless, principle-free board of directors offered lesbian Kammes the job and she accepted. With Catholic friends like that, Benet doesn’t need atheist enemies.

True Catholics should pull their kids out of school immediately. Anyone who affirms beliefs that the Catholic Church views as false and disordered and anyone who engages in and affirms acts that God abhors should not be a staff member in a Catholic school. Same goes for Protestant private schools. Adults who affirm homoerotic acts or who believe that the union of two people of the same sex can be a marriage cannot train up children in the way they should go. At Benet, tuition and fees per student are about $14,000 per year. Parents are paying $14,000 per year per student to send their children to a Catholic school that has no respect for Catholic doctrine.

What are Christians today willing to sacrifice for Christ and his kingdom? Will they sacrifice sports or arts opportunities for their kids by sending them to Christian schools that adhere to Scripture but don’t have the means to offer those opportunities? Will they sacrifice the prestige of having “Benet” on their child’s college application? Will they sacrifice anything?

Assistant coach Colleen Savell was “horrified” when she learned that Benet had rescinded the offer to Kammes in order to uphold Catholic beliefs. Savell had been looking forward to a winning season under the leadership of Kammes, who just left her position at another Catholic high school–Montini Catholic High School in Lombard, Illinois–after less than a year.

Nothing more aptly demonstrates the priorities of the current Benet leadership than subordinating the clear teaching of the Bible and the Catholic Church to success on the lacrosse field.

At least as offensive and ignorant was this statement by Savell about the appearance of a rainbow during the protest:

If that’s not a sign, I don’t know what is.

God’s sign that he would not again destroy all mankind for our wickedness is a sign to Savell that a Catholic school should affirm wickedness. Savell should be given the boot along with Kammes.

Homosexual Benet alumnus Tim Jacklich, who announced his homosexual identity during his senior year at Benet five years ago and has been an active participant in the protest against Benet’s fleeting attempt to uphold Catholic orthodoxy, said this about his late grandmother Sheila Jacklich who worked as a teacher and dean at Benet for thirty years:

A number of Benet administrators have a phrase they use to guide them, where they ask, “what would Sheila do?” And we have an answer for them. She would not do this.

Jacklich doesn’t even pretend that the word of God matters.

Jacklich also said,

One of our chief concerns is for the LGBT students who currently study at Benet, who, through this action by their administration, get the message that they are not valuable and not respected by their school.

Jacklich wrongly presumes that valuing and respecting humans as humans requires Christians to value, respect, and affirm all that fallen humans believe, desire, do, and identify as. Such a presumption has no basis in Catholic doctrine or Scripture. God loves us despite hating much of what we fallen humans desire, think, and do.

All humans sin and, inconveniently for Jacklich, Kammes, Savell and all their fellow non-Catholics, Jesus calls all who want to follow him to repent. To be clear, there is a distinction between sinning and affirming sin as non-sin. Kammes and Jacklich affirm that homoerotic acts are not sinful, and, therefore, they are not Catholic.

Jacklich responded to the school’s initial statement explaining why Kammes’ job offer was initially rescinded:

The institution released a statement that they aim to employ people who reflect their Catholic values. We were shocked that love and acceptance and inclusion were not some of those values.

Jacklich was shocked, shocked to find there was Catholicism going on there at Benet.

Inclusivity is not some sort of absolute virtue. Whether a person should be welcomed into a community or not depends on the nature of the community and the nature of the beliefs and volitional acts affirmed by the person seeking inclusion in a community.

And biblical love does not entail affirmation of sin. Quite the contrary. Biblical love requires first knowing what is true, and that is revealed in God’s word—not on the Human Rights Campaign’s website.

St. Paul writes to the church in Corinth about the sin being tolerated in the church at that time:

But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler—not even to eat with such a one. (1 Cor. 5:11)

Doesn’t sound very inclusive, accepting, or loving by man’s contemporary standards, now does it?

Radio host Dan Proft shared on his Facebook page this excerpt from an exceptional letter written by a Benet parent to its board of directors:

The crisis surrounding Benet’s decision not to hire Amanda Kammes as the school’s girls’ lacrosse coach is an existential one for Benet Academy. There is no pain-free way through this crisis. If the school stands firm by its decision, there will be parents who will not send their children to Benet and donors who will not give to the school. And if Benet reverses itself there will be parents who do not send their children to Benet and donors who will not give to the school. There are costs either way.

But the crisis is more than financial. It is an existential crisis concerning Benet’s identity as a Catholic and Benedictine institution. If Benet caves into the demands of those seeking to hire Ms. Kammes, Benet will have lost its Catholic identity. It will no longer be able to claim that it is authentically Catholic, that it seeks to share the truth of the faith and the joy of the Gospel in everything it does. A person who publicly lives outside the moral teaching of the Church on matters of human sexuality and marriage cannot model for students the truth and virtues that Benet seeks to instill in its students.

Moreover, if it hires Ms. Kammes there will be no limiting principle to this going forward. The school will have no basis for refusing to hire anyone in the future who dissents from the Church on grave matters of moral teaching. There will be no principled way it can refuse to hire a qualified teacher or coach who works weekends as a clinic escort for women seeking abortions at Planned Parenthood.

In addition, in the near future, Benet will hear calls for the school to instruct its students in ways of thinking about profound moral questions involving sexuality and other matters that contradict what the Church holds and has always held to be true. The same arguments now heard—about a lack of compassion, about a failure to respect the consciences of others—will be heard again, only now in demanding curricular changes. And when that happens the example of hiring Ms. Kammes will be put forward as normative— “See, we can make changes and still remain Catholic.” But then the “Catholicism” that Benet portrays will be an empty shell. Benet will still have the decorative ornamentation of Catholicism, but not the substance of the faith.

Benet Academy should probably now revise this part of its mission statement:

The mission of Benet Academy, as a Catholic, Benedictine, college preparatory high school, is to provide a disciplined educational environment that fosters the on-going religious, intellectual and social development of its students.

Benet Academy will have achieved its mission if graduating seniors leave the Academy having nurtured their Catholic faith through religious instruction and opportunities for prayer and reflection [and] having learned to incorporate the principles of Christian morality into all aspects of their daily lives.

Catholic parents should remove their children pronto, and Catholic donors should fund only truly Catholic schools.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/Benet-Academy-Losing-Christian-Identity.mp3

---