At 5:55 (CDT) this morning, President Donald Trump tweeted the following:

After consultation with my Generals and military experts, please be advised that the United States Government will not accept or allow Transgender individuals to serve in any capacity in the U.S. Military. Our military must be focused on decisive and overwhelming victory and cannot be burdened with the tremendous medical costs and disruption that transgender in the military would entail. Thank you.

Finally, a president who listens to the voices of reason, wisdom, and military expertise rather than to the cacophonous, incoherent voices of fools, Leftists, and military-antagonists.

This momentous decision comes at a critical juncture. The military was poised to allow men and women with serious psychological disorders to serve openly in the military.

Last September an Army Training Power Point presentation included this astounding “guideline”:

Understand that you many encounter individuals in barracks, bathrooms, or shower facilities with physical characteristics of the opposite sex despite having the same gender marker in DEERS [the army’s personnel system].

All Soldiers should be respectful of the privacy and modesty concerns of others. However, transgender Soldiers are not required or expected to modify or adjust their behavior based on the fact that they do not “match” other Soldiers.

As Americans are all too aware the disorder that threatens military order, cohesion, morale, and strength is the disorder that threatens the cohesion, strength, and social fabric of America. That disorder is gender dysphoria or as Leftists call it “transgenderism.”

Gender dysphoria leads to profoundly destructive actions that have moral, political, social, and military ramifications. Gender dysphoric men and women who wish they were the opposite sex are cross-dressing and engaging in chemical and surgical mutilation of their healthy bodies. They seek to force all of society to treat them as if they are the sex they are not. They seek to force all citizens to pretend that subjective, internal feelings about one’s sex are more important than objective, immutable biological sex. They seek to invade the restrooms, locker rooms, showers, shelters, semi-private hospital rooms, nursing home rooms, and sports teams of persons of the opposite sex. They seek to impose hefty fines on citizens who refuse to refer to them by pronouns that correspond to the sex they are not. They seek to force all citizens to pretend that men can menstruate, become pregnant, and “chest-feed.” They offer children as sacrifices to Moloch.

They also seek to serve openly in the military, which means impersonating and being housed with persons whose sex they do not share. That is an offense against nature and nature’s God, and a violation of the rights of the men and women who serve every American and every non-citizen who lives in this once-great nation.

What a grotesque outrage that so few Americans have said anything as the military stood poised to force men and women who are willing to sacrifice their lives for us to suffer the indignity of showering and toileting with persons of the opposite sex. If Leftists can get women in silly costumes to march for the mythical right to have the government subsidize feticide, conservatives should be able to get men and women to march against compulsory co-ed showers in the military.

We underpay these men and women and their families. We take for granted their service, forgetting how spouses and children are affected. We forget the suffering they endure when grievously injured in war. And then we say virtually nothing while a small group of biological-sex-rejecting persons with perverse desires impose their twisted, truth-denying vision of human nature on the rest of our young soldiers.

This anarchical sexual revolution is the most significant revolution in the history of the world and we treat it like another offensive Hollywood movie. Never in the course of human history has a society denied the reality, immutability, and meaning of the sexual binary. Subjective feelings do not trump reality. If Americans can’t be roused to defend the meaning of sexual differentiation—and yes, that will require enduring Leftist ire in the service of perversion—America doesn’t deserve to survive as a nation.

No matter how Americans feel about President Trump, his tweets, or his positions on other issues, the position he expressed this morning is something for which all Americans who care about the military should be thankful. And they should express their thanks to him.

Take ACTION: Click HERE to send President Trump a message thanking him for protecting the integrity of the military and preserving a strong national defense. Thank him for listening to our generals and military experts.

For up-to-the minute news, action alerts, coming events and more you can now sign up for IFI Text Alerts!

Stay in the loop by texting “IFI” to 555888 or click here: goo.gl/O0iRDc to enroll right away.

Click HERE to donate to IFI

“When you pull up your anchor and you have no moral compass that says true north, then increasingly you lose the ability to understand what’s normal,” warns Dr. Richard Land, who leads Southern Evangelical Seminary in Charlotte, North Carolina.

Land is commenting about so-called “bathroom bills” and transgendered people, a cultural battle in which some state governments have reacted to the relatively new controversy of mentally ill men stating they are women and demanding access to women’s restrooms and locker rooms.

The most infamous political fight took place in North Carolina, where then-Gov. Pat McCrory and legislators took action with bill HB2 after a Charlotte ordinance forced business owners to allow men to use women’s restrooms or be fined for refusing to do so.

Homosexual activists reacted as expected: McCrory was denounced as “transphobic” and a hater (and narrowly lost re-election); the Department of Justice announced it would sue; and LBGT-supporting companies were pressured to pressure state officials with a threat of fleeing corporations and lost jobs.

A year later, Texas lawmakers are currently in a special session dealing with the issue of bathroom policy. One of two bills submitted in the House would require people to use the bathroom, showers and other private facilities based on their born gender. Another bill deals strictly with schools.

Land says progressives, meanwhile, are increasingly unable to state what is moral and normal.

“And if nothing is normal,” he says “then everything is normal.”

OneNewsNow has reported how the American Psyschiatric Association softened the term “gender identify disorder” to “gender dysphoria” in 2013 under pressure from homosexual activists.

Beyond the issue of men identifying as women, there is also a left-wing demand to identify people according to their preferred gender, with supposed gender pronouns such as “ze” and “zir” used in place of “him” and “her.”

There is also an ongoing demand to address people by their self-identified gender identities, now numbering more than 50, such as “agender,” “pangender,” and “gender fluid.”

Much like the Charlotte ordinance, New York City is threatening to fine business owners who cite the wrong pronoun to transgendered customers.

The newest boundaries being pushed include a grown man who identifies as a little girl and a man-turned-woman who identifies as a dragon, and even a woman who identifies as blind after pouring drain cleaner in her eyes with the help of a psychologist.

Texans don’t agree with such loony demands, says Land, pointing to polling that suggests a majority of husbands and fathers oppose a biological male using the shower and restroom with their wives and daughters.

“Frankly, I’ll be very honest with you, I don’t really care who goes to the bathroom with me,” Land says. “I do care a great deal about who goes to the bathroom with my wife and my two daughters.”

This article was originally posted at OneNewsNow.com

Illinois is making national news again, and again for destructive public policy.

In an act of stunningly brazen wickedness, foolishness, and hubris, the Illinois Department of Children & Family Services (DCFS) has made radical revisions to policies regarding children who experience homoerotic attraction and/or gender dysphoria.

The DCFS, controlled—like every other government agency in Illinois—by ignorant “progressives,” has declared war on children and potential foster and adoptive families by changing rules to make affirmation of children’s homoerotic attraction and/or sexual confusion an absolute condition for employment, fostering or adopting, volunteering, or contracting with the DCFS.

Last night, DCFS director George Sheldon–Rauner’s pick in 2015–resigned, becoming the 8th director or acting director to leave the DCFS in the past five years. Sheldon leaves while still a subject of an ethics investigation and while the DCFS faces sustained and intensifying criticism for actions that have resulted in incomprehensible suffering for and even deaths of children under their care. In the midst of this turmoil, DCFS bureaucrats see fit to make radical rules changes that will further harm children.

If you can stomach it, read Appendix K of the DCFS procedures document titled “Support and Well-Being of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Questioning (LGBTQ) Children and Youth.” It promotes every doctrinaire and arguable assumption of the far Left’s sacred sexuality ideology and even includes a Leftist lexicon for use in their indoctrination efforts.

Appendix K includes the following:

1.)  A statement of purpose which mandates that everyone who works directly or indirectly with or for the DCFS—including all staff, volunteers, potential foster or adoptive families, and private agencies that contract with the DCFS—must affirm the homoerotic desires and/or biological sex-rejection of children under the care of DCFS (and I use the word “care” loosely).

2.)  Directives on how the DCFS will impose Leftist beliefs about homoeroticism and biological sex-rejection,  including through “mandatory training in LGBTQ competency. Specifically, LGBTQ training will be part of the retraining Child Welfare license, will be included as part of PRIDE training, and will be included in DCFS core training. DCFS and POS staff must complete additional, mandatory standalone LGBTQ training at least once per year. Agencies must include LGBTQ training in their training of volunteers. Annual training in LGBTQ competent care is required for all child welfare providers; whether or not they believe they have care for [sic] or currently care for any LGBTQ child/youth.”

3.)  Dictionary of Leftist sacred sexuality Newspeak, including the terms asexuality, bisexual, cisgender, coming out, culturally competent, gay, gender expansive, gender expression, gender identity, lesbian, LGBTQ, “preferred gender pronoun (PGP),” queer, “sex assigned at birth,” and transgender.

4.)  A directive on child placement which emphasizes in boldface that “In no instance should LGBTQ children/youth be placed with a non-affirming caregiver who is opposed to sexual orientations that differ from the caregiver’s own. Nor should LGBTQ children and youth be placed with caregivers who are unwilling/unable to support children and youth whose gender identity or gender expression differs from traditional expectation.”

