Here’s some news you might have missed.

On April 7, 2022, Florida preschool teacher, 28-year-old Lois Schwartz, boasted about teaching her students that she is neither a boy nor a girl and that she’s a polyamorous, pagan witch.

This polyamorous genderfluid witch is a preschool teacher in Florida. She’s so proud of herself that she discusses her gender and sexuality with 4 year olds pic.twitter.com/XOuuX6by4w

— Libs of Tik Tok (@libsoftiktok) April 7, 2022

“Eli” Dinh, formerly Molly, a kindergarten teacher at the private Hillbrook School in California, uses a pronoun game to inculcate five-year-olds with her arguable, self-serving gender theories. On Instagram she goes by @okayenby, with “enby,” standing for nonbinary. She expects others to refer to her by the third-person plural pronouns “they” and “them.” Dinh is a woman who gave birth and breastfed two children before she decided that her authentic identity was male. Then she started doping testosterone, hired a quack surgeon to lop off her breasts, and changed her name from Molly to Eli. Dinh’s favorite curricular components are, not surprisingly, social and emotional learning and anti-bias education—for kindergartners. Private schools may teach whatever destructive nonsense they want, but Dinh is the cold, sharp tip of a colossal iceberg that is plowing through government schools as well.

Brooke Charter School first-grade teacher “Ray Skyer,” a bearded woman who pretends to be a man, told K-2 students this hogwash during a zoom class:

Something that’s really cool and unique about me is that I’m transgender. We touched on that earlier this week in the book that Ms. Hammond read, but I’m going to give you my explanation about what it means to be transgender.

So, when babies are born, the doctor looks and makes a guess on whether the baby is a boy or girl based on what that baby looks like. Most of the time, that guess is 100 percent correct. … But sometimes the doctor is wrong. The doctor makes an incorrect guess. When the doctor makes a correct guess, that’s when a person is called cisgender. When a doctor’s guess is wrong, that’s when they are transgender.

So, I’m a man, but when I was baby, the doctors told my parents that I was a girl. … Until I was 18 years old, everyone thought I was a girl. This was super, super uncomfortable for me because I knew that wasn’t right. … So, when I was 18, I told my family and friends that I’m really a boy, and it was like this huge weight had been lifted off of my shoulders, and I had the freedom to be who I truly am.

.@BrookeSchool 1st grade teacher records an “identity share” zoom call with K-2 grades where he spoke about being trans.

“When babies are born the dr looks & makes a guess on whether the baby is a boy or girl. Sometimes the dr is wrong. If they are right, the baby is cisgender” pic.twitter.com/qYGFm9B7rF

— Libs of Tik Tok (@libsoftiktok) April 10, 2022

This short video teaches parents everything they need to know about morally and intellectually unmoored activists who self-identify as teachers working in schools. First, they propagandize in many ways, including through literature, direct instruction, and demagoguery.

Second, they propagate highly controversial beliefs without telling young students that the “explanations” are controversial, disputed, faith-based, and devoid of scientific support. Doctors don’t “guess” whether babies are boys or girls. They identify the sex of babies. Skyer was correctly identified as the girl she is and ever more will be. Her mother’s obstetrician did not guess, and he or she was not wrong. At 18, Skyer decided to start masquerading as a man.

Skyer did not merely explain. She manipulated the emotions of young innocent children who would not want anyone—especially a teacher they know and like—to feel “super, super uncomfortable.” So, in addition to feeding them fantastical fiction in the guise of objective truth, Skyer is trying to make children feel predisposed to sex-masquerades.

Indefensible ideological grooming of children by leftists is not limited to the United States. Australian Member of Parliament Bernie Finn shared an assignment given to 10-year-old boys and girls in a school in the district he represents. Children were instructed to discuss their father’s erections and ejaculations with their fathers. It should go without saying that at no age should a child be asked to discuss with their fathers their erections and ejaculations. But we are forced to say such things now because purportedly “civilized” societies no longer experience righteous anger at evil being promoted as good to children in school. How long before “civilized” societies no longer find father-daughter personal orgasm discussions objectionable?

