A 25-year-old man who pretends to be a woman was kicked off a community college campus in Texas and charged with a class C misdemeanor for allegedly choking a 17-year-old female student. Like the teen victim, the strange adult man who goes by the name Averie Chanel Medlock was a member of the women’s cheerleading team. Medlock complained that the teen girl said he is a man—which he is—and that he has a penis—which he presumably does.

While Medlock may be the first female impersonator to choke a female cheerleader, he is not the first female impersonator to be a member of a women’s cheer team. A man who goes by the name “Justine” Lindsay became a member of the NFL’s Carolina Panthers female cheerleading squad—the TopCats—last March, usurping a spot from an actual woman.

TopCats entertainment director, Chandalae Lanouette, offers this sorry justification for her decision to choose a man over a woman for a coveted spot on a female cheer squad:

My goal is to create a team of individuals that are absolute fire on the field but are incredible human beings in the locker room, good friends, good people, and at the end of the day, you have to walk through the door first to get to that spot.

I’m sure a male cheerleader is “absolute fire on the field” relative to female cheerleaders, what with all that lung capacity and all those bulging muscles. I’m not sure, however, how Lanouette defines “good people,” in that a man who sashays through a women’s locker room—undressed or dressed—is not engaging in good behavior. He’s doing something profoundly unjust, immoral, insensitive, and selfish.

“Justine” Lindsay continues the trend of men replacing women in women’s sports, thereby making a mockery of Title IX which is being abused to allow “transwomen”—formerly known as men—in women’s sports and locker rooms.

Ironically, as the “trans” cult continues its long march through our institutions, the harm being done by it and its sycophantic bootlickers continues to be exposed.

Detransitioners and their parents are telling their tragic stories on websites like Parents with Inconvenient Truths about Trans (PITT) and subreddits.

Men who claim to be women are being moved to women’s prisons where they’re raping women.

England’s National Health Service is shutting down its only child “gender” clinic, the (in)famous Tavistock clinic, which saw a 4,000 percent increase in children and teens being referred for treatment for gender dysphoria between 2009-2019. An independent review of Tavistock’s “Gender Identity Services for Children and Young People” concluded that there are “significant knowledge gaps … in relation to treatment with puberty blockers.”

On July 19, 2022, the chair of the review committee, Dr. Hilary Cass, acknowledged what critics of the quack use of puberty blockers for the “treatment” of gender dysphoria in children have been saying for years:

We do not fully understand the role of adolescent sex hormones in driving the development of both sexuality and gender identity through the early teen years, so by extension we cannot be sure about the impact of stopping these hormone surges on psychosexual and gender maturation. We therefore have no way of knowing whether, rather than buying time to make a decision, puberty blockers may disrupt that decision-making process.

A further concern is that adolescent sex hormone surges may trigger the opening of a critical period for experience-dependent rewiring of neural circuits underlying executive function (i.e., maturation of the part of the brain concerned with planning, decision making and judgement). If this is the case, brain maturation may be temporarily or permanently disrupted by puberty blockers, which could have significant impact on the ability to make complex risk-laden decisions, as well as possible longer-term neuropsychological consequences. To date, there has been very limited research on the short-, medium- or longer-term impact of puberty blockers on neurocognitive development.

Deep-pocketed activists—like the corrupt Pritzker family—and medical profiteers, all of whom pretend to care about children as they experiment on them for their own selfish ends surely know there is no science to support the deceitful and fearmongering claims they make. But who needs science when leftists have been winning the culture through name-calling, stigmatization, de facto censorship, and good old-fashioned propaganda.

Leftist propaganda in the service of normalizing disordered feelings and deviant behaviors is ubiquitous. It poisons not just the professional medical and mental health industries but also the arts, social media, “news” media, businesses big and small, religious institutions, and the many-tentacled education monster. And that is where Florida’s remarkable governor comes in.

In April 2022, under Gov. Ron DeSantis’ leadership, the Florida Department of Health provided guidance based on evidence on the treatment of gender dysphoria for children and adolescents:

Due to the lack of conclusive evidence, and the potential for long-term, irreversible effects, the Department’s guidelines are as follows:

• • Social gender transition should not be a treatment option for children or adolescents.
  • Anyone under 18 should not be prescribed puberty blockers or hormone therapy.
  • Gender reassignment surgery should not be a treatment option for children or adolescents. Based on the currently available evidence, “encouraging mastectomy, ovariectomy, uterine extirpation, penile disablement, tracheal shave, the prescription of hormones which are out of line with the genetic make-up of the child, or puberty blockers, are all clinical practices which run an unacceptably high risk of doing harm.”

