The great evil in America for over two centuries was slavery and its ugly aftermath. Too many Christians for too long stood passive as Satan attacked the humanity of African Americans. Too few had the courage to do what Wheaton College founder, pastor, and tenacious abolitionist Jonathan Blanchard did. Here is but one example:

During their trip from Cincinnati to Galesburg, in order to observe the Sabbath as a day of rest, the Blanchard family took lodgings in a hotel in slave territory. On that Sabbath morning, just before breakfast, out in the back yard of the hotel, a slave girl was unmercifully flogged, so severely that blood from wounds in her back fell to the ground around her. At the breakfast table some of the guests of the hotel were laughing and joking about the incident. Finally, Jonathan Blanchard could stand it no longer. He arose, and was about to leave the room. Then, realizing the meaning of retreat on his part, he turned and apologized for being too cowardly to testify against their actions. Directly facing those who made light of such barbarity, he said, “For every drop of slave blood that was shed, God will require white blood!”

Then came the Civil War.

Blanchard was not alone among pastors. Charles Spurgeon spoke too in plain, bold language about the evil of slavery:

I do from my inmost soul detest slavery . . . and although I commune at the Lord’s table with men of all creeds, yet with a slave-holder I have no fellowship of any sort or kind. Whenever one has called upon me, I have considered it my duty to express my detestation of his wickedness, and I would as soon think of receiving a murderer into my church … as a man stealer.

Lest anyone in our post-racial society think that such a statement was without cost, here’s some of what Spurgeon endured:

Spurgeon’s character was assassinated throughout the Confederacy. His sermons, which in 1862-1863 sold one million copies annually, were censured. His books, which sold 1,000 copies per minute at trade shows, were publicly destroyed. Sermon bonfires illuminated jail yards, plantations, and bookshops throughout the Southern states.

Here’s another response from the citizens of Montgomery, Alabama prior to the burning of Spurgeon’s books:

We trust that the works of the greasy cockney vociferator may receive the same treatment throughout the South. And if the pharisaical author should ever show himself in these parts, we trust that a stout cord may speedily find its way around his eloquent throat.

Today, Satan remains committed to dividing people by race, but he’s also attacking other biblical truths with a delighted vengeance. For 70 years, he has been attacking with relish biblical truths regarding sexuality and marriage.

So, where are today’s pastors and political leaders who are willing to speak unpopular truths about the evil of the normalization of sexual perversion as Blanchard and Spurgeon spoke about the evil of slavery? Are today’s pastors willing to say that they “detest” “trans”-cultism and that they will “have no fellowship of any sort or kind” with those who chemically and surgically mutilate children’s bodies? Are there pastors—including pastors of the renown of Charles Spurgeon—who consider it “their duty to express their detestation” of the madness and wickedness of gender theory, same-sex faux-marriage, and sexually integrated private spaces?

I know of one political leader who recently dared to speak truth in a culture where evil is taught as good. North Carolina’s black, Republican Lieutenant Governor Mark Robinson is under fire for speaking this truth in April at Asbury Baptist Church in Seagrove, North Carolina:

There’s no reason anybody anywhere in America should be telling any child about transgenderism, homosexuality, any of that filth. And yes, I called it filth. And if you don’t like it that I called it filth, come see me and I’ll explain it to you.

To be clear, “filthy” means “contemptibly offensive; objectionable.” So, yes, socially constructed leftist ontological and moral beliefs about homoerotic acts and cross-sex impersonation are filthy. Teaching them to children is evil.

Most conservatives can’t muster sufficient courage to oppose the wickedness leavening our culture even as children are being chemically and surgically mutilated. Many Christians have the means to homeschool, to educate their children in co-ops, or to send them to Christian private schools but choose instead to send them to government schools to be tutored by people who lack the wisdom or fortitude to oppose evil lies. Those parents are not fulfilling God’s command to “train up a child in the way he should go.”

If conservatives don’t realize that teaching children anything positive about cross-sex impersonation and homosexuality is evil, we are in deep trouble. If Christians don’t so realize, we’re in even deeper trouble. If Christian conservatives have become so worldly and deceived that they believe the chief end of man is to please the ungodly, the church is lost. If Christians believe that being a “welcoming, inclusive, and diverse” church entails silence on or affirmation of sexual sin, the church and culture are lost.

In 2014, I first wrote that the end goal of the “trans” cult is the eradication of all public recognition of sex differences. I have written that every year since 2014. Because of the ignorance, cowardice, silence, and capitulation of conservatives, that end fast approaches.

No more single sex bathrooms, locker rooms, dorm rooms, or prison cells. British Airways, Congress, and government schools are eliminating all things “gendered.” No more addressing “boys,” “girls,” “ladies,” or “gentlemen.” No more references to “sisters” and “brothers.” No more references in medical schools to “pregnant women.” Tampon machines in boys’ restrooms in elementary schools.

Our cowardice now bequeaths a neutered future to our children and grandchildren, maintained by tyrannical oppression that we should all be able to see on the darkening horizon.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Cowardice-and-The-Orwellian-Neutering-of-America.mp3

Just think of the upside down world in which we live today. Women and girls are relaxing in a California spa when a man walks in, naked and fully exposed, in full view of these mothers and daughters. Yet when a complaint is issued, the spa, along with the editorial board of the Los Angeles Times editorial board, defend the man. Do we need any more proof that we have lost our corporate minds?

A man commits full frontal indecent exposure in the presence of women and girls, and the Los Angeles Times chides the women for being upset while defending the man, since, after all, he’s actually a woman. And, you know, women can have penises too. That’s right. And men can menstruate as well as conceive and give birth to babies. That’s also why we must talk about “chestfeeding” rather “breastfeeding,” since the latter term would offend nursing fathers.

Have we not lost our minds?

Listen to this woman’s personal account of what happened:

“I went to the Wi spa in Los Angeles, California, and while I decided to go around the different jacuzzis, I decided to take a nap. After my nap, I got up and I wanted to get water. As I was walking, I noticed something that really was disturbing, something that caused me to feel that I must have been transported into the men’s locker room, the men’s Jacuzzi area.

“Yeah. A man, a full-on man, fully naked, completely exposed, showing his testicles, his penis. Slightly erected.

“I was appalled at what I saw. This was not normal. . . . Little girls are there, their mothers are there, other women are looking about, and they begin to put their robes back on them. I went to management. Management did nothing. I even told the guy he should leave, ‘This is not right,’ and he didn’t leave. We had no help whatsoever. I did not know what to do.

“Something has got to be done. This is not fair. It is not right. We as women have rights to be safe in public spaces, and they are being violated by men going into women’s spaces, claiming to be women to gain access, so that they can exercise their perversions.

“This is not right. We must do something about it.

“On June 23, I experienced what no woman or little girl should ever experience. I experienced what used to be called flashing or indecent exposure, which would result in a man registering to be a sexual offender for life.”

Yes, this used to be considered perverse and even illegal. But not today. Today, this is a “right” to be celebrated. And it is the women and girls who have a problem. They are the ones who are messed up in their thinking. The onus is on them to change.

As explained in the upside-down editorial in the Los Angeles Times, “As complicated as the opposing beliefs might be, it is clear where the rights in this matter land. Everyone — transgender customers, members of every faith and women who are upset by the sight of penises — all have the right to use the spa and other public accommodations.”

Indeed, the Times’ editors opined with some of the most convoluted thinking imaginable, “no one has an absolute right to feel comfortable all the time. People have a right to use the spa, but that doesn’t include with it a guarantee that they all will feel at ease with everything they see. They might prefer a spa where a certain amount of body covering is required.”

Seriously? No one has the right to expect that a biological male, naked and fully exposed, will not come marching into the women’s area? No one has the right to expect that their children will not suffer this kind of sexual and psychological abuse? Seriously?

This used to be called indecent exposure. You could go to jail for this.

But not today. Today it is just a needless “hullabaloo,” to quote the exact term used by the Times. We’ll get over it soon enough.

Yes, the Times editors tell us, “Young people are far more comfortable with the idea of shared spaces for people of all gender identities and sexes.”

Absolutely. I’m sure an 8-year-old or 12-year-old or 15-year-old girl, sitting naked in the steam room, is super comfortable with a 40-year-old naked man sitting down next to them. Of course!

To repeat: this is madness.

Yet the self-righteousness and moral perversion of the Times knows no bounds. To quote the closing words of the editorial, “In the meantime, customers of public-serving businesses should be prepared to share space with the public, in all our forms, varieties and customs. Antidiscrimination laws stand for the principle that all are welcome, whether we are comfortable or not.”

Tell that to the girls (and women) who feel violated and abused. Tell that to the people whose rights have been trampled.

But no, we can’t, because transgender activism trumps all. It trumps morality. And decency. And honor. And common sense. Just say, “I’m trans!” and anything goes.

And what about sexual predators who have already used these loopholes to enter ladies’ bathrooms and the like? That’s too bad, we are told, but the priority is protecting those who identify as transgender.

I ask again: what kind of madness is this? How and when did we entirely lose our minds?

And what an absolute and ridiculous farce to allow for these abuses to take place under “antidiscrimination laws.” Talk about legal mumbo jumbo. Talk about turning right into wrong and wrong into right.

