Last week, the Daily Herald published a deceptive and disingenuous letter from Kim Cavill, the worst school board member of the District 211 School Board, five of whose members—including Cavill—are being sued by an unjustly fired teacher.

In her letter, the controversial sexpert Cavill complains about being unprepared for the enraged and hateful messages she has received since becoming a District 211 board member in 2019:

In April of 2019, I ran for a seat on District 211’s board of education and I won. I ran as who I am: a person who cares deeply about my community and the young people who live in it. I didn’t hide that I’m an experienced sex education teacher who specialized in teaching teen pregnancy prevention and an expert in health education, because I couldn’t feel prouder of my nationally recognized work.

Though I certainly anticipated heated disagreement on issues coming before me as a board member, I did not anticipate getting Facebook messages telling me to kill myself. I did not anticipate emails littered with curse words and hateful slurs. I did not anticipate people posting satellite images of my home on social media alongside dangerous, evidence-free accusations too disgusting to summarize. I did not anticipate people who find my work so reprehensible that they twist it into something monstrous and publicly slander my character.

Unfortunately, this is not the first time I’ve experienced this kind of treatment. The abuse I am open about surviving did not break me, and neither will enraged emails from people who’ve forgotten how to disagree with any kind of decency. But using dehumanizing language in person or on social media gives implicit permission for others to use that same kind of language against all of us and that is unacceptable.

We can and must be able to disagree with one another without forgetting that we are neighbors. We are all humans with families to look after, friends to hug, jobs to work, and people to love. If we let our passions twist into shapeless hatred, it corrodes the connections that bind us together. Our connections to our neighbors and our communities are too important to lose.

I agree with Cavill on little, but she argues rightly that slurs and threatening messages are “unacceptable” and give “implicit permission for others to use that same kind of language.”

In preparation for serving on the D211 School Board, perhaps Cavill should have talked to former District U46 board member Jeanette Ward, whom Cavill publicly called the “High Priestess of the Order of Moron” in 2018. Ward too has been the recipient of enraged, vulgar, and hateful messages.

In 2017, Cavill described three fine candidates for the District 211 Board as the “hate slate” because they opposed the sexual integration of locker rooms for minors. Like Ms. Ward, these three received hateful messages and were publicly slandered.

In her letter describing “enraged” emails, Cavill didn’t mention any of the reasons community members might feel anger toward her. For example, she didn’t mention that 11 days before that 2017 election, she and her sister set up a sham PAC to launder over $26,000 collected by a “transgender” PAC from “LGBTQ” activists from outside the community to defeat the slate of excellent candidates, two of whom were women of color. One wonders, are Cavill and her sister racists?

In her letter, Cavill describes herself as “an experienced sex education teacher who specialized in teaching teen pregnancy prevention and an expert in health education.” That vague, whitewashed description omits that Cavill’s expert “health education” includes presenting polyamorous “family structures,” anal sex, and porn positively in her podcasts for young adolescents.

On August 28, 2020, while a sitting D211 board member, Cavill tweeted that those who vote for Trump would be choosing to make the United States a “white nationalist fascist state.” Is that what Cavill calls decent disagreement?

Community members might want to ask Cavill why she has shut down her Twitter accounts since I started reporting on her tweets.

I too receive obscene, threatening, hateful messages “from people who find my work so reprehensible that they twist it into something monstrous and publicly slander my character.” So too does every theologically orthodox Christian and political conservative who publicly expresses his or her views on sexuality, marriage, and the sexual integration of private spaces and women’s sports. While Cavill no more deserves hateful or threatening messages than do political conservatives and theologically orthodox Christians for expressing their views on sexuality, her words and actions do merit righteous anger.

Cavill closed with these words: “We … must be able to disagree with one another without forgetting that we are neighbors.” Well, neighbors don’t call neighbors morons for holding different beliefs on sexuality. And neighbors don’t call neighbors fascists for their electoral choices.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/Letter-in-Daily-Herald-from-D211s-Worst-Board-Member-Kim-Cavill.mp3

Two administrators and five school board members in District 211, the largest high school district in Illinois, are being sued by Judicial Watch on behalf of a teacher who was fired for expressing criticism of the 2020 BLM/Antifa insurrections that devastated American cities. The defendants are director of human resources, James A. Britton; District 211 superintendent, Lisa A. Small; and board members, Robert J. LeFevre Jr., Anna Klimkowicz, Steven Rosenblum, Edward M. Yung, and the worst of the worst, Kim Cavill.  Two board members, Mark Cramer and Peter Dombrowski, had the good judgment to vote against the teacher’s termination. If the other five board members had exercised similar good judgment, the district would have avoided this costly but important lawsuit.

Jeanne Hedgepeth, a tenured teacher who was employed in D211 for twenty years, was fired for four posts on her private Facebook page. The lawsuit details both the posts and their context:

In late May and early June 2020, Plaintiff was vacationing in Florida after the end of the 2019-20 school year when violent street protests, rioting, looting, and shootings erupted in Chicago and many other U.S. cities in the aftermath of the killing of George Floyd on May 25, 2020 by Minneapolis police officers. In Chicago alone, 82 persons were shot, 19 fatally, over the May 30-31, 2020 weekend. On May 31, 2020, which the Chicago Sun Times described as the most violent day Chicago had seen in 60 years, Mayor Lori Lightfoot asked Governor J.B. Pritzker to deploy the Illinois National Guard in the city. That same day, May 31, 2020, Plaintiff posted … the comment, “I don’t want to go home tomorrow.  Now that the civil war has begun I want to move.”

An individual responded, “Follow your gut!  Move!!!!!!!!!”  Plaintiff answered, “I need a gun and training.” The individual replied, “me too!”

Another individual posted a meme that same day suggesting that the riots could be stopped with a septic tank truck and a pressure cannon.  Plaintiff reposted the meme, obviously in jest, adding, “You think this would work?”

On or about June 1, 2020, Plaintiff posted the following comment on Facebook in the course of an exchange of posts begun the previous day with a third individual:

I am about facts, truth seeking and love. I will speak on any topic I choose because I live in a free country. I find the term “white privilege” as racist as the “N” word. You have not walked in my shoes either so do not make assumptions about me and my so called privilege. You think America is racist? Then you have been hoodwinked by the white liberal establishment and race baiters like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton.  Travel the world and go see that every nation has racism and some more than others but few make efforts such as we do to mitigate or eliminate it. I have lived and seen.  The people I am informed by about the black experience in America are actually some of the smartest people in America. And it so happens they are black. I highly recommend studying Thomas Sowell, who is now retired and in his 80’s. A treasure.  A truth seeker. [D]oes REAL research and analysis. Candice Owens is one of the smartest and most courageous women in America and Larry Elders speaks the truth with a great sense of humor and FACTS not feelings. They are who I listen to when it comes to facts about the black experience in America. Don’t you think there is a deeper problem than racism when 50% of murders in America are committed by 13% of the population? Do you think there might be a subtle genocide of black babies when most planned parenthoods are put in poor neighborhoods and that 30% of abortions are black babies. [B]lack women only make up 7% of the U.S. population.  The greatest power you have is what you believe about yourself. [W]hat have Democrats, mainstream media and intellectuals in ivory towers been telling the black community to believe about themselves for forty years? Wake up and stop believing them, then things will change.

Does anyone believe that if tenured teachers in D211 condemned Trump-voters, conservatives, or the Jan.6 rally on their personal Facebook pages they would be fired? Does anyone believe that if left-leaning D211 teachers made critical comments about Trump-voters, Republicans, conservatives, or the Jan. 6 rally in class they would be disciplined?

Conservatives who work in public schools are well aware of the de facto double standard for “progressive” and conservative teachers regarding the expression of moral or political views. They’re well aware of the systemic, institutional bias against conservative viewpoints. They’re well aware of the open intolerance of leftist teachers and administrators who self-identify as “tolerant.” Conservatives are well aware that their moral beliefs on homosexuality and cross-sex impersonation are openly (and falsely) called hatred by “progressive” teachers who suffer no consequences.

Perhaps the most egregious aspect of this sorry event was that arrogant board member Kim Cavill, who until very recently, has expressed her political views with impunity, voted to fire Hedgepeth, accusing Hedgepeth of “lacking professionalism.” Maybe someone should ask the four remaining anti-First Amendment board members who voted to fire Hedgepeth how they view these tweets from Cavill:

April 12, 2021 retweet: 

“Nothing like a police shooting to demonstrate conservatives’ most strongly held belief: With great power comes no responsibility.” 

April 13, 2021, she tweeted this quote from an Atlantic article: 

“For the past 30 years, the GOP has pursued a consistent strategy: Find a misunderstood or marginalized group, convince voters that the members of that group pose an existential threat to society, and then ride to victory on the promise of using state power to crush them.” 

August 28, 2020 retweet:

“It sounds absurd to say it, but America is in the process of choosing whether to be a white nationalist fascist state or an inclusive democracy. That’s not hyperbole, that’s just where we are”

August 23, 2020 Retweet:

“Here is what I would like for you to know: In America, it is traditional to destroy the black body – it is heritage.” — Ta-Nehisi Coates

D211 Board of Education policy says, a “Board of Education member should honor the responsibility which membership demands by representing at all times the entire school community.” Shouldn’t Cavill resign from the board?

And how do the four anti-free speech board members view Cavill’s creepy sex podcasts for children on anal sex, porn, and her recent one on polyamory, during which Cavill fawned over all the allegedly good things polyamorous family structures confer on children? Cavill labels this a “level one” podcast, which are topics that “cover the basics,” making it “perfect”—in Cavill’s perverse and unprofessional view—”for people of any age.”

As a far leftist, Cavill has the super-power of finding racism everywhere:

It’s pretty obvious that [the fact that polyamory is seen as a white movement] is part of a larger pattern of white supremacy.

How long before Cavill starts agitating for D211 curricula to endorse polyamory?

Cavill has a history of unethical behavior, perhaps the most corrupt of which was her scheme to solicit outside money to interfere with the 2017 school board election.

Prior to being elected to the D211 board in 2019, Cavill colluded with her sister to defeat the 2017 slate of excellent candidates by bringing in outside money from wealthy homosexuals and cross-sex identifiers that was laundered through a sham PAC.

