I Will Stop Crying Out When the Transanity Stops

One of my colleagues has been combating LGBTQ extremism for several decades, working tirelessly for almost no money, and with constant vilification as his main reward. I asked him one day on the air, “Why don’t you just stop?” He answered, “I’ll stop when they stop.”

That is exactly how I feel.

When I no longer have to read headlines like this, I’ll stop: “‘We’re uncomfortable in our own locker room.’ Lia Thomas’ UPenn [female] teammate tells how the trans swimmer doesn’t always cover up her male genitals when changing and their concerns go ignored by their coach.”

Seriously? His male genitals? What kind of madness is this?

And the fact that a biological male with male plumbing (who, by the way, is attracted to females), shares a locker room with women – where they disrobe and shower – is absolute insanity, not to mention terribly unfair. In fact, it is outright abusive.

As one of the female swimmers said (anonymously), “‘It’s definitely awkward because Lia still has male body parts and is still attracted to women.’

“The swimmer said that multiple teammates have raised their concerns with their coach, trying to get Thomas ousted from the female locker room,” but all to no avail.

How can anyone possibly defend this? And does anyone want their daughter exposed (literally) to something like this? This is madness.

As for Will “Lia” Thomas competing against other girls, even Bruce “Caitlyn” Jenner has weighed in, calling out the unfairness of it and saying, “We must protect women’s sports.”

So, as long as the madness continues, I’ll continue to shout out as well. How can I (or we) do anything less?

And what about headlines like this? How can we stay silent when this is happening on our watch?

“EXCLUSIVE: ‘They created a double life for my daughter’: Parents of girl, 12, who tried to hang herself twice at school after ‘months of secret meetings about her gender identity’ slam district staff who ‘went behind their backs’ and ‘likens it to sex offenders who take advantage of a child and try to keep things in secret’.”

What an outrage.

Yet similar things happen in schools across America every day, as the teachers and administrators and counselors encourage kids in their gender identity and same-sex attractions, to the complete exclusion of the parents.

In the words of the girl’s father, Wendell Perez, “We’re talking about the staff from school this information and developing a plan of several sessions with my daughter, for months, talking about issues that are related and that the parents need to be involved. They basically created a double life for my daughter.”

He added, “If we allow this to happen, we are admitting that the sex offenders – the models operating of the sex offenders – is correct, because that is actually what they do. They take advantage of a child, they try to keep things in secret and make them do things that they are not supposed to do.”

He was hardly exaggerating.

A mother and father in another country with a “progressive” school system were shocked when they met with their daughter’s teachers at school. She was a young teen.

In previous months, for the first time in her life and quite out of the blue, she had begun to identify as a male, wanting to go by a new name. But when the parents probed more deeply, they learned that the school had been encouraging her in this direction.

When they met with her teachers, they were shocked and outraged to learn that the school had planned to announce their daughter’s new male identity and name the very next day – without the parents having the slightest hint this was going on.

How can this be tolerated? And who on earth gave these teachers and administrators and counselors these kinds of rights?

That’s why we must continue to stand up and speak up and act up, not losing our Christian witness in the process (for those of us who are followers of Jesus), but speaking the truth in love.

As for those who struggle with gender identity confusion, I do not refer to their struggle as transanity, as I have stated many times. I have compassion for them in their struggles and cannot imagine the pain and agony they have lived with.

That’s also why I advocate strongly that we do our best to help them from the inside out, finding better solutions than puberty blockers for children and sex-change surgery and then more hormones for life for adults.

But as long as the casualties mount. As long as children’s lives are being destroyed. As long as girls are being exposed to male genitalia in their locker rooms (and sexually assaulted in their bathrooms). As long as female athletes are forced to compete with males.

As long as this is going on, I will keep crying out.

This article was originally published at AskDrBrown.org.

Privacy in Transtopia

Virtual ink has been saturating the Internet on the allegedly discriminatory laws pending or passed in many states that limit girls’ sports to girls or prevent the medical malpractice of mainlining cross-sex hormones into the healthy bodies of children in order to “treat” unhealthy, obsessive thoughts about their sex. Less has been written about legislation that would prohibit schools from forcing boys and girls to share locker rooms and bathrooms with opposite-sex peers.

For example, the Tennessee House and Senate recently passed a commonsense bill that will allow not only students but also staff and faculty to refuse to share multi-occupancy bathrooms and locker rooms as well as sleeping quarters during school-sponsored overnight events with persons of the opposite sex. The bill would also permit students, staff, or faculty to sue schools if they encounter opposite-sex persons in those private contexts. While schools will be required to make reasonable accommodations for students who pretend to be the sex they aren’t, those reasonable accommodations do not include the construction of new facilities. As of this writing, the bill awaits Governor Bill Lee’s signature.

Satan’s henchmen and henchwomyn at the Human Rights Campaign describe this bill and all other bills that oppose “trans”-orthodoxy and “trans”-praxis as “appalling,” “anti-equality,” “Slate of Hate” bills. The henchians don’t explain why it’s not appalling to force girls to undress in front of boys in girls’ locker rooms. Nor do they explain exactly how treating all biological males the same violates the principle of equality or how it constitutes hatred.

To rational people, treating some biological males as if they were biological females is the epitome of inequality. And to compassionate people, forcing girls to undress, go to the bathroom, or tend to menstrual needs in the presence or proximity of male peers is cruel.

Moreover, policies that abolish sex-segregation in private spaces teach all children that biological sex as manifest in sexed bodies has no intrinsic meaning and that to be compassionate and inclusive requires the suppression of all natural and good feelings of modesty. Such arguable ideological indoctrination falls far outside the purview, expertise, and moral rights of partisan educrats whose salaries are paid by all taxpayers.

“Progressives” in thrall to science-denying “trans”-cultism assert that private spaces in which humans undress or tend to intimate bodily functions should no longer correspond to objective, immutable biological sex. They argue that these spaces should correspond to “gender identity”—that is, to disordered feelings about maleness or femaleness. But in Transtopia, maleness and femaleness are untethered to anything objective, including to either of the two biological sexes that comprise the human species. In Transtopia, malenesss and femaleness are disembodied conceits.

How “trans”-cultists know their “gender identities” when maleness and femaleness have nothing to do with biological sex is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma. But solving riddles tightly wrapped in mysteries, buried deep inside enigmas pose no obstacle to the construction of revolutionary laws and policies for delusional people wrapped inside artificially constructed skin costumes and buried inside incoherent dogma.

Cartesian “trans”-cultists overlook a host of enigmas as they seek incrementally to eradicate sex-based segregation. For example, why should private spaces correspond to “gender identity” rather than objective biological sex?

Or, if gender is the aggregate of socially constructed and imposed conventions associated with males or females, how can, for example, toy choices, hair fashions, and sartorial preferences—socially constructed and arbitrary as they are—point to anything “authentic” about one’s identity?

Or, if it’s not bigoted for “trans”-cultists to want to use private spaces with only those whose “gender identity” they share, why is it bigoted for reality-tethered persons to want to use private spaces with only those whose biological sex they share?