5.)  A directive for caregivers on “choice of clothes, make-up, hairstyle, friends, and activities within appropriate boundaries (e.g., if a caregiver permits a cisgender heterosexual child/youth to date at a certain age, the caregiver may not prohibit a gay or transgender child/youth from dating). The child/youth’s chosen name and preferred gender pronoun (including gender-neutral pronouns such as “they” or “ze/hir”) must be respected.”

6.)  Advice regarding school restroom and locker room usage: “[T]ransgender students have the right to use the gendered school facilities (e.g., restrooms and locker rooms) that correspond to the student’s gender identity. Caseworkers and caregivers should assist children/youth in obtaining their school’s permission to use these facilities.” To help caregivers force schools to allow gender-dysphoric students into opposite-sex restrooms and locker rooms, the DCFS refers them to two of Illinois’ most vigorous promoters of sexual deviance: the ACLU and Illinois Safe Schools Alliance.

7.) A directive on body searches that states that “If a DCFS child/youth is to be body searched, cross-gender searches of transgender youth are prohibited. The child/youth most be searched by someone of the same gender as the child/youth’s gender identity unless the child/youth requests otherwise.” To clarify, this means that if a girl who identifies as a boy must be body-searched, the search must be conducted by a man—unless she objects because, you know, she’s actually a girl.

These changes are rationalized by the DCFS as serving the welfare of self-identified “LGBTQ” children. In the view of DCFS, these children cannot flourish unless their homoerotic desires or rejection of their sex is affirmed. In the view of DCFS, safety requires non-judgmentalism—well, except for their judgmentalism that permeates these changes and which, like arsenic in a cup of tea, is undetectable and lethal.

This is a government experiment based on Leftist theories being performed on children who can neither understand what is being done to them nor offer informed consent. And we taxpayers are footing the bill for an experiment that harms children.

The DCFS evidently doesn’t see the irony in its command that “Staff may not impose personal, organizational or religious beliefs on LGBTQ children, youth and families, and in no way should personal beliefs impact the way individual needs of children/youth or families are met.”

The entirety of the DCFS changes constitutes the imposition of arguable, leftist “personal and organizational beliefs” on children, youth, and families that will “impact the way the individual needs of children and youth are met.” The fact that the DCFS is imposing a set of beliefs through policy is revealed in its absurd, reality-denying reference to a “child/youth’s sex assigned at birth.” That is Leftist language. No child is “assigned” a sex at birth. The objective sex of children is identified at birth, and that sex can never change.

There is no research proving that children are best served by having gender dysphoria affirmed. The best research to date suggests that if gender dysphoria is not affirmed in young children, it diminishes over time. Do the omniscient powers that be at the DCFS believe it’s better for children to endure castration or double mastectomies, a lifetime of cross-sex hormone-doping with its unknown health risks, and social struggles than to accept their immutable sex? And do these government bureaucrats know with absolute certainty that when children experience a mismatch between their bodies and their subjective, internal sense of being male or female that the error rests with their healthy bodies?

Quite obviously, these changes preclude people of theologically orthodox Christian faith from fostering or adopting children who experience same-sex attraction or gender dysphoria. Denying people of theologically orthodox faith the opportunity to foster or adopt these children constitutes the antithesis of a commitment to diversity and puts the lie to DCFS’s claim to care about the needs of children. The number of available foster and adoptive families for these children who are in desperate need of love, guidance, and wisdom, will decrease. Children will be deprived of truly good families, families with mothers and fathers who can distinguish truth from falsehood. Through these changes, the DCFS has proven that the desires of adults supersede the needs of suffering children.

Take ACTION: Click HERE to contact Governor Rauner, your state senator, and state representative to express your opposition to the outrageous revisions made by the DCFS, which impose a far left-wing sexuality ideology under the cover of a purported effort to help children. In reality, these revisions harm children and families who would otherwise be willing and able to foster and adopt children who struggle with issues related to sexuality.

Listen to this as a podcast HERE.

Recent articles by Laurie Higgins:

Birth Certificates and the Cultural Extinction of Biological Sex

Questions About Restrooms and Locker Rooms Leftists Must Answer

“Trans”-Cultism and Sex-Selection Abortions

Dove Ad Features Real Dad Pretending to Be Real Mom

Download the IFI App!

We now have an IFI mobile app that enables us to deliver great content based on the “Tracks” you choose, including timely legislative alerts, cultural commentaries, upcoming event notifications, links to our podcasts, video reports, and even daily Bible verses to encourage you. This great app is available for Android and iPhones.

Key Features:

• It’s FREE!
• Specific content for serious Christians
• Performs a spiritual assessment
• Sends you daily Scriptures to encourage and equip you
• You determine when and how much content you get

Dove has just released a sad and repellent ad promoting its new product line: Baby Dove. The ad features young women sharing their views of mothering, most of which amount to self-indulgent, self-referential navel-gazing. And then there’s the fabulous Token ‘o’ the Day, a cross-dressing father trying to pass as a mother who tells us that when it comes to mothering “There’s no one right way to do it all.”

The ad begins with the ironic words, “Moms are redefining what it means to be a ‘good mom.’”

We hear first from Elise, a break-dancing mother of a toddler girl who says, “I live to be the best version of myself that I can be, and part of that is being her mom, but I live to dance.”

“Part” of being the best version of herself is being a mom to her daughter, but her lifeblood is dancing? Is that the message children long to hear? Or would a daughter rather hear that part of her mother’s best version of herself is dancing but that she lives to be a mother to her daughter?

Single mom Seung, a tech manager, shares that she is raising her son on her own: “I’m happy where I am….I get to make my parenting decisions on my own.”

Dove evidently wants to promote the idea that the autonomous self is the center of the mothering universe. Consulting no one but oneself makes the best mothers. Whatever happened to the Leftist notion that it takes an entire village to raise a child?

We hear from Jackie-the-Climber who extols the critical role climbing rocks plays in her life: “I don’t think I could be the mom that I wanna be without climbing in my life. It keeps me who I am and allows me to be a really good mom to Anna.”

Believing that beloved hobbies make us who we are epitomizes the idolatry of the current age in which people have “exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator.” We now worship and serve the hobbies of our creaturely selves.

And then there’s the crowning glory of the self-worshiping “mothers”: the male grad student “Shea.” With the hubris of science-deniers everywhere, giggling “Shea” proclaims that he and his wife—who is actually a woman—are both “moms” of their newborn son.

“Shea” inarguably has a sex. He is objectively and immutably a man. The lowest-bar requirement for mothers is that they are objectively female. The essential feature of mothers is their objective sex as females. Whatever else a mother is, she is first and necessarily a woman. This man is not now, nor ever can be a woman, and, therefore, he is not now, nor ever can be a mother.

This cross-dressing young father who rejects his sex has in effect abandoned his son. While looking inward to his own narcissistic and disordered desires, “Shea” ignores both the needs and future desires of his son who will long for a father who rejoices in his role as a father. His son will long for a father who isn’t a public spectacle. And his son will need a father to be a role model for him, to show him the way to become a man and to teach him to love his own maleness. “Shea” will instead teach his son to be ashamed of and guilty about his own natural and proper feelings of sorrow for his missing father.

One young woman encourages mothers to “Believe in yourself. Believe in yourself as a woman.” Ordinarily, this would suggest the platitudinous idea that young mothers should have confidence in their capacity to be mothers, which can be a daunting task for first-time moms. In the context, however, of “Shea’s” delusional belief that he can be a woman and a mother, it suggests the absurd idea that belief can alter reality.

If society accepts the delusional, irrational, absurd idea that men can become women and mothers, then the modern understanding of a world that actually exists is over—well, at least for a time.

And if a small group of delusional people and their disciples are able to force society to pretend that men can become women and mothers or vice versa, if they are able to force citizens to participate in this fiction by forcing them to use opposite-sex pronouns when referring to gender-dysphoric persons, we will no longer live in a free society but under tyranny.

The message of the ad is that good mothers are those who fully embrace their own selfish desires and their own internal sense of right, wrong, and reality. Maybe no man is an island but in Dove’s view, a good mother is.

The ad concludes with these audacious and ironic words: “To #RealMoms everywhere.”

We need your support!

Written by Hendrik van der Breggen

Should the use of public multiple-occupancy restrooms, showers, and changing facilities be based on biological sex or “gender identity”? I think the answer is biological sex.

Before I set out the reason for my answer, here are four clarifications.

Clarification 1. All people are made in God’s image and deserve respect, including those who identify as “transgender.” (To identify as transgender is to feel oneself is, or wishes oneself to be, the opposite of one’s biological sex; a.k.a. gender dysphoria, formerly known as gender identity disorder.)

Clarification 2. According to John G. Stackhouse Jr., “Gender dysphoria in particular, and the wider range of trans issues, are matters disputed at the highest levels of psychological and psychiatric expertise.” (Of related interest: A tracking of children who at one time reported transgender feelings reveals that 70-80 percent of these children spontaneously lost those feelings.)

