The Illinois General Assembly is considering SB 2762, commonly called the “REACH Act.” It requires that public schools provide a “medically accurate” sex education, including “health-positive instruction on diverse sexual orientations, gender identities, and gender expressions.”^[1]

This article concentrates on one aspect of this, the concept that gender is mutable, and not tied to a person’s biological sex. Once you see how that small thing is so medically inaccurate, you can imagine how the rest of the bill is similarly self-defeating.

Defining “gender”

Until recently, what did Americans mean when we used the word “gender?” Here is a clue from an online dictionary that deals with the meaning and usage of words (etymology):

gender (n.)

c. 1300, “kind, sort, class, a class or kind of persons or things sharing certain traits,” from Old French gendre, genre “kind, species; character; gender” …

The “male-or-female sex” sense is attested in English from early 15c. As sex (n.) took on erotic qualities in 20c., gender came to be the usual English word for “sex of a human being,” in which use it was at first regarded as colloquial or humorous.^[2]

That is, gender is another word for describing male and female behavior, clothing, roles, etc. There is a 1:1 correspondence between sex and gender.

There is a recent push to redefine what gender means. You see this in modern dictionaries, which now add clauses about how gender has meanings “based on the individual’s personal awareness or identity.”^[3] But do these dictionary changes reflect our actual use of the word? Or is this just another way to force us into accepting an expanded meaning, along with the behaviors that it implies?

Separating gender from sex is a recent invention

In practical use, “gender” helps describe the differences between men and women.

A gender role, also known as a sex role, is a social role encompassing a range of behaviors and attitudes that are generally considered acceptable, appropriate, or desirable for people based on their biological or perceived sex.^[4]

That is, “gender role” and “sex role” are equivalent, are linguistically matched. So how did we go from “gender corresponds to sex” to “gender has no association with sex?” This appears to have been caused by the writings of the researcher John Money.^[5]

According to Money’s theory, all children are born essentially psychosexually neutral at birth, and thus surgeons can make any child any gender as long as the sexual anatomy can be made reasonably believable. For this reason, it did not matter how the genitalia looked originally, according to Money, because you could always teach gender or sex roles.^[6]

He claimed that a person’s sexual identity and beliefs can be taught, and can be chosen. In other words, someone can effectively be a man or woman – the gender role – without biologically being so. This assertion provides scientific cover for later advocates, who push the concept of “gender fluidity” we’re asking students to learn and believe.

But was Money being honest with his research and results? Or did it merely support ideas he already held? Consider his works:

• He browbeat the parents of twin boys to raise one of them as a girl, and to even get surgeries to enhance that boy’s female appearance. Money told everyone that this “John/Joan” experiment was a great success, and it brought him fame. In fact, the experiment was a great failure for all involved.^[7]

• He endorsed incest^[8] and pedophilia ^[9] as normal and acceptable behaviors.

• He claimed that heterosexuality is a societal thing, a superficial, ideological concept.^[10]

With so much advocacy in his writings and sayings, it is hard to believe that his work is scientific. Those who build upon it also lack scientific rigor, for they build upon a foundation of sand. The research cannot be taken at face value.

How many genders are there?

To provide medically accurate lessons on sex education, we need to be able to say how many genders there actually are, and how to tell them apart. For each gender, we need to know what behaviors to look for, what might offend someone of that gender, and so on. There is no sense to being ignorant of those genders we expect our students to study and respect.

Gareth Icke writes that, according to Tumbler, there are 112 genders – so far!^[11] For example:

• Abimegender: a gender that is profound, deep, and infinite; meant to resemble when one mirror is reflecting into another mirror creating an infinite paradox.

• Adamasgender: a gender which refuses to be categorized.

• Anongender: a gender that is unknown to both yourself and others.

• Glimragender: a faintly shining, wavering gender.

Are there really 112 distinct genders? For example, maybe “Abimegender” is merely a trivial variant of Admasgender? But in reality, none of this has been researched. It’s all just fad terms, with more being invented daily.

A Canadian teen advice site says:

Gender identity is how a person feels and who they know them self to be when it comes to their gender. … Gender can be complex and people are defining themselves in new and different ways as we gain a deeper understanding of identities. Some terms may mean different things to different people.^[12]

So not only are genders being continually created, their advocates don’t even agree what they mean. The traditional use of gender describes the differences between men and women. The expanded use of gender describes nothing. It has as much substance as a name tag.

How many genders are there really? Here is a hint. When someone sees a doctor for gender reassignment surgery, how many choices of gender can they choose from?

Many genders? That’s not medically accurate

There is no solid science in “gender has no association with sex.” Yet we are asked to accept this as truth, and to require our school students to learn it as though it were medically accurate.

This is enough cause to oppose the REACH Act (SB 2762). Call your state senator and give him or her the what for.

