Our culture deals with the pervasive sin of sexual immorality to the point where many people just view sex outside of marriage (in every way possible) as “normal.”

It’s a serious problem, and the root of a lot of the current cultural chaos.

At Illinois Family Institute’s 2023 Worldview Conference, Dr. John Diggs spoke on “The Consequences of Sexual Immorality.” He does a deep dive into the consequences of sexual immorality, including STD’s, why it’s such big deal, and how the confusion about gender increases unbiblical disorder.

Please watch and share!

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.

https://twitter.com/i/status/1512208604421496832

“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.

https://twitter.com/i/status/1513254835075764227

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

Alex Marlow, News Editor-in-Chief at the rightwing website Breitbart.com, recently made the claim that “TikTok is Chinese mind control,” pointing to how it has captivated the “increasingly A.D.D. American mind” with its constant scrolling. Is there any truth to this claim? And is TikTok more dangerous than we realize, not just because of the mindless distraction it provides but because of its content?

Ironically, although TikTok was developed by a Chinese company and is owned by a Chinese company, it is banned in China, along with a number of other, major social media platforms, including Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram. How interesting! So, the app is good for kids in America and the world but not good for kids in China?

Still, to say that “TikTok is Chinese mind control,” as if the Chinese developers intentionally built an app that could help destroy the Western mind, could be quite a stretch.

Yet that doesn’t mean that there is not real danger with TikTok, and not simply because it exacerbates our problem with distraction. Rather, there is real danger because of some of its destructive content, appealing especially to children and young people.

To give a shocking case in point, according to a recent video by Matt Walsh, “TikTok Is Making Mental Illness Trendy.”

He noted how destructive ideas and behavior and concepts “can go from fringe to trendy to mainstream quite literally overnight.” He added, “What was unusual one moment might be ubiquitous the next, and people, especially young people, can get caught in the current and drowned before they even notice that their shoes are wet.”

He pointed to the latest TikTok fascination with what is called Multiple Personality Disorder (MPD), as a result of which large numbers of young people are wrongly diagnosing themselves with this unusual condition.

Walsh played a clip from Good Morning America, where this phenomenon was discussed with real concern, as the host noted that videos with hashtags like #Dissassociativeidentitydisorder and #Borderlinepersonalitydisorder have been viewed hundreds of millions of times. This really has become epidemic.

Walsh then explained that the young person who self-diagnoses with MPD refers to himself or herself as “the system,” with each personality within “the system” being called an “alter.” And what effect does this have on young people?

It was a concerned mother who sent me the Walsh video, wanting to tell me about the latest developments with her 18-year-old daughter, who now identifies as a male. (We’ll call the daughter Rachel to hide her identity.) She wrote,

“Do you know anything about this??? I’m literally livid. This is how it started with us. Rachel went on some social media site, convinced herself she was a system with lots of personalities, like 100. And did this exact same thing!! When I spoke to the psychiatrists about this, they had no clue what I was talking about. No one has been helpful with this. Why is no one talking about this?!?! I’m so angry right now. Part of what the issue is with Rachel, she thinks she has several alters with all different genders. Why would any doctor give her testosterone acting like this???”

So, trained psychiatrists have not heard about this destructive TikTok trend, but millions of impressionable young people are intimately familiar with it. And, here in America, where the daughter now resides, a licensed doctor was willing to give this teenager a testosterone shot to help her “transition” to male, even though her mental instability should have been visible at once.

The mother continued, “She is so wrapped up and so deep in lies. I don’t know how to bring her to truth. . . . Her roommate, also a ‘system’ won’t allow me to talk to my child. She is the gate keeper to any communication. How can a trained therapist even accept this nonsense???”

Nonsense indeed. And some of you can identify with this mother’s pain and anger and frustration.

It’s really as if a foreign entity has invaded the hearts and minds of our kids, what Jordan Peterson recently referred to as a “sociological contagion.”

Peterson also opined that opening the boundaries of “sex categories” would “fatally confuse thousands of young girls,” a claim that the New York Post found to be “unsubstantiated.” Really? Unsubstantiated?

Perhaps this Newsweek headline from October 2021 provides some of the necessary substantiation for Peterson’s claim: “Nearly 40 Percent of U.S. Gen Zs, 30 Percent of Young Christians Identify as LGBTQ, Poll Shows.”

This spike of more than 4,000 percent, from roughly 3 percent of the population to the current 40 percent, did not happen in a vacuum. Instead, this is what takes place when a society loses its boundaries, casts off traditional biblical values, and inundates its young people with a constant flood of pro-LGBTQ messages and propaganda. The latest TikTok trends provide yet another avenue for such mass deception, as kids are self-diagnosing themselves with all kinds of alleged mental disorders.

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?

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.

Exeter High School in New Hampshire is being sued by a Catholic student (identified in the lawsuit as M.P.) who was suspended from playing in a football game because in a private conversation, off school grounds, initiated by a “progressive” student, M.P. expressed his view that there are only two genders: male and female. To be clear, by “genders,” he meant sexes. Until recently when the “trans”-cult redefined “gender,” the term was synonymous with “biological sex.”

The conversation was precipitated by an incident in Spanish class when a student declared that he or she is “nonbinary” and wished to be addressed by the third-person plural pronoun “they.” On the bus ride home after school, M.P. and his friends were discussing the “difficulty of addressing a non-binary person in Spanish,” which has two gendered words for “they”: “ellas” and “ellos.”

A girl identified as A.G. interrupted their conversation to assert the silly idea that there are more than two “genders.” After M.P. got off the bus, A.G. texted him to resume the debate during which she demanded M.P. “Give me one valid reason why there’s only two genders.”

That’s like demanding someone give her a valid reason why there are tigers. Tigers—like boys and girls—just are.

A.G. then sent the text conversation to Vice Principal Marcy Dovholuk, also known as Big Brother Sister Genderless Sibling. She decided from on her high horse that no student is permitted to express his or her true, scientifically verifiable belief that humans, like all other mammals, are either male or female. One wonders what orders Dovholuk has issued to Exeter’s biology teachers.

The next day, M.P. was pulled out of a morning class by Dovholuk and varsity football coach Bill Ball and suspended from the next football game for,

failing to respect another student’s gender pronouns and for ‘inappropriate language’ used in his texts, such as “bozo” and “stfu.”

As someone who worked in a public high school for a decade, I can say with confidence that no student is suspended for calling someone a “bozo” or saying “stfu” in class, let alone in a text message after school.

When M.P.’s mother objected to the suspension, saying that her son had done nothing wrong, Ball replied, “‘I know, but times are changing.’” Truer words were never spoken. Right is now wrong, and wrong is right. Imagine if Ball had had the spine to object instead of capitulating.

Even in the phantasmagorical Transtopia that leftists are socially constructing, A.G. misused the term “gender.” In Transtopia, “gender” is the aggregate of behaviors, roles, and conventions arbitrarily associated with one of the two biological sexes. A. G. likely meant “gender identities,” which in Transtopia, are the subjective, internal feelings one has about one’s maleness, femaleness, both, or neither. “Gender identity” has no objective, material reality. A. G. interrupted M.P.’s discussion about the two sexes with an entirely irrelevant comment about “gender identity.”

Exeter’s outrageous policy on “Transgender and Gender Nonconforming Students” states,

[T]he the goal [of this policy] is to ensure the safety, comfort, and healthy development of the transgender or gender nonconforming student while maximizing the student’s social integration and minimizing stigmatization of the student. … A student has the right to be addressed by a name and pronoun that corresponds to the student’s gender identity. … The intentional or persistent refusal to respect a student’s gender identity (for example, intentionally referring to the student by a name or pronoun that does not correspond to the student’s gender identity) is a violation of this policy.

Here are several questions for the Exeter administration and school board:

• What criteria did the school use to determine what constitutes the “healthy development” of gender-dysphoric students? Who socially constructed those criteria?

• Is the school arguing there exists no behavior that should be stigmatized? What if a student identifies as a polyamorist or zoophile? Are other students free to express disapproval of polyamory and zoophilia?

• What are the administration’s pronoun diktats with regard to “gender fluid” students who change their preferred pronouns day-to-day?