Or, how do men like “Caitlyn” Jenner know the “gender identities” of the men in men’s locker rooms or the women in women’s locker rooms? “Trans”-cultists claim that “gender identity” is wholly unrelated to biology, anatomy, clothing, behaviors, or interests, and that it’s impossible to know another person’s “gender identity” unless they declare it publicly, so why their obsession with which private spaces they use?

(“Buck Angel” before)

More than a few “trans”-cultists will point to women like porn star “Buck Angel” (formerly Susan Miller), who now identifies as a “man with a pu**y and looks indistinguishable from buffed up, steroid-doping real men. “Trans”-cultists ask what they view as the “gotcha” question: “So, would women be okay with Buck Angel using their locker room?”

This is, indeed, a thorny problem. No woman will want to share private spaces with Buck Angel wearing her elaborate chemically and surgically constructed flesh costume. Nor should any woman have to share private spaces with her. Conversely, no man should be deceived into undressing or going to the bathroom in front of a woman wearing a chemically and surgically constructed disguise. But this is a problem “trans”-cultists have created, and the consequences are theirs to bear.

If humans have an intrinsic right not to undress in the presence of persons of the opposite sex, then that right is not abrogated by “trans” deception. If Buck Angel had any integrity, she would honor the rights of others by using single-occupancy private spaces.

If, on the other hand, there exists no human right to be free of the presence of strangers and other unrelated persons of the opposite sex when undressing, going to the bathroom (or in the case of women and women only, tending to menstrual needs), then all sex-segregated private spaces should be abolished, which is the end goal of “trans”-cultists.

(“Buck Angel” after)

The “trans” cult is abusing anti-discrimination laws and policies to eradicate public recognition of sexual differentiation and sex-based rights, and people who know better have facilitated this work of the devil through their silence and cowardice.

If “discrimination” based on both sex and “gender identity” is legally prohibited, there remains no legal justification for maintaining any sex-segregated spaces anywhere for anyone. If no organization or facility is allowed to consider either sex or “gender identity” when designating private space usage, there remains no legal way to prevent any Tom, Dick, or Harry—whether they fancy themselves women or men—from accessing heretofore “women’s” spaces.

That, my friends, is Transtopia.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/Privacy-in-Transtopia.mp3

A bold voice for pro-family values in Illinois!

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

Stop Lying to Us!

“Transgender” political conditioning has crept deep into the conservative tent. My hope is that conservatives will not only recognize this noxious trend but also push back against any supposedly “conservative” pundits and politicians who are unwittingly advancing this cultural rot.

A couple of weeks ago, “Caitlyn“ Jenner announced his intention to run for governor in California. Various establishment “news” outlets happily reported this development but, of course, intentionally used the wrong pronouns to identify Mr. Jenner in their stories. When Fox News, the supposedly “conservative” news channel of choice, started to use female pronouns in their broadcasts, I could take it no longer, so I found the online webform for feedback and sent the following message:

Please STOP lying to us about Caitlyn Jenner and his run for governor in California.

We know that he is a biological male, so why are you using deceitful language to affirm his gender dysphoria?

I hope you will respect your conservative audience enough to tell the truth and not capitulate to left-wing ideologues who demand politically correct pronoun use.

I CANNOT watch and listen to reports that repeatedly and intentionally lie to us.

Then on Wednesday, May 5th, Sean Hannity aired an exclusive interview with Jenner, who won an Olympic gold medal in the men’s decathlon in 1976, during which Hannity failed his conservative viewers by repeatedly referring to Jenner by female pronouns.

As the FNC segment opens, Hannity asks, “So just how will Caitlyn Jenner restore that California dream? And can she actually beat the state’s very powerful Democratic machine?” Hannity intentionally used the wrong pronoun for Jenner multiple times during this interview.

Ironically, last week when he was asked about transgenders participating in women’s sports, Jenner said “it was unfair,” and that he supports banning the practice. But when Hannity asked him about this commonsense position about biological boys not playing girls’ sports, Jenner started to backpedal and then suddenly switched topics.

Conditioning

The Left is working overtime to condition our thinking and speech. While the correct use of pronouns may seem a trivial matter that many conservatives are willing to overlook, the fact that change agents are demanding compliance should tell us something. In fact, it should alarm us.

These seemingly small lies are being promoted through covert “narratives” such as Hannity’s interview, as well as overtly as in the case of the Shawnee State University professor, who was punished for using the correct pronoun when addressing a gender-confused student.

Cultural Marxists and their allies are working diligently to condition the American people to accept science-denying absurdities as truths one seemingly insignificant step at a time, just as they do with every other issue. If they desensitize us to accept lies on the small things, then it will be easier for them to get us to tolerate their moderate-to-large false narratives, also known as propaganda. The goal is to grow our already too big, centralized government, which will then wield more power and control over individual lives. Free and critical thinkers threaten this power structure.

It is sad to see Hannity and other “conservatives” capitulate to leftist demands. We must refuse to be conditioned by lies, no matter how small and innocuous they may seem. In fact, the book of wisdom exhorts us to “Buy the truth and do not sell it.” (Proverb 23:23).

Thou Shall Not Bear False Witness

Truth is vitally important, especially to serious Christians. In John 18:37, Jesus tells Pilate, “For this cause I was born, and for this cause I have come into the world, that I should bear witness to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth hears My voice.” In the Ten Commandments, God makes it very clear: “You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor” (Exodus 20:16).

What these cultural Marxists are doing is antithetical to what we are taught in Holy Scripture. The author of Psalm 119 states, “Therefore all Your precepts concerning all things I consider to be right; I hate every false way” (Psalm 119:128). And Solomon tells us that “If a ruler pays attention to lies, all his servants become wicked” (Proverbs 29:12-13). Lies are an egregious offense to a Holy God, and liars are destined to spend eternity in the lake of fire (Revelation 21:8).

The Christian website Got Questions explains it this way:

False witness, or spreading a false report, is associated with being allied with the wicked (Exodus 23:1), willing to do violence to others (Psalm 27:12), and sowing discord among brothers (Proverbs 6:19). The Bible calls bearing false witness lying (Proverbs 14:5) and compares a man who bears false witness against his neighbor to a violent weapon (Proverbs 25:18). Lies harm people.

When we recall that Jesus clearly identifies Satan as “the father of lies,” we should quickly dust ourselves off and resolve not to put up with being lied to, whether by Sean Hannity, Fox News, or by a political candidate. Instead, we must expose lies and boldly declare the truth at every opportunity.

A trustworthy witness will not lie,
But a false witness declares lies.
~Proverbs 14:5

Take ACTION: Click HERE to access the Fox News Channel webform. Click the box and pick “Sound Off: Share your thoughts/opinions with us!” Ask them to stop lying to us by using incorrect pronouns. Do this at every opportunity you have to push back against the “woke” useful idiots who publicly use incorrect pronouns.

Prayer Request

Please pray for “Caitlyn” Jenner. Near the end of the interview, Jenner admits that he has been dealing with gender dysphoria for decades but then talks about a conversation he had with his pastor and expresses his desire to hear his creator God affirm his life, saying on the verge of tears, “I just hope He says, ‘hey, come on in.'”