Conservative Americans seem—to borrow a British term—gobsmacked by the trans-volution sweeping our formerly rational society. I am gobsmacked by their astonishment. The trans-volution has been slowly emerging like a parasitic guinea worm from the homo-volution which was birthed by the Boomer’s sexual revolution. I first warned about the emerging trans-volution in late 2008 when I wrote about “bisexual” Anglican priest Laurel Dykstra who has twins via a sperm donor. Dyskstra wrote an article in 2005 on how to make preschools “trans-friendly.” Here were her explanations and recommendations:

• She said that the “gender binary system. … is harmful to everyone.”

• She moralized that “It is not enough for classrooms, teachers, and schools to be ‘open’ or ‘non-judgmental’; they need to be actively trans-positive.”

• Dykstra recommended that when talking to preschoolers, teachers should say things like “‘Well, most men have penises, but some don’t,’” and “‘Some girls grow up to be men.’”

• She urged teachers to “Encourage kids to question their assumptions. ‘How do you know that that person is a woman? Could a man wear a dress?’”

• She instructed teachers to “Call children by the name and the pronouns they choose.”

• She recommended accessorizing classrooms with a “Tranny Teddy. Have a non-gendered toy/doll/puppet…. Do not use pronouns and give this creature a variety of gendered clothing, such as a skirt and tie. If asked, say ‘Oh, Binker isn’t a boy or a girl.’”

• She suggested having a “Butch/Femme Day. Why not teach kids language like butch/femme, as an alternative to boy/girl or male/female? You could have dress-up days to play deliberately with gender, like ‘Fabulous and Fearless Day’ or ‘Capable and Campy.’”

• She encouraged teachers to “Invite a drag performer or transsexual person who would be willing to share their story and a photo album.”

• When reading picture books to preschoolers, Dykstra recommended “switching pronouns, avoiding them altogether, or using alternative pronouns.”

• Dykstra rationalized using deceit in the face of parental opposition: “For ‘stealth practitioners’ (i.e., teachers in a transphobic setting), these classroom suggestions can be implemented without fanfare to create a more just and welcoming classroom.”

Dykstra offered these suggestions 17 years ago, and I issued warnings 14 years ago. Increasing numbers of warnings have been issued across the nation by men and women who have been paying attention. The ignorance and sloth of conservatives—including church leaders—in addressing the evil in the midst of our schools is inexcusable.

If Americans had been paying attention to warnings about the perverse shape of things to come, maybe the disaster we see unfolding in schools could have been stopped, thereby preventing the incalculable damage being done to children. But confronting socially acceptable evil requires not just awareness but courage, perseverance, and a willingness to suffer for the neighbors we love.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/Ideologically-Grooming-Kids-in-Schools.mp3

Here is Jonathan Haidt delivering the 2017 Wriston Lecture to the Manhattan Institute, Nov. 15 (the emphasis is my own):

Today’s identity politics . . . teaches the exact opposite of what we think a liberal arts education should be. When I was at Yale in the 1980s, I was given so many tools for understanding the world. By the time I graduated, I could think about things as a utilitarian or as a Kantian, as a Freudian or a behaviorist, as a computer scientist or as a humanist. I was given many lenses to apply to any given question or problem.

But what do we do now? Many students are given just one lens—power. Here’s your lens, kid. Look at everything through this lens. Everything is about power. Every situation is analyzed in terms of the bad people acting to preserve their power and privilege over the good people. This is not an education. This is induction into a cult. It’s a fundamentalist religion. It’s a paranoid worldview that separates people from each other and sends them down the road to alienation, anxiety and intellectual impotence.

