South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem has revealed multiple times that she lacks both wisdom and courage when it comes to the issue of cross-sex impersonation. She just vetoed a bill (HB 1217)  that would have required participation in school athletics at all levels to correspond to objective, immutable biological sex rather than immaterial, subjective feelings about “maleness” and “femaleness.” In so doing, she failed girls, disappointed conservatives, and reneged on her enthusiastic and public commitment on March 8 to sign the bill.

Noem has sent the bill back to the legislature with changes she says must be made in order for her to sign it, and she’s now doing what weaselly politicians always do: She is using weasel words to try to conceal that she has capitulated to the “trans”-cult and to those who will profit from leaving bad enough unmolested.

Noem offers several rationalizations for her disappointing capitulation. She claims she’s merely tinkering with the “Style” and “Form” of the bill—not with its substance—and she claims she’s merely trying to prevent potential lawsuits that may emerge from language pertaining to the prohibition of anabolic steroids. Oh really? See if you, kind readers, think these are merely changes in “Style” and “Form.”

While Noem has focused publicly on language pertaining to anabolic steroid use, she has not mentioned that her changes entail removing Section 13-67-2 language that says before permitting a student to participate on an athletic team or in a sport, schools must obtain a written statement verifying.

The student’s biological sex, as ascertained at or before birth in accordance with the student’s genetics and reproductive biology.

Noem’s changes include replacing Section 13-67-2. Section 13.27-3.1 instead requires that a certified copy of a student’s birth certificate be provided. But here’s the kicker: Birth certificate sex designations can be changed in South Dakota.

In fact on February 5, 2021, a South Dakota Senate committee killed a bill that would have prevented birth certificate sex designations from being changed. A 17-year-old girl who pretends to be a boy testified that she was in the process of changing her birth certificate. Noem surely knew about this defeated bill when she made her changes to “Style” and “Form.”

In short, it appears that by replacing the section that requires sports participation to correspond to biology with a section that would require sports participation to correspond to birth certificates—which can be changed—Noem has neutered the bill.

Noem also stripped the bill of references to collegiate athletics, thereby leaving female athletes unprotected from being forced to compete against males. In defending her claim that the bill is “unrealistic in the context of collegiate athletics,” Noem inadvertently reveals the truth, saying “we are proud of our universities’ athletic programs, and in particular the great strides we have taken to gain national exposure and increase opportunities for our next generation.”

Translated, she means she doesn’t want to take on those organizations that regulate collegiate sports and perhaps lose opportunities to host NCAA meets and tournaments. And she doesn’t want to risk what “trans”-cultists and their ideological collaborators did to North Carolina.

The Argus Leader reports on the salient considerations of Noem and those who will sell girls’ Title IX rights and our First Amendment rights a for a mess of money:

[O]fficials tied to groups like the Greater Sioux Falls Area Chamber of Commerce and the Sioux Falls Sports Authority … worry that such a law could result in economic backlash.

In 2016, for instance, dozens of events scheduled in North Carolina never happened after the Legislature there passed a measure that would have stopped local governments from requiring businesses allow transgender people to use the bathroom of their choice.

And the NCAA, which brings collegiate athletic tournaments to Sioux Falls regularly, has an inclusion policy that could conflict with HB 1217.

Apparently the collegiate athletic careers of a few women are a small price to pay in order to be able to host NCAA tournaments and meets. Money. Yum, yum, eat it up.

Imagine, however, if Noem had not buckled. And then imagine if other states had followed her lead. Only principled stances pertaining to biological sex will revert rules, regulations, policies, and laws to sanity.

If spineless lawmakers cede power to the NCAA and chambers of commerce to determine that males can usurp female athletics and access their private spaces, America is lost.

Some are not surprised by Noem’s equivocation on policies related to the “trans” issue, citing her odd reluctance to comment on both the sports and birth certificate bills when asked about them in Feb.

Many outside South Dakota didn’t hear Noem say this in answer to a question about what message she wanted to send to cross-sex passers:

Everybody understands that South Dakota is a welcoming place, especially after this last year that we went through in 2020. … So if they would like to be a part of our communities, our way of life, if they value their freedoms, I would encourage them to come visit.

Any true-red conservative politician knows that cross-sex impersonators do not value America’s foundational freedoms. All conservatives know the “trans” cult seeks to force all Americans to pretend that men who claim to be women are, in reality, women. All conservatives know that cross-sex impersonators do not want freedom of speech and the free exercise of religion to be extended to those who disagree with science-denying “trans”-cultic beliefs and practices.

Take ACTION: Please click HERE to send Gov. Noem a message about her failure to protect women and girls from the radical agenda of the LGBTQIA agenda. Gov. Noem publicly promised to sign into law a bill that would ban biological men from competing against girls and women in sports. Unfortunately, when the pressure was on from powerful special interest groups, she caved and publicly rejected the bill.

More ACTION: You can also call Gov. Noem’s office at (605) 773-3212 or send a fax to her at (605) 773-4711.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Gov-Noem-Disappoints-on-Trans-Law.mp3

Please support the work and ministry of IFI.  

Your tax-deductible donation is greatly appreciated!

Because the “Equality” Act will erase the category of human formerly known as “women,” it has managed to do the seemingly impossible. It has united conservatives and liberals. While Democrat supporters of the Equality Act, including President Biden, have exacerbated political division, conservatives, feminists, and homosexuals are uniting to defeat this bill, which they recognize as a threat to girls and women.

Earlier this week Tucker Carlson interviewed feminist attorney Kara Dansky, chair of the Committee on Law and Legislation for the Women’s Human Rights Campaign, board member of the Women’s Liberation Front (WoLF), and former senior counsel with the ACLU on the Equality Act. She rightly describes the increasing erasure of women as an “emergency” with many unforeseen consequences that will affect the “rights, privacy, and safety of women and girls.” She warns that the Equality Act, which will “redefine the word ‘sex” to include the nebulous, ill-defined, un-understood, made-up lie that is “gender-identity,” makes a national conversation about these serious consequences imperative.

IFI recommends taking 4 ½ minutes to watch and/or listen to this video interview with Ms. Dansky.

Take ACTION:  Click HERE to send a message to our U.S. Senators Dick Durbin and Tammy Duckworth to urge them to oppose the federal Equality Act (H.R. 5) which seeks to amend the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to include protections for an individual’s perceived sex, “sexual orientation,” or “gender identity.”

A bold voice for pro-family values in Illinois!

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

The radical “Equality” Act—the pet project of sex-eradicationists (also known as “trans”-cultists)—is now in the U.S. Senate. The act would force the federal government to treat the nonsensical notion that spirit humans can be “trapped” in the wrong material bodies as if those disordered feelings constitute a reality equivalent to biological sex and one about which no one may make judgments. In other words, the Equality Act would enshrine in federal law a Gnostic superstition.

In addition, when the purported rights of cross-sex impersonators clash with First Amendment protection of the free exercise of religion, the Equality Act says cross-sex impersonation wins. Buh-bye Christian colleges whose students get federal aid. Buh-bye Christian adoption agencies that partner with the government. Buh-bye religious liberty. It was nice knowing you these past glorious 230 years.

If passed, “trans”-cultists will be well over halfway to their goal of eradicating all public recognition of biological sex. There are many reasons we have arrived at this insane, reality-denying, wrong-side-of-history moment, including the fact that citizens are not demanding their elected leaders dialogue on and debate the sandy foundation on which the “trans” cult is built. In the hope that sane people on the political right and left will start demanding such conversations, here is a list of questions that every lawmaker, school administrator, and school board member should have to answer:

1.) If sex and “gender” are two wholly different and unrelated things, with sex being an immutable objective phenomenon and “gender” being a subjective, internal, and sometimes fluid phenomenon, why should restrooms, locker rooms, shelters, prisons, nursing home rooms, and semi-private hospital rooms correspond to “gender identity” as opposed to biological sex which is both objective and stable?

2.) Why is it legitimate for girls to oppose sharing restrooms and locker rooms with objectively male peers who accept their sex (what the left calls “cisgender” boys) but not legitimate for girls to oppose sharing restrooms and locker rooms with objectively male peers who reject their sex? Why should a boy’s subjective feelings about his objective sex affect girls’ feelings or beliefs about undressing or going to the bathroom in front of or near him?

3.) Either biological sex has meaning relative to feelings of modesty and the desire for privacy when undressing or engaging in intimate personal acts, or it has no meaning relative to modesty and privacy. If biological sex has no meaning relative to modesty and privacy, why do we have any sex-segregated restrooms or locker rooms anywhere? Why not make all of them co-ed for everyone? If, however, the desire of humans to be segregated from unrelated persons of the opposite sex when undressing, showering, or going to the bathroom is natural, understandable, reasonable, and good, why should some opposite-sex persons be allowed to violate those spaces just because they don’t like their sex?

4.) If cross-sex identifying students should not be required to use restrooms and locker rooms with those whose “gender identity” they don’t share, why should other students be required to use facilities with those whose sex they don’t share? Why should gender-dysphoric boys (or men) be able to use restrooms with only women, but actual biological females are prohibited from being able to use restrooms with only women?