We should pray that Jenner is honestly seeking the approval of God. If that is the case, we know that God has promised repeatedly in His Word that those who seek Him with all their heart, will find Him. More important, we know that sinners of every kind can be redeemed by God through the atoning sacrifice (1 John 2:2). A great example of this miraculous transformation is our friend Walt Heyer, who was a keynote speaker at our 2019 Worldview Conference. (You can watch his presentation HERE).

In 1 Corinthians 6:9-1, the Apostle Paul provides a list of those who were sinners but who have been washed, sanctified and then justified “in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God.” So please pray that Jenner would submit to God’s truth and accept His offer of salvation (John 3:16-21). What a wonderful testimony he would have if he were truly transformed by the Holy Spirit.

To God be the glory!

Learn more:

[VIDEO] Preferred Pronouns or Prison (Abigail Shrier)

[VIDEO] Mr. Rogers on Biology and Kids (The Tonight Show)

Questions for Sex-Eradicationists, Lawmakers, and School Leaders (Laurie Higgins)

Leftists See Orwell’s Novel 1984 As a Blueprint for Progress (Laurie Higgins)

A bold voice for pro-family values in Illinois!

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

Recent Events Offer a Glimpse into Leftist Dreams for America

Warning: Reader Discretion is Advised

Leftists do not seek only to destroy, divide, cancel, and erase. They seek also to re-fashion a brave new world. A look at two recent cultural events reveals the kind of world with which leftists hope to replace cancelled America.

The most recent was Sunday’s Super Bowl during which a vulgar man/boy who calls himself the Weekend performed his song “Earn It” which is a paean to sadomasochism written for the softcore porn movie Fifty Shades of Grey which was based on the twisted softcore porn bodice ripper Fifty Shades of Grey. In the name of “equity,” leftists want to get women as addicted to porn as men are.

An official video of “Earn It” available on YouTube for every man, woman, and child to view consists of the man/boy Weekend, leering creepily at half a dozen women wearing only pasties and thongs with big black Xs on their buttocks who gyrate sexually while carrying the accouterments of sadomasochism. Google, which cancels conservative ideas and which owns YouTube, finds nothing troubling at all about providing a platform for a softcore porn video that objectifies and exploits women—i.e., adult female humans.

Sanctimonious leftists continually preach sermons about which ideas must be cancelled because they’re destructive and immoral. Apparently, those leftists think the Weekend is wholly undeserving of cancellation, because he never says anything destructive or immoral.

Unlike the destructive act of saying men can’t become women or saying the union of two people of the same sex can never be a marriage, porn and sadomasochism never hurt women, children, or families—or so leftists claim. Here’s a brief excerpt from one of the Weekend’s “songs” that, presumably, leftists think is healthy and good for America:

I think I’ve finally fell in love now

Her name is Tammy, she got hella bitches

She let me f*ck ’em while my ni**as film it …

…

Girl go ’head and show me how you go down

And I feel my whole body peakin’

And I’m f*ckin’ anybody with they legs wide

Got me higher than a ni**ga from the West Side

If anyone affirms sexual deviance, and the abuse, exploitation, and objectification of women, the left will definitely not cancel them. Instead, sexual libertines will be given the most colossal platforms leftists can find. And leftist ideological tyrants make sure those platforms are ones that children can access.

The second cultural event took place just two days before the Super Bowl when LA Times and Wired Magazine writer Virginia Heffernan wrote a condescending column in which she argues that even acts of unselfish generosity on the parts of Trump voters require nothing more than a begrudging smidge of appreciation. She defends her bitter intolerance as a legitimate response for the indefensible sin of voting for Trump:

The Trumpites next door to our pandemic getaway, who seem as devoted to the ex-president as you can get without being Q fans, just plowed our driveway without being asked and did a great job.

How am I going to resist demands for unity in the face of this act of aggressive niceness?

Of course, on some level, I realize I owe them thanks—and, man, it really looks like the guy back-dragged the driveway like a pro—but how much thanks?

Heffernan’s answer is suggested in her question. She plans to respond minimally:

[w]ith a wave and a thanks, a minimal start on building back trust. I’m not ready to knock on the door with a covered dish yet.

I also can’t give my neighbors absolution; it’s not mine to give. Free driveway work, as nice as it is, is just not the same currency as justice and truth. To pretend it is would be to lie, and they probably aren’t looking for absolution anyway.

But I can offer a standing invitation to make amends. Not with a snowplow but by recognizing the truth about the Trump administration and, more important, by working for justice for all those whom the administration harmed. Only when we work shoulder to shoulder to repair the damage of the last four years will we even begin to dig out of this storm.

Absolution? What arrogant audacity to imply 74 million Americans need absolution for voting their consciences; for voting to try to protect their children’s economic futures; for voting to protect the jobs of those in the energy sector; for voting to preserve energy independence; for voting to secure our borders in the same way other countries secure their borders; for voting to protect our children from indoctrination with leftist sexuality beliefs and Critical Race Theory; for voting to protect our children from having to undress in the presence of peers of the opposite sex; for voting to protect the First and Second Amendments; and for voting to protect the lives of humans in the womb.

In the grimy hands and bendy minds of oily leftists, justice and truth are slippery concepts. Many Trump voters think, for example, that men can’t be women, and that falsifying birth certificates or referring to “Caitlyn” Jenner by female pronouns are acts of lying. And many Trump voters believe allowing biological men—also known as men—to compete in women’s sports is manifestly—or womanifestly—unjust.

Heffernan is right on one point, though. Absolution isn’t hers to give, and Trump voters owe her nothing. If attempts to “make amends” and to work for “justice”—as defined by leftists—are “unity” prerequisites, then there will be no unity in America. But we already knew that.

After comparing Trump voters to Hezbollah, Louis Farrakhan, and Nazi collaborator Philippe Pétain, Heffernan said this:

What do we do about the Trumpites around us? … Americans are expected to forgive and forget before we’ve even stitched up our wounds. Or gotten our vaccines against the pandemic that former President Trump utterly failed to mitigate.

My neighbors supported a man who showed near-murderous contempt for the majority of Americans.

Are the 74 million Trump voters expected to forgive and forget the leftists who showed near murderous contempt for all the Americans who lived in terror as their cities and businesses were burned and looted, and police officers spit at and beaten?

Are Trump voters expected to forgive and forget before they’ve even stitched their lives back together?

Are Trump voters expected to forgive and forget the shabby way President Trump and Melania Trump were treated by the bigoted, partisan press since the moment President Trump was elected?

Are Trump voters expected to forgive and forget the millions of tax dollars spent on the Russian collusion hoax and two impeachment trials—including the one that Chief Justice John Roberts refuses to preside over?

Are Trump voters expected to forgive and forget the way Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh was treated by Democrats?

Are Trump voters expected to forgive and forget the way the press covered for the corrupt Joe Biden during his invisible campaign?

Are Trump voters expected to forgive and forget that leftists have given Trump little to no credit for Operation Warp Speed?

