If you haven’t been called it yet, surely, you’ve heard it: the ubiquitous epithet “transphobe.” It’s the evil spawn of “homophobe.” I don’t mean those accused of being “transphobes” are evil spawns of “homophobes.” I mean the term “transphobe” is the evil spawn of the spurious term “homophobe.”

In a recent opinion piece in the New York Times, British writer “Juliet” Jacques, a 38-year-old man who pretends to be a woman, claims “Transphobia … is a respectable bigotry in Britain, shared by parts of the left as well as the right.”

Jacques claims that there are two virulent strains of “transphobia”: One strain “rejects … the idea that gender might not be determined only by biological traits identifiable at birth,” and the other strain, “argues that trans women’s [i.e., biological men’s] requests for gender recognition are incompatible with cis women’s [i.e., normal women’s] rights to single-sex spaces.” Jacques claims that both strains “rely on the conceit that trans and nonbinary people should not determine their own gender identities.”

Translated from “trans”-tortured Newspeak into plain English, Jacques is describing two groups of people still tethered to reality. The first group rejects the idea that biological sex is subordinate to subjective feelings about sex in importance and in how it’s treated in society. The second group believes women have a right to private spaces free from the presence of biological men.

For those not fluent in Newspeak, “gender identity” refers to the subjective internal (or is it infernal?) feelings of reality-untethered people about their maleness, femaleness, both, or neither. Jacques errs when claiming that both reality-tethered groups believe “trans” and “nonbinary” people should not determine their own “gender identities.”

Generally speaking, reality-tethered, biocentric people have no opposition to the reality-untethered determining their own “gender identities.” The problem is the reality-untethered are demanding that society treat their subjective feelings as if they are more important than biological sex and accommodate their subjective feelings in radical ways that rob the reality-tethered of their right to privacy and free speech.

The reality-untethered are demanding that in shared spaces, their subjective feelings about maleness and femaleness supersede biological sex. Those who believe that spaces like locker rooms and activities like sports should correspond to biological sex are being denied their right to determine their sex identities. And the reality-untethered bio-rejectors are demanding that others use language that denies biological reality. They’re demanding that others use language that affirms an imaginary worldview. They’re demanding that their “hurt feelings” determine how others must speak. While they demand that I respect their “reality,” they ignore that my reality includes not just me but everything in the world.

To advance a reality-untethered social and political universe requires the silencing of rational and moral arguments, and that, in turn, requires cultural oppression, known colloquially as bullying.

“Transphobe” is the term of bullying art used to shame and silence anyone who believes biological sex has meaning and that it is more important than subjective, internal feelings about one’s maleness, femaleness, both, or neither.

• A “transphobe” is anyone who feels it is a good thing for humans to identify as the biological sex they are and ever will be.
• A “transphobe” is anyone who believes that females are entitled to be free of the presence of biological males to whom they are unrelated by blood or marriage in places where they undress, shower, sleep, and engage in bodily functions. A “transphobe” is anyone who believes men are similarly entitled to be free of the presence of unrelated biological women in those same kinds of places.
• A “transphobe” is anyone who doesn’t want to have a romantic or erotic relationship with a person or persons of the same sex who pretend to be the other sex.
• A “transphobe” is anyone who believes cross-dressing is wrong.
• A “transphobe” is anyone who believes harm is done to children when they are allowed to cross-dress, adopt opposite-sex names, and be referred to by opposite-sex pronouns.
• A “transphobe” is anyone who believes the medical profession should not prescribe cross-sex hormones to anatomically and biochemically healthy persons to treat their disordered feelings.
• A “transphobe” is anyone who believes the medical profession should not lop off the healthy body parts of teens or adults as a way to treat disordered and often fluid feelings about their maleness or femaleness.
• A “transphobe” is anyone who believes that cross-dressing men should not be reading stories to or twerking in front of toddlers in public libraries.

The chief tactic of sexual anarchists to crush their ideological opponents is to attach the word (or forms of the word) “phobe” to any moral claim they, in their ignorance, detest. They detest the moral claims that homoerotic acts are immoral; degrade those engaged in them; and harm children, families, and society. So, anyone who makes these claims is called a “homophobe.”  Even if these claims are expressed out of love for individuals, children, families and society,  the “LGB” community calls those who express them “homophobes,” haters, and bigots because bullying works.