Three exceptionally well-qualified people who opposed the sexual integration of private spaces for minors were running against three people who supported such privacy-violating practices. The three well-qualified challengers were,

Jean Forrest, a Chinese-American woman with an MA in economics who works as an actuary

Katherine Jee Young David, a Korean-American woman with a BS in Business Administration from the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign

Ralph Bonatz who has a degree in electrical engineering and is a global quality control manager for an international corporation

On March 22, 2017, just 13 days before the 2017 election, LaSaia Wade, a 29-year-old “black trans woman” (i.e., a biological man), and Daye Pope, another biological male who passes as a woman, set up a Super PAC called Trans United Fund Illinois. Pope was the organizing director for a 501(c)(3) called Trans United Fund.

Two days later, on March 24, 2017—11 days before the 2017 election—Kim Cavill and her sister Lindsay Christensen set up a Super PAC called Parents and Neighbors for Quality Education (PNQE).

Just days after the founding of Trans United Fund Illinois, donations from some surprising people came pouring in:

• Matrix Director “Lana” Wachowski, a biological man who pretends to be a woman and lives with his dominatrix wife in Chicago, donated a whopping $10,000.

• Far left former Illinois State Senator Heather Steans (D-Chicago), who has an adult son who pretends to be a woman, also donated $10,000.

• Homosexual Clark Pellet, a retired attorney and development chair for the “LGBTQ” Center on Halsted who lives in Chicago, donated $5,000.

• Executive director of Gender Rights Maryland, Dana Beyer, a man who pretends to be a woman and lives in Chevy Chase, MD donated $1,000.

• Eliza Byard, executive director of the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN) who lives in Brooklyn, NY donated $500.

• Homosexual Douglas Hattaway, president and CEO of a Washington D.C. strategic communications firm who lives in D.C., donated $500.

• Architect Kira Kinsman, a biological man formerly known as Kyle Kinsman who lives in Wilkes Barre, PA, donated $250.

The more than $26, 000 in donations for a school board election from donors who don’t live in District 211 then went to—you guessed it—Cavill’s Parents and Neighbors for Quality Education.

Enquiring minds may wonder why Cavill and her sister set up PNQE, since Trans United Fund Illinois was already established. Why the extra step to fund the defeat of conservatives? The answer to that question might be found in mailers and yard signs. State law requires that campaign mailers and yard signs identify the groups that pay for them. Signs must say “Approved by …”

Which sounds better—and by “better” I mean less likely to arouse suspicion: “Approved by Trans United Fund Illinois” or “Approved by Parents and Neighbors for Quality Education”?

Flush with filthy lucre, Cavill and her sister got busy smearing good people with nary a backward glance.

As reported by the “LGBTQ” newspaper Windy City Times, a local mom (Who could that have been?) reached out to Trans United Fund, “a national trans-led advocacy group,” who agreed to help them defeat the three candidates who supported single-sex locker rooms:

Trans United Fund (TUF) and a group of local parents, youth, and allies, worked together to launch the first trans-led, trans-focused independent expenditure in history. TUF assembled a powerful team of thoughtful allies to quickly build and execute a research-informed and strategic plan to help the parents and youth get their message out. TUF supported the parents’ efforts through digital, mail, phone banking and helping to train volunteers to reach their neighbors at the door.

The Windy City Times made clear this campaign was a smear campaign in which good people who believe locker rooms and restrooms should correspond to biological sex were vilified. District 211 community member Tracey Salvatore, spewing venomous lies said this about the good people who were defeated:

We are fed up with this small group of vocal, transphobic people guided by a national hate group [Alliance Defending Freedom] wreaking havoc in our community. … Our District 211 community will not tolerate adults bullying kids or intimidating us for one more day. The ADF-inspired slate of candidates ran with the agenda of inserting a hate-based, national agenda into our schools. They didn’t care that their policy changes would increase bullying and violence against kids. … So we reached out to Trans United Fund and they helped us to get our message out to our neighbors and community members. (emphasis added)

Neither Salvatore nor anyone affiliated with PNQE felt the ethical obligation to provide evidence that the three candidates feared or hated “trans”-identifying students, or that they bullied kids, or that they intimidated community members, or that ADF has a “hate-based agenda,” or that single-sex private spaces for minors increase “bullying and violence.” Why try to provide impossible-to-find evidence when hate-mongering rhetoric does the job.

Yep, with the exception of two stand-out school board members, the D211 school board is the worst in Illinois. The district deserves to lose this lawsuit.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/The-Worst-School-Board-in-Illinois-Gets-Sued.mp3

Between now and Labor Day, you can double the impact of your tax deductible donations to IFI!

A group of donors are working with us to offer a $40,000 dollar-for-dollar matching challenge
to help us raise $80,000 for “Rescuing the Children” initiative here in Illinois!

Two administrators and five school board members in District 211, the largest high school district in Illinois, are being sued by Judicial Watch on behalf of a teacher who was fired for expressing criticism of the 2020 BLM/Antifa insurrections that devastated American cities. The defendants are director of human resources, James A. Britton; District 211 superintendent, Lisa A. Small; and board members, Robert J. LeFevre Jr., Anna Klimkowicz, Steven Rosenblum, Edward M. Yung, and the worst of the worst, Kim Cavill.  Two board members, Mark Cramer and Peter Dombrowski, had the good judgment to vote against the teacher’s termination. If the other five board members had exercised similar good judgment, the district would have avoided this costly but important lawsuit.

Jeanne Hedgepeth, a tenured teacher who was employed in D211 for twenty years, was fired for four posts on her private Facebook page.

Read more…

Illinoisans have no dearth of reasons to remove their children from our government faux-education camps that are called “schools” in Newspeak. Leftists control teachers’ unions, the Illinois State Board of Education, and the fetid Springfield Swamp from which have emerged laws mandating that 5-year-old children must be introduced to positive ideas about and images of sexual perversity. And leftists control many local school boards.

What’s more, leftists sitting on school boards want nothing less than total fascistic control of everything pertaining to curricula and professional development. They resent the presence of even one conservative board member. They have no interest in ideological diversity, inclusivity, or unity with those who do not share their moral, political, or pedagogical views.

It would behoove Illinoisans to take a gander at the school board of the largest high school district in the state, District 211, to understand better just how depraved school boards have become. And it would certainly behoove anyone with children who is considering moving to District 211 to read on.

District 211 just elected 33-year-old anti-Christian bigot/BLM activist Tim McGowan, who claims to be a “business owner,” to serve on the board. Other than controversy, a pending lawsuit against him, and melanin—er, I mean “diversity”—it’s a little bit fuzzy what he brings to the board. Maybe some intrepid community members can ferret out the specific reasons his supporters voted for him.

What is known about McGowan is that made a since-deleted YouTube video in which he referred to “validating ignorant little white boys,” and then issued a press release in which he ironically called the Illinois Family Institute “racist,”–oh and “anti-Semitic” and “homophobic.” As near as we can tell, he called IFI “homophobic” because of our biblical views on marriage and homosexuality. Is this really the kind of person, the D211 community thinks can serve all children?

Unfortunately, he’s not the worst leftist D211 board member. That ignominy goes to the puerile and presumptuous sexpert Kim Cavill who takes special pride in exposing children to all manner of inappropriate sexuality topics while mocking and condemning conservatism and the GOP on her Twitter account. It doesn’t appear she is even a smidge invested in diversity, inclusivity, or unity.

This is the person who several years ago in an online public post referred to former School District U-46 Board Member and recent conservative Illinois State Senate candidate Jeanette Ward as the “High Priestess of the Order of Moron.” Cavill is such a fine role model for children.

Cavill has a sordid history in District 211 about which I wrote this:

The curious story of the April 2019 election of Kim Cavill actually goes back to the even curiouser story of the 2017 school board election. Three well-qualified people who opposed co-ed private spaces for minors were running against three people who supported co-ed private spaces for minors.

On March 22, 2017, just 13 days before the 2017 election, LaSaia Wade, a 29-year-old “black trans woman” (i.e., a biological man), and Daye Pope, another biological male who passes as a woman, set up a Super PAC called Trans United Fund Illinois. Pope is the organizing director for a 501(c)(3) called Trans United Fund.

Two days later, on March 24, 2017—11 days before the 2017 election—Kim Cavill and her sister Lindsay Christensen set up a Super PAC called Parents and Neighbors for Quality Education (PNQE).

Just days after the founding of Trans United Fund Illinois, donations from some surprising people came pouring in:

• Matrix Director “Lana” Wachowski, a biological man who pretends to be a woman and lives with his dominatrix wife in Chicago, donated a whopping $10,000.

• Far left Illinois State Senator Heather Steans(D-Chicago), who has an adult son who pretends to be a woman, also donated $10,000.

• Homosexual Clark Pellet, a retired attorney and development chair for the “LGBTQ” Center on Halsted who lives in Chicago, donated $5,000.

• Executive director of Gender Rights Maryland, Dana Beyer, a man who pretends to be a woman and lives in Chevy Chase, MD donated $1,000.

• Eliza Byard, executive director of the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN) who lives in Brooklyn, NY donated $500.

• Homosexual Douglas Hattaway, president and CEO of a Washington D.C. strategic communications firm who lives in D.C., donated $500.

• Architect Kira Kinsman, a biological man formerly known as Kyle Kinsman who lives in Wilkes Barre, PA, donated $250.

The more than $26, 000 in donations for a school board election from donors who don’t live in District 211 then went to—you guessed it—Cavill’s Parents and Neighbors for Quality Education.

Enquiring minds may wonder why Cavill and her sister set up PNQE, since Trans United Fund Illinois was already established. Why the extra step to fund the defeat of conservatives? The answer to that question might be found in mailers and yard signs. State law requires that campaign mailers and yard signs identify the groups that pay for them. Signs must say “Approved by….”

Which sounds better—and by “better” I mean less likely to arouse suspicion: “Approved by Trans United Fund Illinois” or “Approved by Parents and Neighbors for Quality Education”?

Flush with filthy lucre, the Cavill sisters got busy smearing good people with nary a backward glance.

Almost immediately after the school board election and defeat of all three good candidates, Cavill and her sister deactivated their Super PAC. Malignant Mission Accomplished.

Then in 2019, Cavill ran for the school board and won.

In her “sex positive” podcasts for tweens she opines on anal sex:

Before trying anal sex, people need to talk about their own and their partner’s boundaries like any other type of sex. It should be preceded by a conversation about what the people participating in sex are consenting to, what they aren’t consenting to, how they’re expecting sex to go, and how they’re going to communicate during sex to make sure everyone’s still on the same page. Anal sex also requires a lot of lube.

And on porn:

Porn can certainly cause relationship problems but so can a lot of other things. Porn causing relationship problems isn’t inevitable, it depends on the relationship and it depends on how the people in that relationship feel about porn…. [T]he evidence says that if you think porn’s bad, it is, and if you think porn’s fine, then it is.