Apparently, leftists have little understanding that Trump voters view the beliefs of leftists—particularly on matters pertaining to sexuality and marriage—as evil and destructive as leftists view conservative beliefs.

Leftists that control Big Tech, big business, our professional medical and mental health organizations, public schools, secondary schools, the mainstream press, and the “arts,” do not support diversity of ideas. They do not value tolerance for beliefs they hate. They do not love liberty for deplorables, ugly folks, and theologically orthodox Christians.

And despite all their prior opposition to “imposing morality,” leftists are now firmly committed to imposing their morality—including on other people’s children using taxpayer money.

The beauty of America used to be that, recognizing the diversity of ideas and beliefs, Americans were committed to allowing the free flow of ideas and robust debate. The notion that a ruling class could declare that their presuppositions would enjoy unencumbered public expression and that all dissenting views would be banned was unthinkable.

It was this freedom that made America a refuge for oppressed people around the world, and as leftists deracinate this freedom, America becomes an oppressive place to live for millions of Americans. Increasingly, the only freedom valued by those who rule America is the freedom for unrestrained sexual deviance to destroy hearts, minds, bodies, souls, families, churches, and the First Amendment.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

Play

Stop

Please support the work of Illinois Family Institute.

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

Does Gender Really Matter?

In a 20/20 interview with Diane Sawyer in April 2015, Bruce Jenner announced he is a “transgender woman,” saying that he had dealt with gender dysphoria since his youth and that, “for all intents and purposes, I’m a woman.”

In the summer of 2017, Pastor Paul Williams, who led the conservative church-planting organization Orchard Group for 20 years, announced he is a “transgender woman.”

We see co-ed bathroom policies in many school districts and in corporate giants like Target. So, does biological sex matter?

The term “transgender” was invented by the homosexual and “trans” community to refer to a person who pretends to be the sex he or she is not. As Christians, however, our starting and ending points for understanding human sexuality is the Word of God:

He answered, ‘Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female….’ (Matthew 19:3-6)

God fashions each of us. He is the one who created us male or female. Our feelings about our God-given sex do not change reality.

He created the two sexes for particular roles and functions within the home and the church. For example, Ephesians 5 and 1 Corinthians 11 explain men are to be leaders in the home. Genesis 3 states what rational people should not need to be told, which is that women alone bear children. In other words, there is no such thing as a “pregnant man.”

Some proponents of the “trans” ideology point to Galatians 3:28 as a justification for their beliefs:

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

Such a claim takes the passage out of context. The passage is talking about how we are all equal when it comes to salvation. It does not mean there exist no distinct sexes. The verses leading up to this passage say that we were held captive under the law but since Jesus’ coming, we are now justified by faith. Salvation is given freely to all without respect to external factors such as ethnic background, economic status, or sex.

Biological sex matters to God. Therefore, what should persons who want to be the sex they are not (and never can be) or who feel as if they were “born in the wrong body” do?

They should surrender those feelings to Jesus.

They don’t need to fly another flag. They don’t need to march in another parade. They don’t need surgery. They don’t need another court ruling.

They need the healing hand of Jesus Christ.

Those who desire to be the sex they are not can be freed from bondage to those feelings through faith in Christ and continued reliance on the power of the Holy Spirit. Sin can be overcome and lives changed through the salvation that Jesus freely offers.

A bold voice for pro-family values in Illinois!

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

When Christian Conservatives Are Compared to the 9/11 Terrorists

You may have thought I was overstating things in my recent article, “Will California Go from Banning Religious Books to Burning Them?” You may have thought I was exaggerating when I referenced LGBT activists who compared Christian conservatives to ISIS and Al-Qaeda. Be assured that there was not a word of hyperbole in what I wrote. The truth is unsettling enough.

To put things in perspective, when Barack Obama ran for president in 2008, he stated clearly that marriage was the union of one man and one woman. And he knew he needed to do this to win the conservative, black vote.

Today, you are branded a radical and a dangerous fanatic if you espouse that same view. You will be grilled by the tolerance inquisition!

Ten years ago, you would have laughed me to scorn if I told you Bruce Jenner would become Caitlyn Jenner and be named woman of the year. You would have ridiculed me if I told you the federal government would punish schools that refused to open the girls’ bathrooms and locker rooms to boys who identified as girls.

Today, “transphobic” is a household word, a gender-confused teen has his (her?) own reality TV show, and drag queens are reading stories to toddlers in libraries.

Ten years ago, you would have said “Impossible!” to the idea that a minor with unwanted same-sex attraction would be forbidden by law to receive professional counseling, even if that child expressly requested it and even if that child had been sexually abused. And you would have dismissed completely the notion that some states would seek to bar such counseling from adults as well.

Today, a number of states have outlawed this much-needed counseling for struggling minors, while California is poised to make it illegal for anyone of any age to receive professional help for unwanted same-sex attraction or gender-confusion. That is the unvarnished, unembellished truth.

And what happens when we draw attention to this outrageous California bill? We are attacked as maniacs.

As one gay activist put it (specifically, in the context of my opposition to the California bill), “Brown is a religious zealot — a Christian convert — who is barely distinguishable from the folks who flew airplanes into buildings for their god. Unlike them, Brown is nonviolent. However, like those 9/11 maniacs, Brown substitutes literalist religious belief for logic, science and common sense. Brown, I think, relishes the negative attention and while I say that he is nonviolent he does equivalent violence to LGBT people every day through misinformation.”

To parse these words in any serious way is to give them a dignity they do not deserve. I simply post them to say, “You see! I was not exaggerating.”

This is what comes your way when you oppose radical LGBT activism. This is what you can expect when you take a stand for liberty and freedom. This is what happens when you tell the truth.

This same gay activist wrote, “In the final analysis, Michael Brown is an advocate of pseudoscience in order to conform the world to his religious beliefs. It should be noted that Brown sports a PhD in Near Eastern Languages. Obviously, he has no training or work experience relative to human sexuality.”

And after claiming that there is no scientific evidence that sexual orientation can be changed through counseling or that gender-confused children can, with help, become at home in their own bodies, he writes, “If Michael Brown knows of more compelling research, he has not cited it. He has failed to make any meaningful argument in support of conversion therapy. Promoting the existence of this mythical approach only creates prejudice and discrimination. It serves no useful purpose. Come to think of it, Michael Brown serves no useful purpose. It is a cheap shot but the guy rails against LGBT people all day, every day. Maybe he needs a new hobby.”

Actually, I and others have been citing scientific literature for years, along with an endless number of personal anecdotes from friends and colleagues. (I’m talking about former-homosexuals and former-transgenders.) But whoever we cite gets discredited immediately, since the psychologists and psychiatrists and therapists and scholars do not adhere to the standard LGBT talking points.

Ryan Anderson provides ample scientific literature about transgender issues in his new book, while a major review of scientific literature by two prominent psychologists addresses broader issues of sexual orientation change as well. Be assured that the science is there.

