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

---

In June 2019, Governor J.B. Pritzker issued an executive order that should have been the proverbial straw that broke the backs of already oppressed conservative families with children remaining in our broken school indoctrination centers. The order had two parts.

The first part mandated the establishment of a “trans” task force whose members “have experience or expertise related to supporting transgender, nonbinary, and gender nonconforming students in schools,” and who would concoct the many and diverse ways that government schools must participate in the “trans”-cultic fiction.

The second part mandated that the Illinois State Board of Education “develop and make publicly available a model policy or procedures” that does the same thing as the “trans” task force was charged with doing.

Take note of the unstated assumptions embedded in the words “related to supporting” sexually confused minors in the executive order. In the Upside Down, where Pritzker and his collaborators live, “supporting” does not mean helping minors accept their immutable biological sex and scientific reality. Oh no, “supporting” means affirming their sexual confusion and their rejection of objective reality.

The recommendations were posted in Jan. 2020 and are as destructive as all “trans”-cultic beliefs are.

They include the following:

• Schools are to add the terms “gender identity” and “gender expression” as protected bases for extracurricular opportunities. In other words, schools must allow biological males—also known as boys—to participate in girls’ sports.

• Schools are to allow students who pretend to be the sex they are not to use opposite-sex restrooms and locker rooms.

• Schools are to “provide ongoing training to all staff members.” In other words, taxpayer-subsidized schools are expected to indoctrinate all staff and faculty with leftist beliefs about gender dysphoria.

• All school employees are to use the incorrect or goofy invented “pronouns” that sexually confused and tyrannical teens want them to use, and schools are to discipline “promptly” any district employee who refuses to use such pronouns.

• Schools are to hire “Gender Support Coordinators” to provide “gender-affirming support for transgender, nonbinary, and gender nonconforming students.” Yes, Illinois taxpayers will be paying the salaries of school employees to harm children.

• And straight from the task force recommendations: “When a transgender, nonbinary, or gender nonconforming student does not have a supportive home environment, regardless of their age, the Gender Support Coordinator can work with the student to identify what course of action will prioritize their safety.” Can you discern the meaning in the thicket of weedy rhetoric? In plain English, the task force is saying that if parents oppose their children’s participation in a sexual masquerade, viewing it rightly as false and destructive, then school employees led by the Gender Support Coordinator will help these students deceive their parents.

The task force recommendations also include this remarkable statement about student privacy:

Under state and federal law, the discomfort or privacy concerns of students, teachers, or parents are not valid reasons to deny or limit the equal use of facilities by transgender, nonbinary, and gender nonconforming students. Rather, the interest of any student seeking more privacy should be addressed by providing that student a more private option upon their request. “The prejudices of others are part of what the [Human Rights Act] was meant to prevent.” …  “[T]here is no right that insulates a student from coming in contact with others who are different than them or a Bathroom Privacy Act, unless the behavior violates a school policy or is criminal.” … The presence of a transgender student in a locker room simply does not “implicate the constitutional privacy rights of others with whom such facilities are shared.”

Note the obfuscation: Boys in girls’ locker rooms are described as merely “different.” By not specifically identifying the nature of this difference, the “trans” task force avoids discussion of whether sex differences have any meaning relative to undressing.

Now girls who do not want to undress in the presence of a biological boy in the girls’ locker rooms have to request a “more private option.” In other words, girls’ locker rooms are no longer private spaces for girls.

Just curious, why is student opposition to using private spaces with persons whose sex they don’t share a “prejudice,” but student opposition to using private spaces with persons whose “gender identity” they presumably don’t share is not a prejudice?

Moreover, since gender identity is a subjective internal experience, how do boys who pretend to be girls know the gender identities of the boys in boys’ locker rooms or girls in girls’ locker rooms?

Who—you may be wondering—concocted these God-forsaken policies? Serving on this ideologically non-diverse task force of 27 people were 3 recent high school graduates and 2 then-current high school students. So, five leftist students were involved in setting policy for all Illinoisans but not one conservative adult was involved.

One of the propagandists was A. J. Jennings an early childhood education teacher at the University of Chicago Lab Schools, who wrote about her goal of using her classroom to indoctrinate other people’s children with her sexuality ideology:

As an educator (and a person), I value conversation as a way to build understanding and transform perspectives. It is an incredible curricular tool for addressing issues of identity (e.g., race, class, size, gender, sexuality, ability, religion). It can be especially meaningful when our students initiate the conversations. So I work to create a classroom environment where differing points of view can be addressed and explored. My goal is for the children to feel confident about articulating their point of view and safe enough to consider other perspectives. As teachers. … we can model nonjudgmental behavior and challenge binary thinking.