As for the man who truly believes he is a woman, here’s a word of wisdom for you: you do not belong in the women’s spa, naked and exposed, even if to the core of your being you believe you are female.

Moreover, no one is making you go there, and your life will not be hurt if you stay out of a place where there are naked women and girls. (Let’s be realistic here. We’re not talking about withholding lifesaving treatment or essential medical care from someone who identifies as trans. God forbid. We’re talking about biological males not exposing themselves around women and girls. Please get a grip.)

Sir, male plumbing remains, and if you expose that plumbing in the sight of the opposite sex you should pay the penalty for indecent exposure.

The truth is that the spa should be ashamed for defending the man. Those members of the public who also supported his “rights” should be ashamed. And the Times should be ashamed.

Alas, in today’s upside world, where perversion is celebrated and common decency is denigrated, shame is hard to find.

Back in 2016, during a debate over transgender access to school bathrooms and locker rooms, the Charlotte Observer infamously opined that, “Girls must try ‘overcoming discomfort’ of seeing ‘male genitalia’ in bathrooms.”

I commented in response, “Transanity indeed.”

Is there any other way to describe it? Do we need any further proof that we have lost our corporate minds?

I rest my case.

This article was originally published at AskDrBrown.org.

Virtual ink has been saturating the Internet on the allegedly discriminatory laws pending or passed in many states that limit girls’ sports to girls or prevent the medical malpractice of mainlining cross-sex hormones into the healthy bodies of children in order to “treat” unhealthy, obsessive thoughts about their sex. Less has been written about legislation that would prohibit schools from forcing boys and girls to share locker rooms and bathrooms with opposite-sex peers.

For example, the Tennessee House and Senate recently passed a commonsense bill that will allow not only students but also staff and faculty to refuse to share multi-occupancy bathrooms and locker rooms as well as sleeping quarters during school-sponsored overnight events with persons of the opposite sex. The bill would also permit students, staff, or faculty to sue schools if they encounter opposite-sex persons in those private contexts. While schools will be required to make reasonable accommodations for students who pretend to be the sex they aren’t, those reasonable accommodations do not include the construction of new facilities. As of this writing, the bill awaits Governor Bill Lee’s signature.

Satan’s henchmen and henchwomyn at the Human Rights Campaign describe this bill and all other bills that oppose “trans”-orthodoxy and “trans”-praxis as “appalling,” “anti-equality,” “Slate of Hate” bills. The henchians don’t explain why it’s not appalling to force girls to undress in front of boys in girls’ locker rooms. Nor do they explain exactly how treating all biological males the same violates the principle of equality or how it constitutes hatred.

To rational people, treating some biological males as if they were biological females is the epitome of inequality. And to compassionate people, forcing girls to undress, go to the bathroom, or tend to menstrual needs in the presence or proximity of male peers is cruel.

Moreover, policies that abolish sex-segregation in private spaces teach all children that biological sex as manifest in sexed bodies has no intrinsic meaning and that to be compassionate and inclusive requires the suppression of all natural and good feelings of modesty. Such arguable ideological indoctrination falls far outside the purview, expertise, and moral rights of partisan educrats whose salaries are paid by all taxpayers.

“Progressives” in thrall to science-denying “trans”-cultism assert that private spaces in which humans undress or tend to intimate bodily functions should no longer correspond to objective, immutable biological sex. They argue that these spaces should correspond to “gender identity”—that is, to disordered feelings about maleness or femaleness. But in Transtopia, maleness and femaleness are untethered to anything objective, including to either of the two biological sexes that comprise the human species. In Transtopia, malenesss and femaleness are disembodied conceits.

How “trans”-cultists know their “gender identities” when maleness and femaleness have nothing to do with biological sex is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma. But solving riddles tightly wrapped in mysteries, buried deep inside enigmas pose no obstacle to the construction of revolutionary laws and policies for delusional people wrapped inside artificially constructed skin costumes and buried inside incoherent dogma.

Cartesian “trans”-cultists overlook a host of enigmas as they seek incrementally to eradicate sex-based segregation. For example, why should private spaces correspond to “gender identity” rather than objective biological sex?

Or, if gender is the aggregate of socially constructed and imposed conventions associated with males or females, how can, for example, toy choices, hair fashions, and sartorial preferences—socially constructed and arbitrary as they are—point to anything “authentic” about one’s identity?

Or, if it’s not bigoted for “trans”-cultists to want to use private spaces with only those whose “gender identity” they share, why is it bigoted for reality-tethered persons to want to use private spaces with only those whose biological sex they share?

Or, how do men like “Caitlyn” Jenner know the “gender identities” of the men in men’s locker rooms or the women in women’s locker rooms? “Trans”-cultists claim that “gender identity” is wholly unrelated to biology, anatomy, clothing, behaviors, or interests, and that it’s impossible to know another person’s “gender identity” unless they declare it publicly, so why their obsession with which private spaces they use?

(“Buck Angel” before)

More than a few “trans”-cultists will point to women like porn star “Buck Angel” (formerly Susan Miller), who now identifies as a “man with a pu**y and looks indistinguishable from buffed up, steroid-doping real men. “Trans”-cultists ask what they view as the “gotcha” question: “So, would women be okay with Buck Angel using their locker room?”

This is, indeed, a thorny problem. No woman will want to share private spaces with Buck Angel wearing her elaborate chemically and surgically constructed flesh costume. Nor should any woman have to share private spaces with her. Conversely, no man should be deceived into undressing or going to the bathroom in front of a woman wearing a chemically and surgically constructed disguise. But this is a problem “trans”-cultists have created, and the consequences are theirs to bear.

If humans have an intrinsic right not to undress in the presence of persons of the opposite sex, then that right is not abrogated by “trans” deception. If Buck Angel had any integrity, she would honor the rights of others by using single-occupancy private spaces.

If, on the other hand, there exists no human right to be free of the presence of strangers and other unrelated persons of the opposite sex when undressing, going to the bathroom (or in the case of women and women only, tending to menstrual needs), then all sex-segregated private spaces should be abolished, which is the end goal of “trans”-cultists.

(“Buck Angel” after)

The “trans” cult is abusing anti-discrimination laws and policies to eradicate public recognition of sexual differentiation and sex-based rights, and people who know better have facilitated this work of the devil through their silence and cowardice.

If “discrimination” based on both sex and “gender identity” is legally prohibited, there remains no legal justification for maintaining any sex-segregated spaces anywhere for anyone. If no organization or facility is allowed to consider either sex or “gender identity” when designating private space usage, there remains no legal way to prevent any Tom, Dick, or Harry—whether they fancy themselves women or men—from accessing heretofore “women’s” spaces.

That, my friends, is Transtopia.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/Privacy-in-Transtopia.mp3

A bold voice for pro-family values in Illinois!

Click HERE to learn about supporting IFI on a monthly basis.

One of the most effective ways that Marxists advance their agenda is to change how we talk about things.   When clever rewordings replace the truth, it’s easier to fool people.

For example, the Washington Post this past week said a transgender plaintiff “was designated female at birth, but identifies as male.”

In the blink of an eye, a biological fact – that someone was born a girl – is brushed aside and replaced with a term that implies that male or female sex is assigned, not a natural phenomenon.

In fact, the idea that your sex is “assigned at birth” is an increasingly common description. It validates the Gnostic-based insanity that one’s sex has nothing to do with physiology, just what goes on in people’s heads.  By this reasoning, birth records can be altered to distort reality, which is a way to lie officially.  And to force others to do so as well.

Gavin Grimm, who is now 21, sued the Gloucester County, Virginia school district in 2015 to force them to allow her to use boys’ facilities.  Two years later, the case reached the U.S. Supreme Court but was set aside when President Donald Trump overturned a Barack Obama gender identity school mandate.

But last Wednesday, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit ruled 2 to 1 that the school board had violated Grimm’s 14th Amendment right against sex discrimination. The high school had offered a gender-neutral bathroom, but the plaintiff’s attorneys rejected that solution, as did the two Obama appointees who sided with Grimm. A George H.W. Bush appointee dissented.

They drew from the bizarre Bostock opinion in June written by, of all people, Trump appointee Neil Gorsuch, which expanded the definition of “sex” in the Civil Right Act of 1964 to include “sexual orientation” and “gender identity.”  Just like that, the Court put every institution in America that won’t kneel to the LGBTQ gods in jeopardy of ruinous lawsuits or even governmental sanctions.

Given the Court’s reasoning, how could any sex-based distinctions, predicated on real and important differences between the sexes, be maintained? Sports teams? Locker rooms? Bathrooms at any business of any size? Private schools?

The transgender movement, for all its caring rhetoric, is not really about eliciting compassion for sexually confused people – something we should embrace. It’s part of the Marxist Left’s campaign to overhaul society and force people to lie.

Anyone not toeing the line, which keeps changing, is “canceled.”  That means being censored, fired, shut out of promotions or jobs, and de-platformed on social media.

Over the years, the Left has peppered our discourse with advocacy-filled descriptions. “Choice” long ago replaced abortion, “gay” replaced homosexuality, and “hater” and “racist” became all-purpose descriptors for anyone dissenting from the Left’s worldview. Erasing biology is just more of the same.