This, however, is not to deny that there are many gays and transgenders who have tried to change, without success. They have suffered depression and fear and self-loathing, spiraling even deeper into hopeless after unsuccessful therapy efforts. I do not minimize their struggles, I do not pretend to be able to relate to what they have endured, and I constantly call on the Church to show great compassion to such strugglers.

But to each of them – and to the critics who attack us with such venom – I make a simple appeal. Allow others to find their own path.

When you try to pass laws that will take away essential freedoms of those you differ with, and when you demonize those who oppose your values, you only discredit yourselves. In the long run, this will work against you. We will overcome your venom and anger and bills and laws with grace and truth and love – and God’s help.

This article was originally published at Townhall.com

Birth Certificates and the Cultural Extinction of Biological Sex

Passing: when a person is objectively one sex but pretends to be a person of the opposite sex;
self-identification or acceptance as a member of the opposite sex.

Passer: one who passes

It’s clear from the number and nature of Facebook responses to IFI’s update on the passage of Illinois HB 1785 that many Illinoisans are passionately opposed to this bill which now moves to the Illinois Senate. HB 1785 is the bill that will make it even easier-peasier for men and women who seek to “pass” as the opposite sex to obtain fraudulent birth certificates

Illinois—so often on the cutting edge of all things feckless—was one of the earliest states in the country to allow sexual “passers” to obtain new birth certificates that certify a factual error.

For over 40 years now, sexual passers in Illinois have been able to have their birth certificates, which are historical documents, changed to certify that at birth they were identified as the sex they were never identified as. The sex that doctors identified them as at birth remains their sex forever. It may come as an unpleasant surprise to many, but there are only four states that do not permit sexual passers to change their birth certificates: Idaho, Kansas, Ohio, and Tennessee.

Ask a passer what his or her sex is. Don’t ask what their “gender” is. Don’t ask what they identify as. Don’t ask if they feel male or female. Ask what their objective sex is. I guarantee they know what it is, and they know it will never change. “Caitlyn” Jenner, “Chaz” Bono, and “Jazz” Jennings know they have a sex, they know what it is, and they know it will never change. At birth, doctors identified their sex. Doctors do not “assign” or “designate” a baby’s “gender marker.” And except in the rare cases of babies born with intersex disorders, the sex identified at birth is correct.

As stated, at birth doctors identify the sex of babies, and birth certificates record it. Like “Newspeakers” in the dystopian novel 1984, passers exploit language to alter thought. Since they know their sex can never change, passers—who deem objective biological sex irrelevant—seek to erase any public acknowledgement of it everywhere. To get around that pesky problem of reality and science that make clear that humans have a sex and it cannot change, passers want to change the language on birth certificates from “sex” to “gender marker.”

In the service of compassion, inclusivity, justice, and intellectual consistency, we’re going to need to make several other reality-denying changes:

1.) We must allow those who identify as an age different from their objective age to have the birth-date marker on their birth certificate changed to reflect their internally felt age. We should allow those people who take youth-enhancing hormones, have cosmetic surgical procedures, and cross-age dress to change their birth-date markers to identify accurately their authentic age. Who would be harmed by allowing an 80-year-old woman to change the birth-date marker on her birth certificate to correspond to her authentic felt-age of 50? If society can affirm sexual passing, why not age passing?

2.) We must also affirm racial passing. It’s not merely irrational to permit sexual passing while prohibiting racial passing; It’s unjust. Poor Rachel Dolezal who identified and passed as black for years was publicly eviscerated for engaging in this far less radical form of passing than the form in which Bruce Jenner engages. Many “progressives” argue that race is a social construct as opposed to a biological reality, but either way, if Jenner is permitted to pass as a woman and have his legal documents changed to certify that factual error, then surely Dolezal and others of Northern European descent can do likewise. If all it takes for men to pass as women is a dab of lipstick, some hair extensions, an evening gown, and a proclamation about their internal authentic “gender” identity, then surely a spray tan, jheri-curl, a dashiki, and a proclamation about their internal, authentic racial identity should be sufficient for Caucasians to pass as blacks and have all legal documents attest to that falsehood. And if Jenner is allowed in women’s locker rooms, then surely Dolezal should be able to join the National Council of Negro Women.

3.) We must be inclusive too of those who experience Body Integrity Identity Disorder (BIID), which is a mismatch between their objective fully functioning healthy bodies and their internal self-identification as, usually, amputees. “Transabled” persons should be able to obtain driver’s licenses that identify them as disabled and should be able to access all accommodations limited to use by disabled persons, including disabled parking permits. In addition, the medical community should be treating them appropriately, which means providing surgery to bring their bodies into alignment with their internal authentic sense of self. That is to say, disability passers should be able to access medical help in amputating limbs. Interestingly, after such amputations, they will in reality be amputees, unlike sexual passers who can never become the opposite sex. Finally, laws should be passed prohibiting the mental health community from engaging in any form of counseling other than “transable”-affirming counseling.

4.)Last but not least are the dimensional passers in our midst who are routinely marginalized. Since sexual passers can legally obtain falsified driver’s licenses, why are we not allowing those who identify internally as a height and/or weight different from their actual, factual height and weight to change the “dimensional markers” on their driver’s licenses? Objectively short high school girls who identify as tall girls should not be discriminated against based on their actual height. For example, why should girls who are 5’1” but identify as 5’10” be prohibited from applying for college scholarships from the Tall Club Foundation?

My hope and prayer is that conservatives will not allow their passion over this imbecilic and destructive bill to wane as they so often do. Some may think that because it’s already legal in Illinois for sexual passers to obtain falsified birth certificates, making it even easier is unimportant. They would be mistaken. To understand how important every little step in the march toward the cultural extinction of biological sex and the normalization of deviance is, just imagine how the community of sexual passers would respond if this bill were to fail.

Imagine Rumpelstiltskin on steroids.

Take ACTION: Click HERE to send an email message to your state senator to ask him/her to reject HB 1785 and to uphold birth certificates as legal documents. (Read more about this legislation HERE.)

Simply put, the state of Illinois has no duty or right to make it easier for men and women who wish they were the opposite sex to falsify their birth certificates. Vote NO to HB 1785!

Recent articles by Laurie Higgins:

Questions About Restrooms and Locker Rooms Leftists Must Answer

“Trans”-Cultism and Sex-Selection Abortions

Dove Ad Features Real Dad Pretending to Be Real Mom

Drag Queens, “Queers,” and Toddlers, Oh My!

Download the IFI App!

We now have an IFI mobile app that enables us to deliver great content based on the “Tracks” you choose, including timely legislative alerts, cultural commentaries, upcoming event notifications, links to our podcasts, video reports, and even daily Bible verses to encourage you. This great app is available for Android and iPhones.

Key Features:

It’s FREE!
Specific content for serious Christians
Performs a spiritual assessment
Sends you daily Scriptures to encourage and equip you
You determine when and how much content you get

America’s Cultural Health May Be Worse Than Its Economic Health

It is undeniably true to say that never before in U.S. history has homosexuality been more acceptable, celebrated and promoted than it is today. Although almost never mentioned, this change is having a negative impact upon many American’s physical health. What we are seeing now may only be the tip of the iceberg as more and more young people are taught that homosexuality is a perfectly normal alternative lifestyle choice.