Clarification 3. The percentage of the general population that is transgender is small, apparently less than 1 percent and perhaps even less than 0.5 percent.

Clarification 4. Love requires careful thinking. In our desire to promote the well being of some, we also need to consider the well being of others.

So why do I think the use of public multiple-occupancy restrooms, showers, and changing facilities should be based on biology instead of gender identity?

My reason is simple: prudence.

I think it’s prudent (i.e., an exercise in sound judgment on practical matters) to protect girls and women from the very real possibility of sexual predators and perverts.

No, I am not saying that all transgender people are sexual predators and perverts (though perhaps some are).

Rather, I’m saying that there are too many rapists and pedophiles (whether transgender or heterosexual or whatever) from whom we, as responsible citizens, must protect women and children. The concern here, then, is not with transgenders, but with rapists and pedophiles who pretend to be transgender.

We must also protect women and children from the voyeurism of men and boys pretending to be transgender.

In other words, opening physically intimate spaces such as public multiple-occupancy bathrooms, showers, etc. to anyone who claims a transgender identity allows sexual predators to stalk their prey much, much too easily.

Prudence also involves practicality. The fact is that girls and women account for roughly 50 percent of the population whereas (as mentioned) transgenders account for less than 1 or 0.5 percent.

Yes, the well being of transgenders is important. But their bathroom and shower room needs can be easily accommodated by adding some single-occupancy gender neutral facilities. And this can be done without opening all women’s bathrooms and shower rooms to every man or boy who claims he feels female. Ditto for men’s facilities and women or girls who feel they’re male.

Let me put it this way: I care about the comfort and well being of a transgender person in his/ her using a bathroom or shower room, but I think it’s wise not to allow this care to trump the comfort and well being of my wife, daughters-in-law, aunts, mother-in-law, and future grand-children.

U.S. Senator Ted Cruz put it this way: “As a father of daughters, I’m not terribly excited about men being able to go alone into a bathroom with my daughters…And I think that is a perfectly reasonable determination for…people to make.”

Stackhouse puts it this way: “[Government and school] authorities can be sure that many children will be uncomfortable and even traumatized by the presence of members of the other sex in bathrooms, change rooms, gym classes, swimming classes, and the like. To knowingly plan to upset millions of young people in the disputed interests of the very, very few is not enlightened, but [ideologically] doctrinaire.”

So, should any person who claims to feel they are the opposite sex be permitted to use whatever public restroom, shower room, and other related facilities they choose?

The reasonable (and non-transphobic) answer is No.

For further thought:

• The Unintended Victims of Bathroom Bills and Locker Room Policies(11 minute video)
• These Sex Assault Victims Want You To Know Why Open Bathroom Bills Are a Bad Idea (article for above video)
• Bathrooms, Identity, Rights, and Wisdom: Helping All Students in the Light of Trans* Issues (by John G. Stackhouse Jr.)
• A Rape Survivor Speaks Out About Transgender Bathrooms (by Kaeley Triller)
• Transgenderism: A Pathogenic Meme (by Paul McHugh)
• I Used to Be Transgender (by Walt Heyer)
• I Am Ryland – The Story of a Male-Identifying Little Girl Who Didn’t Transition (by Lindsay Leigh Bentley)

Dr. Hendrik van der Breggen is an associate professor of philosophy at Providence University College, a Christian college  in Manitoba, Canada.

This article was originally posted at Dr. Henrik’s Apologia blog.

The recent “March for Women” in Washington, D.C., might have been  a bit vague in its goal, but it sure was vulgar its execution. It also provided nice fodder for this series on identity politics.

This is from the Free Beacon — not The Onion. Really. I’m not kidding. Here is the title and subtitle of a post from freebeacon.com:

Transgender Activists Upset Over ‘White Cis Women March’
Women’s march ‘dangerous space’ with ‘oppressive message’ that ‘having a vagina is essential to womanhood’

If you’re keeping score, here’s the basic substance:

Transgender activists are upset that the women’s march over the weekend was not inclusive to biological men who identify as women, as the protest presented an “oppressive message” that having a “vagina is essential to womanhood.”

Saturday’s event to oppose the inauguration of Donald Trump was largely a “white cis women march,” with too many pictures of female reproductive organs and pink hats, according to trans women and “nonbinary” individuals interviewed by Mic.com.

A fight is brewing between “trans-exclusionary radical feminists,” or “TERFs,” and transwomen, according to the article, “How the Women’s March’s ‘genital-based’ feminism isolated the transgender community.”

The women’s march had an over-reliance on slogans and posters depicting gender norms, like using pink to represent women and girls, said some transgender activists who boycotted the march.

Okee dokee. You can confirm that this isn’t from The Onion by clicking here. Here is just one more excerpt from someone offended by the event:

‘I believe there’s a lot of inequality that has to do with genitals—that’s not something you can separate from the feminist movement,’ the transwoman added. ‘But I feel like I’ve tried to get involved in feminism and there’s always been a blockade there for trans women.’

On the topic of “misguided” “genital-based womanhood” that was espoused by the women’s march, let us quickly move to our paraphilia of the day: Autoandrophilia. First you need to know that for the sake of time I will occasionally include similar paraphilias — in this case, the connecting theme is the need for a terrific imagination. For the sake of space, I’m going to post the abbreviated definitions — you can follow the individual links to learn more. Since I have no idea what the proper listing order should be, let’s just go with, uh, ladies first:

Autoandrophilia: A biological female imagining herself as a male

Autogynephilia: A biological man imagining himself as a female

Autonepiophilia: The image of one’s self in the form of an infant.

Autopedophilia: The image of one’s self in the form of a child.

Autozoophilia: The image of one’s self in the form of an animal or anthropomorphized animal.

I hope our readers won’t mind the abbreviated label “auto*philia” representing all of the above.

Let’s close with a question: Will wannabe auto*philia-loving journalists form professional journalism associations (such as this one) to monitor and exploit the Fourth Estate in the service of breaking down barriers and normalizing auto*philia?

Here’s another question: if America is to be truly free, shouldn’t all sexcentric-identified individuals be treated equally under the law?

Lastly, here is related short interview by Fox News’ Tucker Carlson — here’s the headline and lead-in:

Obama’s transgender bathroom mandate and strange bedfellows

One Christian organization and a radical feminist group are the most unlikely tag team partners in a challenge to former president’s transgender bathroom order.

Image credit: www.webneel.com.

Articles in this series, from oldest to newest:

Identity Politics and Paraphilias: Introducing a Series

Identity Politics and Paraphilias: Incest

Identity Politics and Paraphilias: Body Integrity Identity Disorder

Identity Politics and Paraphilias: Impact & Transgenders

Transgenderism a Choice or Disorder?

Why the Term “Sexual Orientation” is Nonsense

Identity Politics and Paraphilias: Man’s Search for Meaning

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

Leftists smugly ask what they perceive to be THE “gotcha” question about trannies in restrooms: “So, are we going to have genital police?” To those smugsters, I ask, “How will you determine whether the burly, bearded, bulging-biceped person in the women’s restroom or locker room is a member of the “trans” cult or a predator pretending to be a member of the “trans” cult?”

Please read this short blog post from liberal California mom Kristen Quintrall whose eyes were (partially) opened by an experience in the women’s restroom at Disneyland:

I didn’t know if I was going to write this blog or not. A part of me was scared it’d be shared as some transgender hot piece about yet another homophobic mom lashing out at Disney and then I’d have to deal with the wrath of the internet telling me to kill myself. So let me be clear. This isn’t that story. This is a story about a biological man in the women’s restroom.

I’ve lived in Los Angeles for over a decade and have seen my fair share of transgender/gender fluid people. They in no way offend me. I’d consider myself pretty progressive and tolerant of most things….But how transgender people feel, how they choose to dress or any surgeries they get, don’t infringe on any parts of my life, so I support their decision to live as they see fit. I’ve also seen my fair share of transgender women in the women’s restroom before. Not ALL the time. But over the past few years, I’d say 4-5 that I noticed. Men…who were in some stage of transition and making every attempt to be a woman from mascara to heels. Transgenders who certainly felt comfortable in the women’s room and probably frightened to go into the men’s. At these times, I smiled…I peed…and life went on. But 2 weeks ago something very different happened. 

I was at Disneyland with my son, my friend and her son. We were over in California Adventure in the food court area. We’d just finished eating and decided to pee before we headed out to The Little Mermaid. I went to the bathroom while she watched our boys in their strollers, and then I did the same…. 

I was off to the side waiting with the two boys, when I noticed a man walk into the restroom. My first thought was “Oh sh*t, he’s walked in the wrong restroom by mistake. lol” He took a few more steps, at which point he would’ve definitely noticed all the women lined up and still kept walking. My next thought was, “Maybe he’s looking for his wife…or child and they’ve been in here a while.” But he didn’t call out any names or look around. He just stood off to the side and leaned up against the wall. At this point I’m like, “WTF? Ok there is definitely a very manly hispanic man in a Lakers jersey who just walked in here. Am I the only one seeing this?” I surveyed the room and saw roughly 12 women, children in tow…staring at him with the exact same look on their faces. Everyone was visibly uncomfortable. We were all trading looks and motioning our eyes over to him…like “what is he doing in here?” Yet every single one of us was silent. And this is the reason I wrote this blog. 