Sometimes, the ideologically-driven changes are more subtle. Journalists now capitalize racial terms, as in Black people and White people. The adjectives, which describe merely one important aspect of the human race, instead become the whole. No more thinking about people just as fellow human beings created in the image of God. Race must be first and foremost in everyone’s minds.

Herded into identity groups, we’re more easily divided and manipulated. Regardless of the impressive racial progress that America has achieved since eradicating slavery and Jim Crow, the media are utterly obsessed with race as the only aspect of humanity worth talking about.

But if America’s “systemic racism” is the main driver of the riots that have raged for the last three months, why are mobs beheading or defacing statues of Jesus and Mary and black heroes like Frederick Douglass or Arthur Ashe, burning churches and Bibles, and looting stores in Chicago’s Magnificent Mile?

There’s method to this madness. Racism is an excuse to pour gasoline on a larger cause – that of taking down America as we know it and replacing it with a socialist utopia. The founders of Black Lives Matter, after all, admit to being “trained Marxists.”

During the AIDS epidemic of the 1980s (which is still with us), activists began forcing journalists and medical professionals to use the term “living with HIV,” as a way to de-stigmatize the disease. You could get kicked out of a medical conference for talking about “AIDS infections” or the “AIDS disease.” They’d not hesitate to beat the drums for “living with covid” if they thought it would advance their cause.

Language is a formidable instrument for human progress when used properly.  But, all too often it can be abused, destroying souls, families, or even entire societies.

The most profound and positive use of language in history was when Jesus offered Himself to everyone on Earth, saying, “I am the Way, the Truth and the Life,” and when the Gospel writer John referred to Him as simply The Word.

Amid the current chaos, we need to work hard to preserve America. And, we need to pray that the Marxist-inspired madness and abuse of language will crack up, a victim of its own hostility to truth.

This article was originally published at Townhall.com. You can follow Robert Knight on Twitter @RobertKnight17 and his website is roberthknight.com.

Written by Arielle Leake

The Baby-Sitters Club is a new Netflix series based on the popular children’s books by the same name published in the late ‘80s and early ‘90s. The books—and now the television series—follow the lives of four 12-year-old girls and their entrepreneurial babysitting endeavors. Unfortunately, parents who fondly remember the books from their own childhood should think twice before allowing their impressionable children to watch this G-rated show.

Transgenderism is brazenly presented, unchallenged, and actively celebrated. The fourth episode of the show “Mary Ann Saves the Day” prominently displays the show’s cultural indoctrination. One of the four main characters, Mary Ann, is tasked with babysitting Bailey, a young boy who firmly believes he is a girl and lives a transgender lifestyle. The episode is fraught with highly concerning dialogue and messaging. For example, Mary Ann’s friend explains Bailey’s lifestyle to her by saying, “We all want our insides to match our outsides.” This explanation clearly illustrates the two-story dualism underlying the transgender movement or, as Nancy Pearcy puts it in her book Love Thy Body, “the idea that your brain can be at war with your body.”

The scriptwriters are so committed to the idea that your feelings control who you really are that they cannot even promote healthy encouragement. When Mary Ann, who struggles with self-confidence (as most tween girls do), exclaims that she is “a pathetic cry-baby,” the only help her friend can offer is to say, “If you believe you are a pathetic cry-baby who am I to tell you otherwise.” It could have been a moment used to show young girls how to support and encourage one another while not affirming a lie someone believes about themselves. Instead, all the show can muster is a weak statement meant to shove forward the philosophy that how you feel dictates who you are.

Mary Ann finally finds her “confidence” when she takes it upon herself to reprimand the doctor and nurse who dare to address Bailey by his biological sex. Mary Ann instructs them that “from here on out,” they should “recognize her for who she is.” Further, she requests that they bring Bailey something other than the standard blue hospital nightgown, which he evidently finds highly offensive.

Even more appalling, those in the position of authority—both the medical professionals and the child’s parents—willingly go along with the young child’s whims. Instead of helping him see who God created him to be, they encourage his harmful fascinations and reinforce the idea that fitting a certain “stereotype,” whether it be wearing blue or playing tea parties, is what makes you a male or female.

As a young woman, I am disappointed to see a show that will be viewed by many young and impressionable girls espousing such harmful views—without so much as a question about the consequences of these ideas. Instead of giving young girls a proper view of what it means to be a woman, The Baby-Sitters Club presents womanhood as something that is merely a product of your feelings and not a God-given identity.

In a world that is becoming increasingly accepting of transgender ideology, parents should be cautious about the ideas being espoused in the media their children consume. Christians have a role to play in restoring an understanding that humans are a unique combination of both body and soul, which equally make up who we are and are not at war with each other. Nancy Pearcy defines the Christian’s role as being “the first in line to nurture and support kids who don’t ‘fit in’ by affirming the diversity of gifts and temperaments in the body of Christ.” This is exactly the opposite of what is done in The Baby-Sitters Club.

Arielle Leake is a Policy & Government Affairs intern focusing on religious liberty. This article was originally published at the FRC blog.

Let’s take a 10-minute break from reading about the Chinese Communist government’s gross malfeasance to look at the malfeasance of an American judge who thinks he has the authority to mandate Newspeak.

In February the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) filed a lawsuit on behalf of three members of girls’ high school track and field teams in three different Connecticut high schools, claiming that the girls’ rights are being violated by the schools allowing biological boys who pretend to be girls to participate on the girls’ teams. The defendants are the Connecticut Interscholastic Athletic Conference and four Connecticut school boards. Controversial U.S. District Judge Robert N. Chatigny ordered ADF attorneys to refer to the boys as “transgender females,” describing ADF’s use of the term “males” as bullying.

First some background on Chatigny: In 2010, Barack Obama tried to move Chatigny up to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, but his nomination met with opposition due to Chatigny’s “empathy” for child rapist/murderers. A Washington Times editorial called his nomination an “abomination”:

The [Senate Judiciary] committee should kill the federal appeals court nomination of Federal District Judge Robert N. Chatigny of Connecticut. … Judge Chatigny has a weird record of empathy for those accused of sexual crimes involving children. … [T]he U.S. Supreme Court eventually reversed Judge Chatigny, unanimously, when the judge tried to rule against one aspect of his state’s version of a Megan’s Law sex-offender registry. In 12 child-pornography cases, Judge Chatigny imposed a sentence either at or more lenient than the recommended minimum—with most downward departures involving sentences less than half as long. And in an outrageous case of judicial abuse, Judge Chatigny threatened to take away an attorney’s law license if the lawyer failed to appeal the death sentence of an eight-time murderer of girls and young women. The judge claimed the killer’s “sexual sadism” was a mental disorder that made the murderer himself a victim.

In an April 16 conference call with ADF attorneys, Big Brother Chatigny issued this astonishing command regarding the boys on the girls’ track teams:

[Y]ou must refer to them as “transgender females” rather than as “males.” Again, that’s the more accurate terminology, and I think that it fully protects your client’s legitimate interests. Referring to these individuals as “transgender females” is consistent with science, common practice and perhaps human decency. To refer to them as “males,” period, is not accurate, certainly not as accurate, and I think it’s needlessly provocative. I don’t think that you surrender any legitimate interest or position if you refer to them as transgender females. That is what the case is about. This isn’t a case involving males who have decided that they want to run in girls’ events. This is a case about girls who say that transgender girls should not be allowed to run in girls’ events. So, going forward, we will not refer to the proposed intervenors as “males”; understood?

What a galling display of arrogance in the service of an incoherent, ignorant, and destructive ideology. “Transgender female” is a leftist term created to propagate an ideology. Forcing ADF attorneys to use it does not protect their clients’ interests. It does exactly the opposite. It undermines their interests while promoting the interests of the defendants, the boys who are violating the rights of the girls, and the “trans” cult.

Exactly what “science” is he referring to? The hard science that says that the human species is sexually dimorphic? The hard science that says biological sex can never change? The hard science that points to the serious health risks of cross-sex hormone-doping and surgical attempts to create “neo-vaginas”? Do tell, Big Brother Chatigny, what hard science dictates that biological boys who wish they were girls must be referred to as “transgender females.” From my understanding, Big Brother’s language diktat has nothing whatsoever to do with hard science and everything to do with a controversial ideology.

Exactly what “common practice” is Big Brother Chatigny referring to? The common practice has forever been to refer to biological males as males. Even today, millions of people refer to biological males who pretend to be, or wish they were, or falsely believe they are female as males. Sure, leftists like Big Brother Chatigny are hell-bent on coercing common practice to change via commands, fines, and laws, but their efforts violate the First Amendment rights of those who seek to speak truth that is consonant with hard science.

Big Brother Chatigny makes the absurd claim that referring to biological males as males is “not as accurate” as his PC choice of the PC term “transgender females,” which is merely a political stepping stone to the next step when the “trans” cult demands “transgender” be dropped.

In Transtopia where “transgender females” are females, why should they be discriminated against by being referred to as “transgender females”? If other females (you know, actual females) are just called “female,” so too should biological males who pretend to be females. When that day arrives, Big Brother Chatigny will surely command those who appear before him in court to stop saying “transgender females,” UNDERSTOOD?