“Trans” cultists detest the claims that biological sex is profoundly meaningful; that private space-usage should correspond to biological sex; and that cross-dressing, cross-sex hormone-doping, and elective amputations of healthy body parts to treat immaterial feelings is harmful, so anyone who expresses these claims is called a “transphobe,” because bullying works.

While “LGB” and “T” activists and their collaborators claim to worship at the altar of inclusion, tolerance, and non-judgmentalism, and claim to loathe all shaming, marginalization, and taboos, they don’t.

They seek to shame, marginalize, and exclude anyone who doesn’t affirm their sexuality dogma.  They judge theologically orthodox Christians as sinners for rejecting sexual insanity. And they justify their judgmentalism by asserting that they have no obligation to “tolerate intolerance.”

What taboos will cultural regressives next seek to shame and eradicate? Polyamory/Sexual non-monogamy? Consensual adult incest “Genetic Sexual Attraction”? Pederasty and pedophilia “Minor Attraction”/intergenerational love? Bestiality Zoophilia?

Soon all those ignorant, hateful, exclusionary bigots who don’t understand that “love is love” will be called polyphobes, kinphobes, pedophobes, and zoophobes. “Shaming” polys, kin-lovers, child-lovers, teen-lovers, and animal-lovers will be deemed analogous to racism.

Next to arrive on the already defiled cultural scene will be activists for other even fringier paraphilias. Those who identify as sadists, masochists, infantilists, and voyeurs will claim that to live authentically requires no one disapprove of their peculiar habits. Normal people who yet have a moral compass and spine will be called sadi-phobes, maso-phobes, infanti-phobes, and voyeur-phobes.

(A word about voyeurs: If no offense has been committed by men who through cross-dressing, hormone-doping, and surgery are able to conceal their sex from women in women’s locker rooms, then surely no harm is committed by men who through technology are able to conceal their presence from and peep on women in women’s locker rooms. If deceiving women about the presence of men is hunky dory in the case of opposite-sex impersonators, then surely deceiving women about the presence of men is hunky dory in the case of voyeurs.)

Exclusion per se is not intrinsically bad, and inclusion per se is not intrinsically good. Disapproval per se is not intrinsically bad, and approval per se is not intrinsically good. Shame is not intrinsically bad, and shamelessness is not intrinsically good. The goodness or badness of exclusion, inclusion, disapproval, or approval depends on what is being excluded, included, disapproved, or approved.

Likewise, social taboos—renamed “phobias” by “progressives” and pagans when they enjoy the taboo acts—are not intrinsically bad. Every society has and needs taboos. Taboos are nothing more than volitional acts that society deems wrong and harmful. Neither “progressives” nor pagans seek to eradicate taboos, shame, exclusion, or marginalization. Rather, they seek to impose and enforce their views on who should be excluded or marginalized, and what should be deemed taboo and stigmatized.

No society will or should eradicate all taboos, stigmas, shame, or marginalization. Therefore, the questions every civilized or primitive society has to answer are, 1. On what basis will some members of society be marginalized, 2. What will marginalization look like, and 3. What volitional acts will be taboo and stigmatized.

The “trans” cult is a solipsistic cult in which the self determines—or imagines—the world, and nothing outside of or in conflict with this self-imagined world matters. This self-determined, imaginary world is also an anti-Christian world in which evil is deemed good and good evil. In this world, expressing biblical truth about sexuality is taboo, and theologically orthodox Christians will increasingly and brazenly be shamed and pushed to the margins of society where they will be denied their right to speak freely, assemble freely, and exercise freely their religion.

Don’t surrender to the morality-phobic monster that prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/The-LGB-and-T-Mobs-Unleash-the-Morality-Phobic-Monster_audio.mp3

A bold voice for pro-family values in Illinois! 

Click HERE to learn about supporting IFI on a monthly basis.

It is worth restating my premise for these articles: The letters “LGBT” don’t really end with the letter “T,” and all the letters that follow deserve an equal footing with the first four. Thus, expect increasing irrationality and craziness from the radical political leftists in the months and years ahead.

Many fiscal conservatives consider themselves “enlightened” and thus look down on anyone concerned about those pesky and backward “social issues.” They can consider this another wake up call. The breakdown of the family and an increasingly divided society resulting from identity politics means your efforts to restore limited government (even a little bit) are doomed to fail.