If this had been 5 years ago, you bet you’re a*s every woman in there would’ve been like, “Ummm what are you doing in here?”, but in 2017? the mood has shifted. We had been culturally bullied into silenced. Women were mid-changing their baby’s diapers on the changing tables and I could see them shifting to block his view. But they remained silent. I stayed silent. We all did. Every woman who exited a stall and immediately zeroed right in on him…said nothing. And why? B/c I…and I’m sure all the others were scared of that “what if”. What if I say something and he says he “identifies as a woman” and then I come off as the intolerant a*shole….? So we all stood there, shifting in our uncomfortableness…trading looks. I saw two women leave the line with their children. Still nothing was said. An older lady said to me out loud, “What is he doing in here?” I’m ashamed to admit I silently shrugged and mouthed, “I don’t know.” She immediately walked out…from a bathroom she had every right to use without fear.

So there lingered this unspoken doubt everyone had….that .00001% chance this wasn’t a man. Let me be clear. This was totally a man. If this wasn’t a man, this was a woman who had fully transitioned via surgery and hormones into a man and had also gotten an adam’s apple implant, chest hair and size 9-10 shoes ….and at that point, wtf are you doing in the women’s restroom?

And let me be clear, my problem wasn’t JUST that there was a man in the restroom. Its that he wasn’t even peeing, washing his hands or doing anything else that you’d do in a restroom. He was just standing off to the side looking smug…untouchable… doing absolutely nothing. He had to of noticed that every woman in the long line was staring at him. He didn’t care. He then did a lap around the restroom walking by all the stalls. You know, the stalls that have 1 inch gaps by all the doors hinges so you can most definitely see everyone with their pants around their ankles…..

So here I am…writing this blog, because honestly I need answers. We can’t leave this situation ambiguous any more. The gender debate needs to be addressed….and quickly. There have to be guidelines. It can’t just be a feeling. I’m sorry. I wish it could, but it can’t. I’m fine going by “if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck…it’s a duck.”…But this notion that we’re shamed into silence b/c we might offend someone, has gone too far.

There was a man in the bathroom. Not transgender. There was a man who felt entitled to be in the woman restroom, because he knew no one would say anything. There were 20-25 people by the time I left, who were scared and uncomfortable by his ominous presence. And the only thing stopping us, was our fear of political correctness and that the media has told us we don’t know what gender is anymore. I never want to be in the position again. Im not asking for permission to tell transgender people to get out my bathroom. I need to know it’s ok to tell a man, who looks like a man, to get the f*ck out. Gender just can’t be a feeling. There has to be science to it. DNA, genitals, amount of Sephora make up on your face, pick your poison, but as a very progressive woman…I’m sorry it can’t just be a feeling when theres but a mere suggestion of a door with a peep hole separating your eyes from my vagina or my children’s genitals.

I commend Quintrall for her courage and partial insight, but she doesn’t see the intellectual and moral incoherence that yet animate her new position.

She says this man wasn’t transgender. He was a “biological male.” She says there “has to be science to it.” Well, science tells us that the sex of persons can never change. Men who identify as “trans” remain always biological males. So, the man who through castration and cross-sex hormone-doping looks like a woman and talks like a woman remains forever a man. And women should be no more comfortable with the frock-wearing, Sephora-painted man sashaying past women doing their business in stalls than they would be if a construction worker in Carhartts lumbered past the stall door.

Objective sex either matters in private spaces or doesn’t matter. And if it doesn’t matter—if biological sex has no intrinsic meaning—we should eradicate all single-sex contexts everywhere. That would include restrooms, dressing rooms, locker rooms, showers, saunas, steam rooms, and semi-private hospital rooms.

Quintrall suggests that if this man-appearing person were actually a fully-“transitioned” “transman” (i.e., a woman), she should be using the men’s restroom. Wrong. Women cannot become men, and no women—not even women in disguise—belong in men’s restrooms.

And this brings us to the thorny problem of where these confused people should go to do their private business. Not to be unkind, but that’s a problem of their own creation. With regard to restrooms, most places of public accommodation have single-occupancy family restrooms that fully-disguised men and women can use. With regard to locker rooms, they’re out of luck. They should change and shower at home.

If people would bother to read more deeply on this critical cultural issue—that is, the meaning of sexual differentiation—they would learn that sexual anarchists seek to obliterate any and all public recognition of and respect for sexual differentiation.

The ignorant among us do not yet know that the “gender” eradication movement believes that “identifying” as the opposite sex requires nothing more than a verbal assertion. No diagnosis, no cross-dressing, no cross-sex hormone-doping, no surgery needed. Don’t misunderstand me. None of those can transmute men into women or vice versa. Unfortunately, I hear even from some purported conservatives that they’re fine with men who wish they were women using women’s restrooms as long as they’ve been castrated. But such a statement implies that the only issue with trannies in private spaces is the risk of physical predation in the form of peeping or assault. It’s not.

The central issue is the meaning of objective, immutable biological sex.

IFI Text Alerts!

For up-to-the minute news, action alerts, coming events and more you can now sign up for IFI Text Alerts!

Stay in the loop with IFI by texting “IFI” to 555888 to be enrolled right away.

Last time we introduced transgenderism, the next letter on the LGB…T march into the new world. There is way too much to cover in just one more post but I’ll do my best. If you’re like me, you’re pretty tired of this topic after the past couple of years.

We left off with the first paragraph from the transgender Wikipedia page — here are the third and fourth paragraphs:

The degree to which individuals feel genuine, authentic, and comfortable within their external appearance and accept their genuine identity has been called transgender congruence. Many transgender people experience gender dysphoria, and some seek medical treatments such as hormone replacement therapy, sex reassignment surgery, or psychotherapy. Not all transgender people desire these treatments, and some cannot undergo them for financial or medical reasons.

Most transgender people face discrimination at and in access to work, public accommodations, and healthcare. They are not legally protected from discrimination in many places.

Later on the page under the heading LGBT Community our Wikipedia friends provide some helpful information:

The concepts of gender identity and transgender identity differ from that of sexual orientation. Sexual orientation describes an individual’s enduring physical, romantic, emotional, or spiritual attraction to another person, while gender identity is one’s personal sense of being a man or a woman.

Got that? Here is Matt Barber:

[T]here remains a larger question still. If a person’s “actual sex” needn’t be rooted in biological reality, then why should anything be rooted in biological reality? […] As long as we’re tinkering with scientific and moral truth, why stop at a person’s biologically determined and fixed sex? Why stop at “gender identity”?

I’ll wager that next year Reuters scores a 150 percent on HRC’s “equality index” if it offers a category for “species identity.” If “a person’s innate, deeply felt psychological identification” is all that matters, then who is Reuters — who are any of us — to discriminate if an employee wants to get in touch with his inner horse and run the Kentucky Derby?

For that matter, what about “racial identity?” Again, why the intolerant and arbitrary “gender-identity” narrow-mindedness? Roseanne Barr is a short, obnoxious white woman today, but who’s to say that tomorrow she won’t develop an “innate, deeply felt psychological identification” as a seven-foot black man? Watch out, NBA.

Three years ago at American Thinker, Chad Felix Greene penned the article, “Transphobia: A Reasonable Response?” In it, he summed up some important recent history:

The DSM – 5 (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders) in 2013 changed the condition from Gender Identity Disorder to Gender Dysphoria. This was celebrated by the LGBT (the “T” is for Transgender) community as a victory for equality.

The goal was to “remove the ‘stigma’ associated with having a mental illness.” Greene quotes one supporter of the change: “A right-winger can’t go out and say all trans people are mentally ill…”

Green weighs in:

Regardless of the opinion if Transgenderism is a mental illness, a biological error, a personal choice or an emotional and psychological imperative we are free to embrace or dismiss the concept. By demanding that all people accept gender expression as relative to the presenter, we are stigmatizing natural impulses. It is wrong to demand that a person be labeled as a bigot for not viewing another person as that person demands to be viewed. In the end liberals do not create a more tolerant and open world, they merely create new and irrational categories of people to discriminate against. Appreciating the personal journey of an individual changing their gender is equally as tolerant as disapproving of the fluid manipulation of gender in the first place.

It might seem as if we are jumping back and forth between topics — but we’re not — they’re all “identities,” and thus all related.

Up next: Why the Term “Sexual Orientation” is Nonsense.

IFI exists to serve the Christian community in Illinois with email alerts, video reports, pastors’ breakfasts, special forums, worldview conferences and cultural commentaries. We do not accept government funds nor do we run those aggravating popup ads to generate funds.  We depend solely on the support of readers like you.

If you appreciate the work and ministry of IFI, please consider a tax-deductible donation to sustain our endeavors.  It does a difference.