• Is the administration aware that when they suggest that saying there are only two genders is worthy of discipline, they are stigmatizing all theologically orthodox Christians, whose beliefs about God’s created order are central to their Christian identity? Could that stigmatization make Christian students feel “unsafe”?

• Does a student have a right not to be forced to lie? When the administration demands that students use pronouns that embody false, science-denying beliefs about humans, they are forcing students to lie, which in turn means the administration is forcing Christian students to violate their religion.

• Does the administration realize that disciplining students for acting on their religious beliefs constitutes discrimination based on religion?

The verb “respect” means to hold something in esteem or to feel deferential regard for something. No public school has a right to demand that students “respect” any aspect of the “trans” ideology or of any behavior related to it. And no public school has the right to demand that only conservative students refrain from expressing their ontological, theological, moral, or political views of “trans”-cultism, while permitting “progressive” students to express theirs.

No student has an obligation to “respect” the superstition that some boys menstruate and some girls have penises. No student has an obligation to respect cross-sex hormone-doping, cross-dressing, or the sexual integration of bathrooms, locker rooms, or sports.

There is nothing progressive about “Progressives.” Their sexuality ideology is an odd mixture of paganism and Gnosticism, and their political tactics are those of all oppressive regimes. The Exeter tattle tale A. G. is like one of the two kinds of “whisperer” (sheptun) in the former Soviet Union who “informs or whispers behind people’s backs to the authorities.” Normal Americans are becoming the other kind of “whisperers” (shepchushchii) in the former Soviet Union, the ones who “whisper[ed] out of fear of being overheard.”

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/Anti-Science-Public-High-School-Discriminates-Based-on-Religion.mp3

Just think of the upside down world in which we live today. Women and girls are relaxing in a California spa when a man walks in, naked and fully exposed, in full view of these mothers and daughters. Yet when a complaint is issued, the spa, along with the editorial board of the Los Angeles Times editorial board, defend the man. Do we need any more proof that we have lost our corporate minds?

A man commits full frontal indecent exposure in the presence of women and girls, and the Los Angeles Times chides the women for being upset while defending the man, since, after all, he’s actually a woman. And, you know, women can have penises too. That’s right. And men can menstruate as well as conceive and give birth to babies. That’s also why we must talk about “chestfeeding” rather “breastfeeding,” since the latter term would offend nursing fathers.

Have we not lost our minds?

Listen to this woman’s personal account of what happened:

“I went to the Wi spa in Los Angeles, California, and while I decided to go around the different jacuzzis, I decided to take a nap. After my nap, I got up and I wanted to get water. As I was walking, I noticed something that really was disturbing, something that caused me to feel that I must have been transported into the men’s locker room, the men’s Jacuzzi area.

“Yeah. A man, a full-on man, fully naked, completely exposed, showing his testicles, his penis. Slightly erected.

“I was appalled at what I saw. This was not normal. . . . Little girls are there, their mothers are there, other women are looking about, and they begin to put their robes back on them. I went to management. Management did nothing. I even told the guy he should leave, ‘This is not right,’ and he didn’t leave. We had no help whatsoever. I did not know what to do.

“Something has got to be done. This is not fair. It is not right. We as women have rights to be safe in public spaces, and they are being violated by men going into women’s spaces, claiming to be women to gain access, so that they can exercise their perversions.

“This is not right. We must do something about it.

“On June 23, I experienced what no woman or little girl should ever experience. I experienced what used to be called flashing or indecent exposure, which would result in a man registering to be a sexual offender for life.”

Yes, this used to be considered perverse and even illegal. But not today. Today, this is a “right” to be celebrated. And it is the women and girls who have a problem. They are the ones who are messed up in their thinking. The onus is on them to change.

As explained in the upside-down editorial in the Los Angeles Times, “As complicated as the opposing beliefs might be, it is clear where the rights in this matter land. Everyone — transgender customers, members of every faith and women who are upset by the sight of penises — all have the right to use the spa and other public accommodations.”

Indeed, the Times’ editors opined with some of the most convoluted thinking imaginable, “no one has an absolute right to feel comfortable all the time. People have a right to use the spa, but that doesn’t include with it a guarantee that they all will feel at ease with everything they see. They might prefer a spa where a certain amount of body covering is required.”

Seriously? No one has the right to expect that a biological male, naked and fully exposed, will not come marching into the women’s area? No one has the right to expect that their children will not suffer this kind of sexual and psychological abuse? Seriously?

This used to be called indecent exposure. You could go to jail for this.

But not today. Today it is just a needless “hullabaloo,” to quote the exact term used by the Times. We’ll get over it soon enough.

Yes, the Times editors tell us, “Young people are far more comfortable with the idea of shared spaces for people of all gender identities and sexes.”

Absolutely. I’m sure an 8-year-old or 12-year-old or 15-year-old girl, sitting naked in the steam room, is super comfortable with a 40-year-old naked man sitting down next to them. Of course!

To repeat: this is madness.

Yet the self-righteousness and moral perversion of the Times knows no bounds. To quote the closing words of the editorial, “In the meantime, customers of public-serving businesses should be prepared to share space with the public, in all our forms, varieties and customs. Antidiscrimination laws stand for the principle that all are welcome, whether we are comfortable or not.”

Tell that to the girls (and women) who feel violated and abused. Tell that to the people whose rights have been trampled.

But no, we can’t, because transgender activism trumps all. It trumps morality. And decency. And honor. And common sense. Just say, “I’m trans!” and anything goes.

And what about sexual predators who have already used these loopholes to enter ladies’ bathrooms and the like? That’s too bad, we are told, but the priority is protecting those who identify as transgender.

I ask again: what kind of madness is this? How and when did we entirely lose our minds?

And what an absolute and ridiculous farce to allow for these abuses to take place under “antidiscrimination laws.” Talk about legal mumbo jumbo. Talk about turning right into wrong and wrong into right.

As for the man who truly believes he is a woman, here’s a word of wisdom for you: you do not belong in the women’s spa, naked and exposed, even if to the core of your being you believe you are female.

Moreover, no one is making you go there, and your life will not be hurt if you stay out of a place where there are naked women and girls. (Let’s be realistic here. We’re not talking about withholding lifesaving treatment or essential medical care from someone who identifies as trans. God forbid. We’re talking about biological males not exposing themselves around women and girls. Please get a grip.)

Sir, male plumbing remains, and if you expose that plumbing in the sight of the opposite sex you should pay the penalty for indecent exposure.

The truth is that the spa should be ashamed for defending the man. Those members of the public who also supported his “rights” should be ashamed. And the Times should be ashamed.

Alas, in today’s upside world, where perversion is celebrated and common decency is denigrated, shame is hard to find.

Back in 2016, during a debate over transgender access to school bathrooms and locker rooms, the Charlotte Observer infamously opined that, “Girls must try ‘overcoming discomfort’ of seeing ‘male genitalia’ in bathrooms.”

I commented in response, “Transanity indeed.”

Is there any other way to describe it? Do we need any further proof that we have lost our corporate minds?

I rest my case.

This article was originally published at AskDrBrown.org.

I write often about homosexuality and “trans”-cultism because there are no more serious threats to fundamental speech rights and religious liberty than the efforts to use public education, the law, Big Business, Big Tech, the mainstream news media, and the arts to normalize homosexuality and gender confusion.

In addition, individuals and families are being incalculably harmed by the corrosive lies of “LGB” and “T” activism. Parents’ rights to oversee their children’s moral education and medical care are being undermined and even stripped by “LGB” and “T” activists and their collaborators. And the temporal and eternal lives of individuals who experience same sex attraction and/or gender dysphoria are being destroyed.

My professional goals center on exposing the specious arguments and rhetoric, goals, and consequences of the unchecked movement to normalize homosexuality and cross-sex impersonation in the hope that clarity will result in greater cultural participation by conservatives. I hope to generate a sense of urgency and obligation that will lead conservatives to overcome their fears in order to protect both individuals and society.

All decent people should feel righteous anger when teachers tell children that homosexuality and cross-sex impersonation are deserving of respect and affirmation. We do not embody the love of Christ when we remain silent while body- and soul-destroying lies are affirmed to and in children and teens.