He continues — and this is an interesting way to frame a state of mind:

I am actually pessimistic about America’s future, but let me state very clearly that I have very low confidence in my pessimism. Because until now, it has always been wrong to bet against America, and it’s probably wrong to do so now. My libertarian friends constantly remind me that people are resourceful—this is what many people forget. When problems get more severe, people get more inventive, and that is actually happening right now.

Haidt is not alone in his concern about the future. On November 28, 2017, Trey Sanchez writing at Truth Revolt had this to say:

‘LGBT’ Gets Like a Thousand More Letters to Represent All Possible Combos (So Far)

And to think, this is not even peak ridiculousness!

A flyer from an “inclusiveness training” seminar earlier this year in Canada has gone viral because “LGBT” has gotten an upgrade of 12 extra letters.

So far, we’ve had to navigate slight variations such as GLBT, or LGBTQ. But with all of the intersectionalities, gender identities, and sexual preferences leftists have dreamed up, the new acronym looks more like a randomly generated password, an auto-correct gone wrong, or the old secret codes to warp levels on the original Nintendo Entertainment System. Now they want us to type “LGGBDTTTIQQAAPP.”

Here’s what that stands for:

Lesbian, Gay, Genderqueer, Bisexual, Demisexual, Transgender, Transsexual, Twospirit, Intersex, Queer, Questioning, Asexual, Allies, Pansexual, Polyamorous

Have fun looking up what some of those mean.

Leftists are making it so easy for conservatives to make their case – too bad too many conservative leaders are failing to do so.

Here is a clip from my “Welcome to America 2017” file:

Feds Spend $138,000 Asking Four-Year-Olds About Their ‘Internal Sense of Gender Identity’

A grant for a two-year study was awarded to the University of Washington this summer. The project will interview 250 children aged four to six, and their parents, asking a series of questions about “gendered behavior.”

“Prominent theories of gender development have discussed the degree to which gender identity results from an internal sense of gender and socialization processes,” according to the grant. “However, tests of these theories have been limited because, for most children, internal gender identity and environmental socialization substantially overlap, rendering it impossible to distinguish the relative impact of each factor on gender development.”

As noted last time, Laurie Higgins wrote that much of this foolishness is “transforming the country at breakneck speed” because of the “ignorance and cowardice of conservatives.” She is exactly right — conservatives need to educate themselves “resolutely resist” the efforts of Leftists to fundamentally transforming our culture away from common sense and into paganism.

Up next: Paraphilias of the day: Peodeiktophilia and Homeovestism.

Read more:  Series: Identity Politics & Paraphilias

PLEASE consider a financial gift to IFI to sustain our work.
We’ve stood firm for 25 years, work diligently to accomplish our mission to
“boldly bring a biblical perspective to public policy” in Illinois.

One of the email newsletters I receive is from the Witherspoon Institute’s “Public Discourse,” and often link to and/or excerpt articles posted at their website. Recently there has been a number of articles touching on “identity politics.” In this post and in the next I will link to and excerpt from a few of the the articles.

First up is from Professor Anthony Esolen.

Pronouns, Ordinary People, and the War over Reality
Do not dismiss the pronominal wars as nonsense or assume that its warriors are merely daft.

It cannot possibly be to any living thing’s advantage to be confused about male and female. As it is, sex is far more strongly marked upon the human body than it is upon the bodies of dogs or cats or horses or many of the species of birds. A man’s face is not like a woman’s face. … A man’s shoulders do not look like a woman’s shoulders, and a woman’s hips do not look like a man’s hips. Men and women differ down to their very hair, as anyone can perceive who looks at a woman’s smooth chin or a man’s bald pate.

Ordinary and healthy people love that it is so,” Esolen writes. And:

The sexual revolution always has been a war waged against the ordinary family, against the ordinary ways of men and women and children. The moral law as regards sex is meant to protect that family from threats without and within: from the pseudo-marriage that is fornication, from the betrayal of marriage that is adultery, from the rickets and scurvy of impure habits, and from the mockery of the marital act that is sodomy.