As with many topics, identity politics can be approached on any number of levels, such as intellectual, spiritual, and emotional.

Yet, too few Americans actually talk about what we’re really talking about when the subject of the “LGBT community”/identity politics comes up. LGBT represents only four letters — thus, 4 identities.

What are the terms of this expanding identity politics phenomenon, and what is the long range impact going to be on our society and culture? What is the nature of human identity, and has God had something to say about it? What’s the proper response to those with deep feelings about who they are? Like the old Almond Joy/Mounds candy bar commercial — sometimes they feel like a nut, sometimes they don’t.

Many people are writing about the increasing difficulty of taking all of this seriously. New York City now recognizes over 30 “gender” identities. Here is Jazz Shaw writing at HotAir.com:

If the government is willing to not only recognize but mandate the acceptance of a person’s desired gender rather than their actual sex, why should there be any barriers at all. What about people suffering from Cotard’s Syndrome? They fervently believe that they are undead… literally zombies walking the Earth. Can Uncle Sam declare them dead just to honor that belief and force the medical community to treat them as corpses? While that may sound like an extreme comparison, it’s actually the same thing. There is precisely as much scientific evidence that a man identifying as a “transgender woman” is actually female as there is that a Cotard’s sufferer is actually a zombie.

Over at First Things, Katherine Kersten writes about “gender conforming” and “gender-nonconforming.” She writes:

The Judeo-Christian vision, which shaped Western civilization for 1,600 years, holds that God created man—body and soul—with purpose and meaning in an ordered universe. But the post-Christian worldview fast replacing it has no place for God, and perceives no purpose in nature. Christian man has become “psychological man” and the soul has become the self, in the words of Philip Rieff. The free-floating self—unconstrained by reality—is now believed to forge its own “identity” through a creative assertion of will.

Post-Christian man views his body as a tabula rasa—a canvas on which to express his identity and exert his will. In fact, the more contrary to nature one’s new self is, the more “authentic” it can claim to be. The recent mania for tattoos and piercings is a case in point. The desire to be free of the human condition and its limitations has ancient roots.

“Today,” Kersten writes, “transgender advocates are creating a Potemkin Village—built on hormones, surgery, and chest-binders—to solidify the illusion on which their magical reality is based.”

In the near term, transgender ideology will further polarize society and diminish the shared civic space where liberals and conservatives can fruitfully coexist… Longer term, it will mount an escalating attack on the family and religious institutions, the perennial targets of totalitarian forces.

So identity politics is not just about the confused emotional life of “progressives.” Instead, it is a threat to family and religious institutions, the very building blocks of Western Civilization. Again, here is Katherine Kersten:

As we enter the world of fantasy—when reality ceases to matter—it is impossible to predict where our society will crash against nature, as it inevitably will.

It’s time for our paraphilia of the day, and it’s one I’ll only introduce today and revisit with more next time: transgenderism. Wikipedia’s “transgender” page has been rewritten since I cited it a few years ago — and the first section runs four paragraphs. Here is just the first one:

Transgender people are people who have a gender identity, or gender expression, that differs from their assigned sex. Transgender people are sometimes called transsexual if they desire medical assistance to transition from one sex to another. Transgender is also an umbrella term: in addition to including people whose gender identity is the opposite of their assigned sex (trans men and trans women), it may include people who are not exclusively masculine or feminine (people who are genderqueer, e.g. bigender, pangender, genderfluid, or agender). Other definitions of transgender also include people who belong to a third gender, or conceptualize transgender people as a third gender. Infrequently, the term transgender is defined very broadly to include cross-dressers, regardless of their gender identity.

Got it? Let’s close with our next question: Will the expression of disapproval of transgenderism be deemed bullying or hate speech? Of course we already know the answer to that is yes.

Up next: Transgenderism a Choice or Disorder?

Articles in this series, from oldest to newest:

Identity Politics and Paraphilias: Introducing a Series
Identity Politics and Paraphilias: Incest
Identity Politics and Paraphilias: Body Integrity Identity Disorder
Identity Politics and Paraphilias: Impact & Transgenders
COMING SOON: Identity Politics and Paraphilias: Transgenderism a Choice or Disorder?
COMING SOON: Identity Politics and Paraphilias: Why the Term “Sexual Orientation” is Nonsense
COMING SOON: Identity Politics and Paraphilias: Man’s Search for Meaning
COMING SOON: Identity Politics and Paraphilias: LGBT is Not a Color

Please subscribe to the IFI YouTube Channel to get timely
video reports & other special presentations!

For decades the Left has embarked on a science- and morality-defying quest to advance a sexuality ideology that undermines human flourishing. There is no better illustration of that than the radical “trans”-formation of America with regard to “transgenderism.”

Rhetorical clarity

“Progressives” invent or reinvent language to serve their ideological purposes. So, let’s simplify and clarify matters. In this article, “sex” refers to one’s objective, immutable biological sex. “Gender” is a synonym for sex. “Gender identity” refers to a person’s subjective feelings about his or her sex. Men who pretend to be women are pretend-women. And men and women who accept their sex are normal men and women (not “cismen” or “ciswomen” as Leftists call them).

Remember, no one has an ethical obligation to accept Leftist assumptions, use Leftist language, or acquiesce to Leftist demands based on those assumptions and advanced through tortured Leftist language.

Safety

The most radical demand made by Leftists is that society must sexually integrate spaces in which private activities are engaged in, that is to say, activities that involve bodily functions and undressing.

Much of the opposition to co-ed restrooms, locker rooms, showers, shelters, and semi-private hospital rooms focuses on the risks posed to women when objectively male persons are allowed in these private spaces.

Leftists respond that there is no evidence that men who wish they were women pose any risk to women and that pretend-women have been using women’s restrooms for years without incident. What this argument ignores is that allowing cross-dressing men into women’s private spaces makes it easier for male predators to access women’s facilities by claiming to be “transwomen.”

The blog GenderTrender illuminates this real danger:

One of the tropes Transjacktivists use to promote and legalize their desire to eliminate female spaces is to assert that males with GID are speshul snowflakes or claim that males wouldn’t adopt transgenderism in order to prey on women. Or that males who are arrested repeatedly for getting off on watching women perform intimate activities (in places they assume they are free from males) wouldn’t go through the trouble of putting on a wig that makes those same activities legal….Are you out of your mind? Why wouldn’t a guy who risks arrest repeatedly to invade women’s space comply with measures which make his activities legal?? It’s considerably less inconvenient to put on a skirt and some lippy than to be arrested and processed, make bail, go before a judge, etc….

Transjacktivists claim that arrest statistics for peeping and perving don’t show a sharp increase in states where men are allowed in women’s spaces. Well of course they don’t! Making a formerly illegal behavior LEGAL seldom results in more arrests for (now legal) behavior. Duh!

The truth is guys do this sh*t all the time. And they’ll do whatever it takes to perv on females. Here are some of the things they’ll do to get into female spaces:

1. Hide cameras and microphones in female spaces.
2. Crawl through ventilation ducts to view female spaces.
3. Install double mirrors to view female spaces.
4. Drill holes in walls to peep women’s spaces.
5. Place cameras in shopping bags next to females wearing skirts.
6. Risking arrest—and repeat arrest—sneaking into women’s restrooms.

Another Leftist argument regarding safety goes like this: If bathrooms correspond to objective sex, then women who wish they were men and are lumbering about looking like burly men would be compelled to use women’s restrooms. Once burly, bearded women with bulging biceps are seen in women’s restrooms, actual men who are predators will be able to freely enter women’s restrooms looking like the men they are (no need to cross-dress). If, upon entering women’s restrooms, these objectively male predators are questioned, they can merely lie, claiming they are actually “transmen” (i.e., women who are pretending to be men) but aren’t permitted to use the men’s restrooms because of archaic restroom policies that require restrooms to correspond to actual sex. Therefore, according to Leftists, the threat of sexual assault actually increases unless restroom policies allow men who are pretending to be women in women’s restrooms. Got that?

The logical outworking of the “trans” ideology

So, let’s make this quagmire a tad more quaggy and miry.

In challenging current “genital-based” restroom policies, Leftists snottily ask who will be performing “genital inspections.” Let’s assume sexuality-perverts (i.e., those who seek to pervert a proper understanding of all matters sexual) manage to win “gender-identity-based” restroom policies. Who is going to do “gender-identity” inspections? What will society do with those who “identify” as genderfluid, bigender, or trigender? What will be required to establish a “transwoman” or “transman” identity? Must they cross-dress? Take puberty-blockers? Take cross-sex hormones? Have their breasts amputated and fake-penises affixed to their nether regions or conversely have their testes amputated and fake breasts affixed upstairs? In Barack Obama and Loretta Lynch’s brave new world, nothing would be required for men to access women’s locker rooms other than their assertion that they “identify” as women.