You can’t tear up the social fabric and expect a lean government. You can’t have one kind of society and another kind of government. Here’s more bad news: you cannot separate the economic issues from the social issues.

Last November Daniel Payne posted a piece at The Federalist titled, “Why Liberals’ Coming Fight Over Identity Politics Will Be Ugly.” Here was the introductory sentence: “The more practical wing of the Democratic Party and the more manic, single-minded constituency largely comprised of young liberals are in for a giant fight.”

Payne writes:

The tried-and-true formula of liberal success served reasonably well throughout the young twenty-first century and quite well throughout much of the second half of the twentieth. Yet this boiling stew of identity politics centering on race, sex, and sexual orientation failed the Democrats at precisely the moment it should have been their Excalibur.

“There is good reason for the Left to consider an alternative way to do politics,” Payne writes, and suggests that the Leftists discard “identity politics for something better.”

And what might that be? A package of policy proposals guaranteed to work? Like $20 trillion in federal debt? A war on poverty that hasn’t worked? Obamacare and other entitlement programs that are not structured properly? A K-12 and higher education system that is both inefficient and ineffective?

Payne defines identity politics just as I do in this series:

This will be a problem for Democrats looking to soften the party’s approach to identity issues. On questions of “identity,” or what is often broadly termed “social issues,” younger voters are far more liberal than their older counterparts.

Payne continues:

Consider, for instance, the millennial position on LGBT rights. Data suggest that overwhelming majorities of young voters favor “LGBT nondiscrimination protections,” while nearly three-quarters of Millennials favor re-defining marriage to include same-sex couples. Half of the same demographic believes “gender isn’t limited to male and female.”

Yep. The same kids that think Bernie Sanders was onto something are also confused about biology. That’s fixable. It calls for conservatives of all stripes to start fighting and winning the information war. Learning is a lifetime activity and the Millennial generation will require more continuing education than most.

You can read the rest of Daniel Payne’s article here. He touches on other areas of Leftist and Millennial generation ignorance.

Now to our paraphilia of the day: Bestiality/Zoophilia. Sorry, but it is a paraphilia. Are the Millennials ready to embrace this or are they backward bigots? Here’s Wikipedia‘s opening note:

For other uses, see Zoophilia (disambiguation).

“Bestiality” redirects here. For other uses, see Bestiality (disambiguation).

Not to be confused with Zoophily.

Certainly none of us want to confuse it with Zoophily.

Zoophilia is a paraphilia involving a sexual fixation on non-human animals. Bestiality is cross-species sexual activity between human and non-human animals. The terms are often used interchangeably, but some researchers make a distinction between the attraction (zoophilia) and the act (bestiality).

Although sex with animals is not outlawed in some countries, in most countries, bestiality is illegal under animal abuse laws or laws dealing with crimes against nature.

One reader brought a 2012 article to my attention written by Antonio M. Haynes, a Cornell University law student: “’Dog on Man’: Are Bestiality Laws Justifiable?” Just to be clear, I only read the first four pages so I have no idea what his argument is. It wasn’t easy getting that far — call it intolerance on my part if you’d like.

The following passage is from the book, Strained Relations: The Challenge of Homosexuality by Bill Muehlenberg:

The Gay Report, a book much praised in homosexual communities, contains testimonials without adverse comment of homosexual encounters with Labrador retrievers, cows and horses. The 1992 report mentioned above found that 15 per cent of male homosexuals and 19 per cent of male bisexuals had sex with animals, compared with three per cent of male heterosexuals. As lesbian activist Sara Cohen puts it: “What’s wrong with a little bestiality?”

Enough said.

To our basic and important question of the day: Should a person who is morally opposed to Bestiality/Zoophilia behavior be allowed to have a show on HGTV?

Up next: Normalizing Deviance & Sadomasochism.

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

Identity Politics and Paraphilias: LGBT Is Not a Color & Fetishism

Identity Politics and Paraphilias: ‘Public Discourse’ Weighs In & Bisexuality

Identity Politics and Paraphilias: More from ‘Public Discourse’ & Autassassinophilia

Please Support Neighborhood Pro-Family IFI

Your support of our work and ministry is always much needed and greatly appreciated. Your promotion of our emails on Facebook, Twitter, your own email network, and prayer for financial support is a huge part of our success in being a strong voice for the pro-life, pro-marriage and pro-family message here in the Land of Lincoln.

