One of the more grotesque demonstrations of leftist non-sense and hypocrisy was demonstrated a week ago following an episode of the wildly popular Disney show The Mandalorian when “Baby Yoda” eats the unfertilized eggs of a Frog Woman who is transporting her eggs to her husband so he can fertilize them thereby preventing their species’ imminent extinction. Fans of Baby Yoda freaked out, incensed at the lighthearted treatment of what they deemed genocide by the beloved Baby Yoda.

The moral incoherence and hypocrisy should be obvious. In the Upside Down where leftists live, when a human mother hires someone to dismember her own fertilized human egg—aka human fetus/embryo/baby—they demand that society affirm, celebrate, and shout the execution of those tiny humans. In fact, the voluntary dismemberment of fertilized human eggs at any gestational age is so morally innocuous and such an unmitigated public good that leftists think all Americans should pay for the executions of humans in utero.

In the Upside Down, the genocidal killing of all fertilized human eggs with Down Syndrome is at best morally neutral if not morally good, but the fictional devouring of unfertilized Frog Critters’ eggs is morally repugnant. Just wondering, if fertilized human eggs are parasites so devoid of personhood as to render them morally legitimate objects to kill, if it’s okay to dismember them because they’re imperfect non-persons, would there be anything wrong with eating their remains?

Leftists views on the slaughter of fertilized human eggs is just the most grotesque of their many morally incoherent views. Here are a few more:

• According to leftists, concerns of conservatives about possible 2020 election “irregularities”—including via computer malfeasance and malfunction—are evidence of paranoid conspiracy theories, but when leftists express such concerns, they’re sound, reasonable, and legitimate. In 2019, U.S. Senator Ron Wyden proposed an amendment titled “Protecting American Votes and Elections Act” to the “Help America Vote Act of 2002.” His proposed amendment was signed by 14 co-sponsors—all Democrats—including a who’s who of presidential wannabes: Richard Blumenthal, Edward Markey, Jeff Merkley, Tammy Duckworth, Brian Schatz, Elizabeth Warren, Cory Booker, Kirsten Gillibrand, Tammy Baldwin, Bernie Sanders, Maria Cantwell, Kamala Harris, Sherrod Brown, Michael Bennet, and Patty Murray. Wyden provided a summary of his amendment that includes the following:

Votes cast with paperless voting machines cannot be subjected to a manual recount, and so there is no way to determine the real election results if they are hacked. H.R. 1 …  mandates paper ballots.

In order to detect hacks, this bill requires election bodies to conduct audits of all federal elections, regardless of how close the election, by employing statistically rigorous “risk-limiting audits.”

There are currently no mandatory standards for election cybersecurity, which has resulted in some states operating election infrastructure that is needlessly vulnerable to hacking. The Election Assistance Commission (EAC) sets voluntary standards for voting machines, but states can and do ignore these standards. There are no standards at all for voter registration websites or other parts of our election infrastructure.

• Leftists heartily endorse bodily damage and disfigurement as sound “treatment” protocols for those who experience a mismatch between their internal feelings and their sexual embodiment as male or female, but bodily damage and disfigurement of those who experience a mismatch between their internal feelings and their whole or healthy bodies (i.e., those with Body Integrity Identity Disorder who identify as amputees or paraplegics) are considered barbaric and ethically prohibited.

• Leftists condemn conservatives as “science-deniers” for disagreeing with them on the degree to which climate change is caused by human action or on how to respond to climate change. At the same time, the purported science-worshippers claim that men can menstruate, become pregnant, and “chestfeed,” and they claim that the product of conception between two persons is not a person. Anyone who refuses to concede to such nonsense is mocked, reviled, de-platformed, and fired. Just ask Harry Potter author J. K. Rowling or Wall Street Journal writer and author of Irreversible Damage, Abigail Shrier.

• Leftists claim that marriage has no connection to either sexual differentiation or reproductive potential. They vociferously claim that marriage is solely constituted by love, and that “love is love.” And yet most leftists don’t think two brothers in a consensual loving relationship should be able to legally marry.

• Leftists claim there’s no story behind or within Hunter Biden’s emails and texts that prove Joe Biden straight up lied to the American public, and yet they claimed there was a story of such magnitude and enormity within Christopher Steele’s imaginative “dossier,” that it necessitated 24-hour coverage for years.

• Leftists claim that eliminating the Electoral College and filibuster and packing the U.S. Supreme Court constitute necessary changes to enhance “democracy,” but implementing legal processes to ensure an election was fair undermines democracy.