Now that cross-dressing has been released from the confines of closets and more elaborate disguises are chemically and surgically available, restroom and locker room use has been complicated. Pretend-men whose use of cross-sex hormones, body-mutilating surgeries, and cross-dressing render them visually indistinguishable from actual men does complicate restroom use for actual men and for women who won’t want bearded ladies in their facilities. Allowing pretend-women, whose expensive costumes conceal their immutable nature, to use opposite-sex restrooms and locker rooms becomes equally problematic.

But who’s to blame for this new problem?

The blame rests with those who subordinate commonsense and truth about the nature and meaning of objective, immutable sex to disordered subjective desires and perverse ideas about objective, immutable sex. And now the chief promoters of sin-bred foolishness and confusion are asserting that society has a moral obligation to acquiesce further to the corrosive effects of their sin-bred confusion and foolishness.

Title IX and Title VII

How are Leftist organizations making headway in public schools? They’re doing so by abusing Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 that prohibits discrimination based on “sex” in public schools. Unelected Leftist bureaucrats with no lawmaking authority in Obama’s Department of Education decided that the word “sex” in Title IX includes “gender identity.” Based on that fanciful redefinition, they have made the ludicrous claim that schools are prohibited from maintaining separate restrooms or locker rooms for objectively male and female students.

To make this rhetorical leap, these bureaucrats ignored this pesky part of Title IX:

A recipient [of federal funds] may provide separate toilet, locker room, and shower facilities on the basis of sex.

Let’s hope that the new administration undoes the damage done by the Obama Administration.

Leftists who focus their efforts on delegitimizing concerns over safety ignore that safety is not the only concern. The other and equally important issue concerns the meaning of sexual differentiation. Policies that mandate that restroom and locker room usage can no longer correspond to sex embody the false idea that the objective sex of humans has no intrinsic meaning relative to modesty and physical privacy. Accepting such a subversive notion paves the way to the end of sex-segregation everywhere.

Policies mandating co-ed restrooms and locker rooms in our elementary, middle, and high schools embody and teach lies. They teach all children that in order to be kind, inclusive, and socially just, they must relinquish their privacy. Such policies teach that physical embodiment as male or female has no intrinsic meaning related to modesty and privacy.

The Left is attempting the same rhetorical slight of tongue with Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which is even broader and therefore more dangerous in its application. Even churches may be vulnerable to federal lawsuits based on charges of “sex” discrimination.

If schools, churches, restaurants, health clubs, hospitals, and shelters are prohibited from “discriminating” based on either objective biological sex or “gender identity” (i.e., subjective feelings about sex), their private spaces will inevitably become co-ed. Once objectively male gender-dysphoric persons are allowed in women’s restrooms, on what basis would normal men be prohibited from entering  women’s restrooms? Prohibiting men from accessing women’s restrooms because they’re men would be unjustifiable because objectively male persons would have already been granted access, and prohibiting men from accessing women’s restrooms because they’re “cisgender” would be deemed discrimination based on “gender identity.” And so the Leftist agenda to eradicate all public recognition and respect for sexual differentiation will have been achieved.

Conclusion

This is a crucial battle to fight.

Language matters. “Progressives” understand this more than conservatives. Do not use opposite-sex pronouns when referring to gender-dysphoric persons who are pretending to be the sex they are not. Do not use the terms “transgender,” “transman,” “transwoman,” or “cis” anything.

Do not share restrooms or locker rooms with opposite-sex persons. Ignore the false accusation that valuing the feelings of modesty and desire for privacy that derive from sex differences is a sign of hatred and ignorance.

And fight policies in your local schools that mandate the grammatically incorrect use of pronouns and that permit co-ed restrooms and locker rooms. Yes, lawsuits are expensive, but fighting for the right to recognize and respect sexual differentiation in private spaces in public schools is worth the cost.

Read more recent articles from Laurie:

New Trier High School Avoids Diversity Like the Plague

Highlights Magazine for Children Affirms Homoeroticism

Cub Scouts Reject Girl Who Wishes She Were a Boy

Join IFI at our Feb. 18th Worldview Conference

We are excited about our third annual Worldview Conference featuring world-renowned theologian Dr. Frank Turek on Sat., Feb. 18, 2017 in Barrington. Dr. Turek is s a dynamic speaker and the award-winning author of “I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist”

Join us for a wonderful opportunity to take enhance your biblical worldview and equip you to more effectively engage the culture:

Click HERE to learn more or to register!

Chloe Jennings-White, a 61-year-old research scientist in Utah who was a Fulbright scholar and has a Ph.D. in Organic Chemistry from Cambridge University, has known since she was 4-years-old that she is different. She feels uncomfortable with her normal, healthy, fully functioning body. She experiences a mismatch between her physical body and her mental image of her body. In an effort to achieve consonance between her body and her “identity,” she has engaged in risky activities and self-harm, hoping that injuries would result in the type of body with which she identifies. For years in private, she used props to pretend she had the body she wanted, but now she engages in these behaviors publicly.

Chloe Jennings-White identifies as a paraplegic and is part of the “transabled” community. She suffers from Body Integrity Identity Disorder (BIID), and careens about in a wheelchair wearing leg braces. Jennings-White reported that in 2010, she found a doctor overseas who was “willing to help her become disabled by cutting her sciatic and femoral nerves, but she could not afford” the $25,000 cost.

Oh, I almost forgot. In addition to identifying as a paraplegic, Jennings-White identifies as a woman. Chloe Jennings-White is, in reality, a man, formerly known as Clive. (Interestingly, according to a 2011 study, 25% of those who suffer from BIID identify as homosexual, while homosexuals constitute only 1-3 % of the population.)

While most people who suffer from BIID identify as amputees and desire a limb amputated, some, like Jennings-White, identify as paraplegics. Still others identify as blind persons, as is the case of 32-year-old Jewel Shuping who ten years ago was able to persuade a psychologist “to pour drain cleaner into her eyes…an excruciating process that took six months to fully take her sight.”

Dr. Michael First, a Columbia University professor of psychiatry, sees gender dysphoria as an apt though imperfect analogue for BIID:

 “When the first sex reassignment was done in the 1950’s, it generated the same kind of horror that voluntary amputation does now….It’s one thing to say someone wants to go from male to female; they’re both normal states….To want to go from a four-limbed person to an amputee feels more problematic.” 

The medical community—though not all of its members—has decided that amputating healthy breasts and testes and providing sterility-inducing cross-sex hormones constitutes medicine, while amputating an arm is quackery. Isn’t that judgmental and “transabled-phobic”?

Yes, male and female are, indeed, both normal states, but being female is not a normal state for men, being male is not a normal state for women, and the desire to amputate healthy body parts in a futile quest to become the opposite sex is definitely not normal.

There are, however, differences between voluntary amputations of arms or legs and voluntary amputations of breasts or testes.

First, elective surgery for BIID—which doctors will not do—would actually succeed in transforming able-bodied persons into amputees, paraplegics, or blind persons, whereas elective surgery for gender dysphoria—which doctors will perform even on minors—creates only an elaborate disguise.

Second, with regard to gender dysphoria (and unlike BIID), the medical community has been politicized by the infiltration, badgering, and bullying of “trans”-activists who have compelled the medical establishment to at least publicly assert that the desire to be the opposite-sex is not a psychological disorder.

Don’t take my word about the political pressure effecting such a change. “Julia” Serano, a male “trans”-activist who pretends to be a woman, recently admitted as much. He said that our healthcare system is “gradually becoming our contemporary trans healthcare system” an “evolution” that was brought about in part by “trans activists ‘f***ing sh*t up’….[T]his change was facilitated by a more general trend within research and medicine — away from the paternalistic ‘Doctor Knows Best’ attitudes of the mid-twentieth century, towards today’s recognition that practitioners and researchers need to actually be concerned about, and seek feedback from, the communities that they serve.”

Translation: Science isn’t shaping “trans”-treatment. “Trans”-activists are.

The medical malpractice masquerading as “treatment” for those who suffer from gender dysphoria is actually fashioned out of the remnants left over from the Emperor’s new clothes, and the flimsy garment is unraveling before our eyes as research fails to support the claims of “trans”-activists and as more and more people experience “sex-change regret” and “de-transition.” Tragically, what is exposed is mutilated bodies (more on that in a coming article).

Even though BIID-sufferers report “depression, frustration, and ‘constant consuming agony,’” the medical community still opposes what I guess should be called “transabled-identity confirmation surgery.” Well. it’s opposed for now. Just wait till “transabled” activists learn some lessons from the “transgender” community and kick their badgering into high gear.

Maybe President Barack Obama could tell us whether public school students who “identify” as amputee-fluid should be allowed to park in handicap spots, use wheelchair-accessible facilities, and be provided with extra time during passing periods on the days they’re feeling limbless.

Presenting “Laurie’s Chinwags”

IFI is pleased to announce a new feature we are calling “Laurie’s Chinwags.” In light of changes in the way many Americans prefer to access information, we’re adding podcasts to our articles. Podcasts will accompany both our new articles as well as previous articles that are of particular importance and relevance. As we add podcasts to previous articles, we will republish them for our subscribers’ convenience.