With no sense of irony, Chatigny argues that human decency requires humans to participate in an elaborate deception that denies biological reality, mutilates bodies, disrupts healthy biological processes, and requires both lying and violating the privacy rights of others.

Chatigny argues that referring to biological males who pretend to be female as “males” is “needlessly provocative.” Has the man utterly lost his capacity for rational thought? Does he really not see that commanding others to refer to males as females is needlessly provocative? Adding “transgender” to “females” does not make it less provocative.

Leftists arrogate to themselves the unilateral right to redefine every term that suits their moral, philosophical, or political purposes. They get to redefine marriage, love, safety, tolerance, bigotry, bullying, hatred, he, she, female, male, and now “provocative.” Like a gang of scornful Humpty Dumpties, leftists proclaim, “When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”

Yes, this case is exactly about males running in girls’ track and field events. Does he think there exists no such objective phenomenon as biological males in nature? Does he believe biological male is merely a construct, idea, or epiphenomenon of the mind made real or instantiated only by the commingling of thought and desire?

George Orwell warned about the political abuse of language by oppressive governments which he called “Newspeak”:

The purpose of Newspeak was not only to provide a medium of expression for the world-view and mental habits proper to the devotees of IngSoc, but to make all other modes of thought impossible. It was intended that when Newspeak had been adopted once and for all… a heretical thought… should be literally unthinkable, at least so far as thought is dependent on words. Its vocabulary was so constructed as to give exact and often very subtle expression to every meaning that a Party member could properly wish to express, while excluding all other meaning and also the possibility of arriving at them by indirect methods. This was done partly by the invention of new words, but chiefly by eliminating undesirable words and stripping such words as remained of unorthodox meanings, and so far as possible of all secondary meaning whatever. … [T]he special function of certain Newspeak words … was not so much to express meanings as to destroy them. 

That is exactly what the “trans” cult and it’s “progressive” sycophants like Chatigny are doing.

Fortunately for their plaintiffs and all the rest of sane society, ADF will not yield to the unseemly, unconstitutional commands of Big Brother.  The ADF filed a motion asking that the judge recuse himself, arguing that “A disinterested observer would reasonably believe that the Court’s order and comments have destroyed the appearance of impartiality in this proceeding. That requires recusal.”

Kudos to and prayers for ADF.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Judge-Commands-ADF-to-Use-Trans-Term.mp3

We take very seriously the trust you place in Illinois Family Institute when you send a gift. We understand that we are accountable before you and God to honor your trust. IFI is supported by voluntary donations from good people like you.

Written by Peter Sprigg

“Puberty blockers” are hormones originally intended to deal with “precocious puberty,” in which a child experiences the physical signs of puberty prematurely. Now, however, puberty blockers are being used as a treatment for “gender dysphoria.” The theory is that a child who is already unhappy with his or her biological sex may become even more unhappy when his or her body begins to develop.

The most extreme claim is that transgender children forced to undergo normal puberty will kill themselves. Into this debate came a new academic study published in the Pediatrics medical journal that resulted in headlines like these:

• “Puberty blockers could save the lives of trans teens, study shows” – The Hill
• “Puberty blockers linked to lower suicide risk for transgender people” – NBC News

There’s only one problem. These headlines are wrong.

The word “suicide” implies a fatality. The Pediatrics study was not a study of suicide—because none of its subjects were dead. It was based upon answers given in the 2015 U.S. Transgender Survey.

The key outcome referenced in the article was “lifetime suicidal ideation.” This means thinking about committing suicide. The finding that those who received puberty blockers had lower “lifetime suicidal ideation” than those who wanted them but did not receive them got the attention because it was the only one that reached the level of “statistical significance.”

However, “lifetime suicidal ideation” was only one of nine mental health outcomes that were listed in the study.

On four of the nine outcome measures—nearly half—the outcomes for those who received puberty blockers were worse than for those who did not. Most of these differences were small, but one figure jumped off the page. Those who received puberty blockers were twice as likely to have had a suicide attempt resulting in inpatient care (i.e., hospitalization) in the last 12 months as those who did not (45.5 percent vs. 22.8 percent). While we cannot reach definitive conclusions because of the small numbers involved, this raises important questions that are at least worthy of further research.

Also, the lifetime rate of suicidal ideation for those who received puberty blockers were lower than for those who didn’t—but it was still astonishingly high, at 75 percent. This hardly suggests that administering puberty blockers makes most children with gender dysphoria mentally healthy.

The authors acknowledge the study’s design “does not allow for determination of causation.” But they go further, raising doubt that puberty blockers cause lower rates of suicidal ideation—because it may be that people with suicidal ideation were simply considered poor candidates to receive puberty blockers.

Let’s be clear—we cannot conclude from this study that children who take puberty blockers are more likely to commit suicide than those who don’t.

But we also cannot conclude that they are less likely to commit suicide—notwithstanding the breathless media coverage.

Legislators considering restrictions on radical gender transition procedures for minors should make those decisions based on the harmful physical effects and risks of those interventions, many of which are well-known—not based upon the misinterpretation of psychological studies whose implications are far from clear.

This article was originally published at FRC.org.

Here are just two of the countless unbearable stories of sorrow and regret that the mainstream press doesn’t want to tell. Here are just two of the many nightmarish stories that “gender therapists,” cosmetic surgeons, urologists, endocrinologists, pharmaceutical companies, and vocal coaches who profit from the confusion of children don’t want you to hear. Here are the accounts of bone-deep anguish from young people who feel betrayed by adults who facilitated the chemical and surgical ravaging of their once whole and healthy bodies:

I’m 16 and my body is ruined. I destroyed every piece of me that made me a female, or at least, the parts that made me look and feel like one. I was on testosterone for a year and a half so my voice is fucked, my boobs are gone, I’m very hairy. … Just don’t really see the point in living if it’s gonna be like this. I can’t believe that everyone in my life failed me so hard. How are we letting insecure 14 year old girls make the decision to mutilate and ruin their bodies. I’m angry. I’m angry at this sick agenda. I’m angry at the sick people who think you have any other choice but to accept what you were given at birth. I’m angry that these sick people are pushing their sick agendas on sick, insecure, damaged, naive, gullible, children. Children don’t know what they want. Neither do the rest of these “trans” people. I’m sorry but you can’t change who you are. All it will do is send you into madness. Unfortunately, I’ve had to learn that lesson the hard way. I don’t “feel” like a girl or a boy. I just am. I’m just me. I wish someone could’ve told me that I was beautiful just the way I was. I was so beautiful. Now I am ruined. I was a singer. I had a delicate, soft voice. Now it’s harsh, like a teenage boy’s. All of these regrets, all of these memories, the pictures on my phone that I can’t stop staring at, staying up all night crying, listening to recordings of my old voice, realizing how if someone had just paid attention to me, maybe I wouldn’t be in this situation. I’m furious, and there’s nothing I can do except warn other young girls not to make the same mistake that I did. But I wouldn’t have listened either. I wanted that escape. I wanted to be a man so bad. Being a girl brought me nothing but tragedy. I was beaten and molested as a child. I felt weak. I wanted to be strong. I didn’t want to be another object for men to use. I wanted to be seen as a person. Well, now I’m a freak.

---

Two years ago, I was a healthy, beautiful girl heading toward high school graduation. But after taking testosterone for a year, I turned into an overweight, pre-diabetic nightmare of a transgender man. …

I’m one of many young women that have been failed by the medical system. I was diagnosed with gender dysphoria, a mental-health condition. I was treated with mega-doses of powerful testosterone that ravaged my body, caused me to gain 50 pounds, and put me at risk for heart disease, diabetes, and teenage menopause.

I’m not putting all the blame on the mental health people or the doctors. These are regretful choices I made as a teenager. But I trusted the doctor’s advice. They were the experts, who was I not to listen to them?

But telling an 18-year-old girl that mega-doses of testosterone would fix her mental health problems? They didn’t even talk to me about other treatment options! No doctor or therapist suggested I give myself time to grow up, or wait and see what happens with counseling sessions – no doctor or therapist told most young people outgrow their feelings of wanting to be the opposite sex.

The only advice I got was to take mega-doses of testosterone.

I did this to myself for almost a year. Meanwhile, my mom was crying daily about why I was doing this to myself, all the while blaming herself.

Finally, one day, my grandfather sat me down to talk about it. With tears in his eyes, he asked me to stop.

That was a saving grace. I would have let this treatment kill me before admitting I’d screwed up. His intervention saved my life.

Today, I continue to deal with the permanent side effects of messing up my body.

I’m not a political person. I’m just a young person that needed help from doctors, and unfortunately got caught up in this medical scandal.

More and more young people are being deceived every day, being told that the solution to their insecurity and identity problems is to get a sex change. The problem is, a person’s sex can’t really be changed. You can take hormones and have cosmetic surgeries, but that doesn’t really change your sex, or solve your problems. I wish I knew that when I was younger.

These young people who have stopped identifying as the sex they are not are called “detransitioners,” and there are many of them. With broken families, abuse, trauma, absence of faith, and inculcation with perverse ideologies on sexuality and “identity,” the world is creating deep wounds in children, providing distorted lenses through which these wounded children misinterpret their experiences, and offering wicked solutions for which wounded children in desperation grasp.