• Every gathering of leftists, including mostly violent protests, a takeover of six city blocks, trips to hair salons (Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot, U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi), a post-election street celebration (Lori Lightfoot), a holiday boating excursion (attempted by husband of Michigan Governor Christine Whitmer), restaurant dining (California Governor Gavin Newsom, CNN narcissist Chris Cuomo), a funeral/Democrat campaign event (i.e., John Lewis’ faux-funeral) are COVID-immune and justifiable. But an Orthodox Jewish funeral, an entirely peaceful protest of draconian COVID restrictions, and a march in support of a transparent and fair election are denounced as super-spreader events.

• Serial killer of senior citizens, Andrew “Quietus” Cuomo, commands citizens to “admit” their “mistakes” and “shortcomings” with regard to how they responded to the Chinese Communist virus even as he refuses to apologize for his policies that killed scores of elderly.

• To leftists, social science is the god that determines all moral truth, and yet despite social science demonstrating repeatedly that children—especially boys—need fathers, the left refuses to discuss how fatherless families may be contributing to the anti-social behavior that is destroying our cities.

• Leftists claim to value free speech, religious liberty, inclusivity, diversity, tolerance, and unity while condemning not just the beliefs of those with whom they disagree, but also the persons themselves. Many leftists share an uncharitable, presumptuous, ugly, tyrannical, oppressive, and scary desire that those who believe homosexual acts are immoral, who believe marriage has an ontology, who believe biological sex is immutable and meaningful, and who believe bodily damage and disfigurement are improper treatment protocols for gender dysphoria should be unable to work anywhere in America.

To create the illusion that they’re not hypocrites and to defend their intolerance, exclusion, divisiveness, hatred of persons, book banning, speech suppression, demand for ideological uniformity, and efforts to circumscribe the  exercise of religion—which for Christians extends far outside the church walls—leftists resort to fallacious reasoning. The fallacies they employ are too numerous to list, but two of their faves are the ad hominem fallacy and the fallacy of circular reasoning.

Ad hominem is an informal fallacy in which an irrelevant personal attack replaces a logical argument. It proves nothing about the soundness, truth, or falsity of a claim. Instead it appeals to emotion and silences debate through intimidation.

The fallacy of circular reasoning occurs when the conclusion presumes the premise (i.e., the initial claim) is true without proving it true. So, for example, leftists–ignoring their purported commitment to the First Amendment–argue that homosexual acts are moral acts and, therefore, there is no need to tolerate the expression of dissenting views. But the intolerance they are trying to defend is based on the truth of their premise that homosexual acts are moral—a premise they simply assume without proving is true.

Here’s another: Leftists assert that marriage is constituted solely by subjective romantic and erotic feelings, and, therefore, the government has no reason not to recognize unions between two people of the same sex as marriages, because such couples can experience love and erotic desire. But the premise—i.e., that marriage is constituted solely by subjective romantic and erotic feelings—hasn’t been proved.

And here’s yet another claim about marriage based on circular reasoning: Leftists argue that the reason government is involved in marriage is to grant public legitimacy or provide “dignity” to erotic/romantic unions and, therefore, the government has an obligation to recognize homoerotic unions as marriages. The problem is that those who make this argument fail to prove their claim that the reason government is involved in marriage is to recognize, provide, or impart “dignity” to unions. Those who make this argument just assume their premise is true.

After employing fallacious circular reasoning and hurling ad hominem epithets at their opponents, leftists sanctimoniously wipe the dust off their dirty hands and assert that their hypocrisy isn’t really hypocrisy after all.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Ideological-Non-Sense-and-Hypocrisy-of-Leftists.mp3

---

We take very seriously the trust you place in Illinois Family Institute when you send a gift.
We understand that we are accountable before you and God to honor your trust. 

IFI is supported by voluntary donations from good people like you.

The “trans” rebellion against science, nature, and morality is well underway, trampling under its jackbooted stilettos athletic achievement; academic inquiry; physical privacy and safety; speech rights; religious rights; association rights; children’s needs and rights; parental rights; and the bodies of boys, girls, women, and men. “Trans”-cultists want everyone to accept their faith-based assumption that immaterial feelings are more real and more meaningful than objective biological sex. Daily, news stories emerge that attest to the “trans” madness that pursues the impossible: de-sexing the entire the world.

It’s important to bear in mind that in the service of effacing sex, “progressives” manipulate language. “Sex” refers to the objective, biological categories (i.e., male and female) into which humans are divided on the basis of their reproductive functions. “Gender” is no longer synonymous with “sex.” “Gender” now refers to the arbitrary, socially constructed and imposed roles, conventions, interests, traits, and behaviors commonly associated with maleness or femaleness. And “gender identity” is the subjective internal and often fluid sense of being male or female, both, or neither.