The lies of activists must be exposed, but in so doing, we must not lose sight of the suffering of those who experience disordered sexual attraction to persons of the same sex or who feel unrelenting discomfort with their biological sex. They do not choose their feelings, and they often suffer in shame, fear, and silence as most of us do when we experience disordered, sinful impulses.

With most or many other sins, our culture affirms the truth that is written on our hearts. Our mothers, fathers, teachers, storytellers, pastors, priests, and political leaders in their diverse cultural roles affirm many moral truths. But something very different happens today with regard to sexual sin.

With sexual sin, our depraved, carrion-devouring culture swoops down and offers the bleakly deterministic lie that homoerotic desire and cross-sex identification are inborn traits akin to skin color. They tell children and teens that acting on those desires is not only morally good but also essential to fulfillment. They tell children and teens that refusal to act on such impulses is an act of futility that will result in utterly unfulfilled, lonely lives or suicide. And they tell young, confused people that anyone who dissents from those claims hates them.

And those claims are touted as the “loving” response.

Well, there are other claims–claims that offer hope for a life defined by real love and real peace. It is a peace that passes all understanding and derives from knowing that sacrificing our desires to God’s will pleases a good, holy, just, and merciful God.

God offered up his perfect son for our sins. Jesus died a horrific death on the cross to pay the penalty for the sins of all who trust in him. Those who experience homosexual attraction or gender dysphoria are no different from those who experience all manner of other sinful impulses: While God may not remove every last vestige of sinful impulses, he will give believers the power to refuse to act on them.

A personal relationship with God does not free us from all sinful impulses, but it does free us from bondage to sin. Full and absolute freedom from the experience of sinful impulses will not come until the end of history. The persistence and seeming intractability of sinful impulses do not mean that the impulses are gifts from God. It means that sin grips the heart of fallen man.

Jeff Mirus, founder of Christendom College and Trinity Communications, implores Christians to reject “an ethos rooted in a deep fear of the judgment of the world.” Instead, we “need to consistently apply Christ’s light and Christ’s truth in order to rescue souls from the overpowering snare that has been fashioned for us out of the dominant contemporary blend of mistakes, lies and temptations regarding sex.”

Our friends and loved ones should be told that joy and peace come from choosing to live a life that pleases the creator of the universe. What an amazing idea. We humans have the capacity to please the omniscient, omnipotent, eternally existing creator of all creation. Never hearing that truth is tragic.

And our dear friends and loved ones who may never experience heterosexual attraction deserve to be told that a celibate life lived in submission to God is not a lonely, unfulfilled life. They too can have rich, intimate, deeply loving relationships within the body of Christ. They can have deep, loving, chaste same-sex friendships that can help restore the brokenness in their pasts. They can serve as surrogate aunts, uncles, grandmas, and grandpas for children who too are experiencing brokenness and loss. They deserve to be told that they are loved—not because of their sin–but, like the rest of us, despite it.

Our depraved world swims along the surface of a world so deep and wondrous, it is beyond imagining. And our fallen, depraved world that has no eyes to see or ears to hear beyond this all-too-consuming temporal life, chatters cacophonously, filling the hearts and minds of people with beguiling lies that lead to eternal separation from a good and holy God. If we truly love our friends and family members lost in sexual darkness, we must tell them the truth, no matter what the personal cost to us, always remembering that our salvation came at the greatest cost of all.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/Sexual-Sin.mp3

In order to reflect, promote, and indoctrinate children with the radical sexuality ideology of Leftists, Mattel, the toy manufacturer of Barbie dolls, has introduced a new line of “Creatable World” gender-neutral dolls that come complete with boyish- and girlish-looking wigs, clothing, and accessories. Each singular “creatable,” gender-neutral doll comes with its own pronouns, some of which are grammatically incorrect, rhetorically confusing, and biologically ignorant, like “they” or “xem.”

Like Victor Frankenstein, cultural regressives harbor the delusion that humans can create their own ontological and moral world. In their futile attempt to erase the sexual binary and appease the powerful and aggressive “trans” lobby, Mattel painstakingly developed a doll whose features look neither recognizably male nor female, thereby providing yet more evidence that culture is never neutral on moral issues. From this unfortunate business decision, we learn again that culture can either reaffirm truth or undermine it.

Mattel’s senior vice president of fashion doll design, Kim Culmone, made this foolish statement:

[A]s the world continues to celebrate the positive impact of inclusivity, we felt it was time to create a doll line free of labels.

If by “inclusivity” she means welcoming and embracing every phenomenon, idea, feeling, and volitional act, she’s wrong. Not even Leftists celebrate that or view such comprehensive inclusion as positive. If by “inclusivity,” she really means affirmation of the “LGBTQ” ideology, she’s still wrong. The “world” doesn’t celebrate the widespread affirmation of the “LGBTQ” ideology. Huge swathes of people groups around the world reject it and view it as destructive.

As to the label-free claim? Lol. Mattel labeled them “gender inclusive” dolls.

“Trans” activists and their “progressive” collaborators believe that society “conditions” children into believing that biological sex exists and matters. They maintain the peculiar belief that stereotypes precede and shape male and female differences rather than the other way around.

While it is important to avoid imposing too-rigid stereotypes regarding clothing and activities on children, breaking “gender binaries” is a wholly different and destructive pursuit and one that depends on acceptance of Leftist assumptions about sexuality and “gender identity.” Many hold the dissenting belief that it is profoundly good to accept and affirm one’s objective biological sex. Parents and society can help children develop a secure sexual identity or thwart them in that increasingly challenging process.

There are three important truths that get lost in “progressive” discussions of “stereotyping”:

1.) Not all patterns, similarities, or expectations constitute “stereotyping,” and not all stereotyping is malevolent, oppressive, and destructive. Humans recognize patterns and classify like things together. That’s how we make sense of the world. And “stereotyping” is used both for instruction and entertainment. The types on which stereotypes are based and from which they emerge can be good, bad, or neutral. Real persons who share in common, recognizable traits pre-exist the stereotype.

Dana Carvey’s “Church Lady” wouldn’t have been funny or even made sense if we didn’t recognize the character type that actually exists and on whom Carvey’s character was based.  The much-loved movie My Big Fat Greek Wedding wouldn’t have delighted audiences if they didn’t recognize the reality that the film warmly mocks. Tyler Perry’s satirical movies about the character Madea depend on a stereotype that reflects a personality type that actually exists. Will and Grace—the show that homosexuals love—is rife with stereotypes.

2.) Stereotypes often emerge from and reflect anthropological truths—both bad and good. Stereotypes about men and women were not created out of whole cloth or manufactured from the fertile imaginations of patriarchal oppressors. They emerged from patterns humans observe. The cultural movement to normalize homosexuality is founded on the reality of sexual differentiation. When homosexuals say they are romantically and erotically attracted only to members of their same sex, they are implicitly acknowledging the truth that men and women are inherently and significantly different and that those differences are not only anatomical. While stereotypes can reflect and reinforce the good architecture of sexually differentiated human life, they don’t dictate our lives or reflect the totality of any individual person.

3.) Historically societies have believed that the fact of genetically determined sexual differentiation was a good thing and should be affirmed. Cultures developed patterns of behavior and societal roles that reflected, codified, encouraged, and sustained sexual differentiation, which is mostly a good thing.

Of course, humans, being fallen, sinful creatures, have deformed their roles and responsibilities and denied their God-given natures in myriad destructive ways. Through pride, fear, lust, and selfishness, they have variously abused their natures and abdicated their roles. And unthinking societies have at times become too restrictive regarding what roles men and women could or should assume.

But errors in how cultures think about and respond to sexual differentiation should not lead to jettisoning the valuation and affirmation of it. Sometimes encouraging conformity—including conformity to what the Left views as a “stereotype”—can be not merely a harmless thing but a good thing.

It is good for societies to cultivate respect for and valuation of sexual differentiation through some expectations regarding dress and behavior. It is at minimum benign to paint the nursery walls of a baby girl pink and baby boy blue. It is profoundly harmful for boys to dress and act exactly like girls or vice versa.

Of course, what that looks like will change over time and across cultures. But the Left does not seek to work at ensuring reasonable gender expectations but, rather, to eradicate all recognition of sexual differentiation. If sexual differentiation can be viewed as a meaningless accident of birth, then the sexual integration of private spaces and the biological sex of one’s erotic partner are meaningless as well.