For example, a new report from the federal Centers for Disease Control (CDC) finds that disease among homosexuals is at a level not seen in 35 years before the scare of AIDS. “We’re concerned about our high levels of syphilis among men who have sex with men – really we’re back to the level of disease – burden of disease – in gay men that we were seeing before HIV in this country,” said Gail Bolan, director of the CDC’s Division of STD Prevention at an event on Capitol Hill to lobby for more federal funds.

While rates among both men and women have risen, syphilis is a disease that disproportionately impacts men, who make up 90 percent of the cases. However, homosexual men now account for 83 percent of all the syphilis cases in America. Homosexuals make up just 3 percent of the U.S. population. The CDC also finds that half of men who have sex with men (MSM) who are infected with syphilis also have HIV.

The newest fad in American culture is faring even worse. A report out last week from the CDC citing a systematic review of various studies concludes that 28 percent of all transgender women have HIV. (A “transgender woman” is a biological male who identifies as a female, like Caitlyn Jenner.) The health risks are even higher among black transgendered. The CDC found that “56 percent of black/African American transgender women had positive HIV test results.”

While this message won’t appear in the movies, or pop culture, the CDC recommends that homosexuals get tested for HIV, syphilis, Hepatitis B, Hepatitis C, chlamydia and gonorrhea every year. It is doubtful that any article about Bruce Jenner, or any school cowering to the Obama Administration’s push for genderless school bathrooms, has noted that people involved in transgender behavior now have the highest rate of newly identified HIV infections among any group according to the CDC.

Although it should be obvious, Christian pro-family activists take absolutely no joy in stories like this. We care about all people. We believe that there is a much better way of life. We believe that many times the most loving and compassionate thing one can do is to warn, “danger ahead . . . please don’t go there.” This is much like a “no swimming” sign at a gravel pit, a “bridge out ahead” road sign or efforts to keep drugs and alcohol away from children.

7 Troubling Questions About Transgender Theories

Written by Trevin Wax

In case you’re just tuning in, Bruce Springsteen, Target, and bathrooms are at the center of controversy these days, as Americans learn more about the T in the LGBT acronym – Transgender.

Broadly speaking, transgender refers to people who believe their gender identity does not correspond to their biological sex. The psychological description, which applies to a narrower slice of those who identify as transgender (and some who do not so identify), is “gender dysphoria,” defined by Mark Yarhouse as “a deep and abiding discomfort over the incongruence between one’s biological sex and one’s psychological and emotional experience of gender.”

With Caitlyn Jenner’s appearance on the cover of Vanity Fair last year, and books and shows like Transparent finding an audience, there is a societal push to celebrate transgender experience as an expression of human diversity or as the next stage in extending human rights.

But this push has run into pushback. Access to bathrooms and locker rooms may be the battleground, but the bigger debate concerns the nature of humanity and, by extension, the best way to approach (or treat) gender dysphoria.

These newfound controversies are complicated, at least in part because of transgender theory itself. The unmooring of “gender identity” from “biological sex” leads to a number of unresolved questions, as well as troubling inconsistencies among advocates of transgender rights. (I realize that not every transgender person or LGBTQ activist agrees on every point or holds to the same ideology. Still, there is broad agreement on a number of important issues.)

In my reading of articles and books about gender identity in the past year, I’ve come across seven issues that challenge the coherence of transgender theories.

1. Do transgender theories undercut or contradict the idea that sexual orientation is unchangeable?

The LGBT’s success in pushing for civil rights legislation on the basis of sexual orientation has relied heavily on the assumption that sexual orientation is “fixed,” or genetically determined. But more and more scholars today argue that sexual orientation is “fluid,” not fixed (especially in females). And these two perspectives are colliding in real life situations involving transgender persons.

Last year, New York magazine’s article “My Husband is Now My Wife” by Alex Morris featured the stories of several spouses of transgender persons who transitioned later in life. Morris describes the women who witnessed their husbands’ transition as feeling pressured to not voice any disapproval, to avoid the accusation of being “transphobic.” They were expected to be “celebratory” and helpful,” no matter how their spouse’s transition would affect the rest of the family.

LGBT theory rests on the assumption that sexual orientation is determined by biology and that it is misguided, even hateful, to seek to change one’s orientation. But, as Morris points out, the spouse of a transgender person is expected to remain and support a partner during and after their transition. And for a wife to celebrate her husband’s transition means she must face questions about her own sexual orientation.

The article quotes from a woman perplexed about what it means for her, a heterosexual woman, to suddenly be the spouse of a woman. She says, “I don’t know how comfortable I would feel in a group of lesbians…Because here I am doing the very thing that they’re trying to prove is not possible” — change the gender to which she is attracted. Such an expectation destabilizes some of the foundational elements of LGBT theory on homosexuality.

2. If gender identity is fixed and unchangeable, why do many children who experience gender dysphoria lose these feelings after puberty?

The next wave of societal controversy is likely to involve one’s approach to children. Studies show that a significant number of people who experience varying degrees of gender dysphoria as children choose to identify with their biological sex after puberty.

New Jersey currently forbids any change or direction given to a child’s sexual orientation or gender identity or expression. A similar bill in Canada assumes that sexual orientation and gender identity are the same – determined at birth.

But, as Alice Dreger in Wired points out, “by ‘affirming’ a ‘transgender’ identity as soon as it appears—the clinician might actually be stimulating and cementing a transgender identity… Maybe the child who is ‘affirmed’ will be just as well off with a transgender identity as she would have been without, but the fact is that being transgender generally comes with non-trivial medical interventions, including hormonal and surgical.”

3. When a person feels a disjunction between one’s sex at birth and one’s gender identity, why is the only course of action to bring the body into closer conformity with the person’s psychological state, rather than vice versa?

If the disjunction a transgender person feels between their gender and their body is psychological, why should we recommend invasive surgical procedures to make the body more closely match the mind instead of seeking treatment that might help move the mind closer to the sex they were assigned at birth?

In other words, why do many transgender advocates claim that the only loving response to a transgender person is to support their desire for a surgical procedure? The most extensive studies of people who have undergone sex-reassignment surgeries (in Sweden, over a period of thirty years, in a culture that celebrates transgender persons) delivered disturbing results, including a much higher suicide rate.

Furthermore, how do these surgeries fit into the broader medical tradition in which the purpose of treatment is (usually) to restore bodily functions and faculties that are ordered toward certain ends? Why is it acceptable to oppose a “transabled” person’s desire to undergo surgery that would blind them, or leave them without a limb, but it is “hateful” and “transphobic” to oppose surgeries that damage body parts that are in no way dysfunctional?

4. Is the higher rate of suicide among transgender persons due primarily to the inner tensions of experiencing gender dysphoria as a disorder, or are these acts motivated primarily by societal rejection?

In the past six months, I have noticed the same trend among many transgender advocates: that questioning a course of treatment or wondering out loud about the significance or meaning of gender in a way that dissents from transgender theory is responsible for transgender suicides. According to this way of thinking, gender binaries are inherently oppressive and damaging to the mental health of transgender persons.