Then in June 2022, under Gov. DeSantis’ leadership, “The Secretary of the Florida Agency for Health Care Administration requested that the Division of Florida Medicaid review the treatment of gender dysphoria for a coverage determination.” The review set forth that “As a condition of coverage, sex reassignment treatment must be ‘consistent with generally accepted professional medical standards (GAPMS) and not experimental or investigational.’”

The review concluded the following:

Following a review of available literature, clinical guidelines, and coverage by other insurers and nations, Florida Medicaid has determined that the research supporting sex reassignment treatment is insufficient to demonstrate efficacy and safety. In addition, numerous studies, including the reports provided by the clinical and technical experts listed above, identify poor methods and the certainty of irreversible physical changes. Considering the weak evidence supporting the use of puberty suppression, cross-sex hormones, and surgical procedures when compared to the stronger research demonstrating the permanent effects they cause, these treatments do not conform to GAPMS and are experimental and investigational.

But Gov. DeSantis wasn’t done protecting children. Following the Biden administration’s extortion attempt to force schools to treat “trans” kids as if they are the sex they aren’t or lose federal money to feed impoverished students, DeSantis took action.

On July 28, Florida’s Commissioner of Education, Manny Diaz Jr., sent a letter to all public schools and private schools in Florida clarifying Biden’s extortion effort:

The purpose of this memorandum is to make you aware that the sub-regulatory “guidance” documents issued by the USDOE and USDA are not binding law, do not create any new legal obligations, and should not be treated as governing law. Indeed, the USDOE has even acknowledged in litigation that its guidance document is not binding or enforceable. …

As such, you should not treat the USDOE and USDA guidance documents as binding or otherwise modify your practices or procedures based on these documents. Specifically, for example, nothing in these guidance documents requires you to give biological males [aka boys] who identify as a female access to female bathrooms, locker rooms, or dorms; to assign biological males who identify as female to female rooms on school field trips; or to allow biological males who identify as female to compete on female sports teams. …

The department will not stand idly by as federal agencies attempt to impose a sexual ideology on Florida schools that risk the health, safety, and welfare of Florida students.

The obsession of leftists with all things sexually deviant matters because truth matters. Their obsession with promoting evil as good is destroying the foundations of civilized societies. In their ignorance, leftists (and an increasing number of “Republicans”) believe that cultural approval of homosexuality, cross-sex impersonation, and sexually undifferentiated “marriage” has no bearing on the health of a country. And because of their ignorance, things are falling apart, the centre is not holding, and anarchy is loosed upon the world.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/Trans-Cult-Marches-On-Even-As-Its-Harms-Are-Exposed.mp3

In a 2020 interview with The Guardian, Fleetwood Mac singer Stevie Nicks revealed her over-inflated sense of the importance of Fleetwood Mac in her rationalization of the decision to end the life of her unborn child:

If I had not had that abortion, I’m pretty sure there would have been no Fleetwood Mac. There’s just no way that I could have had a child then, working as hard as we worked constantly. And there were a lot of drugs, I was doing a lot of drugs … I would have had to walk away. … And I knew that the music we were going to bring to the world was going to heal so many people’s hearts and make people so happy. And I thought: you know what? That’s really important. There’s not another band in the world that has two lead women singers, two lead women writers. That was my world’s mission.

In Nicks’ view, drug use and the music of Fleetwood Mac are of more value than the life of her child. Somehow the omniscient Nicks just knew that Fleetwood Mac’s music would “heal” more hearts and make more people “happy” than her child would have. In Nicks’ view her world mission depended on the intentional killing of her child.

Here are some questions for anyone nodding in agreement with Nicks’ self-absorbed, grandiose claims:

• Has anyone’s heart been healed more by Fleetwood Mac music—or any music—than by the ministrations and love of people?

• Is there a human who would choose to spend their last days listening to Fleetwood Mac songs over sitting with their spouses, children, grandchildren, or siblings?

• What kind of a narcissist or fool thinks the glass ceiling-tapping presence of two female lead singers and writers in a rock band is of greater value than the existence of a human being—any human being—including those deemed imperfect, inconvenient, or the least accomplished by worldly standards?

Nicks is not alone in her self-centered ignorance. Recently, the morally vacuous political animal and Catholic apostate U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) was asked by a reporter,

Is an unborn baby at 15 weeks a human being?