Sexual differences are real, substantive, and meaningful, and reinforcing them is good. Culture will either “impose” views that reflect truth or “impose” views that reflect lies. While criticizing social conditioning, Leftists deny the conditioning they facilitate. “Trans”-activists deny that through their actions, they are imposing their dogma on society. In other words, the “trans”-ideology is a social construction. Through pronoun policing; mandatory co-ed private spaces; falsified birth certificates and driver’s licenses; public shaming and epithet-hurling; and cultural indoctrination on a massive scale through control of government schools, academia, the press, the arts, professional medical and mental health communities, and now dolls, public recognition and valuation of sex differences is being eradicated.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Gender-Neutral-Dolls.mp3

IFI depends on the support of concerned-citizens like you. Donate now

-and, please-

Written by Peter Heck

On an ordinary day I would have regarded what Indiana State Attorney General Curtis Hill did as an aberration, a stroke of common sense in a society waging war against it. Hill refused to enact a policy change made by the Bureau of Motor Vehicles that would have created a new “Gender X” option for state drivers’ licenses.

It seems to be Hill’s view that not requiring the official government license to hold official, factual information rather than the desires or wishes of the carrier is a bad idea. He has a point, of course. As others have pointed out, should the carrier be allowed to decide what eye color, hair color, weight and height they wish they had and list that? If so, what’s the point of the document in the first place?

But that’s not the way we think anymore in the West. That’s why I would have been tempted to regard Hill’s refusal to bow the knee to the mob of inmates that now runs our cultural asylum as an isolated act of courage. But signs continue to emerge that perhaps the transgender madness has pushed a bit too far and society is starting to push back.

For instance, it was just days ago that avowed leftist Piers Morgan tweeted this:

A sure sign that leftist lawmakers in Springfield are obsessively driven by the desire to use government money and power to advance an absurd, science-denying ideology is House Bill 922  sponsored by State Representative Linda Chapa LaVia (D-Aurora) that, if passed, will require every public middle and high school in the state to make tampons and sanitary napkins available for free in every boys’ bathroom.

You read that right. Every middle and high school in the state will have to add feminine hygiene dispensers to every boys’ restroom for all the menstruating boys. #AnotherUnfundedMandate.

“What ho?!” you may be exclaiming if you’ve been sequestered in a cloistered world in which science still appertains. Surely—you think—teachers know that boys don’t menstruate!

Oh, you naïve, antiquated, science-loving peeps. We’ve left modernity and post-modernity behind. We’ve even left “truthiness” behind.

We’ve now entered the post-science, post-rationality, post-truth era where pseudoscience—aided and abetted by Big Brother and his ugly twin Big “Trans”—in the service of absolute autonomy, amorality, and pagan sexuality reign—and destroy.

To be clear, the “menstruating boys” are confused girls who masquerade as boys. Leftist lawmakers believe we the people and our taxes should be forced to subsidize their confusion and masquerades.

A less costly—in both dollars and sense—compromise with anti-science cultists would be to allow girls who pretend to be boys to get their feminine hygiene products from school nurses, but “trans”-cultists and their ideological allies demand that all society pretend along with “trans”-identifying persons. “Trans”-cultists seek to force everyone to pretend the empress is an emperor.

Leftist lawmakers believe that commitments to compassion and inclusivity require Illinois taxpayers to facilitate a body- and soul-destroying fiction that harms these children—a fiction that is supported by no actual hard science. There is no conclusive, research-based hard science proving that girls with healthy, normally functioning anatomy and physiology can be born in boys’ bodies or vice versa. There is no conclusive, research-based hard science proving that if a girl experiences a mismatch between her subjective feelings about her sex and her objective biological sex that the error resides in her body as opposed to her mind. There is no conclusive, research-based hard science proving that all cross-sex-identifying children as well as all other children are best-served by adults facilitating a fiction.

Parents of public school children must understand that pronoun mandates and restroom diktats like this bill are teaching all children that biological sex has no intrinsic meaning relative to anything, including to feelings of modesty and the desire for privacy when undressing or engaged in personal bodily activities.

These intrusive, coercive mandates are teaching all children that the desires of opposite-sex impersonators take precedence over the desires of non-delusional people in every context.

These mandates are teaching all children that in order to be loving, compassionate, and inclusive, they must share private spaces with opposite-sex peers.

And parents must understand that these “trans” policies and the ideology taught to their children to rationalize these policies are desensitizing their children to co-ed private spaces. In other words, increasing numbers of children and teens are becoming unnaturally comfortable sharing restrooms and locker rooms with peers of the opposite sex.

It is our cowardice and complacency that allow these incremental changes to move forward, thereby ensuring what should be a shocking sexual revolution. We’re moving to a cultural place where it will be illegal to publicly recognize sexual differentiation in word or deed.

When you next contact your lawmakers and school leaders, make sure to ask them this question: “What is a woman?” Get back to me with their answers.

Take ACTION: Click HERE to send a message to your state representative to ask him/her to vote down HB 922.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/HB922.mp3

It may be the drip, drip, drip that gets your kids. A scene in a movie, a passage in a novel, a sympathetic portrayal of homosexuality in a play, a song by a well-know musician, a bullying prevention presentation at school, a visually arresting advertisement depicting homosexuality or opposite-sex impersonation positively… week after week, month after month, year after year.

Add to that the vociferous condemnation of disapproval of homosexuality or of the “trans” ideology (including opposition to co-ed private spaces) and voilà, children’s hearts and minds have been transformed—or, rather, deformed.

There are no widespread rational discussions of Leftist positions in which “progressive” arguments are presented with reasons and evidence. No dissenting arguments are explored. This, my friends, is how propaganda and demagoguery work.

And it’s everywhere, even in places you would least expect it, like Monroe Middle School in the heart of conservative Wheaton, Illinois, home of evangelical academic flagship Wheaton College.

Defacing the walls of Monroe Middle School are offensive student drawings that positively portray both homosexuality and opposite-sex impersonation, some accompanied by ignorant (i.e., lacking knowledge) and troubling captions.

One drawing shows two boys hugging, cheek-to-cheek with a heart floating above their heads and a rainbow scarf encircling both their necks with the caption, “Be who you are, not who they tell you to be.”

Is that a good slogan on which schools should tacitly put their imprimatur? What does it even mean? Does it mean our identities are defined by our powerful, persistent desires? Any desires? All desires?

Who are “they” in the command to ignore “who they tell you to be”? Is there a difference between someone saying that homosexual activity is destructive to bodies and souls and telling someone who to be? Don’t teachers and administrators teach children every day in myriad ways who to be—and who not to be? Isn’t part of the job of teachers to teach children right from wrong? Isn’t that what character development necessarily entails?

Certainly, Christians believe that identity cannot be centered around the affirmation of sinful impulses of which homosexual impulses and the desire to be the opposite sex are but two.

Another drawing depicts a boy in girl’s clothing and a girl in boy’s clothing holding hands with the caption, “LOVE IS LOVE.”

Is that true? Is there just one universal, undifferentiated human experience called love? Are all loving relationships the same? If so, then logically, sex must be a morally justifiable part of all loving relationships. Man-woman, man-man, woman-woman, man-man-woman, woman-woman-man, adult-teen, adult-child, teen-child, father-daughter, mother-son, brother-brother, coach-team member, professor-student, etc.

Now don’t go all judgmental on me. And do not tell anyone in any of these kinds of relationships “who to be.” Remember, LOVE IS LOVE.

Here are some other questions someone should ask the powers-that-be at Monroe Middle School:

• Were these drawings part of a teacher’s assignment? If so, who was the teacher?

• If not, how did they come to be, and who gave permission for them to be on the walls?

• Were parents of all students notified ahead of time that there were going to be pro-homosexual and pro-“trans” drawings on the walls?

• How long have the drawings been up, and how long will they remain up?

• Are all forms of love identical?

• What other materials that depict homosexuality and opposite-sex impersonation positively are the 11-14-year-old Monroe Middle School students being exposed to?

• Does Monroe Middle School allow any students to use opposite-sex restrooms and locker rooms?

• Would the administration permit students to hang drawings of, for example, young women who experience “sex-change regret” and feel sorrow over their sterility; irreversible voice changes; and scarred, breast-less chests?