The worst manifestations of this “trans” madness pertain to children—often the first victims of pernicious ideologies. One of those manifestations is the growing movement of parents raising their children to be “gender creative.” These parents conceal their children’s sex from the world, and often from close family and even the children themselves. Two of these parents are “Nathan” Levitt and her female partner, both of whom are women who fancy themselves men. These two women use the plural pronoun “they” when referring to their singular child “Zo” whose sex they conceal in order to prevent society from, in their view, imposing socially constructed arbitrary expectations on him or her, which, in their view, is damaging. Absolute autonomy to define even objective material existence is the driving force in their parental decisions.

Levitt, a registered nurse and long-time “trans” advocate, claims that

random people on the street… are incredibly invested in what gender our child is. That’s always the question, “Is that a boy or a girl?” And so often we will say to people, “We don’t know yet.”

Levitt is either being inconsistent or dishonest. Remember, in the socially constructed “trans” dystopia, “gender” and “sex” are different phenomena. Random people on the street are not asking about their child’s “gender” or its “gender identity.” They’re asking about its sex—which Levitt and her partner do, indeed, know. And their baby’s sex is as important as its humanness. In fact, biological sex is arguably the most important objective feature of every human being.

These foolish parents believe they are refraining from imposing an ideology whereas, in reality, they are imposing the belief that biological sex has no intrinsic meaning relative to, well anything, including even bodies. But, as reported by Alex Morris on the website The Cut, avoiding cultural indoctrination takes a lot of indoctrination:

Pronouns are likewise scrambled in books to give equal airtime to female and nonbinary heroes (one family tells me of reading the Harry Potter series using they/them pronouns for Harry). Parents do not shy away from describing body parts, but are quick to let children know that “some people with penises aren’t boys, and some people with vaginas aren’t girls,” as one mom told me. 

Morris reported that parents of “theybies” ask everyone in their social circles to use “they” rather than he or she. Parents of “theybies” ask that daycare workers who change diapers, keep secret the body parts they will see and that purportedly have nothing to do with maleness or femaleness.

Morris continued:

A common fear among gender-open parents, then, is that their family will be isolated, cut off from people for whom interacting would require just too much cognitive work. 

Yes, socially imposing doctrinaire science-denying dogma requires a carload of cognitive work, as well as a morsel of emotional manipulation and a smidgen of social stigmatization. Propagandizing biological sex out of the public consciousness is very hard work.

Writing on the CrossPolitic blog, Ben Zornes writes this about parents of “theybies”:

[T]hese “parents” feign to be “not choosing” to assign their child a gender, thus sparing it from the social pressures of conforming to being a boy or girl. But their not choosing is… itself a choice which their child has no say in. They have made a choice about what sort of gender values they want their child to have. They want their child to value autonomy when it comes to choosing its gender…. But autonomy is the fairy dream of postmodernism….

This child…. is growing up being taught that it can chart its own destiny, be its own sovereign. This humanistic worldview is the broad way which leads to destruction. The only way off this path is through repentance. Repentance, in this case, looks like embracing the sex which God assigned this child in its mother’s womb…. The real sorrow here is that these parents are tying the millstone of their own sexual rebellion to the neck of their precious toddler and sinking it into the sea of the diabolical madness of the GQBLT religion…. Their “not choosing” is a choice to place a vile temptation before this little one at every turn it makes. God will judge, and will not spare. Unless they repent of their own folly, and the folly they’ve introduced to their child.

Forty-one-year-old lesbian, “trans”-activist, and law professor “Dean” Spade offers a glimpse of where “trans”-activists would like to lead culture (To be clear, Spade is a woman who passes as a man and has relations with women.):

We’ve fought against the idea that the presence of uteruses or ovaries or penises should be understood to determine such things as people’s… proper parental roles, proper physical appearance… [and] proper sexual partners…. Our bodies have varying parts, but it is socialization that assigns our body parts gendered meaning.

Spade and everyone else who pretends to believe that the emperor in the peignoir is an empress should listen to biologist Colin Wright who wrote this for Quillette:

[S]ocial justice activists attempt to jump the epistemological shark by claiming that the very notion of biological sex, too, is a social construct. As a biologist, it is hard to understand how anyone could believe something so outlandish. It’s a belief on a par with the belief in a flat Earth.

…

[T]he most prestigious scientific journal in the world, Nature, published an editorial claiming that classifying people’s sex “on the basis of anatomy or genetics should be abandoned” and “has no basis in science” and that “the research and medical community now sees sex as more complex than male and female.” In the Nature article, the motive is stated clearly enough: acknowledging the reality of biological sex will “undermine efforts to reduce discrimination against transgender people and those who do not fall into the binary categories of male or female.” But while there is evidence for the fluidity of sex in many organisms, this is simply not the case in humans. We can acknowledge the existence of very rare cases in humans where sex is ambiguous, but this does not negate the reality that sex in humans is functionally binary. These editorials are nothing more than a form of politically motivated, scientific sophistry.