We hope this new feature will serve the needs and desires of IFI subscribers, and we would appreciate any constructive feedback.

By Michael W. Chapman 

Dr. Paul R. McHugh, the former psychiatrist-in-chief for Johns Hopkins Hospital and its current Distinguished Service Professor of Psychiatry, said that transgenderism is a “mental disorder” that merits treatment, that sex change is “biologically impossible,” and that people who promote sexual reassignment surgery are collaborating with and promoting a mental disorder.

Dr. McHugh, the author of six books and at least 125 peer-reviewed medical articles, made his remarks in a recent commentary in the Wall Street Journal, where he explained that transgender surgery is not the solution for people who suffer a “disorder of ‘assumption’” – the notion that their maleness or femaleness is different than what nature assigned to them biologically.

He also reported on a new study showing that the suicide rate among transgendered people who had reassignment surgery is 20 times higher than the suicide rate among non-transgender people. Dr. McHugh further noted studies from Vanderbilt University and London’s Portman Clinic of children who had expressed transgender feelings but for whom, over time, 70%-80% “spontaneously lost those feelings.”

While the Obama administration, Hollywood, and major media such as Time magazine promote transgenderism as normal, said Dr. McHugh, these “policy makers and the media are doing no favors either to the public or the transgendered by treating their confusions as a right in need of defending rather than as a mental disorder that deserves understanding, treatment and prevention.”

“This intensely felt sense of being transgendered constitutes a mental disorder in two respects. The first is that the idea of sex misalignment is simply mistaken – it does not correspond with physical reality. The second is that it can lead to grim psychological outcomes.”

The transgendered person’s disorder, said Dr. McHugh, is in the person’s “assumption” that they are different than the physical reality of their body, their maleness or femaleness, as assigned by nature. It is a disorder similar to a “dangerously thin” person suffering anorexia who looks in the mirror and thinks they are “overweight,” said McHugh.

This assumption, that one’s gender is only in the mind regardless of anatomical reality, has led some transgendered people to push for social acceptance and affirmation of their own subjective “personal truth,” said Dr. McHugh. As a result, some states – California, New Jersey, and Massachusetts – have passed laws barring psychiatrists, “even with parental permission, from striving to restore natural gender feelings to a transgender minor,” he said.

The pro-transgender advocates do not want to know, said McHugh, that studies show between 70% and 80% of children who express transgender feelings “spontaneously lose those feelings” over time. Also, for those who had sexual reassignment surgery, most said they were “satisfied” with the operation “but their subsequent psycho-social adjustments were no better than those who didn’t have the surgery.”

“And so at Hopkins we stopped doing sex-reassignment surgery, since producing a ‘satisfied’ but still troubled patient seemed an inadequate reason for surgically amputating normal organs,” said Dr. McHugh.

The former Johns Hopkins chief of psychiatry also warned against enabling or encouraging certain subgroups of the transgendered, such as young people “susceptible to suggestion from ‘everything is normal’ sex education,” and the schools’ “diversity counselors” who, like “cult leaders,” may “encourage these young people to distance themselves from their families and offer advice on rebutting arguments against having transgender surgery.”

Dr. McHugh also reported that there are “misguided doctors” who, working with very young children who seem to imitate the opposite sex, will administer “puberty-delaying hormones to render later sex-change surgeries less onerous – even though the drugs stunt the children’s growth and risk causing sterility.”

Such action comes “close to child abuse,” said Dr. McHugh, given that close to 80% of those kids will “abandon their confusion and grow naturally into adult life if untreated ….”

“’Sex change’ is biologically impossible,” said McHugh. “People who undergo sex-reassignment surgery do not change from men to women or vice versa. Rather, they become feminized men or masculinized women. Claiming that this is civil-rights matter and encouraging surgical intervention is in reality to collaborate with and promote a mental disorder.”

This article originally posted on cnsnews.com.

“Sex-rejector”: Human who rejects his or her objective,
immutable biological sex

“Provert”: One who affirms and promotes perversity as good

Tacoma “trans” sideshow

Get your popcorn, pick a seat, and watch the circus sideshow that just took place in Tacoma, Washington, where a group seeking to find a negotiated settlement between women on one side of an absurdist cultural divide and sex-rejectors and proverts on the other. In this sideshow, proverts shriek obscenities at women who don’t want men in their showers and call their shrieking civil disobedience.

In between hurling epithets and obscenities at women who want nothing more than a modicum of privacy in which to engage in private activities, sex-rejectors and proverts scream “Transwomen are women.”

Actually, they’re not.

Are “transwomen” women?

“Transwomen” are men who want to be women and masquerade as women via wearing women’s clothing, jewelry, make-up, and/or hairstyles and having their bodies artificially altered. They are no more in reality women than 60-year-old women who wear the clothing and hairstyles of 25-year-olds and have their bodies artificially altered are in reality 25-year-old women. And it is no more hateful to say sex-rejecting men are not women than it is to say that a 5’7” white man is not a 6’5” Chinese woman—even if he really, really, really wants to be one. Reality exists, and affirming it is not hate speech.

As “progressives” have relentlessly averred, sex and “gender identity” are two wholly distinct phenomena. Sex is an objective, immutable, scientifically verifiable phenomenon, whereas “gender identity” refers to a person’s feelings about their sex. The vast majority of people accept their sex, and a minority wish they were the opposite sex. “Gender identity” is a rhetorical and social construction created to give existential heft to immaterial desire.

 “Gender,” sex, and safety

Gender:

Sex-rejectors and proverts claim their central concern is the safety of sex-rejectors. Male sex-rejectors rightly claim they are at risk if they go into men’s restrooms and locker rooms masquerading as women. Of course, in the service of their safety, they could choose not to masquerade as women. “Progressives” argue that clothing, hairstyles, jewelry, and makeup are arbitrary social conventions imposed oppressively on men and women starting at birth and based on their objective sex. If that’s the case, then there is no reason for men who wish they were women to adopt these oppressive, arbitrary, socially constructed conventions. In fact, by acquiescing to these conventions, don’t sex-rejectors merely reinforce the very stereotypes against which they rebel? In the service of safety, why not reject the arbitrary social conventions associated with the sex they wish they were?

Sex:

Leftists say that biological sex per se is meaningless. In their view, nothing necessarily derives from it. Modesty and the desire for privacy have no intrinsic connection to biological sex per se. There is no need to respect it even in private facilities. Attorney General Loretta Lynch said that those who believe that feelings of modesty and the desire for privacy are inextricably linked to biological sex per se are the equivalent of racists. In other words, those who believe that biological sex is imbued with meaning are ignorant bigots. If that’s the case, then why do sex-rejectors demand to use opposite-sex facilities? What’s the big deal about the sex of the persons with whom they shower? If—to them—physical embodiment as male or female is ultimately meaningless, and if—to them—all outward expressions of maleness and femaleness are arbitrary social conventions, then why can’t sex-rejectors use the private facilities that correspond to their sex, thereby respecting the feelings of those who believe biological sex per se has meaning?

If objective, immutable biological sex has no intrinsic meaning, and if the outward expressions of sex that all societies develop to recognize, reinforce, and celebrate sex differences (i.e., gender) are arbitrary, socially constructed and meaningless, then are fake breasts, vaginas, and penises meaningless constructions as well? And if they’re not meaningless, if they have meaning related in part to modesty and physical privacy, why should restroom-usage correspond to fake bodies as opposed to real bodies?

Moreover, if fake breasts, penises, and vaginas have no more intrinsic meaning than real breasts, vaginas, and penises, then why construct them? Why go through the pain and expense of removing and adding body parts? And why these particular body parts? What’s so special and meaningful about breasts, vaginas, and penises? Why not be creative and invent new decorative, non-functioning body parts? Why do sex-rejectors who believe that biological sex per se has no meaning and who believe that social conventions associated with sex are ultimately arbitrary, oppressively imposed social conventions feel the need to remain so narrowly embodied within the binary?

True “trans” goal

In addition to choosing not to masquerade as the opposite sex, sex-rejectors could also use family restrooms in stores and restaurants and shower at home rather than at health clubs in order to better protect their safety. That they reject all these options reveals what their real goal is. Their real goal is to remove all cultural signifiers of the existence and meaning of objective, immutable biological sex. This goal requires restructuring grammar, censoring speech, and eradicating sex-segregation everywhere. And it requires universal compliance with their draconian cultural edicts.

The exaltation of subjectivism and autonomy has brought us to this cultural precipice. Sex-rejectors believe subjective feelings and their autonomous will—not biology—determine sex. And sex-rejectors believe they alone have the right to decide the criterion that determines whether humans are entitled to physical privacy. They proclaim that physical privacy should be accorded to humans based not on their sex but on their feelings about their sex. Other humans demur.

When a lesbian panelist in the Tacoma sideshow says she doesn’t want to shower next to a swinging “d**k,” a provert commands her to “shower at home.” Why can’t those instructions be given to sex-rejectors who don’t want to shower with persons of their same sex? Why should the desire to be the opposite sex supersede sex in private areas?