5,) If anatomy is irrelevant to both “gender identity” and privacy, should boys who identify as girls be allowed to shower with objectively female peers or undress in open areas of girls’ locker rooms? If not, why not? If it’s unjustly discriminatory to prohibit gender-dysphoric boys from using girls’ locker rooms—as leftists claim it is–then is it unjustly discriminatory to prohibit gender-dysphoric boys from showering with girls or changing out in the open in girls’ locker rooms as some schools do?

6.) Female teachers and coaches are allowed in girls’ restrooms and locker rooms. Should objectively male teachers and coaches who “identify” as female be allowed in girls’ restrooms and locker rooms as well? If not, why not?

7.) Will school administrations allow those who identify as gender-fluid to choose daily which restrooms and locker rooms they will use? If not, why not?

8.) Should other subjective, internal feelings be reflected in policy and practice? For example, should those who identify as amputees (i.e., those with Body Integrity Identity Disorder) be allowed to use wheelchairs and handicapped parking spots at school? Should they be allowed to leave class early to have more time to get from one class to another?

9.) Is it unnatural or pathological for girls or boys to object to engaging in excretory functions in a stall next to an unrelated person of the opposite sex doing likewise? If not, should schools respect and honor those feelings through policy that prohibits co-ed restrooms?

10.) Those who identify as “trans” claim their biological sex as revealed in anatomy is unrelated and irrelevant to their “gender identity” (which is a subjective, internal feeling) and that anatomy doesn’t matter when it comes to restrooms, changing areas, and showers. They further claim they want to use restrooms with only those whose “gender identity” they share. So, why do boys who identify as girls demand to use girls’ restrooms and locker rooms? How do they know the males using the boys’ restrooms do not “identify” as girls, and how can they be sure that the females using the girls’ restrooms do “identify” as girls? Is it possible that boys who identify as girls are basing their restroom/locker room choices on biological sex (i.e., the female sex) as revealed in anatomy? If so, why are they permitted to do so but objectively female students are not?

11.) If it’s not hateful for gender-dysphoric biological boys to say they want to share private facilities with only biological females, why is it hateful for biological females to say they want to share restrooms and locker rooms with only biological females?

12.) Why is it hateful to believe that locker rooms and restrooms should correspond to one’s objective sex but loving to believe they should correspond to subjective feelings about one’s sex?

13.) Do children and adults have an inalienable and intrinsic right not to share restrooms and locker rooms with persons of the opposite sex?

14.) If restroom stalls and separate changing areas provide sufficient privacy to allow students to use facilities with those whose sex they don’t share, then why don’t restroom stalls and separate changing areas provide sufficient privacy for a gender-dysphoric student to share facilities with those whose “gender identity” they (presumably) don’t share but whose sex they do share?

15.) Leftists argue that the word “sex” in Title VII of the Civil Rights of 1964 and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 actually includes “gender identity,” thereby prohibiting discrimination based on “gender identity” in restrooms and locker rooms. If gender-dysphoric boys or men are permitted in girls’ or women’s restrooms and locker rooms based on this reinterpretation, on what basis could other boys or men be prohibited from using women’s restrooms? “Cisgender” boys or men couldn’t be prohibited from using girls’ or women’s restrooms based on their male sex because other objectively male persons (i.e., those who are male but “identify” as women) would already have been allowed in. And wouldn’t prohibiting “cisgender” boys or men from using women’s restrooms based on their “identification” as males constitute discrimination based on “gender identity”?

16.) Leftists argue that separate restrooms and locker rooms for boys and girls are equivalent to separate drinking fountains for blacks and whites. Others would counter that while there are no substantive ontological differences between whites and blacks and that there are no differences that bear on drinking water at fountains, there are substantive differences between men and women. In fact, even homosexuals acknowledge that men and women are fundamentally and significantly different when they say they are romantically and erotically attracted to only persons of their same sex. Further, conservatives argue that the differences between men and women bear directly on the use of spaces in which private activities related to physical embodiment are engaged in. It is these important differences related to physical embodiment as male or female that account for the very existence of separate restrooms, locker rooms, shelters, and semi-private hospital rooms for men and women everywhere. If, however, separate restrooms and locker rooms for men and women are akin to separate drinking fountains for blacks and white as Leftists claim they are, are Leftists in favor of banning them everywhere?

17.) If separate restrooms and locker rooms for gender-dysphoric boys and girls are equivalent to separate restrooms and locker rooms for blacks and whites—as former Attorney General Loretta Lynch once claimed—then why aren’t separate restrooms and locker rooms for “cisgender” boys and girls equivalent to racism? Why aren’t separate restrooms and locker rooms for gender-dysphoric boys and “cisboys” equivalent to racism?

18.) When sex-segregation abolitionists accuse parents who oppose co-ed restrooms and locker rooms of being hateful, intolerant, bigoted, ignorant, heartless bullies, do they also smear children who object to sharing restrooms and locker rooms with peers of the opposite sex?

19.) Do school administrators, teachers, and community members think that Muslims and Orthodox Jews who don’t want their daughters sharing restrooms and locker rooms with objectively male students (or vice versa) are ignorant, bigoted, hateful, and unjustly discriminatory?

20.) Pronouns denote and correspond to objective biological sex—not subjective, internal feelings about one’s sex. So, if staff members, teachers, administrators, or students view the use of opposite-sex pronouns to refer to gender-dysphoric students as lying and for ethical, and/or religious reasons they object to lying, should schools accommodate their objections? Or, should schools—which are arms of the government—compel employees to lie?

21.) Liberal sex and gender researchers Michael Bailey at Northwestern University and Dr. Eric Vilain at UCLA write that 80% of gender-dysphoric boys—and most gender-dysphoric persons are male—will accept their real sex by adulthood. They claim that “it looks like parental acquiescence leads to persistence.” In other words, if parents accommodate their children’s efforts to pretend to be the opposite sex, their children are more likely to persist in their rejection of their sex. Are schools that allow gender-dysphoric minors to use opposite-sex restrooms and locker rooms complicit in helping students persist in their rejection of their sex?

22.) If there is a mismatch between a person’s sex and his feelings about his sex, how can “progressives” be certain that the error resides in the healthy body rather than the mind? If a person has normal, unambiguous, healthy, fully functioning male anatomy but desires to be—or believes he is—female, might this not be an error or disorder of his mind?

23.) If a man “identifies” as “bi-gender” and has appended faux-breasts to his chest while retaining his penis and testes, as many cross-sex identifiers do, should he be to walk about unclothed in women’s locker rooms?

24.) Progressives routinely ask opponents of co-ed restrooms and locker rooms whether single-sex restrooms and locker rooms will require “genitalia police” to determine whether those seeking ingress are in reality the sex that corresponds to the spaces they seek to use. Well, will co-ed restrooms and locker rooms require “gender-identity” police to determine whether those seeking ingress are either the sex that corresponds to the spaces they seek to use or have proof that they have been diagnosed as gender-dysphoric? If not, how will we know if the persons seeking access to women’s restrooms are gender-dysphoric men masquerading as women or are male predators masquerading as gender-dysphoric men?

25.) Some argue that men masquerading as women have been successfully using women’s private spaces for years without women knowing and hence no harm, no foul. This suggests that if women’s privacy is invaded by men but they—the women—are unaware of the invasion, no harm has been done. By that logic, if voyeurs (not to be confused with men who “identify” as women) are able to secretly view women without women’s knowledge, have women been harmed or not?

26.) What is “gender identity”? If it’s defined as subjective, internal feelings about one’s sex, or one’s maleness or femaleness, on what basis do “trans”-identifying children determine their “gender identity”? Do they base their belief that they are the sex they aren’t or their desire to be the sex they aren’t on sex stereotypes, like which toys they play with? If so, is it “arbitrary, socially imposed” sex stereotypes that determine maleness or femaleness, or do biology and anatomy determine maleness or femaleness?

27.) When law enforcement agencies collect and disseminate information on crime, should crimes committed by biological men who pretend to be women be recorded as acts committed by men or by women?

28.) Should government contracts allocated for women business-owners be awarded to biological women only or also to biological men who “identify” as women?

29.) How will biomedical research into health issues that affect primarily women or primarily men be affected when the recognition of sexual differentiation is prohibited?

My hope is that these questions might help jumpstart a spirited conversation and perhaps help eradicate the pernicious and absurd “trans” ideology.

Take ACTION:  Click HERE to send a message to our U.S. Senators Dick Durbin and Tammy Duckworth to urge them to oppose the federal Equality Act (H.R. 5) which seeks to amend the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to include protections for an individual’s perceived sex, “sexual orientation,” or “gender identity.”

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Questions-for-Sex-Eradicationists.mp3

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 to enroll right away.

Click HERE to donate to IFI

The Newsweek article by Natasha Chart and Rabbi Yaakov Menken begins with these words: “It would be hard to accuse an Orthodox Jewish rabbi and an agnostic feminist leader of walking in lockstep.” All the more would this be true if you added Catholics to the mix, then threw in some evangelicals. What cause could bring such disparate people together, all united as one?

Religious Rights and Women’s Rights at Stake

As Chart and Menken wrote, “We agree entirely that the Equality Act is a fatally flawed, and even hateful, piece of legislation.” Or, as expressed by the chairmen of five U.S. bishops’ committees, the Equality Act will “discriminate against people of faith” — meaning, of Christian faith or other faiths.