And yes, Professor Esolen doesn’t pull his punches.

Our next article is by R.J. Snell — note the subtitle!

Swastikas and Safety Pins: The Grim Heritage of Identity Politics
A war of every group against every other is the sine qua non of identity politics. The peacefulness of classical liberalism is rejected root and branch, for war is the goal.

In it, Snell links to several articles, one of which includes a word I’ve never seen before: “identitarian.”

There is only space here to highlight a couple of things. Note this paragraph:

Without the discipline of party politics, social movements devolve into mere feeling, especially in our age of expressive individualism. People march and feel good and think they have accomplished something. They have a social experience with a lot of people and fool themselves into thinking they are members of a coherent and demanding community. Such movements descend to the language of mass therapy.

And this:

The definition of America is up for grabs. Our fundamental institutions have been exposed as shockingly hollow. But the marches couldn’t escape the language and tropes of identity politics.

I always recommend reading the entire articles I excerpt.

Now to our paraphilia — the poor little mostly-ignored “B” from the identity politics pioneers at “LGBT”:

Bisexuality is romantic attraction, sexual attraction or sexual behavior toward both males and females. The term is mainly used in the context of human attraction to denote romantic or sexual feelings toward both men and women. It may also be defined as encompassing romantic or sexual attraction to people of all gender identities or to a person irrespective of that person’s biological sex or gender, which is sometimes termed pansexuality.

Got it? Are you sure? Want to read that again just to make sure? Are you ready to be quizzed, for example, on the “all gender identities” part?

If you’ve really got it, then let’s get to our closing question: How will society respond to a future well-funded marriage “equality” effort for those in bi-sexual relationships?

Up next: More from Public Discourse.

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

Written by Josh Hetzler

Earlier this month, President Barack Obama issued a Presidential “proclamation” asserting that by his authority, the month of June will be celebrated as “Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Pride Month”.

It’s a curious thing, really, to have a whole month officially devoted to feeling pride for traits which represent “who you are”, as the proclamation puts it. Perhaps by this same logic someone should convince the President to proclaim a month of pride for being white, or male, or heterosexual, or human, or perhaps being left-handed, big-footed, or diabetic. Or how about a month of pride for being a secretary, a doctor, a janitor, or a pilot? All of these seem at least as worthy of feelings of pride for those who identify as such.

And for that matter, this Presidential tribute to certain sexual proclivities seems to raise an obvious question: What about the other 31 gender types that are already being lawfully recognized in places like New York City? Why has the President excluded those? Are there simply not enough months in the year? This sort of passive inequality should outrage us all! Though, to his credit, the president did acknowledge that “There remains much work to do to extend the promise of our country to every American.” So it seems.

Then again, I’m not sure how or why the government ever got into the “pride” business to begin with. By my understanding of the law, it seems that inner feelings of pride and love are reserved to the People rather than the government – and certainly not the federal government. (See: 9th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution)

In the law, there is a procedural tactic known as a motion to dismiss for lack of standing. It’s essentially where one party says to the judge: “Regardless of whether my opponent is right or wrong on the substance of his case, he loses because he doesn’t even have a right to be here.”

Excepting the fact that Obama’s proclamation carries no weight at all, I’d like to make a motion that it be totally dismissed for lack of standing. Without even having to address the complete incoherence of the President’s statements, he loses because he has no right to declare what the American people ought or ought not to be proud of.

Mr. President: Respectfully, if you would spend less time trying to “fundamentally change America” through endless edicts, guidance letters, and proclamations, and more time reading the U.S. Constitution you swore to “preserve, protect, and defend” (especially the 9th and 10th Amendments), I can all but guarantee that you would cause America to develop a greater and more authentic “pride” than any that you would otherwise impose upon us through hollow or lawless means.

Now go give us something to really be proud of.

This article was originally posted at The Family Foundation blog.