I recall reading a columnist last year who was sympathetic to transgender concerns and who asked for patience on the part of transgender activists as he and others learned how to adopt the new linguistic guidelines and avoid causing unnecessary offense. A transgender woman fired off a response claiming that such a request is impossible because people are killing themselves due to these kinds of verbal mistakes.

It is difficult to make the case that transgender persons exhibit no signs of mental disorder while at the same time saying that the wrong pronoun can lead a person to suicide.

5. Why are the strongest critics of “gender binaries” the most likely to support gender stereotypes on display in transgender celebrities?

Feminist writer Elinor Burkett explained in the New York Times last year her surprise at seeing our society’s idea of womanhood return to the stereotypes she had long fought against.

“Suddenly, I find that many of the people I think of as being on my side — people who proudly call themselves progressive and fervently support the human need for self-determination — are buying into the notion that minor differences in male and female brains lead to major forks in the road and that some sort of gendered destiny is encoded in us.”

I have seen LGBT activists decry the notion that one can, by visual representation only, determine the gender of a person, and at the same time question the legitimacy of someone’s claim to being transgender based on the visual perception (or lack thereof) of their desire to transition.

Why do those who demand empathy and acceptance toward the transgender experience dismiss feminist critics who believe the movement fails to properly understand the female experience?

Burkett goes on to write:

“People who haven’t lived their whole lives as women, whether Ms. Jenner or Mr. Summers, shouldn’t get to define us. That’s something men have been doing for much too long… Their truth is not my truth. Their female identities are not my female identity. They haven’t traveled through the world as women and been shaped by all that this entails. For me and many women, feminist and otherwise, one of the difficult parts of witnessing and wanting to rally behind the movement for transgender rights is the language that a growing number of trans individuals insist on, the notions of femininity that they’re articulating, and their disregard for the fact that being a woman means having accrued certain experiences, endured certain indignities and relished certain courtesies in a culture that reacted to you as one. The ‘I was born in the wrong body’ rhetoric favored by other trans people doesn’t work any better and is just as offensive, reducing us to our collective breasts and vaginas.”

6. Why must one’s declared gender identity be accepted without question, while other forms of self-identification can be dismissed?

In making her point about women embracing men who transition, Burkett writes:

“Imagine the reaction if a young white man suddenly declared that he was trapped in the wrong body and, after using chemicals to change his skin pigmentation and crocheting his hair into twists, expected to be embraced by the black community.”

Something similar took place last year with Rachel Dolezal, the former president of a chapter of the NAACP. One columnist described Dolezal’s claim as “perverse and pathological,” a version of “identity theft” that fails to consider the cultural significance of the African American experience.

“For me, Black-identifying was not a choice so much as a fact. I am Black. Rachel Dolezal is not.”

This categorical rejection of Dolezal raises interesting questions about people’s freedom to self-identify. Unmoored from biology, what reasons can we give to oppose a white man’s decision to identify as a Chinese woman, or a man in his forties who decides to identify and live as a seven-year-old, or the tragic cases of otherkin – people identifying as animals? Please note: I am not claiming that these other modes of identification are on the same plane as gender dysphoria, only that there is no established consensus for why certain experiences are embraced and celebrated while others are considered outrageous or the sign of a mental illness.

7. Without a settled definition in our legal system for transgender, how can we avoid all sorts of problems, including bathroom access?

Pascal-Emmanuel Gobry writes:

“Presumably, post-transition transgender people look like the gender they identify with. Who, exactly, is going to stop someone who looks like a woman from walking into a ladies’ room? Or someone who looks like a man from walking into a men’s room? The American nanny state may be out of control, but we still don’t have bathroom police.”

So why the uproar? Because, without clear definitions and markers of transgender beyond “I am what I say,” we are left with unclear guidelines and chaotic standards. Carl Trueman pointed to the incoherent regulations proposed by his local school board:

“On the one hand, it asserts that a student’s asserted gender identity has to be accepted, and must not be questioned or disregarded by staff. Moreover, the only exception is if staff have a ‘credible basis’ for believing the student is ‘improperly’ asserting a gender identity, vague and undefined terms that are open to abuse. Yet, the policy also claims that a student’s transgender status may constitute confidential medical information that should not be disclosed to parents or others, suggesting it is a medical condition. Which is it?”

Conclusion

The debate over the T in LGBT is likely to get louder in coming years. Yes, there are some in our society who would scapegoat people with gender dysphoria who would cast them as predators and “freaks.” Meanwhile, there are others who believe societal evolution depends on the abolishing of gender altogether and see the transgender experience as a way of moving beyond oppressive structures of “male” and “female.”

For Christians, however, neither of these options is available to us.

We believe God’s design of male and female to be structurally good, but we also understand gender dysphoria to be another symptom that reminds us we live in a fallen world. For this reason, we must extend love and compassion to anyone who experiences this kind of distress, even as we reject society’s efforts to establish a fluid understanding of personhood.

This article was originally published at TheGospelCoalition.com.

Girl Scouts, Faux-Courage, and Leonard Pitts

Leonard Pitts is out in orbit —I mean, over the moon—over the CEO of the Girl Scouts of Western Washington’s refusal of a $100,000 donation to the Girl Scouts that stipulated the money could not be used to support “transgender girls.” Just to be clear in our increasingly cloudy culture, “transgender girls” are actual boys.

Pitts feels “indebted to [CEO Megan Ferland] for her…inspiring moral courage.” This act of “moral courage” will likely be celebrated by lesbian Krista Kokjohn-Poehler who is the “Chief Girl Experience Officer” (yes, that’s really her title) of the Girl Scouts of America.

Even the concept of courage has been perverted to serve perversion and confusion.

A courageous act entails at least the possibility of danger or suffering. It takes no courage to be carried along downstream in our deviance-swirling torrential current. Hollywood and the liberal mainstream press worship at the feet of every Tom, Dick, or Caitlyn who flounces about announcing their strange sexual proclivities. Even formerly conservative press outlets are filled with pundits who are ensconced firmly in the malodorous maws of “progressive” sexuality dogma. Ferland’s decision to reject the donation was cost-free. She may have lost the donation, but I can already hear the clink, clink of coins flooding the Western Washington GSA’s coffers right now from LGBTQQIAAP activists.

Imagine, however, if Ferland had accepted the donation with the stipulation that the Western Washington Girl Scouts remain single sex. And now imagine that some LGBT activists whose jackboots the press licks got wind of the story. That, my friends, would be a very dangerous situation for Ferland.

Pitts waxes comical, saying that the Girl Scouts “have made [inclusivity] part of their DNA.” So, in Pitts’ world, inclusivity is part of their DNA, but actual DNA is not part of their DNA. Girls who think being a girl is an objective, immutable human condition that deserves respect need not apply to the Girl Scouts.

But I’m confused. I thought genetic (and therefore ontological) immutability was the central justification for the normalization of homosexuality?