As summed up by evangelical leader Mat Staver, “HR 5 is a bill that pushes the LGBT agenda on all people and targets Christianity in every area of life — including the church. There will be an increase of instances where Christians and others are being punished unless they violate their beliefs in order to comply with such a law. And that is just the beginning of unconstitutional chaos in America.”

In short, not only would religious beliefs be trampled in the name of “equality,” but simple human rights — most specifically, women’s rights — would be trampled as well. (As Chart and Menken wrote, “Women, check your ‘privilege.’”)

That’s why many people of faith and non-faith are uniting together against the so-called Equality Act.

Just consider what it would mandate across the nation, with no possibility of religious exemptions.

Here are some potential scenarios.

What Might Soon be Illegal “Discrimination”? Plenty.

An out and proud gay schoolteacher wants to teach at an Orthodox Jewish day school. Under the Equality Act, the school could not refuse him a job because his out and proud lifestyle violated Jewish law. That would be discrimination. As for Orthodox Jewish synagogues, if challenged, they would not be allowed to have separate seating for men and women at public events. Discrimination again!

What if a biological male who identifies as a female, yet still likes to sport a 5-o’clock shadow, wants to work at a Christian preschool, reading stories to the children? The school could not say, “We’re sorry, but we’re not hiring you. That would be confusing to the children.” Under the Equality Act, that would now be discrimination.

Here are a few more scenarios to consider.

You are a professional counselor, and an 18-year-old girl struggling with unwanted same-sex attractions comes to you for help. She had been raped when she was 12 and since then, has found men repulsive. Yet she always wanted to be married and have children and she’s interested in getting to the root of her unwanted same-sex attractions. Under the Equality Act, counseling her would be illegal.

You run a women’s shelter for abused women and have always refused to house biological males who identify as transgender women. You have limited facilities, and there’s no way your clients, already traumatized, should be forced to share showers and bathrooms and bedrooms with biological males. Under the Equality Act, you would be forced to accept transgender “women.”

You are the principal of a public school with an excellent girls’ track team, and your top female athletes win college scholarships on a regular basis. Under the Equality Act, you would be forced to allow boys who identify as girls to compete with the girls, thereby robbing them of both victories and scholarships, not to mention personal dignity. (One website pointed out that, “In 2018, 275 high school boys ran the 400 meter faster than the lifetime best of Olympic Team USA member and world-record-holding sprinter Allyson Felix, while in 2017 thousands of men ran the 400 meter faster than any of the world’s three fastest women.”)

Your church building is used to host weddings on a regular basis. Under the Equality Act, you will not be allowed to say no to same-sex couples, even though this violates historic tenets of your faith.

Traditional Religious Practices: “As Unacceptable as was Jim Crow”

That’s why Mat Staver is almost shouting out this warning about the bill (emphasis his):

It even criminalizes those who share their own story of finding freedom in Christ from homosexuality in a book or speaking engagement. This bill literally sets the stage for banning the Bible, which offers the power to free those wanting to turn away from homosexual conduct.

And there is NO RELIGIOUS EXEMPTION to this bill!

Similarly, Chart and Menken warn, “Incredibly, the Equality Act specifically strips away protection of religious practice guaranteed under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993.” (Their emphasis.)

In short, “The Equality Act thus deems a religiously motivated refusal to participate in a same-sex marriage to be no different than a KKK member’s refusal to cater a multiethnic couple’s nuptials. Traditional religious practices, according to the Equality Act, are as unacceptable as was Jim Crow.”

And that is why people from a wide range of backgrounds are standing together against this ill-conceived bill. (I haven’t even mentioned the abortion-related aspects of the bill, among other important issues. See this relevant article from 2019.)

We Can All Stand Together on This. Here’s How

The U.S. House has passed the bill and it is now pending over at the U.S. Senate. Contact your senators at once, urging them to vote no. It’s one thing to stand against the mistreatment of those who identify as LGBTQ (or anything else). It’s another thing to turn the world upside down, throw out common sense and logic, and trash the religious liberties of the majority of the nation in the name of equality.

As expressed by the Catholic bishops, “Human dignity is central to what Catholics believe because every person is made in the image of God and should be treated accordingly, with respect and compassion. This commitment is reflected in the church’s charitable service to all people, without regard to race, religion or any other characteristic.”

Consequently, “It means we need to honor every person’s right to gainful employment free of unjust discrimination or harassment, and to the basic goods that they need to live and thrive. It also means that people of differing beliefs should be respected. In this, we wholeheartedly support nondiscrimination principles to ensure that everyone’s rights are protected.”

And that is precisely why we need our elected officials to vote against the Equality Act as it is currently written. We can all stand together on this.

Take ACTION:  The measure is pending a vote in the U.S. Senate where the outcome remains uncertain. Click HERE to send a message to our U.S. Senators Dick Durbin and Tammy Duckworth to urge them to oppose the federal Equality Act (H.R. 5) which seeks to amend the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to include protections for an individual’s perceived sex, “sexual orientation,” or “gender identity.”

Read more:

U.S. House Passes “In-Equality” Act

This article was originally published at AskDrBrown.org.

Last week I posted this on my personal Facebook page on which all posts are public:

Here’s why [homosexual] Richard Grenell is a disaster for the Republican Party. Republican cross-sex passer “Gina” Roberts—a biological man who tries to pass as a woman—tweeted about how “incredibly accepted” he felt at the Log Cabin Republican booth at CPAC. Richard Grenell retweeted Roberts’ tweet to which Lauren Witzke responded, “We’re celebrating mental illness now?”

Grenell than replied foolishly, “No. We are celebrating that God made everyone and people being respectful. Try it.”

Quite obviously, God made “Gina” Roberts a man. Therefore, people should respect that—including “Gina” Roberts.

We should treat all fellow humans with respect, but respect does not entail affirmation of delusional thinking, disordered desires, or immoral acts. And while God has made everyone, he does not make all of our desires and beliefs. The fall and Satan make us desire sinful things.

What the GOP doesn’t need are leaders like Grenell who don’t know truth.

To be clear, my post had nothing to do with the controversial Lauren Witzke who ran unsuccessfully against Chris Coons for a U.S. Senate seat in Delaware.

Rather, it was about Grenell’s unhelpful tweet that could be understood to mean, 1. that God created the desire of men to be women, or 2.  that we should celebrate cross-sex impersonation, or 3. that “being respectful” requires the GOP to affirm “trans”-cultic beliefs and practices.

Richard Grenell is seen here being sworn in as President Trump’s ambassador to Germany with his hand on a Bible held by his—Grenell’s—long-time romantic/erotic partner Matt Lashey.

Vice President Pence swears in Ric Grenell who is moving to Berlin to serve as US Ambassador to Germany. Holding the Bible is Ric's longtime partner Matt Lashey. pic.twitter.com/h2EBBnus3e

— Yashar Ali 🐘 (@yashar) May 3, 2018

Three days after my post, I received this Facebook message from “Gina” Roberts, the man about whom Grenell was tweeting. Roberts’ message to me kinda makes my point about the danger posed to the GOP by homosexuals and “trans”-cultists:

You are a piece of work. I love your obsession with the LGBT world. I think you need to expand your thinking. You have no idea what you are talking about. Hate is the pervue [sic] of our opponents, Republican [sic]are the party of freedom and acceptance. You might try it.

Before I get to my thoughts about “Gina” Roberts’ feelings, a word about Roberts. He is the California director of the DC Project: Women for Gun Rights. I kid you not. A man is the California director of a women’s gun rights group.

Now, on to my thoughts on Roberts’ feelings.

First, my alleged “obsession” with the “LGBT world” is a reaction to the obsession of homosexual activists and “trans”-cultists, of which Roberts is a member, to proselytize their ontological, teleological, epistemological, moral, and political views to children using government schools and public libraries, while trying to censor all dissenting views.

Second, Roberts engages in the same epithet-hurling that leftists and sexual libertines of all stripes engage in: He falsely accuses me of hating him. Having conservative beliefs on the nature and morality of biological sex-rejection or homosexuality does not constitute hatred of those who believe differently. Perhaps Mr. Roberts hates everyone who believes differently from him, but he ought not impute to others his modus operandi or habits of mind. Many people are fully capable of loving those who hold different beliefs. Most people in this wildly diverse world do it every day.

All people should love their neighbors, and they should hate sin. We should hate acts and ideas that harm children, adults, families, and societies. C.S. Lewis wrote that,

The little human animal will not at first have the right responses. It must be trained to feel pleasure, liking, disgust, and hatred at those things which really are pleasant, likeable, disgusting and hateful.

The same goes for big human animals.

Third, even in a free country, “freedom” is not absolute. That’s why homosexual brothers who are in love are not free to marry legally. That’s why plural marriages are illegal. A healthy society constrains liberty when acts harm the public good.

Fourth, regarding “acceptance”: Did Roberts demonstrate “acceptance” of my views on science-denying “trans”-cultism? Would he “accept” a father being free to legally marry his consenting adult son? Would he “accept” a sadomasochist promoting his “authentic identity” to kindergartners in public schools or to toddlers in public libraries?

Fifth, evidently to Roberts’ mind-expansion means adopting his set of assumptions.