Often sexual anarchists drip, drip, drip their propaganda and demagoguery into the minds and hearts of children, but lately, grown arrogant and brazen from feasting on their victories, they flood children with their noxious lies. For example, several years ago, California passed a law similar to the one wending its way through the Springfield swamp (the “Inclusive Curriculum” bill). The California law, passed in 2011 is dishonestly called the “Fair Education Act” and requires that all social studies and history classes in grades k-12 include the “role and contributions of… lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender Americans.”

The California law also prohibits public schools from using any materials that reflect “adversely upon persons because of their… sexual orientation.” So, while being required to present resources that depict homosexuality and opposite-sex impersonation positively, the law censors all resources that present dissenting views. The problem is that, unlike race, homosexuality and opposite-sex impersonation are constituted by subjective feelings and volitional acts that many view as immoral. Prohibiting dissenting voices transforms education into indoctrination.

In November 2017, California adopted its first set of textbooks for grades k-8 since the law took effect in 2012. Eight of the proposed textbooks were accepted, while two were rejected. Those two were rejected “because they failed to address the sexual orientations of historical figures who were LGBT, or widely speculated by historians to have been LGBT. They include poets Emily Dickinson and Walt Whitman, authors Ralph Waldo Emerson and Nathaniel Hawthorne, and President James Buchanan.”

As I wrote recently in regard to the “Inclusive Curriculum” bill proposed in Illinois, sexuality anarchists seek to use cultural achievements to suggest without stating that homosexuality and biological sex-rejection are good because people who affirm homosexual or “trans” identities did great things. Leftists seek to associate homosexuality and opposite-sex impersonation with achievement in order to transfer the positive feelings people have about achievements to homosexuality and gender confusion.

The California law not only requires that schools include the role and contributions of homosexuals and opposite-sex impersonators but also—and unbelievably—those suspected of being homosexuals or cross-dressers.

It’s not just Wheaton parents with children in or soon-to-be in Monroe Middle School who should be outraged. All district taxpayers should be outraged. Their property tax dollars are being used to indoctrinate children with a pernicious ideology that undermines truth and human flourishing. In other words, their money is being used to harm children.

Teachers who don’t recognize truth do not deserve to be entrusted with other people’s children. Teachers who know truth but don’t battle tenaciously and courageously for it in public schools should be ashamed for abdicating their moral duty.

Finally, all Illinoisans need to contact their state lawmakers to urge them to reject SB 3249 and HB 5596, or we will end up with the same kind of law California has, only Illinois’ proposed law is worse. It will really flood the Land of Lincoln with noxious lies.

Take ACTION: Click HERE to send a message to both your state representative and state senator to ask them to reject this effort to politicize curricula in order to advance biased beliefs about sexuality to children in government schools.

More ACTION: Click HERE to send a message to Monroe Middle School Principal Bryan Buck and Superintendent Jeff Schuler to express your objections to the inappropriate displays, which express arguable ideas on highly controversial topics.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Sexuality-Propaganda-from-Drip-Drip-Drip-to-Downpour.mp3

IFI Worldview Conference May 5th

We have rescheduled our annual Worldview Conference featuring well-know apologist John Stonestreet for Saturday, May 5th at Medinah Baptist Church. Mr. Stonestreet is s a dynamic speaker and the award-winning author of “Making Sense of Your World” and his newest offer: “A Practical Guide to Culture.”

Join us for a wonderful opportunity to take enhance your biblical worldview and equip you to more effectively engage the culture.

Click HERE to learn more or to register!

For years conservatives have asserted that homosexuals are pursuing children, and for years homo-activists have mocked that claim. Due to either their profound ignorance or their commitment to deception as a tactic for advancing their pernicious goal of normalizing homoeroticism, homo-activists misrepresented what conservatives were claiming.

Homo-activists falsely claimed that conservatives were worried that they would try to “turn children gay,” when, in reality, most conservatives were claiming that homo-activists were feverishly working through every cultural institution to eradicate conservative views on the nature and morality of homosexuality. In other words, homo-activists were pursuing the hearts and minds of other people’s children.

The same goes for “trans”-activists who, like homo-activists and their ideological allies, are hell-bent on using public schools to pursue the hearts and minds of other people’s children.

These activists teach other people’s children that homoeroticism and biological-sex rejection (i.e., “transgenderism”) are phenomena to be celebrated.

They teach them that there is no difference between a marriage between a man and a woman and an anti-marriage between two people of the same-sex.

They teach them that expressing the belief that homoerotic activity or cross-dressing and bodily mutilation are wrong is equivalent to bullying and the cause of teen suicide.

They teach them that men can be mommies, and women daddies.

They teach them that to be loving, compassionate, and inclusive, they must lie by calling gender-pretending peers by opposite-sex pronouns, and they must be willing to relinquish their privacy.

They expose them to plays, novels, and essays with obscene language that depict deviant sexuality positively.

They teach them that every person who believes homoeroticism and co-ed locker rooms are wrong is hateful—which includes many children’s parents.

Christian parents charged by God to train up their children in the way they should go have no biblical warrant for placing their children all day, all year in schools that refuse to recognize the immutability and profound meaning of sexual differentiation, particularly as it relates to modesty and privacy.

No Christian should teach in an institution that requires them to facilitate the body- and soul-destroying fiction that humans can be born in the “wrong” body.

No Christian teacher should refer to boys and girls by opposite-sex pronouns. If they do, they teach all students that the “trans” ideology is benign at best, if not good. They teach all children that it is justifiable to participate in the grievous fiction that subjective feelings about one’s sex have greater value and import than does one’s objective, immutable sex.

Hawaii just issued guidelines that direct schools on how “trans”-identifying students should be accommodated. The guidelines include the false claim that Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibit “discrimination based on gender identity and gender expression.” They do not. They prohibit discrimination based on sex and sex did not then, nor does it now include “gender identity” or “gender expression.”

Here are some of the other guidelines:

1.) Schools should accept a student’s “gender identity” based on nothing more than his or her claim. No medical or mental health diagnosis or treatment is necessary.

2.) For students who will be pretending to be the opposite sex at school, there should be a meeting with school officials. Parents need not be included or notified about the meeting or the student’s opposite-sex impersonation. This directive applies to elementary, middle, and high schools.

3.) “Trans”-identifying students should be allowed access to opposite-sex restrooms, locker rooms, and hotel rooms on overnight school-sponsored trips.

4.) Schools should not require “trans”-identifying students to use single-occupancy restrooms or locker rooms.

5.) Schools may not share the true sex of “trans”-identifying students with students of the opposite sex whose privacy they are invading. Nor may schools share this information with the parents of students whose privacy is being invaded. So, a girl who pretends to be a boy should be able to use the boys’ restrooms—where boys use urinals—and no parents may be notified.

6.) Schools should make special accommodations for normal students who don’t want to share restrooms and locker rooms with peers of the opposite sex. In other words, normal girls will be forced out of girls’ restrooms and locker rooms so that boys with a mental disorder may use them.

7.) “Trans”-identifying students should be allowed to play on opposite-sex athletic teams.

8.) Students should be permitted to cross-dress at school.

9.) School staff and faculty should use the “preferred” pronouns of “trans”-identifying and “gender nonconforming” students.

Minnesota has just issued similar guidelines but include this startling statement regarding restrooms, locker rooms, and hotel accommodations for overnight trips:

Privacy objections raised by a [normal] student in interacting with a transgender or gender nonconforming student may be addressed by segregating the student raising the objection provided that the action of the school officials does not result in stigmatizing the transgender and gender nonconforming student. [emphasis added]

So, what exactly will happen if “trans”-identifying students feel “stigmatized” when normal students of the opposite sex don’t want to share restrooms or locker rooms with them? Will normal students be forced to share private facilities with persons of the opposite sex?

The purportedly Catholic governor Chris Christie (R-NJ) just signed a bill into law requiring schools to allow co-ed restrooms and locker rooms, and requiring teachers to refer to “trans”-identifying students by opposite-sex pronouns. The government is requiring teachers to speak falsehoods to and in the presence of children. Will theologically orthodox Christians comply? Will they bear false witness by pretending that boys are girls or vice versa? Will they render unto Caesar that which is not Caesar’s?