In two other “sex positive” podcasts, she discusses “Creating Queer inclusive spaces” with a self-identifying “non-binary, pansexual” woman from California and a woman from a Naperville, Illinois organization who “educates” teachers . Recommendations for this queering endeavor include adorning classrooms with pro-“LGBTQ” paraphernalia and books galore, and scrubbing from the classroom all gendered language like the words “boy” and “girl.”

Health teachers should absolutely not refer to “girls” having their periods or “boys” having penises. Why not? Because some humans with natal menstruating uteruses are “boys,” and some humans with natal functioning penises are girls—that is, in Cavill’s make-believe, science-denying, metaphysical world where disembodied spirit humans inhabit wrong bodies, they are.

One wonders how Cavill’s dream queer-inclusive classrooms, awash in pro-“LGBTQ” symbology and propaganda, would make Orthodox Jews, Muslims, and theologically orthodox Christian students feel. Would those whose authentic identities include beliefs about biological sex and sexual acts that are implicitly and explicitly condemned by queered spaces feel included?

Let’s take a look at a few of “inclusive” school board member Kim Cavill’s tweets over the past year—tweets that any student with a Twitter account can read. Read them bearing in mind the board of education policy that says, a “Board of Education member should honor the responsibility which membership demands by representing at all times the entire school community.”

April 13, she tweeted this quote from an Atlantic article: 

“For the past 30 years, the GOP has pursued a consistent strategy: Find a misunderstood or marginalized group, convince voters that the members of that group pose an existential threat to society, and then ride to victory on the promise of using state power to crush them.” 

April 12 retweet: 

“Nothing like a police shooting to demonstrate conservatives’ most strongly held belief: With great power comes no responsibility.” 

January 28:

My 17 year old son: “I’m using spermicide and condoms to protect against STDs. I also know about PrEP for HIV prevention. My girlfriend’s on the pill, too.

Me [Kim Cavill]: “I’m so proud of you. Pick a restaurant, I’ll buy you both dinner, tell me what day works and we’ll get you take-out.” 

Feb. 24:

The only reason for seeing an increase in sexual fluidity as a negative is bigotry, so if you’re upset about how many young people are bi, the problem is…you 

March 16:

Praying for all the health teachers who will be asked, “Can you pop your vagina into someone else’s vagina? 

March 20, shortly before Easter:

My ten year old: “Why did they put Aragorn on that billboard?”

Me [Kim Cavill]: “Honey, that’s not Aragorn, that’s Jesus Christ.”

Ten year old: “Lame.”

(I wonder if Cavill would have posted such a Tweet if the billboard had featured a picture of Muhammad.) 

March 5:

Just had a three minute conversation with someone who was too scared to get the vaccine and now they are going to take the next available appointment.  If I can achieve this with adults, just imagine how effective I am with classrooms full of teenagers. Sex ed saves lives. 

November 12, 2020 tweet directed at Associate Justice Samuel Alito:

Roses are red

Violets are blue

Plan B prevents ovulation,

so screw you. 

August 28, 2020 retweet:

“It sounds absurd to say it, but America is in the process of choosing whether to be a white nationalist fascist state or an inclusive democracy. That’s not hyperbole, that’s just where we are”

August 23, 2020 Retweet: 

“Here is what I would like for you to know: In America, it is traditional to destroy the black body – it is heritage.” — Ta-Nehisi Coates

July 26, 2020

17 being the average means that some people have sex earlier and some people wait a lot longer. There is no “right age” to have sex. Only you can decide what’s best for you according to your values, goals, and circumstances. The decision should come from inside, not outside.

Cavill exposes how she views her sex “educator” job in this tweet:

Anytime a Very Serious Free Speech Defender tweets about “censorship” I think about how many times I had to answer students’ questions with, “I wish I could give you an answer, but the state/your school board/your administration/ doesn’t allow me to talk about that. I’m sorry.”

Cavill believes that having any restrictions on what she says to other people’s minor children about sexuality in a taxpayer-subsidized school constitutes “censorship,” thereby demonstrating what I have been saying for years: Leftist activists posing as teachers think they should have absolute autonomy in the classroom.

Equally troubling, the restive Cavill makes sure her students know that she opposes these restrictions, thereby encouraging student resentment against rules imposed by their state, their school board, or their administration. Cavill has the maturity of adolescents who rebel against rules that thwart their desires.

Cavill is a cunning, vulgar, anti-conservative, far left activist who is unfit for any school board. And school boards all around the country have members who think just like Cavill, which is one of the many reasons conservative parents must get their children out of government indoctrination centers. If Americans cannot see that someone like Cavill is unfit to sit on a school board or teach children, then they are the proverbial boiled frogs.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

Written by Abigail Ruth

I don’t write very often because, frankly, I find it difficult. As a witness to the events of our day, I am often overwhelmed by their significance and stymied by my own inability to put into words any analysis that seems to do justice to the magnitude of moral, spiritual and intellectual disintegration taking place all around us.

The Township High School District 211 school board meeting last Thursday night at Fremd High School was an example of just such an event. Although the results were expected (the school board voted 5-2 to grant special rights to “trans”-identifying students) it was still a surreal experience to witness. The approved policy will allow biological male students unrestricted access to girls’ locker rooms (and vice versa)—meaning that they will not be required to undress behind a privacy curtain. During swim class, everyone out in the locker room will be able to see each other’s genitalia. The new policy also opens the door to male and female students sharing hotel rooms on field trips.  In case you’re wondering, girls’ sports are an apparent non-issue. Male students who identify as female have been playing on the girls’ teams for years.

At the meeting, 25 randomly chosen members of the public were allowed 3 minutes each to address the board.  Many who spoke were in favor of the policy change. It was their comments that most arrested my attention. If insanity can be defined as a disconnect from reality, then surely insanity was on parade Thursday night at Fremd High School.

First and foremost, it must be understood that supporters of the purported “rights” of “trans”-identifying students do not claim that we must affirm such students’ erroneous perception of themselves as the opposite sex. No–and read this next part carefully: These people claim that a male student who perceives himself to be a girl actually is a girl. Chromosomes and genitalia count as nothing. Oh, and by the way, you are not to think of this as a “mental problem.” This is all perfectly “normal.”

Take a deep breath and let that sink in.

Those of us who aren’t quite educated enough to actually believe that males who believe they are females really are females are apparently expected to pretend we do. False gender affirmation was presented over and over again as a moral imperative. In fact, we were told essentially that if our schools fail to affirm gender dysphoric (GD) students as the opposite sex, we will all have blood on our hands. Why? Because, we are told, GD students will commit suicide if their delusion of being the opposite sex is not encouraged and supported. We’re told this in spite of the fact that the link between suicide and social treatment has yet to be scientifically established. Is it just me or does this strike anyone else as a conveniently warped version of emotional blackmail?

Now that we have apparently accepted this dubious claim and capitulated, is there any limit to what “LGBT” activists can demand of us? That is no longer a rhetorical question.

Do I dare point out the obvious? A mentally healthy person doesn’t commit suicide because other people refuse to pretend that he/she is something they are not–especially something as obvious and foundational as male or female. While all students–including students with GD–should be treated with kindness, anyone in their right mind understands that when it comes to biological sex, we are what we are. The best possible outcome for GD kids is to make peace with reality and learn to love and appreciate the healthy, beautiful bodies God gave them. How will they do that if everyone, including their schools are encouraging them in continued delusion?

Demanding that the whole world suspend reality because some people are either unwilling or unable to accept it does not begin to approach a reasonable solution. The whole issue illustrates a degree of intellectual and moral lunacy I had heretofore assumed humanly impossible except among the clinically insane.

And once again, where were the pastors and elders–those who are supposed to be the protectors and bearers of truth? There are over 90 churches in D211, and this was the last of four meetings where extensive public comment was heard on this policy. Apart from three notable exceptions our spiritual leaders were missing in action. If a pastor doesn’t stand up for truth on behalf of children in his own community will he ever?  Unfortunately I think we know the answer.

So, where do we go from here? When the Left eventually gains enough power in Washington D.C., the gloves will come off and “LGBT” activists will wage war against biblical Christianity under the guise of civil rights. This is a certainty. For the most part, it is only God’s people who offer any real resistance to their plans for our dystopian future. They know this. That is why they and their allies at the ACLU criss-cross the country looking for Christian business owners to sue. These actions stand as a warning to any who might dare cross them in the future.

The famous quote attributed to George Orwell seems to have been written for our day: “During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.” Are we prepared to be revolutionaries? I am not sure that we are. But ready or not, we must be. God’s people are people of the truth. God help us.

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

-and, please-

A remarkable and revelatory debate took place on IFI’s Facebook page on Sunday between me and Alan Mills, the executive director of the Uptown People’s Law Center, who received his undergraduate degree in philosophy from Ivy League Brown University and his law degree from Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law. I don’t want to speak ill of the irrational, so I will let you figure out what this debate reveals.

It all began with this question from another commenter: “Does it create a better environment if 1 percent of the students are uncomfortable getting undressed and dressed for gym class, or 99 percent of the students?”

Mills responded, “Would you apply the same test to racial segregation? Why not?”

And the debate was afoot.

Laurie:  I would think that with an Ivy League education and law degree from Northwestern you would have greater facility with analogies.

First, in order for your analogy to work there have to be some points of correspondence between opposite-sex “identification” (or impersonation) per se and race or skin color per se. There are none.

Second, there would have to be some points of correspondence between racial segregation everywhere and sexual segregation in private spaces where sexually differentiated humans undress. There are none.

Segregating races in buses, restaurants, and housing was based on false beliefs about the races. There are no ontological differences between races that meaningfully bear on riding buses, eating in restaurants or being housed. In contrast, sexual segregation in restrooms, locker rooms, shelters, semi-private hospital rooms, jails, and prisons are based on real ontological differences between biological men and biological women. Moreover, these differences meaningfully bear on undressing and engaging in bodily functions.

If sexual segregation per se is as intrinsically evil as racial segregation per se, then there should be laws prohibiting all sexual segregation. Is the Uptown People’s Law Center fighting for the eradication of all sex-segregated spaces?

Alan Mills: This is not about sexual segregation. It is about insisting that biological differences justify discrimination. That is EXACTLY what racial segregation was about. Just like sex, there is indisputably a biological difference between white and black skin. The question is whether that difference in biology justified treating people as second class citizens.

Laurie: Yes, the issue is precisely about sexual segregation—sexual segregation in high school locker rooms.