Finally, as near as I can tell, Roberts’ claim that I “have no idea what” I’m talking about is based on the fact that I disagree with his beliefs—which as near as I can tell are based on his subjective feelings. If so, is it his argument that all behaviors impelled by powerful, unchosen, seemingly intractable feelings are always and necessarily moral and should be “accepted” by society? If so, yikes.

The GOP should welcome those who experience unwanted, unchosen homoerotic feelings but recognize that homoerotic acts and same-sex marriage are wrong and destructive to the public order. The same goes for those who experience gender dysphoria but recognize that cross-dressing and bodily mutilation are harmful, immoral acts.

The GOP should no more welcome leaders who affirm homosexual acts, same-sex faux marriage, adoption by homosexuals, and cross-sex impersonation than it would welcome those who support open borders, higher taxes, Critical Race Theory, and reparations for non-slaves. What our leaders hold to be true about homosexuality and biological sex will eventually affect policies on those issues. And policies and laws related to homosexuality and cross-sex impersonation are not peripheral to the public good. They are central. In fact, they are far more important than, for example, tax rates. Our First Amendment protections are eroding because of the “LGB” and “T” ideologies—not because of tax rates.

As for Richard Grenell, he is now the Senior Advisor for National Security and Foreign Policy with Jay Sekulow’s American Center for Law and Justice.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Foxes-in-Sheeps-Clothing-in-the-Rainbow-Ish-GOP-Henhouse.mp3

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

Your support makes a difference!

It should come as a surprise to no one that the formally Christian childcare agency Bethany Christian Services has fully capitulated to homosexual activists and Big Brother—also known by Jesus as Caesar—in deciding to place children in the homes of homosexuals for fostering and adoption in all 32 states where it operates.

It should come as no surprise because the 77-year-old Bethany Christian Services, “the largest Protestant adoption and foster agency in the United States,” began capitulating several years ago when homosexuals began demanding children from Bethany, first in Philadelphia and then in Michigan.

What might surprise Christians is the sophistry Bethany now employs to rationalize their decision that will inarguably harm children temporally and likely eternally.

In a Christianity Today article on this story, Bethany vice president Nate Bult makes this astonishing claim:

Faith in Jesus is at the core of our mission. But we are not claiming a position on the various doctrinal issues about which Christians of mutual good faith may disagree. … We acknowledge that discussions about doctrine are important, but our sole job is to determine if a family can provide a safe, stable environment for children.

Word to Bult, faith in Jesus should never be separated from the work of Christians. It should inform every decision they make, especially in the kind of work Bethany does. Faith in Jesus requires accepting God’s Word as unalterable, objective, transcendent, eternal truth and includes everything the Bible says about homosexuality, marriage, and raising children.

We learn in God’s holy Word that God destroyed two cities, centrally because of rampant homosexuality. We learn how serious a sin God views homosexuality because he includes it in verses about two other serious sins: bestiality and incest. We learn from Jesus himself that marriage is the union of one man and one woman. We learn that those who engage in homosexuality will not see the kingdom of heaven. And we are commanded to train up our children in the way they should go.

Two men or two women who believe marriage has no intrinsic nature central to which is sexual differentiation and who believe homosexual acts are moral acts cannot possibly raise up a child in the way they should go. In reality, they will raise up children to believe that evil is good. They will teach children the lie that “love is love”—a lie that if affirmed as good and true may cost children their eternal lives.

Doctrinal issues regarding the ontology and teleology of marriage and the morality of homoerotic acts are not issues about which “Christians of mutual good faith” may disagree. They are foundational issues, and those who disagree with theologically orthodox views are apostates or heretics.

Marriage is a picture of Christ—the bridegroom—and the church—his bride. A homoerotic union composed of two people of the same sex suggests that there is no difference in nature or function between Christ and the church, which is a heretical notion.

But no worries to Bethany leaders. They get to keep Caesar’s money if they render unto Caesar what is God’s.

The New York Times reports that Bethany president Chris Palusky claims that Bethany’s decision to place infants and children in the homes of men and women who affirm acts that God detests is consonant with remaining “steadfast” in its “Christian faith” and “furthers” its mission to provide “safe homes” to vulnerable children.

How does Palusky define “safe”? Clearly, the eternal lives of these vulnerable children don’t factor into his understanding of safety. And clearly, raising children in the discipline and instruction of the Lord doesn’t factor into Bethany leaders’ understanding of remaining steadfast in their Christian faith.

Interesting side note about Palusky: He held a senior leadership position with World Vision in 2014 when World Vision announced its controversial decision to hire employees in homosexual relationships. The decision was so controversial, World Vision reversed it in two days. Four years later, in 2018, Palusky unfortunately landed at Bethany Christian Services.

Bethany passed an “inclusivity” policy this past January that omits this position statement in place since 2007:

God’s design for the family is a covenant and lifelong marriage of one man and one woman.

Would an organization that remains steadfast in its Christian faith and whose faith in Jesus remains at it core remove Jesus’ definition of marriage and replace it with a policy that permits children to be placed in the homes of unrepentant homosexuals?

In making its decision to render unto Caesar God’s children and, in practice, to embrace heretical doctrinal positions, did Bethany consult Scripture? Nope. Bethany hired the Barna Group to poll 667 “self-identified” Christians:

Barna found 55% of Christians said either that sexual preference should not determine who can foster or adopt, or that it was better for children to be in an LGBTQ home than in foster care. The survey also found that 76% of self-identified Christians agree, at least somewhat, that it would be better for Christian agencies to comply with government requirements pertaining to the LGBTQ community rather than shut down.

Well, there you have it: a childcare organization at the core of which is purportedly Jesus uses a poll to help determine whether it should place children in the homes of men and women who affirm sin as good.

The belief of 507 of 667 self-identified Christians that Bethany should comply with Big Brother, and the belief of 367 of 667 self-identified Christians that it is better for vulnerable children to be raised by homosexuals than by heterosexual foster parents persuaded Bethany leaders of the position they already held.  Perhaps it would have been wiser to poll 667 theologically orthodox, non-apostate Christian pastors on this momentous decision.

A false dichotomy appears to be implicit in the questions posed to the 667 self-identified Christians. The choices available to Bethany are not limited either to capitulating to homosexuals and Caesar or shutting down.

There is a third option available to organizations for whom steadfast faith in and obedience to Jesus Christ is truly central to their mission: They can disengage from Caesar. Bethany could refuse government money and all its attached un-sanctifying, damning strings dangling so temptingly before them.

Enquiring minds want to know if Bethany—fully committed to Christ and his kingdom as it is—will soon place children in the homes of men who pretend to be women? What about in the homes of homosexual “throuples” like the one from San Diego (whose book Amazon is not banning)? This particular “throuple”—three men who fought successfully to have all three of their names listed on their children’s birth certificates—didn’t need to adopt. Instead, they purchased genetic material and rented wombs. But other “throuples,” “quadrouples,” or “septouples” may not have the resources for purchasing genetic material. Will Bethany one day place vulnerable children with such families? If not, why not?

Why not place children in the homes of polyamorists with five adults of assorted biological sexes and sexual interests? If the sex of adopting parents is irrelevant, why is the number of partners relevant? Come to think of it, if love is love, why does blood kinship matter? Why not place children in the homes of brothers in romantic/erotic unions?

While a Barna poll may show over half of self-identifying Christians currently oppose such placements, just wait awhile and poll them again.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/BCS.mp3

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

It makes a difference!

The Great Gelding of American men was a necessary precondition for “trans”-cultists to begin in earnest their effort to eradicate all public recognition of sex differences everywhere for everyone. This goal is within reach because of policies and laws already in place. The “Equality” Act will be the coup de grace. This effort could not be successful without the gelding of American men, because in previous generations, men would have protected women and children. But that was then and this is now.

The “Equality” Act has already passed the U.S. House of Representatives with three traitorous Republicans voting in favor of it. It now moves to the U.S. Senate. Let’s hope and pray there are enough wise and courageous men and women to stop it there.

I have said and written ad nauseum something that no one to my knowledge is discussing, which is that once discrimination based on both “sex” and “gender identity” is prohibited in places of public accommodation—as it is here in Illinois and will be everywhere if the “Equality” Act is signed into law—there exists no legal way to prohibit normal men—those the left refers to as “cisgender”—from accessing women’s private spaces, including women’s bathrooms and locker rooms.

Let’s say the University of Illinois permits Bob who pretends to be Mary unrestricted access to the women’s locker room. Then one day “cisgender” John who identifies as the sex he is requests unrestricted access to the women’s locker room. The university couldn’t deny John access based on his sex because 1. Discrimination based on sex is illegal, and 2. The university has already allowed biological male Bob access to the women’s locker room.

And the university couldn’t deny “cisgender” John access based on his “cisgender” identity because discrimination based on “gender identity” is illegal–or will be soon.

There you have it, friends. Most obstacles—including the un-manning of men—to the eradication of sex-segregation in private spaces have been removed. The rest of the obstacles are being carried away as we sit in our homes watching Netflix.

Feminists, lesbians, and Christian women are now banding together as co-belligerents to fight this unholy, anti-science movement, which is a good thing. But are men really going to leave this ugly battle to women to fight? Are there not enough un-gelded men remaining in America to lead this effort to protect their daughters, wives, mothers, sisters, and girlfriends? Are there not enough Congressmen who will not only vote against the “Equality” Act but also speak out against it publicly?