The formula for each of these articles is straightforward. First, they list a multitude of intersex conditions. Second, they detail the genes, hormones, and complex developmental processes leading to these conditions. And, third and finally, they throw their hands up and insist this complexity means scientists have no clue what sex really is. This is all highly misleading and deceiving (self-deceiving?), since the developmental processes involved in creating any organ are enormously complex, yet almost always produce fully functional end products. Making a hand is complicated too, but the vast majority of us end up with the functional, five-fingered variety.

What these articles leave out is the fact that the final result of sex development in humans are unambiguously male or female over 99.98 percent of the time. Thus, the claim that “2 sexes is overly simplistic” is misleading, because intersex conditions correspond to less than 0.02 percent of all births, and intersex people are not a third sex. Intersex is simply a catch-all category for sex ambiguity and/or a mismatch between sex genotype and phenotype, regardless of its etiology. Furthermore, the claim that “sex is a spectrum” is also misleading, as a spectrum implies a continuous distribution, and maybe even an amodal one (one in which no specific outcome is more likely than others). Biological sex in humans, however, is clear-cut over 99.98 percent of the time. Lastly, the claim that classifying people’s sex based on anatomy and genetics “has no basis in science” has itself no basis in reality, as any method exhibiting a predictive accuracy of over 99.98 percent would place it among the most precise methods in all the life sciences. We revise medical care practices and change world economic plans on far lower confidence than that. 

A relatively few brave professionals from the medical, mental health, and academic communities are stepping forward at great personal and professional risk to speak the truth about the “trans” ideology that seeks to eradicate recognition of the fact and meaning of sexual differentiation. Increasing numbers of doctors and scientists are trying to stop the socially contagious “trans” madness that, left unopposed, will effectively de-sex and bring incalculable suffering to the world. But as Wright explains, stepping forward is a risky endeavor:

Despite the unquestionable reality of biological sex in humans, social justice and trans activists continue to push this belief, and respond with outrage when challenged. Pointing out any of the above facts is now considered synonymous with transphobia. The massive social media website Twitter—the central hub for cultural discourse and debate—is now actively banning users for stating true facts about basic human biology. And biologists like myself often sit quietly, afraid to defend our own field out of fear that our decade of education followed by continued research, job searches, and the quest for tenure might be made obsolete overnight if the mob decides to target one of us for speaking up. Because of this, our objections take place almost entirely between one another in private whisper networks, despite the fact that a majority of biologists are extremely troubled by these attacks to our field by social justice activists. This is an untenable situation.

It is astonishing that so many sheep-like Americans believe or pretend to believe the “trans” ideology. We should no longer marvel in horror that the Holocaust or slavery happened. We should no longer shake our heads in disbelief that ideas as utterly evil and patently false as those that propelled the extermination of 6 million Jews or the brutal enslavement of men, women and children could have been embraced, tolerated, or acquiesced to.

The embrace of and acquiescence to evil, false ideas are taking place in our time, in our midst, before our open but un-woke eyes. And it advances through the same mechanisms that prior evil, deceitful ideas gained cultural ground, that is, through government-subsidized propaganda, bad legislation, bad judicial decisions, control of cultural institutions, and cowardice.

The “trans” ideology, an evil and patently false set of dogmatic beliefs is wreaking havoc on individual lives, families, and virtually all cultural institutions, and relatively few people are opposing it.

To be clear, I am not comparing the degree of evil intrinsic to Nazi beliefs or pro-slavery beliefs about racial superiority or the effects of those beliefs to the degree of evil intrinsic to “trans”-cultic beliefs or their effects. Rather, I am comparing the oppressive mechanisms by which these sets of beliefs achieve cultural ascendancy and the cowardly absence of resistance from those who should know and proclaim the truth despite the cost.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/Trans-Madness.mp3

---

Save the Date!!!

On Saturday, March 16, 2019, the Illinois Family Institute will be hosting our annual Worldview Conference. This coming year, we will focus on the “transgender” revolution. We already have commitments from Dr. Michelle Cretella, President of the American College of Pediatricians; Walt Heyer, former “transgender” and contributor to Public Discourse; Denise Schick, Founder and Director of Help 4 Families, and daughter of a man who “identified” as a woman; and Doug Wilson, who is a Senior Fellow of Theology at New Saint Andrews College in Moscow, Idaho, and pastor at Christ Church in Moscow, Idaho .

The Transgender Ideology:
What Is It? Where Will It Lead? What is the Church’s Role?
Stay tuned for more information!

---

Help us meet our end-of-year matching challenge goal!
Dollar for dollar match through December 31st.
Your $25 becomes $50, $100 is $200, and $250 becomes $500.