Please consider making a donation to help us stand strong!

Last time I introduced the new and impressively researched book from MassResistance, which runs about 500 pages and adds another 100 pages of footnotes. These days when the meaning of the word “gay” has been radically changed by leftwing radicals, this book puts the lie to the idea that the word, as used, is a synonym of “happy.”

Social conservatives should buy a copy of this book so they can have the facts about “What the Medical and Psychological Research Reveals.”

In Tammy Bruce’s 2003 book The Death of Right and Wrong, Bruce, a self-described lesbian conservative, describes many of her fellow LGBTers with harsh language:

For people whose entire identity and reason to live is based in their sexuality, what do they need to do in order to fit comfortably into our society? They must work to sexualize every part of society…

From where does this madness spring? Why this compulsion to change our society’s culture to mirror the Left Elite’s own worldview? This pattern of the Left Elite’s projecting their issues onto society isn’t as odd as you may think.

It makes perfect sense, according to the most respected psychoanalysts of our age. Childhood trauma, stress disorders, and the resulting malignant narcissism all play a part in the Left’s victim mentality and in their effort, mostly subconscious, to shape our world to mirror their own damaged psyches.

In chapter 3 of the book, MassResistance surveys the mental health data and provides footnotes for the reader to learn more. “There is widespread agreement among researchers,” the chapter begins, “that the GLB population shows significantly higher incidence of mental health problems than heterosexuals.”

Here is the sad list: “anxiety, depression, suicidal thinking and attempts, substance abuse, eating disorders, promiscuity, sex addiction, risk taking, and unstable relationships. If that isn’t bad enough, chapter 4 focuses on GLB “partner abuse.”

Those who read The Health Hazards of Homosexuality, may, like me, be surprised at the long list of physical ailments that are common in the GLB community — and yes, that includes lesbians. While the list is longer for men, bisexual men play the role of helping spread many of the diseases to women.

This is not an exhaustive list: HIV/AIDS, HPV, condyloma, genital warts, anal warts, anal cancer, Kaposi’s sarcoma, genital herpes, molluscum, viral hepatitus, hepatitus A, hepatitus B, hepatitus C, chlamydia and LGV, gonorrhea, and syphilis. Okay, that’s enough. There are many more, but you get the picture.

There were many other things I had been unaware of beforehand. Here are just a few of them:

“Bathhouses are accepted as ‘mainstream’ by homosexual organizations.” There is actually something called the North American Bathhouse Association. For some reason I was under the impression that their “disproportionate impact on the spread of disease” had led health organizations to shut them down.

If you were to read closely the pages about “fisting,” you could probably be counted as an expert on the topic. That was one of the sections I just paged-through. Thanks, but no thanks. But again, it’s important information, albeit completely awful to be made aware of.

If you’re still reading this article, I applaud your stamina. The good news is that we’re almost done. Just one more thing. From chapter 8:

Homosexuals would deny that any in their community engage in bestiality (intercourse with animals). If that is so, why is there a section discussing it at the pro-homosexual AIDS advice site, The Body? Why are bestiality videos sold at the International Mr. Leather event?

I’ll spare you the titles of the videos given as examples.

In this information age, it is astounding how much information remains mostly, and purposefully hidden. The politicized health organizations are as much to blame as the Leftist media and others advancing the LGBT agenda. This book can go a long way to helping solve this information problem — but only if social conservatives buy it and help spread the word.

People are “suffering unnecessarily,” as MassResistance’s executive director Brian Camenker writes in the Forward. The Introduction of the book states it clearly:

The mainstreaming of homosexuality is a serious threat to the public health and to the health of individuals caught up in the homosexual lifestyle.

The American public is not being told how dangerous homosexuality is to the physical and mental health of its practitioners, as well as to our larger society.

Click here to learn more about the book and to buy a copy.

For up-to-the minute news, action alerts, coming events and more you can now sign up for IFI Text Alerts!

Stay in the loop by texting “IFI” to 555888 or click HERE to enroll right away.

Click HERE to donate to IFI