As the number of “trans”-identifying children and teens explodes—particularly among adolescent girls, we will hear more and more of these stories. Already there are thousands of young adults detransitioning and telling their stories. How many more do you need to hear before you speak up? Are you going to be one of those countless adults who stand silently by as children’s bodies are mutilated because you’re too cowardly to stand against the forces of ignorance and evil? Are you going to just go about your daily business, risking nothing even as 13-year-old girls have their healthy breasts amputated? Does your silence bring glory to God? Do you not love these children as yourself?

Will you protest drag queen story events for preschoolers when your local library hosts one?

Will you tell your children’s teachers that under no circumstance are your children to be exposed to any classroom discussions, activities, presentations, or resources that address cross-sex identification (or homosexuality)?

Will you tell your government school administration that your children may not share locker rooms or restrooms with opposite-sex students?

Will you ask your pediatrician for his or her view of chemical interventions for the treatment of gender dysphoria in minors and change doctors if he or she affirms such destructive nonsense?

If you live in Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Missouri, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, or Texas where bills have been proposed or will soon be proposed banning chemical and surgical interventions for the treatment of gender dysphoria in minors, will you vigorously and publicly support those critical bills? Will you ask your lawmakers to sign on as co-sponsors of those bills?

If you live in Illinois, where the first such bill in the nation was introduced almost a year ago by one of Illinois’ finest lawmakers, State Representative Tom Morrison, will you vigorously and publicly support both his bill and him? Will you contact your state representative and ask him or her to sign on as a co-sponsor of the bill?

If your really care about children, you will do all of the above.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/trans-nightmares_mixdown.mp3

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

“[F]or Precious Brady Davis,
getting her husband pregnant meant going off hormones.”

How’s that for a head-scratcher of a quote—a quote that actually appears on the no-longer reputable NBC 5 Chicago “news” website  in a story about two “trans”-cultists who are married and recently had a baby. The pretend-wife is “Precious” Brady Davis,” a biological man who pretends to be a woman. The pretend-husband is “Myles” Brady Davis, a biological woman who pretends to be a man. Myles-the-real-mother is the director of communications and press secretary for Illinois’ premier “LGBTQ” propaganda organization, Equality Illinois. This woman really knows how to spread propaganda.

The “trans power couple” are in the news again, and again they’re in the news for pernicious reasons. When Myles was 20 weeks pregnant, she learned that she would be listed as the baby’s mother on the birth certificate, because she is, well, the mother.

As “trans”-cultists and propagandists so often do, Myles contacted an attorney with Lambda Legal who contacted the Illinois Department of Public Health, which immediately cried uncle … or aunt … or something. Suffice to say, the state caved to the “trans”-cultists.

The birth certificate will now identify the mother—the biological woman who gestated and birthed the baby girl—as the “father” and will identify the father—the biological man whose sperm united with Myles’ egg and then implanted in Myles’ womb—as the “mother.”

According to the Chicago Tribune, Myles-the-real-mother “never even thought the birth certificate would have to misgender us.” Yeah, riiight. She never thought a legal document would include the objective fact that she is the mother.

The Tribune writer, Nara Schoenberg, evidently a propagandist for the “trans” cult who identifies as a news reporter, described the possible identification on the birth certificate of the biological father as the father as making “matters worse.”

Propagandist Schoenberg also wrote this nonsensical sentence:

To have biological children, they had to go off their gender-reinforcing hormones.

Schoenberg needs to take classes in both biology and leftist sexuality ideology. Does she know what hormones are? Does she know what “gender” is in the “trans” world she seeks to suck up to? Gender—according to “progressives”—is the aggregate of arbitrary, socially constructed conventions associated with maleness or femaleness. Hormones are chemical substances produced in the body that control and regulate the activity of certain cells or organs. Hormones can’t and don’t reinforce “gender.”

The website Mommyish—which claims to “take parenting seriously”—has an article about the self-glorifying, “trans”-cultist power couple titled “Trans Couple’s God-Like Pregnancy Photos Defy Stereotypes” which includes this photo from Myles-the-real-mother’s Instagram account:

A better title would be “Trans Couple’s Frankenstein-Like Photos Defy God.”

Word to Mommyish, while Myles’ cross-dressing and cross-sex hormone-doping is clearly an effort to conceal her sex (or as Mommyish calls it, “defy stereotype”), the photo of a mother heavy with child is the anti-thesis of a “stereotype.”

“Trans”-cultists use the fact that language changes over time to try to compel others to use their redefinitions of words and the neologisms they invent to advance their strange, science-denying, metaphysical ideology. Now they want to redefine the words “mother” and “father.” They no longer want those terms to be linked to biological sex. Instead, they want “mother” to denote humans who wish they were women and “father” to denote humans who wish they were men.

Well then, why not redefine the word “teenager”? Henceforth, it will no longer denote a human whose objective age is between 13-19 but, instead, denote humans who feel like, wish they were, or identify as teens?

What about “Latinx,” the neologism that refers to “people of Latin American cultural or ethnic identity in the United States”? Why not redefine “Latinx” to denote anyone who wishes they were or self-identifies as a person of Latin American cultural or ethnic identity—including those whose Puritan ancestors came over on the Mayflower?

While we’re thinking about language, let’s remember what George Orwell said about the abuses of language for oppressive political ends (i.e., Newspeak), which points to the importance of resistance to such abuses:

The purpose of Newspeak was not only to provide a medium of expression for the world-view and mental habits proper to the devotees of IngSoc, but to make all other modes of thought impossible. It was intended that when Newspeak had been adopted once and for all… a heretical thought… should be literally unthinkable, at least so far as thought is dependent on words. Its vocabulary was so constructed as to give exact and often very subtle expression to every meaning that a Party member could properly wish to express, while excluding all other meaning and also the possibility of arriving at them by indirect methods. This was done partly by the invention of new words, but chiefly by eliminating undesirable words and stripping such words as remained of unorthodox meanings, and so far as possible of all secondary meaning whatever….

[T]he special function of certain Newspeak words… was not so much to express meanings as to destroy them….

[W]ords which had once borne a heretical meaning were sometimes retained for the sake of convenience, but only with the undesirable meanings purged out of them. (emphasis added)

So, “trans”-cultists have struck another blow against science and reality. Illinois birth certificates will no longer “misgender” “trans”-cultists. They will now mis-sex them. (As an aside, the long-ridiculed flat-earthers must be so jealous.)

Some of us remember the good old days when teachers asked elementary school children to scour the newspaper for current events. If we want children to learn about reality, teachers better not ask them to do that anymore.

It’s remarkable that seemingly rational, sane people in academia, the professional medical and mental health communities, the arts, faith communities, and the press pretend to believe the emperor in a gown is an empress. We should no longer be baffled by the ignorant and destructive ideas people believed or, because of their cowardice, pretended to believe in days gone by.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/Chicago-Trans-Power-Couple-Birth-New-Birth-Certificates.mp3

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

The 2019 Illinois Family Institute Worldview Conference on “Trans” Ideology concluded with a Q&A session moderated by IFI’s cultural affairs writer, Laurie Higgins. During this final session, speakers Dr. Michelle Cretella, Denise Shick, Walt Heyer, and Pastor Doug Wilson field questions from conference attendees.

Higgins begins by addressing the endgame of LGBTQ activists regarding transgenderism, the effect of the transgender agenda on privacy and culture, and the smoke and mirror tactics of the American Academy of Pediatrics in regard to transgender protocols. Topics and questions covered by our speakers include gender confusion and regret; transitioning/detransitioning; calls to lower the age of consent; Planned Parenthood’s evolving business model; an effective Christian approach to government schools; the biology of sex determination; and loving, biblical responses to transgender family members and friends.

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

-and, please-

The ideological and moral idiocy of “woke” Americans has not yet reached its nadir, but it’s getting close.

A complaint was filed with the Illinois Human Rights Commission by a female minor who pretends to be a boy and her parents, Tracy and Michael Yates. She alleged that she was discriminated against based on her “gender identity” when Lake Park High School District 108 in Roselle, Illinois required her to change clothes behind a privacy curtain in the boys’ locker room. She wanted to be free to undress out in the open with her objectively male peers. To heck with their feelings or rights. In mid-July, the Illinois Humans Rights kangaroo court (KC) ruled that the district did discriminate against her, arguing that minors who identify as “trans” must be given unrestricted access to the locker rooms of opposite-sex peers. (I had to file a Freedom of Information Act request to get the ruling. It is not listed with other rulings on the Illinois Human Rights Commission website.)

The commissioners—all of whom are political appointees—voted 3-0 in favor of the student. It’s interesting to note that only one of the commissioners, Robert A. Cantone, is an attorney. The other two are Michael Bigger, an insurance agent, and Cheryl Mainor, a business owner. Cantone and Mainor are Democrats, and Bigger is a liberal Republican. These are paid positions. Cantone and Mainor, Pritzker appointees, are being paid $119,000 per year. Bigger, a Rauner appointee, is being paid $46, 960 (Bigger must be bitter). In the last full calendar year, Jan. 2018-Dec. 2018, the commission met 20 times, averaging out to less than two times per month. Nice gig if you can get it.