This is especially significant in early childhood education. As young children develop their understanding of the world, they tend to rely heavily on binaries. If we understand the binaries a child is working within, we can encourage that child to think of counterexamples or introduce counterexamples ourselves into the conversation. These provide useful stumbling blocks that encourage them to expand their thinking.

Does “transforming perspectives,” “challenging binary thinking,” and introducing “stumbling blocks” to children’s binary thinking constitute non-judgmentalism, or is it tendentious leading?

Jennings also provided an illustration from her own class of 4-year-olds on exactly how she leads little ones, baby step-by-baby step, into her dark world of ignorance while they are yet too young to understand sexuality issues in their moral, ontological, and epistemic complexity:

One day, Rory approached me during playtime, visibly shaken. “Those kids are telling me that girls can’t marry girls and they can!”

“Well, let’s go and talk with them about it,” I responded. When we reached the two girls, I told them that Rory was worried about the conversation they were having and asked what they were talking about. I learned that, just as Rory reported, the two girls had been discussing marriage and how girls couldn’t marry girls. Rory had been insisting they could. He was certain of it. His mom had told him. The other two were skeptical. They all looked to me to clarify this point of contention. …

I was delighted to be a part of the conversation. …  I generally feel that when talking about marriage, most children mean adults loving one another, so I went that route.

“Two girls can be in love with each other,” I responded.

“Yeah!” agreed Rory, vindicated by his teacher’s affirmation of this point.

I continued: “And girls can love boys. And boys can love boys.” The three children mulled this over.

“Like my mom and dad love each other,” one of them answered.

“Right,” I said. The kids continued their conversation of marriage and were no longer looking for my input. I listened for a few more minutes as they tossed around the idea that love might not be constrained to a mom loving a dad. Rory mentioned that he had a friend who had two moms who were married. The other two children were willing to accept this and incorporate the new information into their understanding of the boundaries of love and marriage.

There you have it. Binaries successfully challenged. Perspectives changed. Love is love, man. And no need to introduce the confounding ideas of different types of love. This “teacher” is one of the people setting policy for all Illinois public schools.

Here are a few more members of Pritzker’s Posse Propagandus:

Jax Wokas is a girl who pretends to be a boy and is committed to “intersectional activism.”

Jordon Eason is a girl who pretends to be a boy. She testified on behalf of a male student who pretends to be female—“Nova” Maday—in Maday’s  lawsuit against District 211 and conservative community group Students and Parents for Privacy. Maday was suing for the legal “right” to have unrestricted access to girls’ private spaces.

Benton Goff is a girl from Marion, Illinois who pretends to be a boy and is also a “trans”-activist.

Tre Graham is a cross-dressing boy from Marion, Illinois who identifies as “genderqueer.” Here’s a Dec. 2020 tweet from Graham:

i just want you to know that you insulting my gender expression will not get you head!!! You dumbass faggot!!! BTW it is 2020! Come out!!! We don’t care that you [want] men to suck your d***!!!!

Yes, this is the kind of young person Pritzker thinks should set policy for all Illinois schools.

Graham and Benton Hoff have been friends for years, so, the “trans” Posse Propagandus is not even finding a diverse cross-section of current students/recent grads. Of the five students on the Posse, all are activists and two are from the same social group.

Myles Brady Davis is a Chicago woman who pretends to be a man who is married to a man who pretends to be a woman. So, they are a heterosexual couple deeply involved in cosplay. Davis like many cross-sex narcissists manages to get herself in the press—a lot—most recently for the perfectly natural thing for women to do. She gave birth. The Chicago press refers to Davis and her husband as a “trans” power couple.

Jamie Gliksberg is a senior attorney with Lambda Legal, a law firm that self-identifies as a “civil rights” organization and is dedicated to the proposition that all sexually deviant men and women are more equal than the rest of society.

Channyn Lynne Parker is a man who pretends to be a woman and identifies as a “human rights advocate” even as he works like the devil to deny women and men the right to be free of opposite-sex persons in private spaces. He also works for the “LGBT”-affirming Howard Brown “Health” Center.

Jordee Yanez is a young woman and former CPS student who pretends to be a man.

Nat Duran is a young woman who pretends to be a man and works for the pro-“trans/pro-homosexuality propaganda machine deceptively named the Illinois Safe Schools Alliance

Veronica Noland: Her name should be familiar to regular IFI readers. She’s the Illinois School District U-46 board member who referred to parents who oppose co-ed locker rooms as “narrow-minded fear mongers.”

Mika Yamamoto is the mother of a 10-year-old boy who pretends to be a girl. His parents, mother Yamamoto and father Brian Freireich, have renamed their son. His new name is “Admiral Ocean Freireich.” The family moved from Chicago to Oak Park, which jumped aboard the “trans” train long ago.

We cannot expect culture to improve if we keep placing our children under the tutelage of activists who teach children that body- and soul-destroying sexual deviance is good. Remember, these “trans” recommendations are in addition to the Illinois law requiring that all children in grades K-12  be taught positively about homosexuality and “trans”-cultism.