These things are happening in public schools all around Illinois, and where they aren’t yet, they will be soon.

Unfortunately for the countless children and teens who attend public schools, the 2017/2018 school year is just around the corner, and like dirty old men in trench coats lying in wait to expose children to sordid things, so too await public school administrators and teachers to do likewise. Unlike perverts who lurk in darkness, however, these government employees have no shame. They do their dirty work of exposing children to wickedness openly and call it “love.”

Listen to this article read by Laurie HERE.

IFI works diligently to serve the Christian community in Illinois with email alerts, video reports, pastors’ breakfasts, special forums, worldview conferences and cultural commentaries. We do not accept government funds nor do we run those aggravating popup ads to generate funds.  We depend solely on the support of readers like you.

If you appreciate the work and ministry of IFI, please consider a tax-deductible donation to sustain our endeavors.  It does make a difference.

For decades the Left has embarked on a science- and morality-defying quest to advance a sexuality ideology that undermines human flourishing. There is no better illustration of that than the radical “trans”-formation of America with regard to “transgenderism.”

Rhetorical clarity

“Progressives” invent or reinvent language to serve their ideological purposes. So, let’s simplify and clarify matters. In this article, “sex” refers to one’s objective, immutable biological sex. “Gender” is a synonym for sex. “Gender identity” refers to a person’s subjective feelings about his or her sex. Men who pretend to be women are pretend-women. And men and women who accept their sex are normal men and women (not “cismen” or “ciswomen” as Leftists call them).

Remember, no one has an ethical obligation to accept Leftist assumptions, use Leftist language, or acquiesce to Leftist demands based on those assumptions and advanced through tortured Leftist language.

Safety

The most radical demand made by Leftists is that society must sexually integrate spaces in which private activities are engaged in, that is to say, activities that involve bodily functions and undressing.

Much of the opposition to co-ed restrooms, locker rooms, showers, shelters, and semi-private hospital rooms focuses on the risks posed to women when objectively male persons are allowed in these private spaces.

Leftists respond that there is no evidence that men who wish they were women pose any risk to women and that pretend-women have been using women’s restrooms for years without incident. What this argument ignores is that allowing cross-dressing men into women’s private spaces makes it easier for male predators to access women’s facilities by claiming to be “transwomen.”

The blog GenderTrender illuminates this real danger:

One of the tropes Transjacktivists use to promote and legalize their desire to eliminate female spaces is to assert that males with GID are speshul snowflakes or claim that males wouldn’t adopt transgenderism in order to prey on women. Or that males who are arrested repeatedly for getting off on watching women perform intimate activities (in places they assume they are free from males) wouldn’t go through the trouble of putting on a wig that makes those same activities legal….Are you out of your mind? Why wouldn’t a guy who risks arrest repeatedly to invade women’s space comply with measures which make his activities legal?? It’s considerably less inconvenient to put on a skirt and some lippy than to be arrested and processed, make bail, go before a judge, etc….

Transjacktivists claim that arrest statistics for peeping and perving don’t show a sharp increase in states where men are allowed in women’s spaces. Well of course they don’t! Making a formerly illegal behavior LEGAL seldom results in more arrests for (now legal) behavior. Duh!

The truth is guys do this sh*t all the time. And they’ll do whatever it takes to perv on females. Here are some of the things they’ll do to get into female spaces:

1. Hide cameras and microphones in female spaces.
2. Crawl through ventilation ducts to view female spaces.
3. Install double mirrors to view female spaces.
4. Drill holes in walls to peep women’s spaces.
5. Place cameras in shopping bags next to females wearing skirts.
6. Risking arrest—and repeat arrest—sneaking into women’s restrooms.

Another Leftist argument regarding safety goes like this: If bathrooms correspond to objective sex, then women who wish they were men and are lumbering about looking like burly men would be compelled to use women’s restrooms. Once burly, bearded women with bulging biceps are seen in women’s restrooms, actual men who are predators will be able to freely enter women’s restrooms looking like the men they are (no need to cross-dress). If, upon entering women’s restrooms, these objectively male predators are questioned, they can merely lie, claiming they are actually “transmen” (i.e., women who are pretending to be men) but aren’t permitted to use the men’s restrooms because of archaic restroom policies that require restrooms to correspond to actual sex. Therefore, according to Leftists, the threat of sexual assault actually increases unless restroom policies allow men who are pretending to be women in women’s restrooms. Got that?

The logical outworking of the “trans” ideology

So, let’s make this quagmire a tad more quaggy and miry.

In challenging current “genital-based” restroom policies, Leftists snottily ask who will be performing “genital inspections.” Let’s assume sexuality-perverts (i.e., those who seek to pervert a proper understanding of all matters sexual) manage to win “gender-identity-based” restroom policies. Who is going to do “gender-identity” inspections? What will society do with those who “identify” as genderfluid, bigender, or trigender? What will be required to establish a “transwoman” or “transman” identity? Must they cross-dress? Take puberty-blockers? Take cross-sex hormones? Have their breasts amputated and fake-penises affixed to their nether regions or conversely have their testes amputated and fake breasts affixed upstairs? In Barack Obama and Loretta Lynch’s brave new world, nothing would be required for men to access women’s locker rooms other than their assertion that they “identify” as women.

Now that cross-dressing has been released from the confines of closets and more elaborate disguises are chemically and surgically available, restroom and locker room use has been complicated. Pretend-men whose use of cross-sex hormones, body-mutilating surgeries, and cross-dressing render them visually indistinguishable from actual men does complicate restroom use for actual men and for women who won’t want bearded ladies in their facilities. Allowing pretend-women, whose expensive costumes conceal their immutable nature, to use opposite-sex restrooms and locker rooms becomes equally problematic.

But who’s to blame for this new problem?

The blame rests with those who subordinate commonsense and truth about the nature and meaning of objective, immutable sex to disordered subjective desires and perverse ideas about objective, immutable sex. And now the chief promoters of sin-bred foolishness and confusion are asserting that society has a moral obligation to acquiesce further to the corrosive effects of their sin-bred confusion and foolishness.

Title IX and Title VII

How are Leftist organizations making headway in public schools? They’re doing so by abusing Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 that prohibits discrimination based on “sex” in public schools. Unelected Leftist bureaucrats with no lawmaking authority in Obama’s Department of Education decided that the word “sex” in Title IX includes “gender identity.” Based on that fanciful redefinition, they have made the ludicrous claim that schools are prohibited from maintaining separate restrooms or locker rooms for objectively male and female students.

To make this rhetorical leap, these bureaucrats ignored this pesky part of Title IX:

A recipient [of federal funds] may provide separate toilet, locker room, and shower facilities on the basis of sex.

Let’s hope that the new administration undoes the damage done by the Obama Administration.

Leftists who focus their efforts on delegitimizing concerns over safety ignore that safety is not the only concern. The other and equally important issue concerns the meaning of sexual differentiation. Policies that mandate that restroom and locker room usage can no longer correspond to sex embody the false idea that the objective sex of humans has no intrinsic meaning relative to modesty and physical privacy. Accepting such a subversive notion paves the way to the end of sex-segregation everywhere.

Policies mandating co-ed restrooms and locker rooms in our elementary, middle, and high schools embody and teach lies. They teach all children that in order to be kind, inclusive, and socially just, they must relinquish their privacy. Such policies teach that physical embodiment as male or female has no intrinsic meaning related to modesty and privacy.

The Left is attempting the same rhetorical slight of tongue with Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which is even broader and therefore more dangerous in its application. Even churches may be vulnerable to federal lawsuits based on charges of “sex” discrimination.

If schools, churches, restaurants, health clubs, hospitals, and shelters are prohibited from “discriminating” based on either objective biological sex or “gender identity” (i.e., subjective feelings about sex), their private spaces will inevitably become co-ed. Once objectively male gender-dysphoric persons are allowed in women’s restrooms, on what basis would normal men be prohibited from entering  women’s restrooms? Prohibiting men from accessing women’s restrooms because they’re men would be unjustifiable because objectively male persons would have already been granted access, and prohibiting men from accessing women’s restrooms because they’re “cisgender” would be deemed discrimination based on “gender identity.” And so the Leftist agenda to eradicate all public recognition and respect for sexual differentiation will have been achieved.