To be clear, the KC’s foul ruling means that, for example, boys who pretend to be girls must be allowed to use girls’ locker rooms in exactly the same ways girls are allowed to use them, which means schools may not require them to change their clothes behind privacy curtains or in privacy cubicles and may not prohibit them from taking nude showers. Same goes for girls who pretend to be boys. Schools must pretend that boys who want to be girls are girls and girls who want to be boys are boys.

This also means something even more profound and disturbing. Civilized societies—as opposed to primitive and pagan cultures—recognize, respect, and accommodate the natural feelings of modesty and desire for privacy that humans experience when engaged in private acts. Civilized societies have long understood intuitively that such feelings derive from objective physical embodiment as male or female. Objective biological differentiation—that is, the sexual binary—is the reason civilized societies created separate spaces for objectively male and female humans to engage in private acts in which bodies are exposed or intimate bodily functions are performed.

The KC’s decision, however, is based on the revolutionary and arguable “trans”-cultic assumption that biological sex has no relevance to undressing, showering, or engaging in bodily functions. In the view of the KC and “trans” cult, the sole relevant factor for determining private space usage is subjective feelings. They believe that if a teenage boy wishes he were a girl, he should be treated as if he were a girl. Private spaces become symbolic tools for affirming a delusion.

The natural and good desire people naturally develop to be separate from people of the opposite sex when naked, partially dressed, showering, or performing excretory functions can be either reinforced by culture or undermined. “Trans” cultists seek to undermine it in the service of their disordered desires, science-denying beliefs, and corrupt moral code. And they seek to impose their ideology by deracinating the rights of decent people.

What’s passing strange is how exactly the Illinois Human Rights Commission concluded that opposite-sex impersonating minors must be allowed unrestricted access to the locker rooms of opposite-sex peers since the Illinois Human Rights Act—which is state law—says this:

Facilities Distinctly Private. Any facility, as to discrimination based on sex, which is distinctly private in nature such as restrooms, shower rooms, bath houses, health clubs and other similar facilities for which the Department, in its rules and regulations, may grant exemptions based on bona fide considerations of public policy.

So, how did the commissioners rationalize their ruling that public schools must sexually integrate locker rooms?  Did they claim this exemption applies only to discrimination based on “sex,” and not to discrimination based on “gender identity,” which was the basis of the student’s complaint? If so, then the exemption is meaningless.

Or did they argue that the school had provided no “bona fide considerations of public policy” that would justify the exemption? If so, what considerations would pass muster? If the obvious commonsense truth that objectively male students should not be required to undress in the presence of an objectively female peer does not constitute a bona fide consideration, what would?

The questions are moot, though, because the school district decided to allow opposite-sex impersonators full and unrestricted access to the locker rooms of their opposite-sex peers even before the KC ruled. So, much for the integrity and backbone of that district’s school board and administration.

As the incoherent, doctrinaire “trans” ideology advances, it continues to twist into even more grotesque shapes. Society is no longer expected to affirm just the damnable lies that men can be trapped in women’s bodies, that women can have penises, and that men can give birth. Now we’re expected to affirm the damnable lie that because some people are uncomfortable with the superficial conventions (e.g., hairstyles, clothing styles, activities) associated with their biological sex or because they’re drawn to the superficial conventions associated with both sexes, the human species is not binary. Allowing a few intellectually, psychologically, and morally deluded cross-dressers into opposite-sex private spaces is morphing into allowing anyone to use any private spaces they wish at any time. Public acknowledgment of the sexual binary is being forcibly erased.

A “pronoun guide” published by American University’s Center for Diversity & Inclusion exposes the efforts of “trans”-cultists to erase the binary—well, to erase the freedom of Americans to acknowledge the reality of the “gender binary”:

Don’t assume the gender of a pronoun: she/her/hers are NOT “female” pronouns, and he/him/his are NOT “male” pronouns.

Can’t leave any words behind in the wake of the “trans” revolution that suggest the human species is sexually binary. No, siree, that won’t do at all.

“Trans”-cultists aren’t just inventing new pronouns to reflect their sex-erased world. In true Orwellian fashion, they’re also redefining existing words to erase all prior traces of a world that embraced reality. George Orwell warned us what this kind of language control is intended to do in his description of Newspeak:

The purpose of Newspeak was not only to provide a medium of expression for the world-view and mental habits proper to the devotees of IngSoc, but to make all other modes of thought impossible. It was intended that when Newspeak had been adopted once and for all… a heretical thought… should be literally unthinkable, at least so far as thought is dependent on words….  This was done partly by the invention of new words, but chiefly by eliminating undesirable words and stripping such words as remained of unorthodox meanings and so far as possible of all secondary meaning whatever….

[T]he special function of certain Newspeak words… was not so much to express meanings as to destroy them…. [W]ords which had once borne a heretical meaning were sometimes retained for the sake of convenience, but only with the undesirable meanings purged out of them.

How long before “trans”-cultists decide that “transwoman” is an epithet and must be banned? After all, they have proclaimed that men who masquerade as women are women. What if they decide that “transwoman”—which implies a distinction between fake-women and real women—is offensive and must be banned?

And who among us will resist sexually integrated private spaces and Newspeak mandates when the government tells us resistance is futile?

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/Illinois-Human-Rights-Commission.mp3

A bold voice for pro-family values in Illinois!

Click HERE to learn about supporting IFI on a monthly basis.

Did you know it’s no longer culturally acceptable for girls to say they want to date only boys? And did you know it’s no longer acceptable for young men to say they want to marry only young women? Believing that the biological sex as revealed in anatomy of one’s romantic/sexual partners matters is now deemed hatefully “transphobic.”

The ravenous, pro-“trans” behemoth smells the blood of children in our murky cultural waters and is hurtling toward them with blinding speed aided by the ignorance (perhaps willful) and cowardice of decent people—people who prefer not to hear about the grotesqueries the “trans” cult has in store for our little ones.

Like the dismemberment of living humans in their mothers’ wombs, the most grotesque acts being perpetrated against born children are being committed in sanitized medical establishments by Dr. Mengeles. These deceived or  deceiving doctors amputate the healthy breasts of confused or mentally ill girls as young as 13, chemically sterilize physically healthy teenage girls and boys, and castrate teen boys as young as 18.

Dr. Diane Ehrensaft, chief psychologist at the Child and Adolescent Gender Center Clinic at San Francisco’s Benioff Children’s Hospital, posits that children as young as two can know they aren’t the sex they, in reality, are:

“We expect a 2-year-old to know ‘I am boy. I am girl.’ So why can’t that also apply to transgender children?”

Ehrensaft’s statement implies that toddlers’ subjective, internal feelings about their maleness or femaleness are analogous to their objective, immutable biological sex. But for a boy to know he is a boy constitutes recognizing an immutable and objective fact, like knowing the earth is round. For a boy to think he is a girl is not knowledge; it’s delusion. And research shows that between 80-95% of cases of gender-identity confusion in prepubertal children will resolve on their own.

Further, Ehrensaft believes the subjective, internal feelings of toddlers about their maleness or femaleness supersede in importance and value their biological sex. But such a belief is not an objective fact. It’s a radical, subversive dogmatic assumption spreading like cancer throughout the sickly body of America.

Ehrensaft also claims that “Most people who are born with a penis will be boys, but some of them will be girls. Most people who are born with a vagina will be girls, but some will be boys.” To be clear, Ehrensaft is not referring to those born with intersex disorders of sexual development. She is referring to genetically normal children born with healthy, fully functioning anatomy. It is nonsensical, science-denying sophistry to say babies “will be” boys or girls. They are boys or girls. Their sex will never change.

From this “trans”-affirming, child-destroying theory has emerged a profitable cottage industry for all sorts of mercenaries including gender-identity propagandists; pharmaceutical companies peddling the puberty-blocker Lupron and cross-sex hormones; psychologists, endocrinologists, urologists, and cosmetic surgeons; nonfiction and fiction writers; entrepreneurs hawking costumes to conceal biological sex; and other manifestations of a deeply corrupted culture.

Here are just a few of the countless cultural assaults on the dignity and health of children:

• Etsy, the well-known “e-commerce website focused on handmade or vintage items and craft supplies” offers “transgender tuck buddies,” which are handmade colorful underpants for little boys ages 3-14 who pretend to be girls. “Tuck buddies” are designed to conceal penises and testicles, so little boys can deceive others into believing they’re girls.

• A company called TranZwear makes an “extra-small” silicone penis and testicles called a “packer” for girls under five years old who pretend to be boys and want to deceive others that they are boys.

• Drag queen story hours at public libraries are proliferating, with no comparable proliferation of protests by decent people—including pastors—who should be protesting.

• The number of pre-pubertal boys whose parents exploit them by allowing them to perform in drag to the delight and pleasure of adult homosexual males is increasing. The sexually deviant among us assure us there is nothing—absolutely nothing—sexual about these performances. Of course, that claim, like all other claims made to advance sexual deviance, is a bald-faced lie—a lie exposed by British pedophile Tom O’Carroll who last month wrote this:

Child drag artist Desmond is Amazing is indeed amazing.