Parents, the fix is in. Get out now.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/Transing-Gov-Schools.mp3

---

---

Please support the work and ministry of IFI.  

Your tax-deductible donation is greatly appreciated!

As with many topics, identity politics can be approached on any number of levels, such as intellectual, spiritual, and emotional.

Yet, too few Americans actually talk about what we’re really talking about when the subject of the “LGBT community”/identity politics comes up. LGBT represents only four letters — thus, 4 identities.

What are the terms of this expanding identity politics phenomenon, and what is the long range impact going to be on our society and culture? What is the nature of human identity, and has God had something to say about it? What’s the proper response to those with deep feelings about who they are? Like the old Almond Joy/Mounds candy bar commercial — sometimes they feel like a nut, sometimes they don’t.

Many people are writing about the increasing difficulty of taking all of this seriously. New York City now recognizes over 30 “gender” identities. Here is Jazz Shaw writing at HotAir.com:

If the government is willing to not only recognize but mandate the acceptance of a person’s desired gender rather than their actual sex, why should there be any barriers at all. What about people suffering from Cotard’s Syndrome? They fervently believe that they are undead… literally zombies walking the Earth. Can Uncle Sam declare them dead just to honor that belief and force the medical community to treat them as corpses? While that may sound like an extreme comparison, it’s actually the same thing. There is precisely as much scientific evidence that a man identifying as a “transgender woman” is actually female as there is that a Cotard’s sufferer is actually a zombie.

Over at First Things, Katherine Kersten writes about “gender conforming” and “gender-nonconforming.” She writes:

The Judeo-Christian vision, which shaped Western civilization for 1,600 years, holds that God created man—body and soul—with purpose and meaning in an ordered universe. But the post-Christian worldview fast replacing it has no place for God, and perceives no purpose in nature. Christian man has become “psychological man” and the soul has become the self, in the words of Philip Rieff. The free-floating self—unconstrained by reality—is now believed to forge its own “identity” through a creative assertion of will.

Post-Christian man views his body as a tabula rasa—a canvas on which to express his identity and exert his will. In fact, the more contrary to nature one’s new self is, the more “authentic” it can claim to be. The recent mania for tattoos and piercings is a case in point. The desire to be free of the human condition and its limitations has ancient roots.

“Today,” Kersten writes, “transgender advocates are creating a Potemkin Village—built on hormones, surgery, and chest-binders—to solidify the illusion on which their magical reality is based.”

In the near term, transgender ideology will further polarize society and diminish the shared civic space where liberals and conservatives can fruitfully coexist… Longer term, it will mount an escalating attack on the family and religious institutions, the perennial targets of totalitarian forces.

So identity politics is not just about the confused emotional life of “progressives.” Instead, it is a threat to family and religious institutions, the very building blocks of Western Civilization. Again, here is Katherine Kersten:

As we enter the world of fantasy—when reality ceases to matter—it is impossible to predict where our society will crash against nature, as it inevitably will.

It’s time for our paraphilia of the day, and it’s one I’ll only introduce today and revisit with more next time: transgenderism. Wikipedia’s “transgender” page has been rewritten since I cited it a few years ago — and the first section runs four paragraphs. Here is just the first one:

Transgender people are people who have a gender identity, or gender expression, that differs from their assigned sex. Transgender people are sometimes called transsexual if they desire medical assistance to transition from one sex to another. Transgender is also an umbrella term: in addition to including people whose gender identity is the opposite of their assigned sex (trans men and trans women), it may include people who are not exclusively masculine or feminine (people who are genderqueer, e.g. bigender, pangender, genderfluid, or agender). Other definitions of transgender also include people who belong to a third gender, or conceptualize transgender people as a third gender. Infrequently, the term transgender is defined very broadly to include cross-dressers, regardless of their gender identity.

Got it? Let’s close with our next question: Will the expression of disapproval of transgenderism be deemed bullying or hate speech? Of course we already know the answer to that is yes.

Up next: Transgenderism a Choice or Disorder?

Articles in this series, from oldest to newest:

Identity Politics and Paraphilias: Introducing a Series
Identity Politics and Paraphilias: Incest
Identity Politics and Paraphilias: Body Integrity Identity Disorder
Identity Politics and Paraphilias: Impact & Transgenders
COMING SOON: Identity Politics and Paraphilias: Transgenderism a Choice or Disorder?
COMING SOON: Identity Politics and Paraphilias: Why the Term “Sexual Orientation” is Nonsense
COMING SOON: Identity Politics and Paraphilias: Man’s Search for Meaning
COMING SOON: Identity Politics and Paraphilias: LGBT is Not a Color

---

Please subscribe to the IFI YouTube Channel to get timely
video reports & other special presentations!