Endnotes

1. Full text of SB2762, 101^st General Assembly, http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/fulltext.asp?DocName=10100SB2762sam001&GA=101&SessionId=108&DocTypeId=SB&LegID=123756&DocNum=2762&GAID=15&Session= ↑
2. Gender, Online Etymology Dictionary, https://www.etymonline.com/word/gender ↑
3. Gender, Dictionary.com, https://www.dictionary.com/browse/gender ↑
4. Gender Role, Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_role ↑
5. John Money, Gender Wiki, https://gender.wikia.org/wiki/John_Money ↑
6. John Money, Sexuality, Gender, and the Body, September 21, 2010, https://genderbodyreligion.wordpress.com/2010/09/21/john-money/ ↑
7. The True Story of John / Joan, HealthyPlace, https://www.healthyplace.com/gender/inside-intersexuality/the-true-story-of-john-joanCopied from Colapinto, John, John / Joan, Rolling Stone, December 11, 1997 ↑
8. Ibid.“A childhood sexual experience, such as being the partner of a relative or of an older person, need not necessarily affect the child adversely.” ↑
9. Ibid.“If I were to see the case of a boy aged 10 or 12 who’s intensely attracted toward a man in his 20s or 30s, if the relationship is totally mutual, and the bonding is genuinely totally mutual, then I would not call it pathological in any way.” ↑
10. John Money, Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_MoneyThe exact quote comes from the now off-line PAIDIKA: The Journal of Paedophilia, Spring 1991, vol. 2, no. 3, p. 5. ↑
11. Icke, Gareth, How Many Genders Are There In 2019?, David Icke (blog), August 11, 2019, https://www.davidicke.com/article/549278/many-genders-2019 ↑
12. Gender Identity, Teen Talk, https://teentalk.ca/learn-about/gender-identity/ ↑

---

This article was originally published at FixThisCulture.com.

Illinois parents shouldn’t need any more reasons to get their kids out of the sexual indoctrination hellholes that masquerade as government schools, but here are some more reasons courtesy of the cunning creatures that inhabit the Springfield swamp.

Two weeks ago, two bills were introduced to amend Illinois’ already offensive comprehensive sex ed law: SB 3788, which is sponsored by Illinois State Senators Celina Villanueva (D-Summit) and Laura Fine (D-Glenview), and HB 5012, the chief co-sponsors of whom include the Illinois House’s most objectionable propagandist, State Representative Kelly Cassidy (D-Chicago) along with Representatives Ann Williams (D-Chicago) and Michelle Mussman (D-Schaumburg).

Then on Wednesday, a bill that should be called the “GET OUT OF ILLINOIS SCHOOLS PRONTO” Act (SB 2762), was filed by nine Democrats and will mandate comprehensive sex ed  for all grades. This bill, laughably named the “Responsible Education Adolescent and Children’s Health” (REACH) Act, is heartily endorsed by Planned Parenthood of Illinois and by Illinois’ premiere “LBGT” activist organization, Equality Illinois, which should tell you everything you need to know about it.

Here are some troubling parts of the Villanueva/Cassidy monstrosities that apply to grades 6-12:

• Their bills mandate that all curricular “materials and instruction” must be “affirming” of “individuals, families, and communities” in an “inclusive, respectful, and effective” manner based on their identities as homosexuals or cross-sex impersonators.

• Their bills delete the section that says curriculum must “teach honor and respect for monogamous heterosexual marriage.”

• Their bills add “Course material and instruction shall [must] teach pupils … how to give [and] receive … consent” for sexual activity. Let’s repeat that: Our government is going to order schools to teach 11-year-olds how to give consent for sex.

• Current law requires “evidence-based” curricula. These new bills add the term “evidence-informed,” which is a far less rigorous requirement. “Evidence-informed” resources are much more useful to leftists who want to promote, for example, the “trans” ideology, because there is no hard science proving that social, chemical, and surgical interventions for gender dysphoric children are harmless.

These bills also say that all curricular “materials and instruction” must be “affirming” of “individuals, families, and communities” in an “inclusive, respectful, and effective” manner based on their “religion.” So, does anyone believe that the feelings and beliefs about sexuality, sexual identity, sexual relationships, or marriage of Christians, Orthodox Jews, or Muslims will be explicitly affirmed in exactly the same ways the feelings and beliefs of homosexuals and cross-sex impersonators on these issues will be? Does anyone believe the feelings and beliefs of the religious groups will be presented at all?

Then on Wednesday, things got worse. Nine Democrats in the Illinois Senate sponsored a bill that expands sex ed to include all grades from kindergarten through senior year in high school and includes the following:

• “It is the intent of the General Assembly that comprehensive sex ed shall [must]… promote awareness and healthy attitudes about gender identity, gender expression” and “sexual orientation … and must be available to students in kindergarten through 12th grade.”

• “Comprehensive sex ed in kindergarten through second grade shall [must] include … instruction on the following topics: human anatomy … gender roles … [and] varying family structures.” Discussing human sexual anatomy in co-ed K-2 classes is yet one more way for our culture to dissolve feelings of modesty in young children just as those feelings are beginning to develop. Leftists view that as a good thing.