Conclusion

This is a crucial battle to fight.

Language matters. “Progressives” understand this more than conservatives. Do not use opposite-sex pronouns when referring to gender-dysphoric persons who are pretending to be the sex they are not. Do not use the terms “transgender,” “transman,” “transwoman,” or “cis” anything.

Do not share restrooms or locker rooms with opposite-sex persons. Ignore the false accusation that valuing the feelings of modesty and desire for privacy that derive from sex differences is a sign of hatred and ignorance.

And fight policies in your local schools that mandate the grammatically incorrect use of pronouns and that permit co-ed restrooms and locker rooms. Yes, lawsuits are expensive, but fighting for the right to recognize and respect sexual differentiation in private spaces in public schools is worth the cost.

Read more recent articles from Laurie:

New Trier High School Avoids Diversity Like the Plague

Highlights Magazine for Children Affirms Homoeroticism

Cub Scouts Reject Girl Who Wishes She Were a Boy

Join IFI at our Feb. 18th Worldview Conference

We are excited about our third annual Worldview Conference featuring world-renowned theologian Dr. Frank Turek on Sat., Feb. 18, 2017 in Barrington. Dr. Turek is s a dynamic speaker and the award-winning author of “I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist”

Join us for a wonderful opportunity to take enhance your biblical worldview and equip you to more effectively engage the culture:

Click HERE to learn more or to register!

The world knows what Target ushered in on April 19^th 2016 – from that politically motivated announcement that pronounced to all men everywhere – come use the bathroom with our daughters and wives millions of people made the decision to boycott Target.  My family is one of them.

Now more than ever, it is important to continue to boycott Target. This is not a short term decision but a long term commitment — at least until Target reverses it’s policy. Where ever you live there are great alternatives; places where the executive team does not feel the need to aggressively enter the political landscape and undermine basic moral principles.

Let’s be clear; individuals that truly identify as transgender have been using the bathroom of their choice – this is not a debate about individuals that are confused about their male or female identity. It is about undermining both the physical and spiritual unique differences and qualities of males and females as given by God and about keeping those you love safe.

Here is what we all still need to do:

1. Continue to choose an alternate place to shop.
2. Comment on and share articles like this one with your family, friends, and social media circles.
3. Sign up on various petitions boycotting Target, such as the American Family Association’s (currently with over 1.4 million pledges to shop elsewhere).
4. Organize a peaceful event at a local Target like the one I am mentioning below.

Here is the very real and for anyone with women in your lives that you care about, frightening, reality of the implications of what Target did. I chose a Target near me; 601 S. County Farm Rd. Wheaton, IL 60187. I then searched both the state and federal online registered sex offenders data base (I am including links below for you to do a similar search near your Target).

I found a staggering 97 registered sex offenders within a 10-mile radius of this Target. Keep in mind, this is only registered sex offenders, meaning people who have been caught. Likely, there are hundreds more within that 10-mile radius.

These 97 individuals have now been given a invocation from Target Corporation to enter the women’s bathrooms or fitting rooms and dis-robe, expose themselves, watch, comment, and fulfill their deviant sexual predator desires, including video recording. This will lead to my and your daughters, wives, and female family and friends being sexually exploited, harassed, and even, potentially, raped.

Take a look at the map below and know that each circle represents a registered sexual predator that now has been given free access by Target to your wives and children’s fitting rooms and bathrooms.

97 Registered sex offenders with 10 miles of the Wheaton Illinois Target

It is because of this that I and my family participated in a “Target Education Day” in front of the very Target that currently has 97 registered sex offenders within an easily accessible range in Wheaton, IL on Saturday, September 24, 2016. It was a wonderful event, we, along with the organizers of this event and fellow participants, handed out 750 flyers informing people of Target’s decision and what it means.

Of the more than 30 people that I talked with, all but a few had no idea that Target and it’s executive team want men to have the “right” to be able to use the bathroom with your wife and children in their stores.  It is because of this low understanding that I ask you to share this with your friends, family and co-workers.

I encourage you to participate or host your own event and continue to send your shopping dollars elsewhere. It does have an affect. Especially, if you don’t quit. Target Corporation is hoping that we let this go – I hope you will join me in never letting it go. Our ultimate goal is to simply have the policy reversed and keep our loved ones safe.

Here is the link to the US Department of Justice https://www.nsopw.gov/. NSOPW stands for National Sex Offender Public Website

In Illinois here is the link for the Illinois Sex Offender Search: https://www.isp.state.il.us/sor/

“Come, you spirits
That tend on mortal thoughts, unsex me here,
And fill me from the crown to the toe topful
Of direst cruelty!”
—Lady Macbeth

By the fall of 2017, kindergartners in Washington State will be taught to “understand the range of gender roles, identity, and expression across cultures.”1 For those unclear about what precisely will be taught, the kindergarten curriculum developers provide a helpful glossary that includes a definition of “gender”:

Gender: A social construct based on emotional, behavioral, and cultural characteristics attached to a person’s assigned biological sex. A person’s social and/or legal status as male or female.

• Gender expression. The way someone outwardly expresses their gender, whether consciously or unconsciously.

• Gender identity. Someone’s inner sense of their gender (see Transgender).

• Gender roles. Social expectations about how people should act, think, or feel based on their assigned biological sex.

Kindergarten now marks the starting point for government indoctrination of children into the brave, new, sexless, science-denying orthodoxy of the “transgender” movement, the end result of which is not a more compassionate society, but a society in which there is no public recognition of, or respect for, sexual differentiation.

In early May 2016, the Chicago Public Schools (CPS) joined the ranks of the foolish by issuing guidelines pertaining to gender-dysphoric students in K–12 schools. Students who wish they were the opposite sex may now use opposite-sex restrooms and locker rooms, and on school-sponsored overnight trips, they may room with opposite-sex students.

These guidelines also apply to “gender non-binary” students who don’t “identify” as either male or female and to “questioning” students who aren’t yet sure which sex they would like to be. In other words, these students may make their restroom, locker room, and hotel room selections in accordance with their unstable sexual confusion.

In an effort to facilitate student confusion, the CPS “guidelines” mandate the use of Newspeak by faculty and staff, requiring them to lie by using opposite-sex pronouns when referring to gender-dysphoric students.

Exploitation of Title IX

One week later, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Department of Education (ED) issued an almost identical edict, except theirs came with a threat of the loss of federal funds for non-compliance with what they euphemistically describe as “significant guidance.”

Elementary, middle, and high schools all around the country have been accommodating requests (or demands) from parents to have their gender-dysphoric children granted access to restrooms, locker rooms, and athletic teams that correspond to the sex these children wish they were rather than the sex they actually are. In a case in Illinois, a male student sued his district for the right to unrestricted access even to the girls’ locker room, which includes showers. Often school administrations are accommodating these requests without informing the parents of students whose privacy is being invaded.

The DOJ and the ED, through the intrusive Office for Civil Rights (OCR), which is an unelected collective of bureaucrats, have proclaimed that henceforth, in the section of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 that prohibits discrimination based on “sex,” the word “sex” includes “gender identity” and “gender expression.” Further, sex-segregated restrooms constitute discrimination based on “sex,” meaning that schools have no legal right to maintain separate restrooms for boys and girls.

There are multiple problems with this creative argument, the first of which is that the word “sex” in Title IX means sex.

Second, progressives themselves relentlessly assert that sex and “gender identity” are wholly distinct.

Third, Title IX specifically states the following: “A recipient [of federal funds] may provide separate toilet, locker room, and shower facilities on the basis of sex, but such facilities provided for students of one sex shall be comparable to such facilities provided for students of the other sex.“2

Fourth, neither the DOJ nor the ED has lawmaking authority, so neither can change the definition of the word “sex” in Title IX.

Exploitation of Title VII

But the Barack Obama administration had still more government power to wield illicitly in its quest to eradicate sex-segregation. Like the ED, the DOJ under Attorney General Loretta Lynch has declared that the word “sex” in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 includes “gender identity” and “gender expression.” The abuse of Title VII is far more dangerous than that of Title IX because it has broader applicability.