Pelosi hissed evasively,

Let me just say that I am a big supporter of Roe v. Wade. I am a mother of five children in six years. I think I have some standing on this issue as to respecting a woman’s right to choose.

Perhaps she could enlighten people as to why having given birth to five children in six years grants her some special standing to decide which humans can be slaughtered.

Since her viperish response didn’t answer the question, the intrepid reporter tried again. This time the always-humble public servant Pelosi ignored the question entirely. The arrogant and powerful assume the right to refuse to justify their words and actions—actions that potentially affect the lives and existence of millions of people.

Friday Night Lights and Titans actress Minka Kelly rationalizes her abortion via prophecy:

When I was younger I had an abortion. It was the smartest decision I could’ve made, not only for myself & my boyfriend at the time, but also for this unborn fetus. … Having a baby at that time would have only perpetuated the cycle of poverty, chaos and dysfunction I was born into.

Kelly employs the classic and relentlessly employed fallacy of the false dichotomy. She implies there are only two choices: abortion or a life of poverty, chaos, and dysfunction. But there’s a third choice: adoption. Moreover, it’s grotesque to suggest that it’s better for a human to be dead than poor.

Kelly continued, saying,

outlawing abortion has never stopped women from attempting it.

True, and outlawing murder, theft, and rape hasn’t stopped people from murdering, stealing, and raping either, so should we apply Kelly’s principle consistently?

Here are some surprising and relevant statistics from the pro-human slaughter Guttmacher Institute:

In 1930, abortion was listed as the official cause of death for almost 2,700 women. … The death toll had declined to just under 1,700 by 1940, and to just over 300 by 1950 (most likely because of the introduction of antibiotics in the 1940s, which permitted more effective treatment of the infections that frequently developed after illegal abortion). By 1965, the number of deaths due to illegal abortion had fallen to just under 200.

Compare those numbers of tragic accidental deaths to the intentional slaughter of 63,000,000 humans in the womb in the United States since 1973. Every one of the 200 accidental deaths of women in 1965 could have been prevented by those women not choosing to pursue the murder of their unborn children. The 63,000,000 humans intentionally slaughtered since 1973 had no choice about what was done to their bodies.

In discussing her decision to have the child she conceived with Warren Beatty in 1961 killed, actress Joan Collins demonstrated the worldly values that impel child sacrifice:

It would have been absolute career death for me to have done that. … it would have been unthinkable to have a child.

[Warren Beatty] didn’t have any money, I had nothing, and I believe if you are going to bring a child into the world that you have to have a responsibility to that child.

I’m so happy that [Collins’ daughter] Tara … was my first child, I love her dearly and it would not have been the same had I had another child.

Collins’ warped view of familial responsibility apparently includes killing members of impoverished families. (Never mind that Collins had appeared in 22 movies between 1952 and 1961; that in 1961 Warren Beatty starred in the award-winning, box office blockbuster Splendor in the Grass; and that his sister Shirley MacLaine had been a Hollywood star for six years. Maybe Collins was using the phrase “didn’t have any money” figuratively. Or maybe Hollywood actors aren’t good at sharing or helping loved ones in need.)

What kind of moral compass leads a woman to conclude that the best solution to presumed future poverty is having her child killed? What kind of person believes her love for her second child would have been diminished had she not had her first child killed?

Perhaps feminist icon Gloria Steinem’s reason for having an illegal abortion in 1956 when she was 22 best illustrates the self-worship that impels the human slaughter movement:

I just knew that if I went home and married, which I would’ve had to do, it would be to the wrong person; it would be to a life that wasn’t mine, that wasn’t mine at all.

Like so many other cultural movements since the sexual revolution, the human-slaughter movement is shaped and impelled by self-worship and its necessary corollary, self-indulgence. Career aspirations, alleged lack of money, and a distorted understanding of love justify feticide for the selfish and self-absorbed.

Leftist entertainers pontificate endlessly about the value and importance of their “craft,” while denying the value and importance of their children, deeming them unworthy of even a drop of the sustaining milk of human kindness.

Tragically, in our idolatrous culture, these are our “influencers.”