Thankfully, not all American men have been gelded. As we learned last week, U.S. Representative Gregory Steube, a Republican from Florida, boldly defended God’s created order on the House floor and warned of the consequences for rebellion against that order.

Immediately, the always foolish and arrogant U.S. Representative Jerry Nadler (D-NY) leapt to his feet to express the impious, ignorant, and anti-American belief that Congress has no interest in God:

Mr. Steube, whatever any religious tradition ascribes as God’s will is no concern of this Congress.

Clearly, Nadler is correct. God’s will is of no concern to this Democrat-controlled Congress.

One wonders what Nadler would have said when in 1789, George Washington spoke these words to the first Congress at the first presidential inauguration:

[I]t would be peculiarly improper to omit in this first official Act, my fervent supplications to that Almighty Being who rules over the Universe, who presides in the Councils of Nations, and whose providential aids can supply every human defect, that his benediction may consecrate to the liberties and happiness of the People of the United States, a Government instituted by themselves for these essential purposes: and may enable every instrument employed in its administration to execute with success, the functions allotted to his charge. In tendering this homage to the Great Author of every public and private good, I assure myself that it expresses your sentiments not less than my own; nor those of my fellow-citizens at large, less than either. No People can be bound to acknowledge and adore the invisible hand, which conducts the Affairs of men more than the People of the United States.

And what does Nadler in his infinite wisdom think of these words from George Washington in 1789:

Whereas it is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favor, and Whereas both Houses of Congress have by their joint Committee requested me “to recommend to the People of the United States a day of public thanks-giving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness.”

Now therefore I do recommend and assign Thursday the 26th day of November next to be devoted by the People of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being, who is the beneficent Author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be.

For those unfamiliar with Steube, he is an attorney who enlisted in the U.S. Army after 9/11 and “served with distinction from 2004 to 2008 as an Airborne Infantry Officer and a JAG Corps Officer.  Greg served as the Chief of Detainee Operations for Multinational Division North in Iraq with the 25th Infantry Division in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom from 2006-2007.”

In addition to obliterating the right of free people to distinguish between men and women in bathrooms, locker rooms, and shelters, the “Equality” Act specifically addresses the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The “Equality” Act essentially says that the right of people of faith to exercise freely their beliefs on the nature and meaning of biological sex must be subordinated to the invented “right” of cross-dressing persons to access the private spaces of opposite-sex persons.

The leftist hive mind affirms the destruction of all public recognition of biological sex as well as the First Amendment. Resistance is futile—or so our buzzing Overlords think.

Take ACTION:  The measure now proceeds to the U.S. Senate where the potential outcome remains uncertain. Click HERE to send a message to our U.S. Senators Dick Durbin and Tammy Duckworth to urge them to oppose the federal Equality Act (H.R. 5) which seeks to amend the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to include protections for an individual’s perceived sex, “sexual orientation,” or “gender identity.”

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Where-Are-Men-in-the-Fight-to-Protect-Women.mp3

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 to enroll right away.

Click HERE to donate to IFI

Yesterday, U.S. Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) put to shame every Congressman and Congresswoman who refuses to state publicly and definitively that no medical professional should support cross-sex hormone-doping for minors or the elective removal of healthy parts of their sexual anatomy as “treatments” for disordered feelings about their maleness or femaleness.

The inspiring and courageous statements by Senator Paul occurred in a must-see exchange between Senator Paul and the pitiable Dr. “Rachel” Levine, a cross-dressing male physician whom the pandering Joe Biden has nominated to be his assistant health secretary. Of all the physicians in all of America, Biden chose a psychologically unwell man, and the reason for choosing Levine? Obviously, he was chosen because he masquerades as a woman and calls his masquerade “authentic identity.”

Senator Paul began by reminding Levine that female genital mutilation has been widely condemned:

Genital mutilation has been condemned by the WHO, the United Nations Children’s Fund, and the United Nations Population Fund. According to the WHO, genital mutilation is recognized internationally as a violation of human rights. Genital mutilation is considered particularly egregious because as the WHO notes, it is nearly always carried out on minors and is a violation of the rights of children.

Senator Paul further noted that as with genital mutilation, social forces today play a critical role in forming “trans”-cultic beliefs and practices that harm the bodies of minors:

Genital mutilation is not typically performed by force, but, as WHO notes, by social convention, social norm, the social pressure to conform, to do what others do and have been doing, as well as the need to be accepted socially, and the fear of being rejected by the community.

Evidence increasingly shows that social influences, including both the influence of social media and peers, have profound effects on adolescents, particularly on girls who tend to be more vulnerable to what are called “social contagions” (e.g., repressed memory syndrome, bulimia, and cutting) than are boys.

A study released in the United Kingdom showed that between 2009-2018, there was a 4,515 percent increase in the number of minor girls seeking to “transition,”—a shocking increase that many experts believe is the result of social media providing a distorted lens through which girls are misinterpreting their often normal feelings.

Rather than recommending waiting and counseling to get at the root causes for the confused and disordered feelings of minors, “trans”-cultists and their profiteering allies are recommending experimental medications and surgeries while banning counseling.

Senator Paul asked Levine,

Dr. Levine, you have supported both allowing minors to be given hormone blockers to prevent them from going through puberty, as well as surgical destruction of a minor’s genitalia. Like surgical mutilation, hormonal interruption of puberty can permanently alter and prevent secondary sexual characteristics. The American College of Pediatricians reports that 80 to 95% of pre-pubertal children with gender dysphoria will experience resolution by late adolescence, if not exposed to medical intervention and social affirmation. Dr. Levine, do you believe that minors are capable of making such a life changing decision as changing one’s sex?

Note U.S. Senator Paul’s inclusion of “social affirmation,” as a factor that contributes to minors persisting in their rejection of their biological sex. Affirming their delusional thinking through incorrect pronouns and restroom/locker room usage policies harm children.

Instead of answering Senator Paul’s direct and clear question, Levine dodged with a pre-memorized evasion, so Senator Paul tried again:

Let’s be a little more specific since you evaded the question. Do you support the government intervening to override the parent’s consent to give a child puberty-blockers, cross-sex hormones, and/or amputation surgery of breasts and genitalia? You have said that you’re willing to accelerate the protocols for street kids. I’m alarmed that poor kids with no parents who are homeless and distraught, that you would just go through with this and allow that to happen to a minor.

Again, Levine robotically recited the same memorized, evasive non-answer, which revealed that Levine does, indeed, support the chemical sterilization and surgical mutilation of minors who experience sexual confusion, often because of abuse and/or the toxic influence of social media.

Barely containing his justifiable and righteous anger over the destructive ignorance and dissembling of Levine, Senator Paul said what every decent American should be saying publicly and often:

Let it go into the record that the witness refused to answer the question. The question is a very specific one: Should minors be making these momentous decisions? For most of the history of medicine, we wouldn’t let you have a cut sewn up in the ER, but you’re willing to let a minor take things that prevent their puberty, and you think they get that back? You give a woman testosterone enough that she grows a beard, and you think she’s going to go back looking like a woman when you stop the testosterone? You have permanently changed them. Infertility is another problem. None of these drugs have been approved for this. They’re all being used off-label. I find it ironic that the left that went nuts over hydroxychloroquine being used possibly for COVID are not alarmed that these hormones are being used off-label.

There’s no long-term studies. We don’t know what happens to them. We do know that there are dozens and dozens of people who’ve been through this, who regret that this happened. And a permanent change happened to them and if you’ve ever been around children, 14-year-olds can’t make this decision. In the gender dysphoria clinic in England, 10% of the kids are between the ages of three and 10. We should be outraged that someone is talking to a three-year-old about changing their sex. I can’t vote for you if you can’t make a decision.

U.S. Senator Paul’s concluding statement exposed the hypocrisy and dishonesty of leftists. To leftists, the off-label use of hydroxychloroquine for the emergency treatment of a viral pandemic that was killing thousands of people worldwide was unconscionable. Why? Because successfully treating COVID-19 would have helped President Trump.

But the off-label use of puberty-blockers like Lupron, and the prescription of estrogen for physically healthy boys and progesterone for physically healthy girls are not only medically sound but also altruistic acts of love. At least the “trans” cult and its legion of allies think so.

And who are these allies? Who are the groups that gain from exploiting confused children?

Well, there are the cosmetic surgeons, endocrinologists, pharmaceutical companies, mental health “professionals,” academics, and YouTube “influencers” whose greedy hands are grasping for the filthy lucre the “trans” cult generates for them.

And then there are the pandering politicians like Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, and every member of Congress who are content to say nothing as the bodies of children are destroyed. Children are expendable commodities because, unlike “trans”-cultists,” children have no power.

Listen to this article read by Laurie: 

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/Rand-Paul-Confronts-Bidens-Cross-Dressing-Pick-for-Assistant-Health-Secretary_audio.mp3

We urge you to pray for our state and nation, for our elected officials in Springfield and Washington D.C.  

PLEASE also consider a financial gift to IFI to sustain our work. We have stood firm for 29 years, working to boldly bring a biblical perspective to public policy.