You evidently didn’t understand my argument, so, I’ll try again.

I did not argue that there are no biological differences between blacks and whites. I argued that those differences did not bear meaningfully on riding buses, eating in restaurants, or being housed. In contrast, the differences between men and women do, indeed, bear meaningfully on private spaces. In fact, those real differences between men and women are the reason sex-segregated spaces exist. The reason drinking fountains exist is decidedly not to recognize racial differences.

Nice try with the “second-class citizen” comment, but treating all men as men and all women as women does not constitute treating any man or any woman as a second-class citizen. Treating sex differences as real and meaningful in contexts where sexually differentiated humans (who are often strangers) undress does not constitute treating anyone as a “second class citizen.”

Not all forms of “segregation” (a loaded term chosen by leftists for its political loadedness) are created equal. I’ll choose a better term: separation. Not all bases on which humans separate are analogous. Some forms of separation are not merely acceptable but good.

Racial segregation was based on erroneous and pernicious beliefs about white superiority and on white hatred of blacks. Sexual segregation in private spaces is based on the true belief that boys and girls, men and women are biologically different and that those differences are meaningful when it comes to being unclothed. Such separation does not reflect any animus of women toward men or vice versa.

Again, biology is irrelevant to the acts of riding buses, drinking at fountains, eating in restaurants, and being housed. Racial segregation was based on animus. In contrast, biologically based sex segregation is relevant to undressing and engaging in personal bodily functions. Separate facilities for men and women when undressing or engaging in personal bodily functions are based on these real differences—not on false beliefs or animus. The reason women don’t want men in their locker rooms is not based on sexual hatred.

So, I’ll ask again, if you believe sexual “segregation” is as intrinsically evil as racial segregation, are you fighting for the end of all sexual “segregation”? How do you justify leaving some sexually segregated spaces? Would you allow some racial segregation to remain legal? Using your deeply flawed analogy, would you allow some “whites only” spaces to remain if some whites wanted them?

Alan Mills: You specifically said that trans women unlike any other women need to use special changing areas—segregated from all other women. Sounds exactly like racial segregation to me.

Laurie: I specifically said no such thing. “Trans-women” are biological men (also known as men), and I specifically said that no biological men should use the private spaces of biological women, which is wholly different from separate lunch counters and drinking fountains for blacks and whites. While skin color differences have no meaning relative to eating, drinking or riding buses, sex differences have profound meaning relative to undressing. In fact, sex differences are the very reason we have sex-separated private spaces for men and women.

Trying a third time: If you believe sexual “segregation” is as intrinsically evil as racial segregation, are you fighting for the end of all sexual “segregation”? How do you justify leaving some sexually segregated spaces? Would you allow some racial segregation to remain legal? Using your deeply flawed analogy, would you allow some “whites only” spaces to remain?

Alan Mills: Gender differences are the reason, not sex differences. As I say, you are demanding that women who do not conform to your notion of what a woman should look like should be segregated, because it would make women who look different uncomfortable.

This is exactly the argument used for segregated neighborhoods, separate drinking fountains, public accommodations, etc.

Laurie: Leftists define “gender” as the aggregate of arbitrary socially constructed conventions that we associate with maleness and/or femaleness, both, or neither. Your claim about the reason for segregated private spaces is patently and demonstrably false in addition to being idiotic.

“Gender” differences are not the reason society created separate restrooms, locker rooms, shelters, dorm rooms, semi-private hospital rooms, jails, and prisons. Biological sex differences between men and women are the reason we have sex-separate private facilities for women and men.

I have never “demanded” that “women who do not conform to” my “notion of what a woman should look like” be segregated in private spaces. Rather, I am asserting that biological men should not be in the private spaces of biological women, which—as I have explained—is wholly different from racially segregated drinking fountains, neighborhoods, or restaurants. Skin color differences are irrelevant to eating and drinking. Whereas racial segregation was based on irrelevant biological differences and animus, sex-segregation in private spaces is based on biological differences relevant to undressing and has no basis in biological sex animus.

My father, my husband, my son, my sons-in-law, and my male friends do not want biological women in their locker rooms. My sister, my daughters, my daughter-in-law, and my female friends do not want biological men in their locker rooms. None of these relatives and friends believes they are superior to persons of the opposite sex, nor do they hate persons of the opposite sex. Rather, they know that sexual differentiation matters when it comes to undressing.

Trying a fourth time: If you believe sexual “segregation” is as intrinsically evil as racial segregation, are you fighting for the end of all sexual “segregation”? How do you justify leaving some sexually segregated spaces? Would you allow some racial segregation to remain legal? Using your deeply flawed analogy, would you allow some “whites only” spaces to remain?

CONCLUSION

Well, that’s where our debate ended. Alan Mills employed lousy analogies; grossly misrepresented my statements, actually lying about what I said; grossly mispresented history; and refused to answer direct questions. Figuring out whether he is obtuse or engaging in deceitful lawyerly rhetorical manipulation is above my pay grade. What I do know is his beliefs based on nonsensical analogies and lies are dangerous and destructive.

Once the term “gender identity” is added to antidiscrimination policies and laws, sex-segregated private spaces begin their slow but ineluctable death march. Banning discrimination based on both sex and feelings about sex (i.e.,“gender identity”) spells the end of all sex-segregation everywhere. If society can no longer separate humans according to either biological sex or “gender identity,” then there remains no legal rationale for retaining any sex-segregated private spaces for anyone anywhere.

For example, if a school allows one boy who “identifies” as a girl to use the girls’ locker room, there is no legal rationale for preventing normal boys (i.e., “cisgender boys) from doing likewise. The school could not prohibit normal boys from using the girls’ locker room based on the fact that they’re biological boys for that would constitute discrimination based on sex (In addition, they’ve already allowed one biological boy to use the girls’ locker room). And schools could not prohibit “cisgender” boys from using the girls’ locker room, because that would constitute discrimination based on gender identity.

Unless the masses of people tethered to reality and morality rise up and oppose this irrational ideology, this is the end of physical privacy, my friends, the end.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Uptown-Peoples-Law-Center.mp3

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

-and, please-

Just when you thought civilized first-world countries had deposited mythology and science-denying irrationality in the dustbin of history, the “trans” cult emerged seeking to force science-loving Americans to embrace the solipsistic, “trans”-centric worldview in which biological sex has neither reality nor meaning. Worse, you have ostensibly non-mentally ill school leaders capitulating to the “trans” cult’s absurd and offensive demands—people like Township High School District 211 superintendent Dr. Daniel Cates. Cates wants District 211—the largest high school district in Illinois with 12,000 students and five high schools—to sexually integrate locker rooms.

Cates wants to allow students who pretend to be the sex they aren’t to have unrestricted access to opposite-sex locker rooms. If Cates gets his druthers, whatever girls are permitted to do in girls’ locker rooms, boys who pretend to be girls will be permitted to do also. If girls are permitted to partially undress or wholly undress openly in girls’ locker rooms, then boys who pretend to be girls will be allowed to do so as well. Presumably, if girls are permitted to shower nude, so too will pretend-girls (aka boys) be allowed to shower nude.

Prior requirements that these boys change in private changing areas will be rescinded. In an email sent to parents on Thursday, Sept. 12, Cates referred to boys and girls in tortured, hilarious, politically correct language, calling them “adolescents with different anatomy.” I kid you not. He said that.

Cates is jim-dandy with girls and boys undressing together in locker rooms. How do I know Cates—who should be fired—is jim-dandy with co-ed locker rooms? I know because he said this in his pro-“trans” email:

[U]nderstanding and acceptance of transgender identity have advanced—societally and in our immediate communities—for the better. In our district and countless others, students, families and staff honor, respect and celebrate all manifestations of the human condition. (emphasis added)

Did an educated man really say that? Does he celebrate all manifestations of the human condition? How about racism, disease, intergenerational love, Genetic Sexual Attraction, polyamory, infantilism, sadomasochism, and zoophilia?

How does Cates demonstrate respect for those who believe “adolescents with different anatomy” should not undress or engage in bodily functions in the presence of peers of the opposite sex? How does he communicate his respect for those who believe the sexual integration of locker rooms undermines the belief that modesty derives from anatomical differentiation?

Cates has explicitly and unequivocally announced that the district has embraced a radical set of Leftist ideological assumptions created and advanced by the “trans” cult, without providing a persuasive reason why private space usage should correspond to subjective and often fluid “gender identity” as opposed to objective immutable biological sex. Nor has he shared his view on which locker rooms “gender fluid” students use.

Someone should ask Cates this question: Is it legitimate, valid, sound, reasonable, and good for girls not to want to share private spaces with opposite-sex persons? If it is, then what difference should it make to girls if opposite-sex persons wish they were girls? If it’s not legitimate, valid, sound, reasonable, or good, then why have any sex-segregated private spaces?

“Progressives” often ask snottily, “So, are we going to have genitalia police outside restrooms and locker rooms to confirm the presence of the right genitalia before people enter,” to which I reply, “Are we going to have ‘gender identity’ police outside restrooms and locker rooms to prove that the man seeking to enter really is ‘trans’ rather than a predator pretending to be ‘trans?’”

Since “gender identity” is subjective and internal, how do, for example, boys who “identify” as girls know the “gender identities” of the students in the boys’ and girls’ locker rooms? Let’s try this thought experiment: If most of the boys in the boys’ locker room at a particular school were to identify internally as girls and most of the girls were to identify internally as boys, which locker room should boys who impersonate girls use and why? It’s likely Leftists would answer that they should use whichever private spaces they want. And that, my friends, is where this is headed: The end game is the eradication of public recognition of biological sex everywhere for everyone, which means no private spaces anywhere for anyone.

Cates has either become a true believer in the “trans”-cultic mythology or he has sacrificed his principles and integrity on the altar to the almighty god of the greenback. Faced with a lawsuit against the district by a boy who pretends to be a girl, perhaps Cates—a graduate of the University of Notre Dame—would rather sacrifice science and the privacy and modesty of girls and boys than either district money or his job.

A man of real courage, principle, and integrity would never adopt such a foul policy. Rather, a man of courage, principle, and integrity would resign instead of adopting a policy that teaches girls and boys that biological sex has no meaning relative to feelings of modesty and the desire for privacy when undressing.

A man of courage, principle, and integrity would resign before adopting a policy that implicitly teaches that opposition to sharing locker rooms with opposite sex peers is ignorant, bigoted, and hateful.

A decent and wise leader would know that it’s wrong to put normal children in the awkward position of having to ask for special accommodations because they don’t want to change clothes or go to the bathroom in the presence of opposite-sex peers.