• “Comprehensive sex ed in the third through 5th grades shall [must] include information about diverse sexual orientations, gender identities, and gender expressions. … and an examination of the harm caused by gender-role stereotypes.”

• “[C]omprehensive sex ed must include … Discussion about … sexting” with 8-10-year-olds. Leftists may be unaware of the many 8-10-year-olds who have never heard of sexting, never heard of porn, and don’t have cell phones. In those many cases, the passage of this law would mean the government would be introducing these young children to sexting. The innocence of their children that, at great effort and vigilance, parents have been able to preserve in the midst of this sex-saturated and defiling culture, the government would steal.

• Comprehensive sex ed “may not use stigmatizing or shame-based instructional tools or stigmatize parenting or sexually active youth,” “may not employ gender stereotypes” (you know, like saying only girls menstruate or only boys have penises), and “may not teach or promote any religious doctrine.”

In other words, schools must express only one judgment on homosexual behavior, cross-sex identification, and same-sex parenting: approval. So, what happens when the next sexual lobby gets their sexual identity added to the lawbooks? What happens when polyamorists are successful in having “polyamory” included in law as a “sexual orientation”?

Let’s for a moment look at not just the trees but the forest too. In that dark forest lurks not only comprehensive sex ed for K-12 students but also the “LGBT” school indoctrination law, which takes effect this coming July and applies to all grades K-12. Every student starting at 5 years old will be exposed to positive images and ideas about homosexuality, cross-sex identification, and activism in the service of normalizing both. There won’t be any way to escape such indoctrination by opting out because it’s going to be integrated across curricula.

According to research conducted in 2018 by the market research firm Ipsos Mori, 88 percent of baby boomers identified as exclusively heterosexual, 85 percent of Gen X identified as such, 71 percent of millennials, and a shocking 66 percent of Generation Z, that is, young people between the ages of 16-22, identified as exclusively heterosexual. Ideas have consequences.

While conservatives claim to believe that homosexuality is not biologically determined, they act as if they believe it is. They have for decades allowed their children to be exposed to “LGBT” dogma because they don’t really believe it will affect their children. Conservative parents have for decades tolerated their children’s exposure to homosexuality-affirming plays, novels, movies, essays, “anti-bullying” programs, and sex ed in school, ignorantly believing such propaganda won’t affect their children’s hearts, minds, and behavioral choices.

But of course, it will, and we’re seeing the toxic fruit of the erasure of sexual taboos and concomitant wholesale cultural approval of deviant sexual behavior. Layer on top of that widespread and easy availability to homosexual and “trans” porn, pro-homo/pro-“trans” postings on social media, loss of faith, broken homes, and broken children in search of connection and existential meaning, and voilà, we’re a pagan culture.

While parents may opt their children out of the sex ed indoctrination, they may not exempt them from the “LGBT” indoctrination that will permeate all other curricula. Fat lot of good opting their kids out of pro-“LGBT” sex ed will do when all their peers are in it and the rest of their classes are similarly poisoned.

A question for the non-gullible in Illinois: If these laws are passed, how long do you give it before the conscience-less swampsters propose a bill amending them to get rid of the opt-out option?

A question for Christian parents: How wicked do the ideas have to become and how young the children to whom these ideas are presented in government schools before you realize government schools are training up your children to go in ways that no one should go?

A question for Christian teachers: How wicked do the ideas you’re asked to teach or implicitly speak (e.g., through the use of incorrect pronouns to refer to “trans”-identifying students) have to become before you will take up your cross and refuse?

A question for pastors, priests, and elders: How wicked do the ideas that children in your congregations are exposed to in government schools have to be before you realize these children are your mission field? How wicked do the ideas that children in your congregations are exposed to in government schools have to be before you will either create affordable schools or make funds available to your families so they can send their children to existing but cost-prohibitive schools?

Government schools are no longer places that shape character or cultivate virtue. Government schools are places dedicated to the ideological grooming of children into the deviant-sex-obsessed world of “progressivism.”

Take ACTION: Click HERE to send a message to your state senator and state representative to ask them to vote against these bills:  SB 3788, SB 2762 and HB 5012. Impressionable students in public schools should not be exposed to body- and soul-destroying messages that promote leftist beliefs about sexuality.

Even if your children or grandchildren are not in public schools, your taxes are being used for this relentless indoctrination campaign. In addition to sending an email, please call both of your state lawmakers during normal business hours via the state switchboard: (217) 782-2000.

A pupil is not above his teacher; but everyone,
after he has been fully trained, will be like his teacher.
~Jesus Christ (Luke 6:40)

 

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/sexed_mixdown.mp3

---

THIS SATURDAY! IFI is hosting our annual Worldview Conference on March 7th at the Village Church of Barrington. This year’s conference is titled “Thinking Biblically About Our Corrosive Culture” and features Dr. Michael Brown and Dr. Rob Gagnon. For more information, please click HERE for a flyer or click the button below to register for the conference.