According to “progressives,” homosexuality—for which there is zero evidence of genetic causation—is immutable, but sex—which is proven to be genetically determined—is mutable and can be changed via a new wardrobe, a few (or many) surgical snips, oh, and compulsory participation of the entire culture in an elaborate performance piece of subversive anti-art—a toxic retelling of the “Emperor’s New Clothes.” (Now there’s a story that should be taught in more schools: It warns of the danger of both pride and collective denial of reality.)

The Left has created a set of assumptions to justify the obliteration of the objective categories of male and female or to compel society to subordinate them to desire. “Progressives” have socially constructed a new categorical term, “gender identity,” to impute ontological and moral weight to what is, in reality, the aggregate of disordered thoughts and desires. In order to obliterate the meaning and importance of the objective categories of male and female, the Left had to construct an opposing set of ideas and then impose it on society through a host of fallacious arguments, social intimidation, and political chicanery.

Pitts trots out the poor, bedraggled race comparison, which has become the go-to analogy for “progressive” sexuality causes. Want to normalize homosexuality (i.e., homoerotic feelings and activity)? Just compare it to biologically determined race. Want to normalize the desire to deny biologically determined sex? Just compare it to biologically determined race—which can never be denied because it’s, well, biologically determined, you know, in the DNA.

The often-confused Left can’t seem to distinguish between objectively constituted conditions and conditions constituted by subjective feelings and volitional acts. The often-confused Left can’t seem to distinguish between conditions that have no moral implications because they’re intrinsically unrelated to volitional acts—like race, sex, and nation of origin—and conditions that are open to moral assessment because they’re constituted by subjective feelings and volitional acts—like polyamory, consensual adult incestuous love, homosexuality, and gender confusion.

What to do, what to do with the manifold incoherencies that emerge from the Left’s assumptions concocted to render desire preeminent over all other social and moral considerations? Be courageous.

What takes real courage (i.e., a willingness to suffer in the service of truth) is to say that the categories of male and female are objective, immutable, and good and that the term “gender identity” is a social construct invented to promote confusion as truth and elevate desire over reality.

What gender-confused children and adults need and deserve is genuine love, which is inseparable from truth. They need affection, community, and consistent affirmation of the good of their sex. It serves neither love nor truth to facilitate confusion.

Pitts cunningly appeals to equality by suggesting that opposition to gender-confused people using opposite-sex restrooms is tantamount to “segregating them…behind barbed wire of social rejection.” A commitment to equality demands that society treat like things alike. It does not demand that society treat different things as if they were the same. Bruce Jenner did not transform into a woman—as Pitts falsely claimed he did—and boys can never be girls. Such a truth is written even more firmly into the DNA of humans than inclusivity is written into the DNA of the former Girl Scouts of America.

Please support IFI as we fight for liberty & work to advance the truth
about the sanctity of life & importance of marriage in our culture!

Bruce-Caitlyn Jenner And A Warning About The Coming Transanity

To all those celebrating the transition of Bruce Jenner to Caitlyn Jenner, I have a word of warning: Be careful watch you wish for.

You see, if gender is whatever you perceive it to be, then there is no way to limit or control what is coming.

I’m not just talking about things like Facebook’s 50 ways to describe your gender, including 10 different ways simultaneously, which turned out not to be enough, leading to the “fill in the blank” gender option.

I’m not even talking about things like gender neutral bathrooms and locker rooms, as misguided and harmful as those would be.

I’m talking about people who consider themselves gender fluid, to the point of their gender changing by the hour (or by the event they’re attending). Why not?

I’m talking about people who say things like, “I’m a gender smoothie. Just take everything about gender, throw it in the blender, press the button, and that’s me.”

I’m talking about teens who want to push back against the dominant culture and refuse to identify as male or female, preferring to be called “Tractor” and the like. (Some researchers consider kids like this to be “cutting edge.”)

One online personality (and porn maker) describes herself as “just about your average multiracial, pansexual, transracially inseminated queerspawn, genderqueer, transdyke, colonized mestiza, pornographer, activist, writer.”

Is this the kind of brave new world you really want to embrace? Is it the kind of world you want your kids to grow up in? And are you sure this is really preferable to “male and female He created them” (Genesis 1:27)?

If perception is now reality, what do we say to those who are convinced they are part animal or part alien? (As incredible as all this seems, I document it carefully in my forthcoming book Outlasting the Gay Revolution: Where Homosexual Activism Is Really Going and How to Turn the Tide.)

And what do we say to those with Body Identity Integrity Disorder, also known as being transabled? They too are asking to be recognized, as noted in a recent articleby Sarah Boesveld titled, “Becoming disabled by choice, not chance: ‘Transabled’ people feel like impostors in their fully working bodies.”

These are people who are tormented by their healthy bodies, with their brains telling them that they should be missing a limb or be blind or disabled in one way or another, and some of them have now found peace by mutilating their bodies.

I addressed the comparison between transgender and transabled people in 2011, and now, LGBT activist Dan Savage has weighed in on their behalf, saying, “Other people’s bodies—and other people’s body parts—are theirs, not yours. And if someone needs to change or even remove some part(s) of their body to be who they are and to be happy and to be healthy, they should have that right.”

At least he’s being consistent in his position, which would mean that doctors should be allowed to amputate the healthy limbs of transabled people if that will give them peace of mind, just as they’re already allowed to perform sex-change surgery.

Returning specifically to Bruce-Caitlyn Jenner, am I the only one who gets the feeling that I woke up in some crazy new world when I watch the latest news about Jenner, a world in which it seems that just about everyone, from President Obama to ESPN, just drank some kind of strangely-laced Kool-Aid?

According to everything we know, we’re not talking about someone with biological or chromosomal abnormalities. We’re talking about a physically robust male who fathered 6 children and whose ex-wife Kris recently asked, “Why would you want to be married and have kids if this is what you wanted since you were a little boy? Why would you not explain this all to me?”

If he is to be applauded for his courage, then we should also applaud people like “One Hand Jason,” who “cut off his right arm with a ‘very sharp power tool’ . . . .”

Before the successful self-amputation, “he had for months tried different means of cutting and crushing the limb that never quite felt like his own, training himself on first aid so he wouldn’t bleed to death, even practicing on animal parts sourced from a butcher.”

Cutting off your own hand would take far more courage than submitting to all kinds of sex-change surgery, would it not?

I truly have sympathy for people who struggle with these disorders (or handicaps) and I don’t claim for a moment to be able to relate to their pain. That’s why, as a follower of Jesus: 1) I pray for a heart of an even deeper heart of compassion for them as people created in God’s image, yet fallen and flawed, like the rest of us; 2) I pray for breakthroughs that will help professionals uncover the spiritual, biological, genetic, psychological, or environmental causes of their suffering; 3) I will celebrate gender distinctions as God intended them.

There’s a reason the world has operated based on male-female boundaries and distinctions since the beginning of human history, and we invite societal chaos beyond description if we simply cast those boundaries and distinctions aside.

To quote G. K. Chesterton, “Don’t ever take a fence down until you know the reason it was put up.”

To say it again: Be careful what you wish for.

This article was originally posted at the TownHall.com website.