Conclusion

The manifest contradictions that inhere the sex-rejecting movement reveal the truth that biological sex matters. Sex rejectors unwittingly testify to the profound importance and desirability of sex differences when they endure painful surgeries and sterility-causing cross-sex hormone-doping and refuse to use restrooms and showers with persons of their same sex. Societies provide sex-separated facilities in which private activities related to intimate bodily functions and undressing take place because biological sex per se matters.

Follow IFI on Social Media!

Be sure to check us out on social media for other great articles, quips, quotes, pictures, memes, events and updates.

Like us on Facebook HERE.
Subscribe to us on YouTube HERE!
Follow us on Twitter @ProFamilyIFI

“War is Peace; Freedom is Slavery; Ignorance is Strength.”

This was the slogan of George Orwell’s fictional English Socialist Party (INGSOC) of Oceania, from his timeless dystopian novel “1984.”

Orwell depicted a mind-control technique employed by INGSOC called “doublethink,” which “describes the act of simultaneously accepting two mutually contradictory beliefs as correct, often in distinct social contexts.”

If the malleable masses could be made to believe self-contradictory, patently absurd and empirically impossible concepts as true, went Orwell’s thesis, they could then be made to believe, or do, anything.

We have entered an age that George Orwell might never have imagined. Today’s “American Socialist Party” (the secular left) has applied the doublethink mind-control technique on a grand scale.

Its slogan?

“Male is Female; Female is Male; Evil is good.”

Indeed, not only do secular leftists like Barack Obama stubbornly maintain that objective morality be treated as relative – that evil is good and good evil; they now demand that the immutable laws of physics and biology be similarly repealed.

There are things true and things untrue. It is true, for instance, that water is composed of two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen (H20). No amount of wishful thinking, angry foot-stomping, or even a tyrannical presidential edict issued to America’s public school chemistry classes can change this unchangeable reality.

It is likewise true that a person born with XX chromosomes is, and shall always be, female, while a person born with distinct X and Y chromosomes is forever male. Again, no amount of self-delusion, gnashing of teeth, cross-dressing, genital mutilation surgery, or utterly bizarre presidential doublethink dictates can alter this unalterable fact.

While we would call a person who subjectively insists that water is comprised of pure hydrogen either ignorant or insane, we incongruously call the person who similarly insists that a man can somehow “transition” to a woman, “progressive.”

Even so, it is neither ignorance nor insanity that drives the progressive goal of a creating a “genderless” society. It is something far more sinister.

It is temporal control.

And it is spiritual defiance.

Progressive efforts to “legalize” genderless “marriage” by way of extra-constitutional judicial fiat do not make it legitimate marriage any more than “legalizing” abortion makes it not murder. Likewise, calling a sexually confused man a “trans-woman” makes him no more a woman than cutting the stem off a banana makes it a cantaloupe.

Yet, this “Emperor’s New Clothes” agenda moves ahead at breakneck speed. The necks to be broken, of course, are possessed by those who embrace the biblical sexual ethic and the morality of modesty.

There are multiple layers within progressivism’s pseudo-utopian, truly dystopian philosophy. The left’s lust for redistributionist statism is well-known. Less understood is the progressive rush toward cultural Marxism. With the fast-burgeoning and well-organized push to open girls’ bathrooms and showers to sexually confused men, the menace of cultural Marxism has reached unprecedented levels.

Cultural Marxism entails, among other things, that secularist aspect of left-wing statist ideology that seeks, within society, to supplant traditional values, norms and mores with postmodern moral relativism. It endeavors to destroy innocence, sexualize children, desensitize them to sexual perversion of every stripe and, quite literally, expose as many young girls as possible to adult male genitalia.

Cultural Marxists aim to scrub America of her Judeo-Christian, constitutional-republican founding principles and take, instead, a secular-statist Sharpie to our beloved U.S. Constitution.

Historian and U.S. military affairs expert William S. Lind describes cultural Marxism as:

“a branch of Western Marxism, different from the Marxism-Leninism of the old Soviet Union. It is commonly known as ‘multiculturalism’ or, less formally, Political Correctness. From its beginning, the promoters of cultural Marxism have known they could be more effective if they concealed the Marxist nature of their work, hence the use of terms such as ‘multiculturalism.’”

Pastor, attorney and former Massachusetts gubernatorial candidate Scott Lively is globally admired by liberty-loving traditionalists. Conversely, he’s universally reviled by cultural Marxists. He drills down a bit deeper:

“Cultural Marxism is a variation of the Marxist strategy to build a utopian socialist order on the ashes of Christian civilization, but through subversion of the moral culture, especially the elimination of the natural family, rather than solely through destruction of capitalism.”

True though this may be, the ideological seeds of contemporary cultural Marxism nonetheless sprout from deep within the dead soil of historical communism. It is not economic redistributionism alone through which progressives seek to both “fundamentally transform America” and otherwise conquer the world, but rather, and perhaps primarily, it is through victory over the pejoratively tagged “social issues” (i.e., sin-centric “gay marriage,” “gender identity” and “neutrality,” perverting human sexuality, morality and the natural family structure, child sacrifice via abortion on demand, abolishing religious liberty and so on).

Regrettably, today’s “low-information voters,” as Rush Limbaugh calls them – to include the useful idiots within the GOP’s “moderate” and libertarian wings – are simply too lazy, shortsighted or both to learn the facts. “Surrender on the ‘social issues’!” demands the GOP’s cultural Marxist-enabling kamikazes.

Still, as the American Family Association’s tremendously successful boycott of Target, which has cost that gender-bending company billions of dollars and millions of customers, coupled with the dozen or more states that have rejected Obama’s open bathrooms and showers edict reveals: We Americans who happen to be tethered to scientific and moral reality will never, ever surrender.

In the temporal realm, secular leftists’ chaotic crusade to destroy marriage, the family and create a “Brave New World” of despotic androgyny is a revolt designed to bring down Western civilization – an oppressive patriarchy, as they view it, which stems from the archaic precepts of Judeo-Christian morality.

In the spiritual realm, the gender agenda represents fist-shaking rebellion against the very Creator who, “at the beginning … ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’” (see Matthew 19:4-5).

It remains to be seen how the temporal battle will play out.

The spiritual battle is a foregone conclusion.

Well, now, that didn’t take long. Yesterday, I warned about the dystopian cultural landscape that the sexual subversives among us are pursuing with unholy fervor and at breakneck speed. They seek to end all public recognition and accommodation of sex differences. I clearly didn’t issue my warning early enough.

Sexual revolutionaries drunk with anti-cultural power, aided and abetted by bootlicking government and business leaders, are successfully eliminating public recognition of the value and meaning of sex differences. At Manhattan’s uber-regressive Cooper Union College, they’ve leaped ahead a step or two. Rather than allow just gender-confused students and faculty to use opposite-sex restrooms, the Cooper Union administration decided, what the heck, just let everyone use any facility his, her or zir heart’s desire. All sex-segregated restrooms are gone. Nary a one left. Interim president Bill Mea offered this bizarre defense:

When there’s a gendered space, there’s a sense of ownership to that space….When people see someone who [sic] they think doesn’t belong there, it can create stress for everyone. So we thought, let’s just take that away.

Oddly, in the olden days when restrooms corresponded to one’s objective sex rather than subjective feelings about one’s objective sex, I never felt I “owned” restrooms. I didn’t feel I owned women’s restrooms in stores, malls, health clubs, schools, or movie theaters. I used them.

And I’m pretty sure that giving all men free rein to use women’s restrooms is not going to decrease women’s stress.

Mea is correct, however, I did believe some people didn’t belong in the women’s restrooms I used: objectively male people. Still do, as a matter of fact. I “feel” that the objective sex of people matters. It has meaning and value and is the source of feelings of modesty and desires for privacy. I don’t want to be forced to use restrooms, dressing rooms, or showers with those whose sex I don’t share. I don’t think other women or men should be either.

Now restroom signage at Cooper Union offers these distinctions:

• “Urinals and stalls”
• “Stalls only”
• “Single occupancy”

Young’uns, you may not know this, but in the backward, hateful gendered days of yore when objective, immutable sex differences meant something, these restrooms corresponded to (TRIGGER WARNING!) male, female, and faculty respectively (I wonder how many male faculty members will be using the “stalls only” restrooms).

This is coming everywhere, my friends. Culture-destroying movements always start on the fringy edges of society where the feckless live and move and have their being. And then they begin their march to the center.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, it’s time to get those dusty spines out of the attic. Stop all that stooping and groveling at the altar of sexual deviance and irrationality. Stand tall. Be courageous. Speak and act as if you believe your beliefs are in reality true. If you know that being created as male or female has profound meaning, then do something about it.

Concerned about Common Core Standards?

Join us this Friday (April 8th) in Orland Park for yet another IFI Forum, this time exploring The Case Against Common Core with Dr. Duke Pesta.  Click HERE for more information.

Click HERE for a flyer of the event.