A decent and wise leader would know that such a pernicious policy will desensitize children and teens to engaging in private acts in the presence of opposite-sex peers, thereby undermining what is left of respect for the necessary virtue of modesty.

I’ve had “progressive” parents tell me that their daughters are fine undressing in the presence of “trans”-identifying male peers. These parents are happy about their daughters’ socially constructed, unnatural feelings. They—like Cates—view the belief that biological sex has no meaning relative to modesty and privacy as social and moral progress. Compassion—in their distorted worldview—demands we pretend maleness and femaleness have nothing to do with biological sex.

Ironically, while rejecting the importance of biological sex, which wholly determined by biochemistry, “progressives” believe that if biochemistry influences the desire to be the opposite sex, such desires are supremely important and morally legitimate to act upon. But do they apply that principle consistently? If biochemistry influences the desire to be an amputee (i.e., Body Integrity Identity Disorder), should we allow students to socially transition at school? Should schools allow anatomically whole students who identify as amputees to use handicap parking spaces, use a wheelchair in school, and be given extra passing-period time?

Since we know that biochemistry can be disordered and influence both thoughts and feelings, how do “trans” cultists know that when there is a mismatch or incongruity between their biological sex and their “gender identity” (i.e., their subjective, internal sense of their maleness, femaleness, both, or neither) the error resides in their bodies rather than their minds?

How many dads and moms will show up to publicly and courageously oppose this feckless policy proposal? How many staff or faculty charged with supervising locker rooms will oppose supervising students of the opposite sex who are undressing?

District 211 encompasses a large geographic area in which there are many churches. It will be interesting to see if any pastors—who are citizens that enjoy the privilege of self-government and whose congregations include children in this district—will turn out to oppose the sexual integration of locker rooms. (Don’t hold your breath.)

Conservatives, get your kids out of government schools now. No child should be trained up by foolish, cowardly adults who refer to boys and girls as “adolescents with different anatomy” and let them undress together. Trust me, no matter what empty blather “progressive” government school administrators and faculty members spew about respecting diversity and “all manifestations of the human condition,” they don’t like conservatives or want them around—especially conservative Christians, you know, the “haters.”

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Largest-Illinois-High-School-District-Opposes-Single-Sex-Locker-Rooms.mp3

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

-and, please-

Another feckless judicial decision from another feckless judge.

In a 15-page decision, Federal Judge Jorge Alonso—an Obama appointee—explained his reasoning for refusing to stop Township High School District 211’s co-ed restroom and locker room practices. District 211, the largest high school district in the state, includes Conant, Fremd, Hoffman Estates, Palatine, and Schaumburg High Schools.

Fifty families are suing the district to overturn a policy that allows students who pretend to be the opposite sex to access opposite-sex restrooms and locker rooms. The district decided that the feelings of students who want to share private spaces with opposite-sex students trump the feelings of  students who want to share private spaces with only persons of their same sex. No administrator or board member has explained why subjective, internal feelings about one’s sex rather than objective biological sex should determine private space-usage policy.

According to ABC News, Alonso “said courts have ‘correctly recognized’ that ‘federal protections against sex discrimination are substantially broader than based only on genitalia or chromosome.’”

What he’s saying is that laws pertaining to “sex” actually have no necessary connection to sex.

Alonso went on to cite Judge Ann Claire Williams of the 7^th Circuit Court of Appeals who said this about a case in Wisconsin in which a teenage girl who masquerades as a boy fought successfully to use the boys’ restrooms:

A transgender student’s presence in the restroom provides no more of a risk to other students’ privacy rights than the presence of an overly curious student of the same biological sex who decides to sneak glances at his or her classmates performing bodily functions.

Wow.

How can it be that we have judges so foolish or so depraved that they actually believe it is no greater an invasion of privacy for a teenage girl to see a male peer urinating than it would be for an “overly curious” boy to “sneak glances” at a male peer urinating?

Ubiquitous attorney John Knight, director of the ACLU of Illinois’ LGBT and HIV Project, made this egregiously dishonest statement:

‘Throughout this litigation, one thing remains clear: The groups who filed this case remain unable to demonstrate any harm to their clients resulting from sharing restrooms and locker rooms with students who they perceive as different,’… adding that judge ‘confirmed there is no constitutional right to refuse to share a restroom or locker room with students because they are transgender.’

First, the parents suing the district did not merely perceive the boy as different from girls. He actually is different from girls.

Second, no student has refused to share restrooms or locker rooms with students “because they are transgender.” Some objectively female students object to sharing restrooms and locker rooms with students because of their objective, immutable male biological sex. Knight knows that. He also knows—as do the two male students who have sued the district—that the sex of humans can never change.

Third, objectively male persons have no constitutional right to use restrooms and locker rooms designated for persons of the opposite sex.

Fourth, Knight failed to define “harm.” Many would argue that children and teens are harmed by teaching them through such restroom/locker room practices that biological sex has no intrinsic meaning relative to modesty and privacy.

They are harmed when the government through such radical practices desensitizes students to engaging in private activities like going to the bathroom, changing clothes, or showering in close proximity to unrelated persons of the opposite sex.

They are harmed by practices that teach them that their good and natural feelings of reluctance to share private spaces with opposite-sex students constitute ignorant, hateful bigotry.

And they are harmed when ignorant school administrators, board members, and activists like Knight implicitly teach a form of dualism, which holds that the human person is composed of body and mind–which in their view are severable–with the material body subordinate to the workings of the mind.

The harm done is spiritual, intellectual, emotional, psychological, and moral. The harm is no less real and serious even though it may not be measurable or demonstrable.

Vicki Wilson, one of the parents in the group suing District 211, expresses concern for all students, including those who don’t want to share private spaces with opposite-sex students:

This practice is happening all over Illinois and children are fearful of being labeled if they say anything since administrators have intimidated them into ignoring their own needs for basic privacy and dignity…. All children need to be considered and there is a very simple solution that many school IL board members are refusing to even consider: provide a changing space outside either the girls or the boys locker rooms for children who request it.

If, as the silly people in the photo below claim, “separate is not equal” when it comes to restrooms and locker rooms, then why should we maintain any sex-segregated restrooms and locker rooms anywhere? If, as the idiotic placards imply, separate restrooms and locker rooms for males and females are as unjust as separate drinking fountains for blacks and whites were, how can we possibly justify maintaining any separate spaces for males and females anywhere?

Either objective, immutable biological sex has intrinsic and profound meaning or it doesn’t. If it has intrinsic and profound meaning, then what District 211 is doing is pernicious. If, on the other hand, physical embodiment as male or female has no meaning, there remains no reason to maintain any sex-segregated spaces for anyone anywhere. If biological sex has no meaning relative to modesty and private spaces, then there is no reason to allow only “trans”-identifying boys in girls’ private spaces. Schools should permit “cisgender” (i.e., normal) boys in girls’ spaces as well. And if biological sex has no meaning, then co-ed private spaces should have no restrictions. After all, in the mixed up, muddled up, shook up world of “progressives,” wouldn’t separate showers for boys and girls be inherently unequal?

Lying seems to come naturally to Knight. He said this about the District 211 student (since graduated) that the ACLU of Illinois represented in 2015:

“What our client wants is not hard to understand. She wants to be accepted for who she is and to be treated with dignity and respect – like any other student.”

The student to whom Knight was referring was not asking to be accepted for “who she is.” The student was asking that others accept him as something he is not and never can be: a girl. He wants the whole world to pretend along with him. But there is no dignity in lies. Facilitating his disordered desires and delusional beliefs would represent an act of disrespect. School administrators, board members, and activists like Knight have put on a veneer of love, but it’s not real love. It’s an empty, fake, sickening, saccharine pseudo-love that enables them to feel good while doing evil. Real love is built on a foundation of truth.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Judge-Alonso-Worker-of-Lawlessness.mp3

Subscribe to the IFI YouTube channel
and never miss a video report or special program!

On Wednesday afternoon, Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) and the Thomas More Society filed a lawsuit in federal court against School District 211 and the Department of Education (DOE) on behalf of 51 district families who rightly claim that the district and the Department of Education “trample students’ privacy” rights and create an “intimidating and hostile environment” for girls who are being forced to share the girls locker room and restrooms with a boy who wishes he were a girl.

The lawsuit claims that the DOE’s reinterpretation of Title IX, which prohibits discrimination based on sex, is unlawful. The DOE through its Office for Civil Rights claims that the word “sex” in Title IX actually includes “gender identity” and “gender expression,” thereby prohibiting schools from maintaining separate restrooms and locker rooms for boys and girls.

There’s only one wee little problem with that fanciful interpretation. Title IX specifically states the following:

[T]itle IX of the Education Amendments of 1972…is designed to eliminate (with certain exceptions) discrimination on the basis of sex in any education program….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. [emphasis added]

For those who may not remember, several months ago the ACLU represented a gender-dysphoric boy in District 211 who was seeking the right to use the girls locker room and restrooms. Actually, he was seeking the right to unrestricted access to the girls locker room and restrooms. Though he and the ACLU lost the right—for now—to unrestricted access, he won the right to use the girls restrooms and locker room, which has been fitted with a privacy changing area.

While this boy—and he is a boy—demands the right to change clothes and go to the bathroom with only girls, he seeks to deny actual girls the right to change clothes and go to the bathroom with only girls.

According to the Chicago Tribune, ACLU spokesman Ed Yohnka waxed indignant over opposition to a boy in the girls locker room and restrooms and to the conventional and proper use of pronouns to denote objective, immutable sex:

Ed Yohnka…called the lawsuit a “sad development by groups opposed to fair and humane treatment of all students, including those who are transgender.”

He also bristled at the lawsuit’s repeated reference to the transgender student as “he.”

“It’s pretty offensive that they don’t even fundamentally acknowledge that our client is a girl,” Yohnka said.

I regret being so graphic, but Yohnka’s idiotic statement makes it necessary: Girls don’t have penises.

The Left takes umbrage if anyone dares to dissent from their doctrinaire notions about sex and grammar. Tyrannical Leftists demand that biological males who wish they were female be treated as if they are in reality female—even in womens showers. The Left demands that everyone join them in their delusional charade.

District 211 superintendent Daniel Cates said “students have shown acceptance, support and respect of each other,” evidently meaning that students don’t object to sharing restrooms and locker rooms with opposite-sex students. If true, is that a good thing? Has the culture successfully indoctrinated all our young people with the lie that acceptance and respect of those who suffer from gender dysphoria require sharing restrooms and locker rooms with opposite-sex persons? Doubtful.