On Thursday afternoon (2/25/2021), the U.S. House of Representatives voted 224 to 206 to pass the so-called “Equality Act” (H.R. 5), which would enshrine “sexual orientation” (i.e., homosexuality) and “gender identity” (i.e., cross-sex identification) as legally protected classes in a myriad of federal laws. The vote fell along party lines, with only three Republicans (U.S. Reps. Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania, John Katko of New York, and Tom Reed of New York) voting with the Democratic majority, and two Republicans not voting.

Illinois’ congressional delegation voted as expected. Republicans Mike Bost, Rodney Davis, Adam Kinzinger, Daren LaHood, and Mary Miller voted against H.R. 5.

Democrats Cheri Bustos, Sean Casten, Danny Davis, Bill Foster, Chuy Garcia, Robin Kelly, Raja Krishnamoorthi, Marie Newman, Mike Quigley, Bobby Rush, Jan Schakowsky, Brad Schneider, and Lauren Underwood voted in favor of H.R. 5.

Take ACTION:  The measure now proceeds to the U.S. Senate where the potential outcome remains uncertain. Click HERE to send a message to our U.S. Senators Dick Durbin and Tammy Duckworth to urge them to oppose the federal Equality Act (H.R. 5) which seeks to amend the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to include protections for an individual’s perceived sex, “sexual orientation,” or “gender identity.”

To be clear, H.R. 5 would remove significant rights and opportunities from many in our communities:

• People of faith who live and work consistently with their religious beliefs on marriage and human sexuality would be harmed. This includes medical professionals forced to participate in “gender transition” efforts, counselors banned from helping their clients, and religious employers (like Christian schools) forced to hire those who do not share their mission. The bill specifically takes away the religious protections we currently have under federal law.

• Women and girls would be forced to compete in athletics on an unfair playing field with biological males.

• School children and adults would have their privacy rights infringed upon by allowing sex-specific facilities (locker rooms, showers, bathrooms) to be used by the opposite biological sex.

• Women’s shelters would be forced to admit biological men.

• Adoption agencies and other non-profit charities would be subjected to government shutdown and discrimination lawsuits for continuing to follow their mission.

• Free speech would be censored by compelling policies for preferred pronoun use.

We believe every human being is created in the image and likeness of Almighty God, and therefore deserves to be treated with dignity and respect. Using the heavy hand of government, however, to force good people to deny biological realities and to compromise their religious convictions is not the answer.

Speak up now before it is too late.

To understand more about the widespread harms the passage of H.R. 5 would have on our nation, see IFI recent Action Alert and the host of helpful resources from our friends at Alliance Defending Freedom.

Read more:

U.S. House passes pro-abortion ‘Equality Act’ to write transgenderism into civil rights law (LifeSiteNews.com)

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 to enroll right away.

Click HERE to donate to IFI

Apprise your U.S. Senator of your feelings about the “Equality Act”! Find their contact information here: https://www.votervoice.net/ILFI/Address

In the Old Testament, the sound of a trumpet is often the signal to God’s people to assemble for battle. Right now, in Illinois and across the nation, Laurie Higgins is sounding the trumpet to call parents, grandparents, and all concerned citizens to fight for the hearts, minds, and innocence of our impressionable schoolchildren.

Janet Parshall, host of In the Market with Janet Parshall, welcomed Laurie to a this past week to her program. In this interview, Janet and Laurie discuss the death of common sense and logical thinking, as evidenced by Illinois’ embrace of all things radically progressive. They consider the Culturally Responsive Teaching and Leading Standards, LGBT History mandate, REACH Act (mandatory sex education for K-12), and the newest lunacy, the Equitable Restrooms Act. Their conversation also includes thoughts on how Christians must prepare to best confront these misguided policies, the people who are promoting them, and our friends and neighbors who need to hear the truth.

Please listen and share this informative interview with family and friends.

Laurie Higgins has been the cultural affairs writer for IFI since 2008. Her insightful, no-nonsense articles can be found at IllinoisFamily.org.

In addition to hosting her nationally syndicated radio program, Janet Parshall is also a sought-after public speaker, author and family advocate.

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 to enroll right away.

Click HERE to donate to IFI

What will it take for decent, sane Illinoisans to organize and protest the loathsome laws coming out of the un-mucked out stable in Springfield? Maybe this bill will do it.

On Feb. 19, 2021, State Senator Melinda Bush (D-Grayslake) proposed amendment SB 457 to the “Equitable Restrooms Act.” Her amendment is called the “Equitable Restrooms Act—All-Gender,” which offers a hint to its content. This excerpt from her amendment makes clear what Bush wants:

The purpose of this Section is to promote the privacy, safety, and gender inclusivity of all Illinois residents and visitors. …

Any multiple-occupancy restroom may be converted into an all-gender multiple-occupancy restroom. If a multiple-occupancy restroom is to be converted into an all-gender multiple-occupancy restroom and a multiple-occupancy restroom serving a different gender is located adjacent or in proximity to the all-gender multiple-occupancy restroom, then both multiple-occupancy restrooms must be converted into all-gender multiple-occupancy restrooms. …

If an all-gender multiple-occupancy restroom is newly constructed, a newly constructed or previously existing restroom located adjacent or in proximity to the newly constructed all-gender multiple-occupancy restrooms must also be designated as an all-gender multiple-occupancy restroom. (emphasis added)

Maybe a reporter could ask Bush what exactly a “different gender” from all genders is? And maybe someone could ask her how exactly the privacy and safety of Illinois girls and women are promoted via mixed-sex bathrooms. In the meantime, Illinoisans should cogitate a bit on the rest of this dung heap of a bill.

Bush’s amendment will mandate that if an existing single-sex multiple-occupancy bathroom is converted to a mixed-sex bathroom, any nearby single-sex multiple-occupancy bathroom must be converted to a mixed-sex bathroom. Further, if a new mixed-sex multiple-occupancy bathroom is constructed, any bathroom nearby must also be a mixed-sex bathroom.

How long before the conscience-deformed swampsters propose a bill requiring that all new and existing multiple-occupancy bathrooms must be mixed-sex? Incrementally, the left will ban all single-sex multiple-occupancy bathrooms in deference to their overlords: “trans”-cultists.

For those who don’t remember, Melinda Bush was one of the prime movers of Illinois’ malignant “Reproductive Health Act,” more accurately called the Kill Babies Bill. Apparently, there are a lot of Grayslake voters who don’t much care about girls of any age.

As I have said repeatedly (and with increasing frustration), the end game for the “trans” cult is not unrestricted access to opposite-sex private spaces for a handful of delusional cross-sex impersonators. The end game is the eradication of all public recognition of sex differences, which means no private spaces for anyone. No private spaces for girls and women. No private spaces for boys and men.

“Trans”-cultists believe girls and women should have no single-sex multiple-occupancy bathrooms available to them anywhere. And “trans”-cultists believe boys and men should have no single-sex multiple-occupancy bathrooms available to them.

If “trans”-cultists and their ignorant allies like Melinda Bush get their way, all girls and women will be forced to enter public bathrooms and walk past men using urinals. Girls and women will be forced to urinate and defecate in stalls next to men—in some cases, peers or co-workers—doing likewise. Girls and women will be forced to emerge from stalls and stand next to unrelated men—including men they don’t even know—while washing their hands after doing their business. Girls and women will be forced to purchase feminine hygiene products in the presence of unrelated men.

This is the primitive, uncivilized dystopia leftists are socially constructing and imposing on all Americans: a world without modesty and privacy. To them, accommodations for modesty and privacy point to sex differences, and that is something they will not abide.

If biological sex as manifest in biology and anatomy has no intrinsic and profound meaning relative to undressing, nudity, or intimate bodily functions, then there remains no reason for any sex-segregated private spaces anywhere for anyone.

If objective, immutable biological sex has no more meaning than eye color, then logically, sex-segregated bathrooms, dressing rooms, showers—including in high school locker rooms and college sports facilities—shelters, hospital rooms, prisons, and dorm rooms make no sense.

If biological sex is a superficial trait as unimportant as skin color, then it makes no sense for any woman to prefer female gynecologists for exams or prefer female x-ray technicians for mammograms.

If biological sex is a meaningless characteristic, then there remains no reason to require locker room attendants in middle and high school locker rooms to be of the same sex as the students they oversee. Would we ever require all locker room attendants to have a certain eye or skin color?

But if objective, immutable biological sex is intrinsically and profoundly meaningful with regard to feelings of modesty and the desire for privacy when engaged in intimate bodily functions or undressing, then the refusal to respect and accommodate biological sex differences in private settings is evil.

Make no mistake, this is coming to all public spaces in all states. The “trans”-cult will leave no corner unsullied by its delusional and evil beliefs and practices, because the presence of any cultural recognition that biological sex exists and has meaning threatens the shaky ideological grounding of their cult-like, science-denying beliefs.

In our brave new socially constructed dystopia, single-sex group bathrooms are passé. Mixed-sex group bathrooms are all the rage, and they’re coming to public schools, colleges and universities, big-box stores, sports arenas, concert venues, restaurants, theaters, office buildings, airports, bus stations, and train stations.

As I wrote two weeks ago,

Leftists have their gimlet eyes always focused on the big picture as they play the long game to rule the country. While conservatives dismiss the “little” offenses and fume briefly about the big offenses against decency, morality, and truth, leftists continue their march through every institution that shapes culture.