Whereas Title IX applies only to schools, Title VII applies to every business in the private sector with over 14 employees, to every government entity, and to every religious organization, including religious schools of every grade level from elementary through college.It even applies to churches, which are exempt only from the prohibition of religious discrimination. Churches and other religious institutions are not exempt from the ban on “sex” discrimination.

So if the Obama administration’s redefinition of the word “sex” to include “gender identity” prevails, even churches couldn’t prohibit gender-dysphoric persons from using opposite-sex restrooms. The decree—it can’t veraciously be called a law—would mandate that gender-dysphoric guests at church weddings or attendees of concerts and athletic events at Christian colleges be allowed in opposite-sex restrooms.

Since men are permitted to go shirtless on beaches, at pools, in public parks, in high-school swim classes, and on swim teams, there would be no legal warrant for prohibiting women who “identify” as men but forgo bilateral mastectomies from going shirtless as well.

Sex Segregation versus Racial Segregation

Progressives, who never tire of exploiting race as an analogue for sexual deviance, compare racially segregated restrooms to sex-segregated restrooms, again misconstruing the issues. Racially segregated restrooms were unjustifiable because they were based on the false belief that people of different races are ontologically different. Sex-segregated restrooms are justifiable because they are based on the true belief that men and women are different—a true belief that even homosexuals implicitly acknowledge when they say they are attracted only to persons of their own sex.

When announcing the DOJ’s lawsuit against North Carolina following that state’s passage of a law prohibiting de-sexed, co-ed restrooms, Attorney General Lynch said, “It was not so very long ago that states, including North Carolina, had signs above restrooms, water fountains and on public accommodations keeping people out based upon a distinction without a difference.”

If there is no more difference between men and women than there is between blacks and whites—as Lynch clearly implies—then how is it justifiable to maintain single-sex restrooms or showers anywhere? Why not allow men and women and boys and girls to share the same restrooms, locker rooms, showers, shelters, and hospital rooms just as blacks and whites do?

Lynch also suggested that the unwillingness of women to share restrooms with gender-dysphoric men is evidence of fear, disrespect, misunderstanding, closed-mindedness, unfairness, lack of compassion, unjust regressive discrimination, and the denial of equality. If that’s the case, then how would she characterize the unwillingness of gender-dysphoric men to share restrooms with non-gender-dysphoric men? If separate restrooms for men and women are analogous to separate restrooms for blacks and whites, then aren’t separate restrooms for gender-dysphoric men and normal men also analogous to separate restrooms for blacks and whites?

Justifying Deception

The left uses the little-known history of some cross-dressing men successfully deceiving women in restrooms as a perverse ethical justification for allowing men in women’s restrooms. The argument goes something like this: Since gender-dysphoric men in especially convincing disguises have successfully deceived and violated the privacy of women who don’t want to share restrooms with men, let’s just openly allow gender-dysphoric men to continue to invade women’s privacy.

That’s analogous to arguing that since some peeping Toms successfully spy on women through windows without being found out, there’s no harm done, so no foul. Or, since some husbands commit adultery without their wives ever finding out—again, no harm, no foul.

Others believe, however, that the deception per se is harmful. The use of ever-more-elaborate disguises—including chemically and surgically facilitated ones—by gender-dysphoric men to conceal their sex from women who don’t want to use restrooms with objectively male persons is comparable to peepers using ever-more-sophisticated technology to peep.

Questions for Progressives

There are still more critical questions that should be posed to anyone who supports de facto co-ed everything, questions that will expose the incoherence of the subversive un-sexing of America:

1. Why should gender-dysphoric men and women be allowed to dictate that restrooms, showers, locker rooms, shelters, and hospital rooms no longer correspond to objective, immutable sex?

2. Why should gender-dysphoric men be able to dictate that they get to use restrooms with only women, but actual women are prohibited from saying they should get to use restrooms with only women?

3. If stalls provide sufficient privacy to separate gender-dysphoric men from women in restrooms, and curtains provide sufficient privacy to separate gender-dysphoric men from women in changing areas, why don’t stalls and curtains provide sufficient privacy to separate gender-dysphoric men from other men in men’s restrooms and changing areas?

4. If there is a mismatch between a person’s sex and his feelings about his sex, how can progressives be certain that the error resides in the body rather than the mind? If a person has XY chromosomes that have commanded his brain to produce and release male hormones to which his body is able to respond, thereby developing normal, unambiguous, healthy, fully functioning male anatomy, he is clearly male. If he nevertheless desires to be—or insists that he is—female, might this not be an error of his mind?

5. If a man “identifies” as “bi-gender” and has appended faux-breasts to his torso while retaining his penis, should he be permitted to decide at will which locker room he uses in the altogether?

6. Those who suffer from gender dysphoria claim that their DNA and the genitalia it shapes are wholly unrelated and irrelevant to “gender” and “gender identity,” and that genitalia shouldn’t matter when it comes to restrooms, changing areas, and showers. They further claim they want to use restrooms with only those whose “gender identity” they share. So, why do gender-dysphoric men demand to use women’s restrooms? How do they know that the males using the men’s restrooms do not “identify” as women, and how can they be sure that the females using the women’s restrooms do “identify” as women? Is it possible that gender-dysphoric men are basing their restroom choices on genitalia? If so, why are they permitted to do so, but actual women are not?

7. Leftists claim that people who don’t want to share restrooms, changing areas, showers, shelters, and hospital rooms with persons of the opposite sex are hateful. If it’s hateful for women to say they want to share these facilities only with other women, why isn’t it hateful for gender-dysphoric men to say they want to share them only with women?

8. Progressives routinely mock opponents of co-ed restrooms, asking whether historical restroom practices that require restroom-usage to correspond to sex will also require “genitalia police” to determine whether restroom-users are in reality the sex that corresponds to the restrooms they seek to use. Well, in the mixed-up, muddled-up, shook-up progressive world, will there be “gender-identity” police demanding proof that all restroom-users are either the sex that corresponds to the restrooms they seek to use or have proof that they have been diagnosed as gender-dysphoric? If not, how will women know if their fellow restroom-users are actual women, or gender-dysphoric men masquerading as women, or male predators masquerading as gender-dysphoric men?

9. If the views of Obama and Lynch prevail and gender-dysphoric men are permitted in women’s restrooms, on what basis could all other men be prohibited from using women’s restrooms? Normal men couldn’t be prohibited from using women’s restrooms based on their male sex because men would already have been allowed in. And normal men couldn’t be prohibited from using women’s restrooms based on their “identification” as males because that would constitute discrimination based on “gender identity,” which Obama and Lynch argue violates Title IX and Title VII.

The Final Chapter

The editorial board of the Charlotte Observer opined that “the thought of male genitalia in girls’ locker rooms—and vice versa—might be distressing to some. But the battle for equality has always been in part about overcoming discomfort.”3 This comment reveals what many Americans don’t realize: identifying as the opposite sex does not require or necessarily include any surgery, cross-sex hormone-doping, or even cross-dressing; the mere assertion of one’s “gender identity” is sufficient.

Of course, none of those actions can efface the truth of sex; all they can do is mask it. But Americans should disabuse themselves of the rationalization that sharing a shower with Caitlyn Jenner might not be so bad as long as his testicles have been given the heave-ho and his pesky penis has been tucked inside.

And this brings us to the final chapter in the dystopian cultural narrative the left is writing: the end of sex-segregation everywhere. The elimination of the binary. No more public recognition of or respect for objective maleness and femaleness. “LGBTQQAP” activists and their ideological allies seek to create a solipsistic, make-believe world in which nothing outside the self is recognized as real or meaningful. Objective, immutable, biological sex, which is the source of feelings of modesty and the desire for privacy, will become a hoary relic of the past. Even language will be co-opted to serve an ontological and epistemic lie.

A compassionate society helps those who suffer from disordered thoughts and emotions. It does not affirm confusion or facilitate fiction. This most profound distortion of reality and morality must be resisted. •

1. Washington State Health and Physical Education Standards (March 2016), 32
2. 34 C.F.R. Part 106, Subpart D, §106.33: www2.ed.gov/policy/rights/reg/ocr/edlite-34cfr106.html.
3. “Taking the fear out of bathrooms,” The Charlotte Observer (May 13, 2016): charlotteobserver.com/opinion/editorials/article77475147.html.