Should the delight of teens in sharing restrooms and locker rooms with opposite-sex students determine policy? If physical embodiment matters and if modesty is a virtue derived from physical embodiment, shouldn’t schools create policies that reinforce those truths?

And does anyone believe that in this cultural climate, teens who don’t want to share restrooms and locker rooms with opposite-sex peers would feel comfortable admitting it? Or to use Leftist jargon, does anyone believe it is “safe” for students to express opposition to sharing restrooms and locker rooms with opposite-sex peers?

The issue of objectively male students using girls private facilities is not solely about the risk of assault—though that risk exists. The central issue concerns the meaning of physical embodiment as male or female, particularly as it pertains to modesty and privacy.

Virtually everyone—including gender-dysphoric persons and homosexuals—acknowledges that men and women are substantively and significantly different. When homosexuals claim they are attracted only to persons of the same sex, they are implicitly and necessarily saying men and women are different, and those differences include bodily differences.

When gender-dysphoric persons who wish they were the opposite sex say they don’t want to use restrooms or locker rooms with persons of their same sex, they are saying there are fundamental and significant differences between men and women. Further, they are necessarily saying that their desire to use opposite-sex restrooms is based on objective bodily differences. They are demanding privacy based on objective sex differences while denying that privacy to others.

Questions Leftists must answer:

• Why are sex differences meaningful for those who have gender dysphoria but not for those who don’t?

• Do the desire for privacy and feelings of modesty derive from objective sex differences or from desires about one’s sex?

• If gender-dysphoric persons are allowed to use restrooms with only those whose “gender identity” they share, why shouldn’t non-gender-dysphoric persons be allowed to use restrooms with only those whose sex they share?

• If there is a mismatch between a person’s sex and their feelings about their sex, why would anyone assume the problem is with the healthy, normally functioning body and not the mind?

How refreshing and encouraging it is to see parents boldly challenging the incoherent and indecent actions of “progressives” in government schools. Please pray for these families and the success of their lawsuit.

District 200

It’s not just District 211, the largest high school district in Illinois, that’s allowing gender-dysphoric students to use opposite-sex facilities. Rumors are circulating that gender-dysphoric students, enabled by their deceived parents, are asking school districts all over Illinois for permission to use opposite-sex restrooms and locker rooms. School administrations are accommodating these requests (or demands) in diverse ways and doing so without community input, without parental notification, and without establishing policy. One of those districts is District 200, a K-12 district in DuPage County that serves Wheaton, Warrenville, and portions of Carol Stream, West Chicago, and Winfield, which has multiple gender-dysphoric students, at least one of whom—an actual girl—is allowed to use a curtained changing area in the boys’ locker room. This information has been withheld from the public.

Dr. Robert Rammer, assistant superintendent for administrative services, likens restroom and locker room accommodations for gender-dysphoric students to accommodations made for students who have reading problems. He posits the ludicrous claim that if school districts do not share accommodations made for students with reading problems with parents of District 200 students, then there is no reason to share restroom and locker rooms accommodations for gender-dysphoric students with district parents. His comparison works only if no other student is affected in any way by the accommodations made for gender-dysphoric students. But all students are affected by such a practice because it embodies and teaches a number of assumptions about the nature of the relationship between physical embodiment and “gender,” and about how society ought to respond to gender-dsyphoria.

Rammer also stated that the district has no policy regarding gender-dysphoric students. The district’s response depends on the particulars of each case. So, what happens if or when a gender-dysphoric student and his parents demand, as the ACLU demanded for the boy in District 211, that he be permitted unfettered access to the girls’ restrooms and locker room? What will District 200 do, and are there any accommodations of which they think other parents are entitled to be apprised?

Rammer, like many administrators, believes that the presence of stalls in restrooms provides sufficient privacy to justify allowing gender-dysphoric students in opposite-sex restrooms. When asked, “If stalls provide sufficient privacy to justify allowing gender-dysphoric students in opposite sex restrooms, why not make all restrooms co-ed,” Rammer admitted he has no answer. He did, however, acknowledge that the presence of urinals in boys’ restrooms creates a problem that is not present in girls’ restrooms. I guess there remains a line—now measured in micrometers—over which administrators are not quite ready to cross.

Rammer’s acknowledgement about urinal’s constitutes a tacit admission that the District 200 gender-dysphoric girl is not in reality a boy and that physical embodiment (i.e., maleness and femaleness) matters.

Another issue that will eventually arise is the problem of district-wide mandated lying. As all educators know, or should know, pronouns denote and correspond to objective biological sex—not to desires about one’s sex. Therefore, using opposite-sex pronouns to refer to or discuss gender-dysphoric students constitutes not merely a misuse of grammar but lying. When asked if the district requires staff and faculty to use opposite-sex pronouns when referring to gender-dysphoric students, Rammer responded with a definitive “Yes.”

When asked if the administration would make accommodations for faculty members who have either religious objections or non-religious moral objections to lying, he said, “Why would any conscientious teacher want to harm students?” Wow. No discussion of what constitutes harm, no attempt at an argument. Rammer simply assumes that using correct pronouns constitutes harm.

Others, however, believe that facilitating a delusion or unhealthy, disordered desire constitutes harm. And many believe that government employees have no ethical, legal, or constitutional right to require subordinates to lie.

Rammer then posited another absurd comparison, suggesting that a refusal to call a student named “Robert” by the nickname “Bob” is analogous to refusing to refer to a girl as “he.” He believes it’s a sound analogy because in both cases, a student would “feel bad.” This illustrates the feckless thinking that permeates public schools. Many administrators and teachers falsely believe that the subjective feelings of students determine what constitutes harm or benefit. This is, indeed, the fallacious foundation of the toxic environment on college campuses. “Progressive” thinking holds that the subjective feelings of hearers determine the ethical legitimacy of speech—well, the subjective feelings of those groups certified “oppressed” by “progressives.”

Rammer further shared that no teacher has complained about the requirement to participate in a fiction (i.e., to lie). And as everyone knows, since public schools are bastions of free speech, diversity, and “safe spaces” for all, conservative teachers always speak truth to administrators. This is also the near-universal rhetorical ploy of school administrators to silence critics: “Well, by golly, yours is the first complaint I’ve heard.”

Sooner or later a Christian teacher will muster the courage to live with integrity no matter the cost. They will do what theologian John Piper has said Christians should do:

[I]f in the office where we worked, I was compelled to identify every so-called transgendered person by the pronoun they preferred in all of my emails, or conversations…or I would get disciplined…, at that point I would say to my superiors, I cannot treat he’s as she’s and she’s as he’s….I would be lying to call a he a “she.” I am not lying to call a male “Sally.” That is a culturally arbitrary weird fluke. But I am lying if I say about a true Jim who wants to be called Sally, “she.” And it would be contrary to my understanding of sexuality and I would start looking for another job.

Questions for school administrators

Below are questions that every taxpayer should ask their local school administrators, including the administrators of elementary and middle schools, and then they should hightail it to the next school board meeting to request that policy be written mandating that restrooms and locker rooms correspond to objective biological sex. The specificity of the questions is necessary in order to ensure that accurate information is obtained, to make explicit the assumptions embedded in Leftist restroom/locker room practices, and to prevent administrators from obfuscating:

1.) What are your policies and practices with regard to restroom and locker room-usage by gender-dysphoric students?

2.) Do you allow gender-dysphoric students to use multiple-stall, opposite-sex restrooms?

3.) Do you allow gender-dysphoric students to use opposite-sex locker rooms?

4.) If gender-dysphoric students are permitted to use locker rooms, do they have to walk through any area where opposite-sex students may be changing or showering?

5.) If you allow, for example, an objectively male, gender-dysphoric student to use the girls’ restrooms and locker room, on what basis would you prohibit objectively male, non-gender-dysphoric students from using them? If school policy prohibits discrimination based on “gender identity,” wouldn’t the district be violating policy by prohibiting non-gender-dysphoric students from using opposite-sex restrooms?

6.) If gender-dysphoric students shouldn’t have to use restrooms and locker rooms with those whose “gender identity” they don’t share, why should other students be forced to use facilities with those whose sex they don’t share?

7.) If restroom stalls and privacy changing areas are sufficient to force students to use facilities with those whose sex they don’t share, then why aren’t restroom stalls and privacy changing areas sufficient to force a gender-dysphoric student to use facilities with those whose “gender identity” they don’t share?

8.) If restroom stalls and privacy changing areas are sufficient to allow a male student in the girls’ facilities, then why aren’t stalls and privacy changing stations sufficient to allow all male students in the girls’ facilities?

9.) If restroom stalls are sufficient to allow a male student in the restroom, would you also allow all male staff and faculty in the women’s staff and faculty restrooms that are equipped with multiple stalls?

10.) Do you agree that many, perhaps most girls and women prefer not to urinate and defecate in a stall next to an unrelated male doing likewise? Do you find something unnatural or pathological about those feelings? Do you think such feelings deserve to be respected and honored through policy and practice?

11.) Do you think it’s possible that policies and practices that allow gender-dysphoric students to use opposite-sex restrooms and locker rooms may be communicating to other boys and girls that their discomfort with sharing facilities with opposite-sex students are wrong, ignorant, bigoted, or lacking in compassion?

12.) Why should girls care whether the boy in the restroom likes his body or not?

13.) If you allow gender-dysphoric students to use opposite-sex restrooms and/or locker rooms, do you notify all parents and guardians that their sons or daughters may be using facilities with opposite-sex students?

14.) How long have you allowed gender-dysphoric students to use opposite-sex restrooms and locker rooms?

15.) Do you require staff, faculty, and administrators to use opposite-sex pronouns when talking to or about gender-dysphoric students?

16.) Since pronouns denote and correspond to objective biological sex—not feelings about one’s sex—what if a staff member, teacher, or administrator views using opposite-sex pronouns for gender-dysphoric students as lying, and for moral and/or religious reasons object to lying or deception. Will you accommodate their objections to lying or deception?

17.) Many “trans-activists” argue that “gender identity” is not fixed. What will the school do when faced with a student whose gender identity is “bi-gender” or “genderfluid” and he/she demands to use whichever facilities correspond to his/her gender on any particular day or year?

18.) Liberal sex and gender researchers J. Michael Bailey at Northwestern and Dr. Eric Vilain at UCLA write that 80% of males—who constitute the majority of gender dysphorics—will accept their real sex by adulthood. They claim that “it looks like parental acquiescence leads to persistence.” In other words, if parents accommodate their children’s efforts to pretend to be the opposite sex, their children are more likely to persist in their rejection of their sex. Do you have concerns that by allowing gender-dysphoric students to use opposite-sex facilities, you may be increasing the likelihood that they will persist in their rejection of their sex?