Slowly they come, step by step, prepared for the wailing of conservatives, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. Leftists bide their time, knowing the annoying sound and fury will shortly abate. Exhausted, conservatives will go home, abandoning all that messy, unpleasant opposition to the culture-unmaking of leftists. Conservatives won’t organize, won’t persevere, and won’t sacrifice. And the ones who do fight the evil-doers are alone and isolated because the masses of conservatives don’t want to do the hard work of culture-making.

What Illinois and the nation need are a few good men and women to rise up and lead a movement of all decent people against this injustice. Just imagine what kind of country we will bequeath to our children and grandchildren if we continue to do nothing now.

Take ACTION: Click HERE to send a message to your state senator and state representative. Urge them to vote against SB 457 and the foolish agenda that fails to recognize biological facts. Ask them to protect the privacy, dignity and safety of all Illinois citizens.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/Bathroom-81.mp3

A bold voice for pro-family values in Illinois!

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

As I have long argued, the greatest threat posed to our First Amendment assembly, speech, and religious free exercise protections comes from the homosexual community and the “trans” cult. Already state laws and judicial decisions have been eroding those protections, and last Thursday, the most dangerous threat yet emerged in Congress when U.S. Representative David Cicilline (D-RI) re-introduced the deceitfully titled “Equality Act,” which explicitly neuters religious protections when religious beliefs conflict with disordered sexual desires.

The Equality Act (H.R. 5) would add “sexual orientation” (i.e., homosexuality) and “gender identity” (i.e., cross-sex impersonation) to the current list of bases on which discrimination is prohibited in the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Doing so is a means of abrogating 1. the right of free people to express moral judgments about volitional acts, 2. the right of people of faith to exercise their religion freely with regard to beliefs on sexuality, and 3. the right to recognize the scientific reality of sex differences in those places where sex differences matter most.

When leftists say that the Equality Act will protect “LGBTQ” persons from discrimination, they mean the Equality Act will prohibit conservative people from making decisions in accordance with their beliefs—including religious beliefs—about marriage, volitional sexual acts, and cross-sex impersonation. In other words, if the Equality Act passes, a new protected class based on or constituted by disordered subjective sexual feelings will be created and our first freedom will be abrogated.

The Equality Act, which has 223 co-sponsors—all Democrats—is supposed to be voted on this week after which it will move to the U.S. Senate. President Biden is urging Congress to pass it with all due haste, so he—the self-identifying Catholic—can sign into law the bill that will undermine religious protections for Catholics and Protestants.

The Equality Act makes clear the sweeping nature of the cultural changes leftists seek to impose via federal legislation.

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer … people commonly experience discrimination in securing access to public accommodations—including … senior centers … health care facilities, shelters …  youth service providers including adoption and foster care providers. … Forms of discrimination include the exclusion and denial of entry, unequal or unfair treatment. … (with respect to gender identity) an individual shall not be denied access to a shared facility, including a restroom, a locker room, and a dressing room, that is in accordance with the individual’s gender identity.

If this legislation passes, no senior center, health care facility, shelter, or adoption agency that partners with the federal government or receives federal money will be permitted to treat biological men who pretend to be women as men.

Shelters, senior centers, and hospitals with sex-segregated restrooms, showers, or sleeping quarters will be forced to sexually integrate those private spaces.

Catholic hospitals will be forced to perform surgical mutilations on men and women who seek to pass as the sex they are not.

Christian adoption and foster care providers will be forced to place infants, children, and teens in the homes of homosexuals and cross-sex impersonators.

Teachers in government schools will be forced to facilitate delusional “trans”-cultic beliefs and practices. Administrators, faculty, and staff will be required by law to use incorrect pronouns, which constitutes bearing false witness. And locker room supervisors will be forced to oversee students of the opposite sex undressing.

The Equality Act poses some as of yet unacknowledged ideological and pragmatic problems for Democrats. For example, on the same day Cicilline reintroduced the Equality Act, U.S. Representative Grace Meng (D-NY) reintroduced her bill that seeks to protect girls and women in refugee camp bathrooms. Meng explained,

Refugee camps should be safe havens for those who have been forced to flee their countries and that includes secure facilities for restrooms. … But unfortunately, many bathrooms in refugee camps do not provide appropriate safety protections. Many refugee camps lack adequate access to such facilities and often times the restrooms are mixed-sex, public, and without locks. … These conditions create a lack of privacy and dignity and make women and girls afraid to use the restrooms, fearing that they may be assaulted and subjected to violence while using the bathroom. These types of conditions are unacceptable. Nobody should have their safety jeopardized in order care for their most basic hygiene needs. My bill would finally combat this problem. (emphasis added)

David Cicilline is a co-sponsor of Meng’s bill, which means that Cicilline is the co-sponsor of a bill that prohibits mixed-sex bathrooms in federal refugee camps and the sponsor of a bill that mandates mixed-sex bathrooms in all federally funded facilities.

Oh, what tangled webs …

The Equality Act also includes the following:

A single instance of discrimination may have more than one basis. For example, discrimination against a married same-sex couple could be based on the sex stereotype that marriage should only be between heterosexual couples, the sexual orientation of the two individuals in the couple, or both.

Leftists define the belief that marriage is the union of two people of opposite sexes as a discriminatory “sex stereotype,” and they want to legally prohibit every American from acting in accordance with that belief. Of course, the leftist opinion that the cross-cultural and historical understanding of marriage is a discriminatory sex stereotype is neither an objective fact nor true. It is an ideological assumption.

As an end run around the First Amendment’s religious protection, the anti-constitutional, anti-liberty, anti-Christian, perversity-supremacy law—misnamed the Equality Act—states,

The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 … shall not provide a claim concerning, or a defense to a claim under, a covered title, or provide a basis for challenging the application or enforcement of a covered title.

Anticipating appeals to equality for people of faith, who are currently protected by both the First Amendment and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, the tyrants behind the Religious Bigotry Act Equality Act made sure that people of faith lose.

As I wrote two years ago,

The Equality Act would require that federal law recognize disordered subjective feelings and deviant behaviors as protected characteristics. Federal law would absurdly recognize homoeroticism and cross-sex masquerading as conditions that must be treated like race and biological sex, which are objective, 100 percent heritable conditions that are in all cases immutable, and carry no behavioral implications.

Once the law is enjoined to protect two groups based on their subjective sexual feelings and volitional sexual behaviors, we open a Pandora’s Box of evils that will inevitably result in conflicts between the new legal rights of those who embrace sexual deviance as “identity” and 1. the First Amendment rights of those who reject sexual deviance, 2. the moral right of businesses to require restrooms, locker rooms, and showers to correspond to biological sex, 3. the right of businesses to fire or refuse to hire a person who chooses to masquerade as the opposite sex, and 4. the right of public schools to fire or to refuse to hire a person who chooses to impersonate the opposite sex.

If the Equality Act passes, all it will take for other groups to have their sexual peccadillos deemed “sexual orientations,” is to organize and wait for the culture to do its dirty work.

Academia will jump aboard first, squawking in newly invented jargon and intellectual-ese about identity, authenticity, equity, tolerance, diversity, bigotry, hatred, and phobias.

Then the “arts,” will join in writing plays, novels, Hollywood scripts, and heartstring-pulling songs affirming all sorts of perverse sexual fetishes as authentic “identities.”

Next our polluted and politicized professional mental health and medical communities will manufacture “social science” studies to show how much happier polyamorists are when they are free to live in poly-pods without shaming judgments; and that brothers in love should be permitted to marry (after all, love is love); and that adults who identify as babies should be free to wear onesies to work in order to be their authentic selves, after which all of society will be  forced to ask our friends, neighbors, co-workers, and students what their preferred age is.

Christians will be legally prohibited from acting on their moral judgments about sexual perversion, and dissenters will be “othered,” cancelled, and shamed. Soon Christian-shaming will be the only shaming permitted in this brave new world where shame is unmoored from morality.

Americans are a tolerant and patient people, but their capacity for tolerating unjust oppression and suppression of their most fundamental rights is not unlimited. I suspect Pelosi, Schumer et al. realize that. I suspect they know that the radical anti-American, anti-liberty, anti-Constitution, anti-Christianity, Big Brother-esque agenda they have planned for Americans in the next four years may spark a rebellion. Hence the razor-topped wall surrounding the “people’s” house.

But, razor-topped barbed wire cannot keep standing a house divided against itself.

Take ACTION: (UPDATED) Click HERE to send a message to your U.S. Representative our U.S. Senators to urge him/her them to oppose the federal Equality Act (H.R. 5) which seeks to amend the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to include protections for an individual’s perceived sex, “sexual orientation,” or “gender identity.” If you know the name of your local official, you can also call the U.S. Capitol switchboard at (202) 224-3121 and ask the operator to connect you with his/her office to leave a message.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/audioThe-Equality-Act-Will-Lay-Waste-to-This-Already-Divided-House_01.mp3

A bold voice for pro-family values in Illinois!

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

As the social media giants continue to crack down on those who violate their trans-activist talking points (see here and here), another perspective has been raised from an unexpected source. I’m talking about a powerful, deeply moving article posted in Newsweek and titled, “We Need Balance When It Comes To Gender Dysphoric Kids. I Would Know.”

