You know that notorious slippery slope that sexual anarchists mockingly dismiss as a figment of conservatives’ hysterical imaginations? Surely, you remember when conservatives argued that public approval of homoeroticism would lead ineluctably to public approval of other forms of sexual deviance. Well, here we are slip-slidin’ down that phantasmagorical slope all greased up with deviant sexuality.

“Trans”-cultism is ubiquitous, poisoning our professional medical and mental health communities; our public libraries; our schools, and children’s bodies.

Public school teachers in metaphorical trench coats eye five-year-old children with bad intent and throw hissy fits if they can’t teach children that sodomy is making America great.

Polyamory—known euphemistically as “consensual non-monogamy”—is spreading like gangrene on the necrotic tissues of a dying marriage ethos.

Sensing the softened ground, seeded and watered by boundary-free sexual libertines, creeps who feast on the flesh of minors and call it “intergenerational love” or “Minor Attraction,” are poking their ugly heads up in dark alleys, TED Talks, and cartoons. Diverse incarnations of “Minor Attraction,” including pedophilia (sexual attraction to pre-pubescent children), hebephilia (sexual attraction to pubescent children ages 11-14), and ephebophilia (sexual attraction to mid to late adolescents, ages 15-19), will be showing up more and more, just as hebephilia did in the original version of The Vagina Monologues.

Incest is not far behind. What’s my evidence, you ask? My evidence is that the left has given it a name: “Genetic Sexual Attraction.” For now, this phenomenon is defined as a strong sexual attraction between relatives who meet for the first time as adults, but how long will it be before relatives raised together will start ruminating on whether they would like to have sex with their siblings or parents? Remember, “love is love,” and ideas have consequences.

And the next nightmare we see on our careering hurtle down the slope is bestiality, renamed “zoophilia” and “zoosexuality.” Kathy Rudy, Duke University Professor of Gender, Sexuality and Feminist Studies authored a scholarly essay titled “LGBTQ … Z,” for which she provides this abstract:

In this essay, I draw the discourses around bestiality/zoophilia into the realm of queer theory in order to point to a new form of animal advocacy, something that might be called, in shorthand, loving animals. My argument is quite simple: if all interdicts against bestiality depend on a firm notion of exactly what sex is (and they do), and if queer theory disrupts that firm foundation by arguing that sexuality is impossible to define beforehand and pervades many different kinds of relations (and it does), then viewing bestiality in the frame of queer theory can give us another way to conceptualize the limitations of human exceptionalism.

In a trenchant critique of the dangerous ideas of Rudy, Dr. Devin Jane Buckley, points out that Rudy “seems uncertain as to whether she is sexually attracted to her own dogs.”

Rudy writes,

Queer theory has schooled me in ways that make the question of what counts as sex seem rather unintelligible. How do we cordon off sexual desire from all the other desires that move our lives? What does sex mean? Do I think I’m having sex with my dogs when they kiss my face? How do we know beforehand what sex is?

Leftists no longer know how to define “woman” or “sex.” And these are the people who want to teach the nation’s children about sexuality.

Rudy explains how queer theory has advanced social acceptance of bestiality:

Put differently, both animal rights and psychosocial perspectives [which view desire for animals as mental illness] do not believe that borders can be crossed. Queer theory, on the other hand, tells us that few of us have stable identities anymore, that borders are always crossed. We’re all changing, shifting, splitting ourselves up this way and that. It labels these processes ‘hailing,’ ‘suturing,’ and ‘interpolation’; where once we saw ourselves affiliated in one way, a new interpretive community emerges to capture our passions and move us differently. I am asking the reader to entertain the possibility that the same kinds of shifts and disruptions happen with categories like ‘human,’ ‘rabbit,’ ‘ape,’ or ‘dog.’

There you have it: bestiality, the new transgressive identity slowly emerging from the slimy goo pooling at the bottom of the fictitious slope.

Alexis Tsoulis-Reay, writer for New York Magazine’s The Cut, has twice written about a married man who has a “zoosexual” relationship with his horse. Her first article was “What’s it Like to Date a Horse?” In her follow-up article, “About That Interview I Did with a Zoophile,” just published a month ago, Tsoulis-Reay described her anger when a friend characterized the man into bestiality as having a “horse fetish”:

When one of my friends, an attorney who is married and straight, asked me how my “horse fetish” reporting was going, my first thought was, STFU, you normative bitch! I was genuinely annoyed that she’d described his entire sexual identity as a kink. “It’s a sexuality, not a fetish!” I earnestly texted back to her in all caps.

Leftists invented the idea of “authentic identity,” conflating all phenomena that are associated with or affirmed by an individual as integral parts of authentic identity and beyond moral judgment. Fetishes will become “authentic identities.” Moral disapproval of fetishistic “identities” will become hate speech. Fetishistic “identities” will develop political lobbies that will insist that their fetishes are “sexual orientations,” and voilà, fetishes will become protected under existing anti-discrimination laws.

Here are two of the leftist claims that applied consistently helped create the non-fallacious slippery slope:

1.) Marriage has no inherent connection to either sexual differentiation or reproductive potential, thereby nullifying the requirement that marriage be limited to two people or to people not closely related by blood.

2.) “Love is love,” thereby nullifying any restrictions, taboos, or prohibitions related to erotic relationships. If love is love, then who’s to say the love between adult siblings or men and horses is wrong. Some leftists argue that it’s wrong to have sex with animals because animals can’t consent. But that hardly seems a rational justification for prohibiting sex with, for example, cows since cows can’t consent to be caged, owned, branded, or eaten, which seem far more onerous than being sexually penetrated, and humans perform all of those acts.

While conservatives have been gullibly playing Candyland, sexual anarchists have been playing chess. Sexual anarchists have strategy; conservatives have strategery. The strategery of Christians in America is notable for its lack of discernment, lack of spine, and a bloated desire to be both in and of the world. Pallid, neutered “niceness,” severed from an understanding of sin has supplanted the love of Christ.

The slippery slope exists all right, but it’s not surprising that the “love is love” crowd can’t see it.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/Its-All-Downhill-When-Fetish-Becomes-Identity.mp3

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Morris continued:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

…

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

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

---

Save the Date!!!

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

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

---

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