Title IX specifically states that schools have the legal right to maintain separate restrooms, locker rooms, and showers for girls and boys. Further, case law confirms that right. Yet, school administrations are kowtowing to the Left. Evidence for that can be found both in school policies, school practices, and in the language administrators use. When parents and other community members talk to their local administrators, they should pay close attention to their rhetoric. If I were a betting woman, I would bet all my money that school administrators will use Leftist language, including “transgender” and opposite-sex pronouns for gender-dysphoric students.

Take ACTION:  Please email or call your local school administrators pronto. Let’s not be Johnny come-latelies to yet another culture battle. There is too much at stake for children—including gender-dysphoric children who are being harmed by schools that embrace the pernicious sexuality ideology of the Left.

Support IFI

Please consider supporting IFI’s ongoing work to educate, motivate and activate Illinois’ Christian community.  Your donation will help us stand strong in 2016!  To make a credit card donation over the phone, please call the IFI office at (708) 781-9328.  You can also send a gift to:

Illinois Family Institute
P.O. Box 88848
Carol Stream, Illinois 60188

Perhaps I owe an apology to District 211.

While District 211 is guilty of egregiously poor judgment in allowing gender-dysphoric students to use opposite-sex restrooms and in agreeing to allow a gender-dysphoric boy into the girls’ locker room to use private changing areas, perhaps the district was neither incompetent nor dishonest with regard to the statements they made about the agreement with the Office for Civil Rights (OCR). Perhaps it is the ACLU and the OCR that are incompetent, dishonest, or both. Untangling who’s inept or lying may require Solomonic discernment. All that’s certain at this point is that there’s a tempest raging between District 211 and the devilish OCR.

Superintendent Daniel Cates has issued an angry statement in which he accuses the OCR of negotiating in bad faith and of inaccurately portraying the requirements of the agreement. Further, he demanded a full public retraction, which the OCR has thus far refused to issue. Therefore, Cates has called for an emergency board meeting on Monday night to decide whether the district will pull out of the proposed agreement.

The district is outraged that the OCR publicly claimed that the district is in error in claiming that the boy must use the privacy changing areas, and that the OCR has said this agreement applies to all gender-dysphoric students. The ACLU posted this statement:

We also remain disturbed by the inaccurate, misleading and fundamentally troubling language used by the District, even as they adopt this agreement. For example, the District said last night that transgender students who are provided access to locker rooms consistent with their gender identity “will utilize a private changing station when changing clothes or showering” and will not be allowed unrestricted access to the locker room. This is not what the agreement with OCR provides. The agreement specifically says that “based on Student A’s representation that she will change in private changing stations in the girls’ locker rooms, the District agrees to provide Student A access to locker room facilities designated for female students at school.” Nowhere does the agreement require Student A to use a private area to dress and such a requirement would be blatantly discriminatory. [emphasis added]

Superintendent Cates issued this blistering response on the district website:

On the heels of what was an appropriate and balanced approach to resolving an important issue of access to our locker rooms by one transgender student, we are outraged by the mischaracterizations in the press by Catherine Lhamon of the Office for Civil Rights (OCR), and her blatant disregard for the facts of the negotiated agreement.

The OCR appears to be stating to the media what they wish was in the agreement, rather than what was actually agreed upon by both OCR and the District 211 Board of Education – and this, after countless hours of listening, reviewing and careful consideration.

It is wrong, it is an act of bad faith, and our school district will not let it stand.

To be clear, what was agreed upon between District 211 and the OCR struck a critical balance for safeguarding the privacy of all students, recognizing the dignity of all students, and allowing all students to participate fully in our education programs.

The resolution agreement’s provisions on locker room access, approved by our School Board just 36 hours ago, apply ONLY to the student who lodged the complaint. It does not apply district-wide, nor set precedent for other school districts in the country. It gives this student access to the gender-identified locker room with this student’s stated assurance that privacy curtains will be used. And, if this student doesn’t comply, access will no longer be allowed. The agreement also removes the threat of the loss of federal funds and states that no violation of Title IX or discrimination by the District has occurred.

We communicated to the OCR that we expected a full retraction of their inaccurate portrayal of the agreement in the media. They refused. Failing that, we will convene an emergency board meeting to discuss taking action, including retraction of the agreement because the OCR acted in bad faith. Citizens have a right to expect more from a federal agency than smoke and mirrors.

The date, time, and location for the emergency Board of Education meeting will be posted on the District 211 website once it is established.

It is farcical to claim that allowing a boy in the girls’ locker room even to change in “private changing areas” is “appropriate” or “balanced,” but we have to give credit where credit is due: Steadfastly refusing to allow an objectively male student unfettered access to the girls’ locker room is a very good decision on the part of District 211.

All concerned community members should make it a priority to attend the Monday school board meeting and express their view that no students should be permitted access to opposite-sex restrooms or locker rooms. Restrooms and locker rooms should correspond to objective, scientifically-verifiable sex—not subjective feelings about sex.

Support IFI

Please consider supporting IFI’s ongoing work to educate, motivate and activate Illinois’ Christian community.  Your donation will help us stand strong in 2016!  To make a credit card donation over the phone, please call the IFI office at (708) 781-9328.  You can also send a gift to:

Illinois Family Institute
P.O. Box 88848
Carol Stream, Illinois 60188

(Gifts to IFI are tax-deductible.)

ACLU attorney John Knight who represents the gender-dysphoric boy in the lawsuit against District 211 has issued this statement about the agreement reached between the district and the Office for Civil Rights (OCR)—a clarification that should deeply trouble District 211 community members:

We also remain disturbed by the inaccurate, misleading and fundamentally troubling language used by the District, even as they adopt this agreement. For example, the District said last night that transgender students who are provided access to locker rooms consistent with their gender identity “will utilize a private changing station when changing clothes or showering” and will not be allowed unrestricted access to the locker room. This is not what the agreement with OCR provides. The agreement specifically says that “based on Student A’s representation that she will change in private changing stations in the girls’ locker rooms, the District agrees to provide Student A access to locker room facilities designated for female students at school.” Nowhere does the agreement require Student A to use a private area to dress and such a requirement would be blatantly discriminatory. [emphasis added]

According to the ACLU of Illinois, the Office for Civil Rights “clearly stated that our client, like all students, does not have to use a privacy curtain. She may choose to do so, but she is not required to use the privacy curtain under the settlement.”

To my non-attorney eyes, it appears that Knight and the OCR are correct. This is what the agreement actually states:

For the duration of Student A’s enrollment in the District:

1. based on Student A’s representation that she will change in private changing stations in the girls’ locker rooms, the District agrees to provide Student A access to locker room facilities designated for female students at school and to take steps to protect the privacy of its students by installing and maintaining sufficient privacy curtains (private changing stations) within the girls’ locker rooms to accommodate Student A and any students who wish to be assured of privacy while changing;

There is no requirement that the boy use the private changing stations.

Moreover, again according to the ACLU of Illinois, the OCR claims the agreement between District 211 and the OCR “applies to all students, not just our client,” which directly contradicts what the district is claiming in its Frequently Asked Questions:

Will this Resolution Agreement require specific locker room access for all transgender students in District 211?

No. The Resolution Agreement pertains to one student in District 211 — the student who filed the original complaint with the Office for Civil Rights.

Will this Resolution Agreement require specific locker room access for transgender students in all school districts throughout the state and nation?

No. The Resolution Agreement pertains to one student in District 211 and does not extend to other students in District 211 or to other school districts.

District 211 taxpayers should be troubled by either the incompetent lack of understanding by district leaders or their deception.

In another frequently asked question, the district admits that the school which the gender-dysphoric boy attends will not be identified and that no parents will be notified if a gender-dysphoric student will be using a locker room with their sons or daughters.

Hard science-denier John Knight also made this ludicrous and ironic statement:

[T]he District continues to demonstrate a wanton ignorance of the science of gender by persisting in drawing a false distinction between transgender persons’ gender and anatomy. Let me be clear. My client is a girl – full stop.

The District’s refusal to accept transgender students as girls and boys is extremely harmful for all students, but especially those who are transgender. We had hoped the District would embrace this moment as an opportunity to educate itself and its community about what it means to be transgender. Unfortunately, that has not happened.

Precisely what “science” proves that there exists no distinction between gender-dysphoric persons’ “gender and anatomy”? If there were no distinction between their “gender” and anatomy, then gender-dysphoric persons would not be lopping off breasts and penises, shaving down Adam’s apples, adding fake breasts, and taking puberty-blockers and dangerous cross-sex hormones.

Clearly there is a distinction between the gender-dysphoric boy’s anatomy/biology and his “gender” (i.e., his desire about his anatomy/biology). His objective, scientifically verifiable anatomy (and barring the presence of an intersex condition, his DNA) is male. He desires to be female. That, Mr. Knight, is a distinction.

No one is obligated to accept the a-scientific proposition that the descriptor “girl” refers to a psychological condition rather than a biological condition. Mr. Knight’s client is a boy—full stop.

Support the work of IFI

Did you hear?  IFI has been given a challenge match of $55,000. So, between now and the end of the year, you can help us raise $110,000!  Please consider making an end-of-year donation to help us stand strong!

Illinois Family Institute
P.O. Box 88848
Carol Stream, Illinois 60188

(Gifts to IFI are tax-deductible.)

Palatine resident and pastor of the Village Church of Barrington, David W. Jones, attended the District 211 Board of Education meeting on Wednesday night and sent the following letter to the District 211 School Board immediately following the meeting. If only every pastor, priest, elder, and lay person would follow Pastor Jones’ example, perhaps further harm to children and truth can be prevented.

Make no mistake, the kind of assault on truth and reality that is taking place in District 211 is coming to all public schools—including elementary schools. The issue of how biological sex is treated in public schools should not concern just families with children in schools. It should concern every follower of Christ. First, the children in school today will be our culture-makers tomorrow. Second, if we love our neighbors as ourselves, we should care deeply about the dissemination of body- and soul-destroying lies. And third, what our taxpayer-funded schools teach through curricula, policy, and praxis is a stewardship issue.