And hot!… No wonder 11-year-old Desmond Napoles and other kids daringly diving into drag culture right now have provoked right-wing reactionaries into paroxysms of moral outrage.

Let’s face it, when a pretty young boy tells the world he is gay and dances sensuously in front of grown men, wearing vampish dresses and makeup; when “she” strips off items of clothing or goes on stage scantily clad right from the off; when dollar bills are accepted as “tips” from an audience apparently wild with excitement; when all this is going on we are getting far more than just a celebration of gender diversity or an innocent display of precocious performance talent.

… It is wonderful that a rare niche has been found in the modern, developed world within which at least a few kids can truly be themselves, in ways that deny neither their gender feelings nor their sexuality. Being a drag queen, or a drag princess if you will, puts it right out there, in the open for all to see. It says, loud and proud, “I am a sexy kid, with sexy feelings. It’s totally cool for grown-ups to get turned on by me. I love it. That’s why I do this stuff….”

Drag is not “simply a means of gender play and expression”, though that is obviously a significant aspect of it. Sure, drag can be performed with wholly non-erotic intent and often is: Dame Edna Everage, for instance…. But when a kid declares himself to be gay, as Desmond has, he is talking about sexual feelings: “gay”, after all, refers to a sexual orientation not a gender identity. If his interest in wearing girls’ clothes was an expression only of his gender identity he would see himself as “trans”, not “gay”….

So why all the denial? Why the coy insistence that kids’ drag performance has nothing to do with their sexuality? Hypocrisy, basically. For decades now, gay politics has revolved around respectability, and that has meant aping hetero-normativity: gay couples with committed relationships, marriage, and parenthood, have become the promoted model; the old, carefree “promiscuity” of the gay life is frowned upon (if still a reality for many) and any cross-generational sexual contact with youth is now far more taboo than it ever was in the “bad old days” when homosexuality was a discretely practised underground phenomenon.

Hypocrisy is detestable for its dishonesty; but on the other hand it works. Politically, it makes sense. Denial of the sexual element in kids’ drag performances has recently resulted in them being perceived as on the “respectable” side of the gender revolution….

• With no hard science available demonstrating the effects of “social transitioning” on their brain development, young children from 2 years old on up are being allowed to socially “transition,” which is to say, they are being allowed to pass as the sex they are not by adopting new names, cross-dressing, and being referred to by incorrect pronouns. Neuroplasticity is “the ability of the brain to form and reorganize synaptic connections, especially in response to learning or experience or following injury.” Might adopting new names, being referred to by opposite-sex pronouns, and cross-dressing change the brain’s structure in such a way that children are less likely to eventually accept their biological sex? By promoting “social transitioning,” are gender-identity peddlers dooming children to future bodily mutilation and a lifetime of risky cross-sex-hormone dependence?

• Government schools have bought the “trans” ideology hook, line, and sinker and are promoting it through curricula to other people’s children. Either they’ve bought it or school leaders are such yellow-bellied, spineless cowards that they would rather sacrifice children than confront the evil in their midst, which may be personally costly.

• At the end of May, Vermont proposed a “Health Care Administrative Rules” change that will allow state Medicaid funds to be used for the chemical sterilization and surgical mutilation of children with no minimum age requirement. In addition, the Vermont Department of Financial Regulation issued this statement just a week ago:

Insurance companies, health insurance companies, nonprofit hospital services corporations, nonprofit medical services corporations, non-ERISA employer group plans and managed care organizations…. may not deny coverage of gender affirmation surgery as not medically necessary on the basis of age…. (emphasis added)

Our professional mental health and medical communities are controlled by Leftists who have no hard science supporting the fanciful notion that children of one biological sex can have the brains of the opposite sex.

They have no hard science proving that lifetime, cross-sex-hormone-doping is safe.

They have no hard science proving conclusively that gender dysphoria or cross-sex identification in young children and teens is immutable.

They have no hard science proving that sexual abuse, other forms of trauma, autism, social contagion, or other environmental factors are not factors that can result in gender dysphoria or cross-sex identification.

They have no hard science proving that the suicidal ideation and depression that often accompany gender dysphoria/cross-sex identification are caused by social stigma as opposed to being caused by whatever caused the desire to be the opposite sex.

They have no proof—nor will any proof ever be available—that affirming a child in the rejection of his or her biological sex is good, right, or morally justified.

Leftists believe that the relief cross-sex-identifying children feel when affirmed in their cross-sex identification means that disapproval is intrinsically wrong, but do they apply that principle consistently? Do they, for example, apply it to anatomically whole people who experience Body Integrity Identity Disorder and identify as amputees?

The ubiquitous effort by sexual anarchists/reprobates to revolutionize what’s left of American “culture” is no more apparent than in the juggernaut to “trans” children. By “transing” children, I mean the comprehensive effort to destroy their hearts, minds, wills, and bodies. “Trans” activists in league with many homosexuals—though not all—have gained breathtaking institutional power and are propagandizing, grooming, and mutilating children in the service of a science-denying, cultic superstition. And conservatives largely say and do nothing even as these evil things are done in schools where they send their children, in schools where they work, and in their public libraries. They should be ashamed.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Harming-Children-from-Toddlerhood-to-Adulthood_audio.mp3

IFI Fall Banquet with Franklin Graham!
We are excited to announce that at this year’s IFI banquet, our keynote speaker will be none other than Rev. Franklin Graham, President & CEO of the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association and Christian evangelist & missionary. This year’s event will be at the Tinley Park Convention Center on Nov. 1st.

Learn more HERE.

During Holy week, a manifestly unholy thing was revealed about actress Charlize Theron. It was revealed that she’s pretending along with her 7-year-old son Jackson that he is a girl. Theron permits him to dress in distinctly female clothes, wear his hair in long braids, and refers to him as “her,” declaring he is “every bit as much a girl as her three-year-old sister.” Well, except for those pesky scientific realities like his penis and every cell of his body which declares his male DNA.

Theron made this astoundingly foolish statement:

Yes, I thought she was a boy…. Until she looked at me when she was three years old and said: “I am not a boy!”

A fatherless 3-year-old boy says he’s not a boy, Theron believes him or pretends to believe him, and the state doesn’t remove him from her home?

The government conducts extensive background checks, home inspections, and interviews to determine parental fitness, because the government has a role in protecting both the rights of individuals as well as the public good. Today we have a government that not only allows parents to facilitate the chemical sterilization and surgical mutilation of their children but mandates that adoption agencies place children only in homes that will permit such grotesque abuse.

Theron doesn’t explain exactly how she knows her son’s perception that he’s not a boy proves he’s a not boy, nor does she explain why he dresses in pink tutus since the Left tells us pink tutus have nothing to do with femaleness. Isn’t Theron reinforcing arbitrary and destructive stereotypes through his clothing and hairstyle requests?

How did we get to this cultural low point in which both elected leaders and unaccountable government bureaucrats have concluded children have neither a need to accept their biological reality or the right to be raised by parents who will help them accept and love their biological reality?

The factors and forces are many, but the primary two are that we “have exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator,” and that “progressives” have gained control of all the large cultural institutions that shape public life. Now that they’ve achieved dominion over our large cultural institutions, they are moving on to the greener pastures of our mediating cultural institutions. Mediating institutions are,

“those institutions standing between the individual in his private life and the large institutions of public life.” They help bridge the gap between each of us and the overarching society that we live in.

The two mediating structures over which “progressives” have not yet gained total control are the family and the church, but they’re working like the devil to control those. Nothing delights “progressives” quite like the prospect of using power to quash parental rights, intellectual diversity, and the First Amendment.

The arrogance and ignorance of Leftists who control one of our large cultural institutions—the one by which “progressives” will capture the mediating institutions of family and church, thereby securing  their iron-grip on the larger institutions—is exposed in a short video of Kerrie Torres, Assistant Superintendent of Educational Services in the Brea Olinda Unified School District in California who was recently asked why the school is teaching high school freshmen about pedophilia and pederasty.

Torres answers,

This is done because we are discussing historical perspectives of how gender relations and different types of sexual orientations have existed in history. This is something that’s occurred in history, so this is really important to include.

Astonishing. She unashamedly admits teaching other people’s children about pederasty on the public dime, and in the process tacitly admits her belief that pederasty is a “sexual orientation.” Do Torres and her colleagues—you know, the people parents entrust to train up their children in the way they should go—really think it’s “important” for 14-year-olds or any other adolescent to learn about pederasty, which is anal intercourse between an adult man and a younger boy, usually an adolescent boy who serves as the “passive” partner?

Many believe pederasty is a form of pedophilia. Those people are unaware of the finer distinctions the sexually perverse among us make between different forms of perversion. “Chronophilias” are age-related sexual attractions, such as pedophilia, hebephilia, and ephebophilia—terms that signify the age of children that arouse the sexual interest of adults. Pedophiles prefer prepubescent children as their victims. Hebephiles like their victims to have reached puberty but not be too old, so 11-14 is their target group. Ephebophiles are fond of minors in later adolescence, preying on 15-19-year-olds.