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/2-Self-Worship-and-the-Slaughter-of-the-Unborn.mp3

In a 2020 interview with The Guardian, Stevie Nicks, Fleetwood Mac singer, revealed her over-inflated sense of the importance of Fleetwood Mac in her rationalization of the decision to end the life of her unborn child:

If I had not had that abortion, I’m pretty sure there would have been no Fleetwood Mac. There’s just no way that I could have had a child then, working as hard as we worked constantly. And there were a lot of drugs, I was doing a lot of drugs … I would have had to walk away. … And I knew that the music we were going to bring to the world was going to heal so many people’s hearts and make people so happy. And I thought: you know what? That’s really important. There’s not another band in the world that has two lead women singers, two lead women writers. That was my world’s mission.

In Nicks’ view, drug use and the music of Fleetwood Mac are of more value than the life of her child. Somehow the omniscient Nicks just knew that Fleetwood Mac’s music would “heal” more hearts and make more people “happy” than her child would have. In Nicks’ view her world mission depended on the intentional killing of her child.

Read more…

Written by Vijay Jayaraj

Greta Thunberg, in her latest opinion column for The Guardian, has called for an end to today’s business as usual. She believes current economic activity is a crime against humanity as it increases the global warming rate.

As a citizen of a developing country, I protest!

Greta and other schoolchildren camped at the World Economic Forum in Davos. Their primary objective was to peddle lies, demand economic suicide, and ridicule world leaders who are trying their best to uplift economies.

In her brief column, written as a forerunner to the World Economic Forum, Greta outlined her demands.

“We demand that at this year’s forum, participants from all companies, banks, institutions and governments immediately halt all investments in fossil fuel exploration and extraction, immediately end all fossil fuel subsidies and immediately and completely divest from fossil fuels,” she said.

“We understand and know very well that the world is complicated and that what we are asking for may not be easy,” she continued.

But in reality, Greta does not understand what she is demanding.

Almost all products we use in our everyday lives are made from or by means of fossil fuels. Yes! That includes your toothbrush, toilet seats, kitchen utensils, house paint, pens, mobiles (yes, your mobile phones and the rotating plastic toys that hang over infants’ cribs), computers, roads, vehicles, clothes, and thousands of other things that the majority of us—except forest dwellers—would not be able to live without.

Ironically, even Greta and her friends don’t live without them. The lettered placards used in their protests couldn’t have been made without fossil derivatives.

The boat Greta used to cross the Atlantic was also manufactured with the help of fossil fuels. Her recent train journey—about which she was caught lying—was also made possible only because of fossil fuels, even though the train was powered by what the company called “100 percent eco-friendly electricity.” Fossil fuels went into mining and transporting the minerals from which the steel of the cars and wheels and track were made, and into the composition and manufacturing of the plastics and most other materials in its cars.

Even worse, the very same energy technologies which Greta calls “clean”—solar and wind—are manufactured with the direct help of fossil fuels and fossil derivatives, besides releasing toxic substances into the environment.

Immediate, comprehensive disinvestment from fossil fuels would halt not just fossil fuel supply but the entire global economy. Even the countries that use the highest percentage of renewable energy cannot sustain their economies for a single week without the use of fossil fuel-based products.

Eighty percent of all energy consumed globally (2018) came from oil, natural gas, and coal. In 2015, 65 percent of all electricity produced came from fossil fuels.

More than 70 percent of the electricity consumed in China and India—for around 3 billion people—came from coal alone. Both these countries are adding more coal plants to their existing fleets, not shutting them down as Greta demands.

Given the extremely high inefficiency and costs of non-fossil fuel based energy sources, economies are nowhere close to increasing their dependency on “clean” energy. A call for disinvestment in fossil fuels is asking for humanity to cease functioning.

Not to forget, there are still 850 million people in the world (including hundreds of hospital patients in Africa) who do not have access to electricity at all—and many more whose access is highly unreliable.

Even without implementing any of Greta’s mind-boggling demands, the world is struggling to implement 100 percent electricity access in developing countries.

Greta herself enjoys the benefits of living in a developed country and continent whose economies were driven by the fossil-fuel based industrial era.

To turn a blind eye to those of us in developing countries, and those in much worse economic conditions, is certainly not admirable or praiseworthy. In fact, it is detrimental to the economic progress that billions in the developing world are aspiring to see in our lifetimes.

The mainstream media, especially the leftist leaning media from the West, must stop treating school dropouts like climate experts and economists.

In their sustained effort to promote climate alarmism, the positions Greta and the loony media are pushing might very well be destroying the hopes of those at the very verge of death in poor countries.

Vijay Jayaraj (M.Sc, Environmental Science, University of East Anglia, England), Research Associate for Developing Countries for the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation, lives in Udumalpet, India.

This article was originally published at Townhall.com.