Please read, be inspired by, and emulate Pastor Jones:

I am writing to express my disagreement with the outcome of last night’s school board meeting vis-à-vis the OCR agreement. I was present at the meeting. It was clear that a significant majority were opposed to settling with the OCR. Although I did not keep score, I would estimate that at least 80 percent of those who spoke—some eloquently—were opposed to any compromise with the federal government on this issue. It grieves me that the board caved in to the OCR’s unlawful demands. The OCR cannot redefine our society’s legal definition of gender. What will the federal government demand next? (I acknowledge the previous sentence to be a type of “slippery slope” argument. But that form of argument is not always invalid, if one can demonstrate the mechanism by which further changes will likely happen.)

It was also surprising to find the D211 website updated shortly after the meeting with several statements that appear to have been worded carefully and approved by legal counsel. This suggests that the decision was a fait accompli before the hearing began. If this is true, then it was not a hearing at all but rather only the appearance of one. It is hard not to feel betrayed as a resident and taxpayer. This feeling only increased when I read the board’s statement: “We have implemented practices surrounding transgender student access to restrooms for two-and-a-half years, without incident.” Is this the first time that policy has been made public? If so, why were not parents informed about this earlier?

We are kidding ourselves if we think that this issue is limited to one student. Now that the precedent has been set, and the OCR knows that it can intimidate local school districts in general and D211 in particular, it will just be a matter of time before it comes knocking again. There will be more gender-dysphoric students, and they will demand special rights like “Student A.” How can they be denied? Also, how will a school board be able ultimately to deny access to any student who claims to be the opposite gender? How could that person’s claim be invalidated? If male students begin to populate female sports teams, that will give them an unfair advantage. If female students begin to populate male sports teams (e.g., football), they could actually be hurt. Title IX was originally about leveling the playing field. The OCR’s current interpretation will actually have the opposite effect, putting female students at a distinct disadvantage. That is not a little ironic.

With all due respect, last night’s decision by the board was a bad one. It fails to protect adequately the privacy of actual females, while granting special rights to a young man who is confused about his gender. The requirement to retain an adolescent gender expert—at taxpayer expense—also concerns me. What ideology will drive this individual? What else will they force upon our schools and, therefore, our students? I am afraid that the board’s decision could have significant consequences down the road, many of them unintended. I do not know if the board can reverse its decision; I would urge you to do so.

Sincerely,

David W. Jones

Support the work of IFI

Your support of our work and ministry is always much needed and greatly appreciated. Your promotion of our emails on Facebook, Twitter, your own email network, and prayer for financial support is a huge part of our success in being a strong voice for the pro-life, pro-marriage and pro-family message here in the Land of Lincoln.

Please consider making an end-of-year donation to help us stand strong!

Illinois Family Institute
P.O. Box 88848
Carol Stream, Illinois 60188

(Gifts to IFI are tax-deductible.)

The controversy over locker room policy for gender-confused students in Township High School District 211 here in Illinois has erupted nationally. The Office for Civil Rights, a division of the intrusive Department of Education, has decided that the district violates federal legislation by not allowing a gender-dysphoric high school boy unrestricted access to all areas of the girls’ locker room. Since the highly politicized Office for Civil Rights is publicly lying pretending that District 211 in Illinois is violating Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, it might be helpful to read the relevant parts of Title IX:

[T]itle IX of the Education Amendments of 1972…is designed to eliminate (with certain exceptions) discrimination on the basis of sex in any education program….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.

In 2014, unelected employees with no legislative authority in the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) unilaterally proclaimed that the term “sex” in Title IX includes “gender identity” and “gender expression.” They sent their astonishingly arrogant proclamation—referred to as “Dear Colleague” letter—to all public schools.

Even though the OCR is lying through its rainbow-tinted teeth, let’s conduct a thought experiment, which is another way of saying let’s explore the logical outworking of another flaky and destructive Leftist assumption.

Since “LBTQQIAP” activists are nothing if not dogged in their pursuit of unfettered sexual anarchy, and since far too many conservatives, especially political leaders, are largely ill-informed cowards, let’s imagine that Lefties win the day and are permitted to determine what the meaning of “sex” is. “Sex” in our thought experiment now means objective biological sex, and “gender identity,” and “gender expression.”

In a disturbing segment on the FOX News show The Kelly File last night, host Megyn Kelly interviewed Dr. Daniel Cates, superintendent of District 211. In her interview Kelly stated that District 211 has not only set up a private changing area in the locker room for the gender-dysphoric boy but also agreed to allow his friends—that is to say, girls—to change with him. This decision, along with allowing the boy to use the girls’ restrooms, necessarily means that the district no longer has an absolute prohibition against boys and girls sharing restrooms or changing areas. If, as the superintendent said in a recent statement, “boys and girls are in separate locker rooms for a reason” related to anatomical differences, why allow this boy in the girls’ locker room or restrooms at all? And why allow girls to voluntarily change with him?

Moreover, if objectively male students are permitted to use girls’ restrooms and enter girls’ locker rooms, and if girls may voluntarily choose to change clothes with an objectively male student, why is such mixing of sexes permitted only for those students who wish they were the opposite sex? Wouldn’t allowing only gender-dysphoric students to use opposite-sex restrooms and locker rooms constitute discrimination based on “gender identity”?

Presto change-o, the Left will effectively efface another essential boundary. In the twinkling of a winking eye, all boys will be able to use girls’ restrooms and locker rooms, and vice versa. The ancient heresy of Gnosticism that devalues physical embodiment and the pagan worldview of “oneism” that seeks to merge opposing binaries rear their ugly heads again, obliterating any cultural recognition of the meaning of sexual differentiation. As theologian and pastor Doug Wilson said in a recent (and soon to be released) IFI interview, “All idolatries have contradictions built into them.”

Let me be clear: The logical and inevitable conclusion of these restroom/locker room policies, which are embedded with non-factual assumptions about the nature of physical embodiment, is to eradicate all distinctions in language, law, and social institutions between male and female.

Chew on that for a moment, then gather those dust-collecting spines from the attic, and do something courageous with the doggedness of the Left.

Partner with Illinois Family Institute as we continue to stand
on the front lines for marriage, family, life and liberty.

Thousands of parents in District 211, the largest high school district in Illinois, should be outraged. And anyone who rightly fears the ravenous appetite of the slavering dumb beast we call the federal government should be equally outraged. The beast’s minions in the laughingly called Office for Civil Rights (OCR), which is a gangrenous section of the cancerous federal Department of Education, has concluded its 2-year investigation of District 211’s actions with regard to a male student who wishes he were a girl. Through its minion the OCR, the Fed-Beast (FEAST), lusting after the bodies and brains of children, has concluded that District 211 has violated federal law.

The very troubled boy—and he is a boy—at the center of this phantasmagorical tale wishes to remain anonymous, so hereafter he will be referred to as “Lola.” Lola has been seeking unrestricted access to the girls’ locker room—yes, you heard that right. Lola—an actual, factual boy, complete, one presumes, with the requisite anatomical parts—wants unrestricted access to the girls’ locker room, which would, of course, include the shower.

Plot summary

What District 211 has already agreed to:

In acts of contortionist-worthy back-bending and misguided charity, the district has agreed to have all school records identify gender-dysphoric students by their new names, identify them as the sex they are not, and refer to them by opposite-sex pronouns (which is to say that the district is lying on school records). In addition, gender-rejecting students are allowed to use opposite-sex bathrooms and are allowed to play on opposite-sex sports teams.

But that’s not all, folks, oh no, that’s not all. According to the Chicago Tribune, the district has also “installed four privacy curtains in unused areas of the locker room and another one around the shower.” This means a boy may, if he wishes, walk through the locker room to the shower area, where presumably girls are showering, to use these private changing areas.

But, even that leaves the beast, its minions, and its allies slavering for more.

What beast-ally John Knight demands:

John Knight, Lola’s ACLU-attorney and FEAST’s ally, vehemently opposes the district’s excessive accommodation of Lola, bleating that requiring Lola to use private dressing areas is unacceptable:

It’s not voluntary, it’s mandatory for her [sic]….It’s one thing to say to all the girls, ‘You can choose if you want some extra privacy,’ but it’s another thing to say, ‘You, and you alone, must use them.’ That sends a pretty strong signal to her [sic] that she’s [sic] not accepted and the district does not see her [sic] as girl.

Word to Knight, neither the “the district” nor any student has a moral obligation to “see her [sic] as a girl,” because he isn’t a girl.

What the beast-minion OCR has decided:

Student A has not only received an unequal opportunity to benefit from the District’s educational program, but has also experienced an ongoing sense of isolation and ostracism throughout her high school enrollment at the school….All students deserve the opportunity to participate equally in school programs and activities—this is a basic civil right….Unfortunately, Township High School District 211 is not following the law because the district continues to deny a female student the right to use the girls’ locker room.

So, now it’s a civil right for boys to use girls’ restrooms, changing areas, and showers.

By “law” the OCR is referring to Title IX, the federal law that prohibits discrimination based on “sex,” which the unelected minions in the OCR have unilaterally decided includes “gender identity” and “gender expression.” When the law was written, “sex” meant objective biological sex, and the law has not changed. The school policy changes that the beast-minion OCR is demanding would require that if gender-rejecting humans with male DNA and penises want to change clothes and shower with girls, they must be allowed to do so—and girls must comply or change in private areas. Not wanting to shower with boys is now seen as an act of bigotry and hatred.

What bothers Lola:

According to the Chicago Tribune, “the student, who plays for the school on a girls’ sports team, said she [sic] broke down in tears after her [sic] coaches reprimanded her [sic] for using the locker room to change. The coach told her [sic] some students felt uncomfortable dressing in front of her [sic].”

Think about what that means. It means Lola—a boy—is offended that girls don’t want to change clothes in front of him. Lola is essentially demanding that everyone accept his delusion that he is in reality a girl.

What Superintendent Daniel Cates rightly and courageously said about this arrogant and preposterous decision:

“The policy that OCR seeks to impose on District 211  is a serious overreach with precedent-setting implications….The students in our schools are teenagers, not adults, and one’s gender is not the same as one’s anatomy….Boys and girls are in separate locker rooms—where there are open changing areas and open shower facilities—for a reason.”

Conclusion

It’s not tax rates or immigration policy or ISIS that most gravely injures and weakens America. It’s the bloodthirsty devouring of the hearts, minds, and bodies of our children; the dismantling of marriage and family; and the erosion of the First Amendment. Deception and depravity are consuming our children, often by nibbles that barely register and at other times by huge chunks. The father of lies conceals his deceit under a cloak of compassion. Christians should not be so easily deceived or so easily cowed.

“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone,
“it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”

“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.” “The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master—that’s all.”
~Through the Looking Glass, Lewis Carroll~

Boldly standing for the truth.  Is truth a priority for you?