Many “progressives” claim that “sexual orientation” (i.e., heterosexual, homosexual, and bisexual) is limited to sexual attraction between adult humans, which is how they get away with saying, for example, that men who prey exclusively on young teen boys are not homosexual. They assert that if an adult is not sexually attracted to adults, he has no sexual orientation, therefore, men who like only boys are not homosexual because homosexuality is a sexual orientation—which they don’t have. Got it?

But there are already some who believe “chronophilias” should be considered “sexual orientations,” which is what Torres seems to think. In the service of slowly normalizing yet another form of sexual deviance, they’ve renamed pedophilia “minor attraction,” and view it as a natural “sexual orientation” that ought not be stigmatized.

A 2013 article in the LA Times reports that

pedophilia once was thought to stem from psychological influences early in life. Now, many experts view it as a sexual orientation as immutable as heterosexuality or homosexuality. It is a deep-rooted predisposition—limited almost entirely to men—that becomes clear during puberty and does not change.

Who believes the current exclusion of hebephilia and ephebophilia from the list of sexual orientations will endure, and why should it? If, as the Left claims, “love is love,” isn’t age an arbitrary, socially-constructed, exclusionary limitation?

To conceal from scrutiny the next phase of the sexual devolution, Leftists huff indignantly that they would never sanction “minor attraction” because minors can’t offer consent. But how long will it be before “progressives” argue that 14-year-olds, 13-year-olds, and even 12-year-olds are, indeed, capable of offering meaningful consent. After all, if they are old enough to consent to an abortion or to be euthanized (as they are in Belgium where a 9- and 11-year-old chose to be euthanized), aren’t they old enough to consent to sex?

Moreover, many homosexuals believe not all sexual encounters between adults and minors are abusive. Many argue they’re even beneficial. Milo Yiannopoulis got himself into hot water for admitting what many homosexuals believe, which is that he was not harmed by his sexual interactions as a young teen with an adult man. Eve Ensler, lesbian and author of the infamous Vagina Monologues, wrote a scene about “sexual healing” between a 13-year-old girl and an adult woman—a scene she was forced to change due to public opposition. She changed the teen’s age to 16. Can’t have the public learning the unsavory truth about the homosexual community—yet.

In every society throughout history and across cultures that has accepted homosexuality, the dominant form it assumes is between an adult male and a pubescent boy. As more Americans become blinded to the wickedness of homosexuality or unwilling to accept the persecution that will come to those who speak truth about it, expect to see the Left clamoring to lower the age of consent.

Researcher Michael Seto, Forensic Research Director at the Royal Ottawa Health Care Group and Associate Professor of Psychiatry at the University of Toronto, calls  chronophilias “sexual orientations for age.” He explains that “up to 1 percent of men” experience pedophilia, which makes it perhaps twice as common as “transgenderism.” Pedophilic men say their enduring attraction began very early in life, and research suggests brain differences between pedophilic men’s brains and non-pedophilic men’s brains.

Aren’t these the same factors (i.e., age of emergence of attraction, intractability of attraction, and brain chemistry) that Leftists use to justify cultural approval of homosexuality?

Interestingly, Seto thinks that chronophilic sexual orientations are developmental errors:

I think chronophilias are the result of errors in age detection, where heterosexual male preferences for youth cues… are not offset by sexual maturity cues…. For pedophilia, hebephilia and ephebophilia, the youthfulness cues dominate.

This raises the question, why is no one permitted to examine whether a homosexual orientation—long known to be fluid—could be the result of some type of cue errors perhaps resulting from environmental factors?

Another question arises: Why should Torres stop at chronicling the chronophilia of pederasty for students. Since zoophilia has existed throughout history and since some view it as a sexual orientation, isn’t it equally important to have students study it?

In a study published in 2005 titled “Is zoophilia a sexual orientation,” researcher Hani Miletski wrote,

It was found that some people  (the majority of the participants in the current study) have feelings of love and affection for their animals, have sexual fantasies about them, and admit they are sexually attracted to animals—three components that describe sexual orientation. The current study further reveals that the majority of its participants reported being happy and not wanting to stop having sex with animals.

Why should speciesism—that is, “prejudice or discrimination based on species especially discrimination against animals”—be allowed to limit love and the definition of “sexual orientation”? There are people who identify as zoophiles. They not only enjoy sex with animals but feel affection for them. They too have existed throughout history. Torres should be chomping at the bit to teach teens about the love of man for horses.

The danger of including “sexual orientation” to antidiscrimination policies and laws should by now be obvious to all.

Two worldviews are colliding with cataclysmic results. The worldview shaped by historical Christianity views the world as a place purposefully created by God with a physical and moral reality, both of which are corrupted by the Fall. We need guidance to live rightly, and we rebel against God’s created order and guidance at our own temporal and eternal peril.

The alternative worldview shaped by worship of fallen man views the world as a place of randomness and purposelessness that self-creation and satiation of temporal desires provides the only meaning we can hope to find.

Theron expressed that vitiated and attenuated view when she said this about her children:

They were born who they are, and exactly where in the world both of them get to find themselves as they grow up and who they want to be, is not for me to decide. My job as a parent is to celebrate them and to love them and to make sure that they have everything they need in order to be what they want to be.

Neither Theron nor other “progressives” have a clue about the job of parents or the needs of children.

As America descends into spiritual, moral, and intellectual chaos, the first victims are children.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/When-Worlds-Collide-3.mp3

A bold voice for pro-family values in Illinois!

Click HERE to learn about supporting IFI on a monthly basis.

On February 26, the website Public Discourse published an article that includes the harrowing accounts of five mothers—one of whom is a lifelong Democrat, another a lesbian—whose daughters experienced Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria (ROGD).

These mothers are certain that the culture, including the professional mental health community, physicians, schools, peer socialization, and social media, are providing a distorted lens through which girls are viewing and misinterpreting discomfort and confusion that results from factors like trauma and pre-existing medical conditions, leading them to believe suddenly that they are, in reality, boys. One of the mothers writes,…

read more here

A sure sign that leftist lawmakers in Springfield are obsessively driven by the desire to use government money and power to advance an absurd, science-denying ideology is House Bill 922  sponsored by State Representative Linda Chapa LaVia (D-Aurora) that, if passed, will require every public middle and high school in the state to make tampons and sanitary napkins available for free in every boys’ bathroom.

You read that right. Every middle and high school in the state will have to add feminine hygiene dispensers to every boys’ restroom for all the menstruating boys. #AnotherUnfundedMandate.

“What ho?!” you may be exclaiming if you’ve been sequestered in a cloistered world in which science still appertains. Surely—you think—teachers know that boys don’t menstruate!

Oh, you naïve, antiquated, science-loving peeps. We’ve left modernity and post-modernity behind. We’ve even left “truthiness” behind.

We’ve now entered the post-science, post-rationality, post-truth era where pseudoscience—aided and abetted by Big Brother and his ugly twin Big “Trans”—in the service of absolute autonomy, amorality, and pagan sexuality reign—and destroy.

To be clear, the “menstruating boys” are confused girls who masquerade as boys. Leftist lawmakers believe we the people and our taxes should be forced to subsidize their confusion and masquerades.

A less costly—in both dollars and sense—compromise with anti-science cultists would be to allow girls who pretend to be boys to get their feminine hygiene products from school nurses, but “trans”-cultists and their ideological allies demand that all society pretend along with “trans”-identifying persons. “Trans”-cultists seek to force everyone to pretend the empress is an emperor.

Leftist lawmakers believe that commitments to compassion and inclusivity require Illinois taxpayers to facilitate a body- and soul-destroying fiction that harms these children—a fiction that is supported by no actual hard science. There is no conclusive, research-based hard science proving that girls with healthy, normally functioning anatomy and physiology can be born in boys’ bodies or vice versa. There is no conclusive, research-based hard science proving that if a girl experiences a mismatch between her subjective feelings about her sex and her objective biological sex that the error resides in her body as opposed to her mind. There is no conclusive, research-based hard science proving that all cross-sex-identifying children as well as all other children are best-served by adults facilitating a fiction.

Parents of public school children must understand that pronoun mandates and restroom diktats like this bill are teaching all children that biological sex has no intrinsic meaning relative to anything, including to feelings of modesty and the desire for privacy when undressing or engaged in personal bodily activities.

These intrusive, coercive mandates are teaching all children that the desires of opposite-sex impersonators take precedence over the desires of non-delusional people in every context.

These mandates are teaching all children that in order to be loving, compassionate, and inclusive, they must share private spaces with opposite-sex peers.

And parents must understand that these “trans” policies and the ideology taught to their children to rationalize these policies are desensitizing their children to co-ed private spaces. In other words, increasing numbers of children and teens are becoming unnaturally comfortable sharing restrooms and locker rooms with peers of the opposite sex.

It is our cowardice and complacency that allow these incremental changes to move forward, thereby ensuring what should be a shocking sexual revolution. We’re moving to a cultural place where it will be illegal to publicly recognize sexual differentiation in word or deed.

When you next contact your lawmakers and school leaders, make sure to ask them this question: “What is a woman?” Get back to me with their answers.

Take ACTION: Click HERE to send a message to your state representative to ask him/her to vote down HB 922.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/HB922.mp3