The author of the op-ed is Scott Newgent, self-described as “a 48-year-old transgender man.” What Newgent has written is courageous, deeply revealing, poignant, and accurate.

Perhaps others will now heed these urgent warnings, since those of us on the conservative Christian side who have been presenting similar cases have been largely ignored to this day.

Six years ago, Newgent was told by the medical community that she could turn from a woman into a man. But, Newgent adds, “all the negatives were glossed over.”

As a result, “I have suffered tremendously, including seven surgeries, a pulmonary embolism, an induced stress heart attack, sepsis, a 17-month recurring infection, 16 rounds of antibiotics, three weeks of daily IV antibiotics, arm reconstructive surgery, lung, heart and bladder damage, insomnia, hallucinations, PTSD, $1 million in medical expenses, and loss of home, car, career and marriage. All this, and yet I cannot sue the surgeon responsible—in part because there is no structured, tested or widely accepted baseline for transgender health care.”

Most of us cannot imagine this kind of trauma, let alone imagine telling a story like this to the whole world.

Yet, because it comes from the mouth of a biological female who now identifies as a male, the author can hardly be called transphobic. Plus, this op-ed was published in Newsweek rather than in a Focus on the Family magazine.

Unfortunately, when Christian conservatives have stated these same facts, we have been branded hateful and bigoted and transphobic. Not only so, but when former transgenders like Walt Heyer or Laura Perry tell their own, agonizing (yet redemptive) stories, they too are branded hateful and bigoted. (To see their stories for yourself, watch this free documentary. You won’t regret taking the time. You can also visit the SexChangeRegret website for more.)

But it is love and truth that caused Newgent to write, not hate. As Newgent states, “It is not transphobic or discriminatory to discuss this—we as a society need to fully understand what we are encouraging our children to do to their bodies.”

That’s why Abigail Shrier wrote her important book Irreversible Damage: The Transgender Craze Seducing Our Daughters, named a book of the year by The Economist and one of the best books of 2021 by The Times and The Sunday Times.

The alarm must be sounded. The warning must be issued. Not only are adults destroying their bodies and their lives, but our children are doing so as well. Doesn’t love compel us to speak?

Consequently, when Amazon refused to allow Shrier’s publisher to advertise the book on their site (sell it, yes, but advertise it, no), wasn’t it Amazon, not the publisher, that displayed dangerous bias?

Newgent, who previously identified as a lesbian, experienced many doubts about the transitioning process. But rather than the professionals slowing down the transition process, they all encouraged her to keep going. This is just what you need!

To the contrary, the surgeries and drugs took a terrible toll on Newgent, who found no real help in the medical world that was so quick to recommend her transition.

“During my post-operation 17 months of sheer survival,” Newgent writes, “I discovered that transgender health care is experimental and that large swaths of the medical industry encourage minors to transition due, at least in part, to fat profit margins.”

Yet those of us who seek to raise a cautionary flag, those of us who say, “Slow down! Let’s see if you can be helped from the inside out,” are branded the haters and the transphobes. How can this be?

I urge everyone reading this article to take the time to read every word of Newgent’s op-ed. A summary cannot begin to do justice to her journey, from the physical pain to the emotional agony to the devastating losses to the list of negative consequences.

In fact, everyone considering “transitioning” should memorize this list of 13 potential consequences. It begins with “decreased life expectancy” and includes “no improved mental health outcomes.” To call it sobering would be a gross understatement. Remarkably, after citing examples from other countries which are rethinking their approach to sex-change surgery and treatments, Newgent writes,

“We now have the obligation to work together to slow trans medicalization of minors until they are adults and have the capacity to truly understand the lifelong consequences of transitioning. As a former lesbian and current trans man, I maintain this is not transphobic. It is actually sensitive and caring to recognize that not just one treatment or pathway is right for all kids.”

But of course. It is love that has motivated many of us to call for this very slow down – in particular, love for the children. (You can see for yourself how my call for this on Tyra Banks was received over 10 years ago.)

Newgent closes with this:

“So, endocrinologists and pediatricians, moderate Democrats and moderate Republicans, radical feminists and evangelicals, lawyers and psychologists, parents and teachers: My hand is out. I will grab yours and turn down no one. Together, we can build a circle around our most precious resource: our children. Help me fulfill the promise I made on the night I almost gave up, to be here for my children—and now yours. Who’s with me?”

As a conservative evangelical, I say to Scott Newgent: for this cause, I am with you. Let’s do something to stop the madness. Let’s put the children first. And if I can be of help to you in any personal level as you work through your own journey, count me in.

This article was originally published at AskDrBrown.org.

After preaching at my home congregation Sunday morning, I got into my car in the church parking lot to check my voicemails and messages. One of my colleagues had sent me the link to his new article, which I decided to share with my Twitter followers. To my surprise, I discovered I was locked out of my account for 12 hours for violating Twitter Rules.

But what I had done? What was the violation? There was no further information, no link to file an appeal, and no reference to an offending tweet.

Several years ago, something similar happened to me, but Twitter subsequently apologized, explaining that they had misunderstood my tweet.

This time, I was left in the dark, forcing me to search online for a way to appeal the suspension.

Obviously, this was not a serious crisis, and like many other conservatives, I knew my time on Twitter might be limited. Still, I was wondering what offense I had committed.

Minutes later, I had my answer.

I was informed that I had been locked out my account for 12 hours because of this tweet, which had been posted on January 20: “Will I get punished by Twitter for saying that, in God’s sight, ‘Rachel’ Levine (nominated by Biden to be his assistant secretary for HHS) is a man?”

Yes, that was the offending tweet. It looks like Twitter answered my question!

When biological truth conflicts with transgender activism, biological truth is banned.

When biblical truth conflicts with transgender activism, biblical truth is banned.

There was nothing hateful in the tweet.

There was nothing that would incite violence.

I didn’t even “deadname” Levine, referring to him as “Richard.”

I simply stated the truth. In the sight of God, President Biden’s nominee for assistant secretary for Health and Human Services is a man.

Someone might challenge the statement, asking what gives me the right to speak for God.

Someone else might claim to have a different perspective on God’s point of view.

And, of course, an atheist would dispute the whole notion of God.

Fair enough. We can have those debates.

But to block me for this tweet? Really?

I read the Twitter Rules carefully.

Under the category of Safety are listed these sub-categories: Violence; Terrorism/violent extremism; Child sexual exploitation; Abuse/harassment; Hateful conduct; Suicide or self-harm; Sensitive media, including graphic violence and adult content; and Illegal or certain regulated goods or services.

Then I read the categories of Privacy and then Authenticity.

What rule had I violated? Where had I sinned? What was my transgression? (For John Zmirak’s brilliant, satirical self-confession, see here.)

Then I re-read the verbiage under “Hateful conduct,” which stated, “You may not promote violence against, threaten, or harass other people on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, caste, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, religious affiliation, age, disability, or serious disease.”

So was that it? Was that my crime?

I dug down deeper into the rules, clicking the link for more information, which included this note (which, for some reason, used British English spelling):

“We recognise that if people experience abuse on Twitter, it can jeopardize their ability to express themselves. Research has shown that some groups of people are disproportionately targeted with abuse online. This includes; women, people of color, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, intersex, asexual individuals, marginalized and historically underrepresented communities.”

So that must be it. By simply stating biological and biblical truth, I had “harassed” a transgender person. What else could it possibly be?

This led then to the next question. Why did it take Twitter four days to decide I was guilty?

My only guess is that on Saturday, former governor Mike Huckabee retweeted my article about Biden’s radical, trans-activist executive order, including my twitter handle in his tweet. And given the size of his Twitter following, the tweet got lots of attention. Did this, in turn, draw attention to my account, and then my tweet?

Either way, the end result was yet another example of Twitter’s leftist censorship.

Ironically, the Twitter Rules page states that,

“Twitter’s purpose is to serve the public conversation. Violence, harassment and other similar types of behavior discourage people from expressing themselves, and ultimately diminish the value of global public conversation. Our rules are to ensure all people can participate in the public conversation freely and safely.”

In reality, Twitter is stifling public conversation and harassing people who believe things as basic as this: in God’s sight, a biological male remains a male, even when identifying as a female.

Not only so, but once again, we see how affirmation of radical transgender ideology trumps science, Scripture, and even common sense.

Perhaps I’ll get blocked the next time for saying that someone who identifies as a cat (or dog or dragon or the like) is actually a human? After all, wouldn’t therians (who believe in some way that they have an animal identity) fit in the class of “marginalized and historically underrepresented communities”?

And what about Twitter’s extraordinary double standards, as Bible-believing conservatives like me get bashed and mocked and cursed by the minute on these platforms, specifically for being who we are and believing what we believe, and that is somehow fine and dandy.

Over 15 years ago, when I began to warn that those who came out of the closet wanted to put us in the closet, I was roundly mocked. “That’s ridiculous,” I was told.

Who would have believed me if I said back then, “Social media platforms will block us for saying that a male who identifies as a female is actually a man in God’s sight”? Who would have believed that?

Levine may be a decent human being and a serious professional. But he is not a woman in God’s sight whether Twitter likes it or not.

In the end, Twitter may suspend me or block me (and countless others). But they cannot change the truth.

This article was originally published at AskDrBrown.org.