In our must-read first installment in this series we used Wikipedia’s definition of the word paraphilia:

Paraphilia (from Greek παρά para “beside” and -philia φιλία “friendship, love”) is the experience of intense sexual arousal to atypical objects, situations, or individuals. Paraphilic behavior (such as pedophilia, zoophilia, sexual sadism, and exhibitionism) may be illegal in some jurisdictions, but may also be tolerated.

It is in the spirit of tolerance that we’ve been examining paraphilias other than the ones represented by the letters LGBT. Why should just those four get all the attention?

A year ago this month, IFI’s Laurie Higgins posted an article titled “Homosexuality, Race and Identity.” In it, she summed up how homosexual activists “sought to transform cultural disapproval of homoeroticism into approval,” and as part of their strategy, they sought to “co-opt the fight of blacks for racial equality.”

In short, this is what liberals think—or pretend to think—in the service of normalizing sexual deviance:

* Blacks were mistreated.
* Homosexuals were mistreated.
* Therefore skin color and homoeroticism are equivalent.

“The fallacious and odious comparison of race to sexual perversion,” Higgins writes, “has been an effective stratagem in our increasingly non-thinking culture, but there was yet more rhetorical gimcrackery to come.”

The homosexual activists also began “transforming the concept of “identity”:

They sought to recast identity as something intrinsically inviolable, immutable, and good. They sought to refashion identity in such a way as to make it culturally taboo to make judgments about any constituent feature of identity. They re-imagined identity in such a way as to move homoeroticism from the category of phenomena about which humans can legitimately make moral distinctions to one about which society is forbidden to make judgments.

Something tells me, though, that few in the homosexual community foresaw just how many possible “identities” there were (and are still) to come “out of the closet.”

You can read Laurie Higgins’ entire article here.

Now for everyone’s favorite part of these articles. On one side is nature’s design and intent (natural sex between men and women), and on the other is everything else. Is society prepared to give “equal rights” to the “everything else” — such as the paraphilia sadomasochism?

Technically, I think we get credit for two paraphilias (sadism and masochism) — note the italicized sentences that are included on this Wikipedia page  (and note the shocking use of the word “disorder” — those intolerant bigots!):

“S&M” redirects here. For other uses, see S&M (disambiguation).

This article is about the general historical concept of sadomasochism. For consenting partners engaging in sexual play behavior, see BDSM. For the medical condition involving unwilling victims, see Sexual sadism disorder. For the medical condition where pain or humiliation is required for sexual arousal and causes distress or impairment, see Sexual masochism disorder.

Sadomasochism is the giving or receiving pleasure from acts involving the receipt or infliction of pain or humiliation. Practitioners of sadomasochism may seek sexual gratification from their acts. While the terms sadist and masochist refer respectively to one who enjoys giving or receiving pain, practitioners of sadomasochism may switch between activity and passivity.

And to our question of the day: will therapies to help minors change their unwanted sadomasochistic desires be banned?

Articles in this series, from oldest to newest:

Identity Politics and Paraphilias: Introducing a Series

Identity Politics and Paraphilias: Incest

Identity Politics and Paraphilias: Body Integrity Identity Disorder

Identity Politics and Paraphilias: Impact & Transgenders

Transgenderism a Choice or Disorder?

Why the Term “Sexual Orientation” is Nonsense

Identity Politics and Paraphilias: Man’s Search for Meaning

Identity Politics and Paraphilias: LGBT Is Not a Color & Fetishism

Identity Politics and Paraphilias: ‘Public Discourse’ Weighs In & Bisexuality

Identity Politics and Paraphilias: More from ‘Public Discourse’ & Autassassinophilia

Identity Politics and Paraphilias: An Ugly Fight & Bestiality/Zoophilia

Identity Politics and Paraphilias: Tribalism & Urolagnia

Identity Politics and Paraphilias: Ideas & Voyeurism

Charlottesville: A Return to the Topic of Identity Politics

Paraphilias of the Day: Pedophilia, Hebephilia, Ephebophilia, and Pederasty

Identity Politics and Paraphilias: Sports & Exhibitionism

PLEASE consider a financial gift to IFI to sustain our work.
We have stood firm for 25 years, working to boldly bring a biblical perspective to public policy.

Oh, those poor comedians. What used to be a joke is now, well, supposed to be taken seriously. How can those witty comics compete with the LGBT movement and its irrationality?

I’m just going excerpt three paragraphs from an article by Taylor Fogarty at The Federalist:

Why Trans Activists Will Destroy Homosexual Rights
Instead of fighting the inhumane treatment of gays outside of the West, the top human rights issue for LGBT activists is making sure we don’t hurt feelings of people who dispute the definition of being gay.

Fogarty does yeoman’s work attempting to outline the flat out silliness of the radical social policy leftists that are getting tripped up by their own confused thinking.

Trans activism insists [the definitions of ‘man’ and ‘woman’] are faulty while failing to provide an alternative. To them, the only relevant “fact” of identity is what is self-determined. The movement fails to coherently define the sexes because its entire political argument relies on suppressing this question in the first place. In reality, their true standard for being a woman or man is simply a strong “feeling” or “conviction” that you are one.

. . .

A “homosexual” is defined as: “a person who is sexually attracted to people of their own sex,” with “sex” defined as: “either of the two main categories (male and female) into which humans and most other living things are divided on the basis of their reproductive functions.” If the biological terms “male” and “female” have no bearing when defining people, what’s the point of defining sexuality?

Lesbian, gay, and bisexual people are erased from LGBT protections without coherent definitions of biological sex. When anyone can identify as a class of people, the law is not only negated but unnecessary, because by trans logic, we can just identify our way out of any and all oppressive structures.

Can you hear it? That’s the sound of many thousands of LGB’ers facing an existential crisis of personal identity. Now is a good time to be a licensed psychologist or psychiatrist. The next few years will see those professionals prosper like never before.

Note too this line from Fogarty, “When anyone can identity as a class of people…” Exactly. That’s what this series is all about. We’ll use that to transition to our paraphilia of the day: Necrophilia. Necrophiliacs are included in the “anyone” category along with all the other letters of the rainbow alphabet.

This article is being published in May, 2017, but there’s little doubt that for many months and years into the future visitors will be finding their way here by clicking on various links found in hysterical and dishonest posts which claim that “John Biver says that homosexual sex is the equivalent of sex with the dead.”

For the record, the back end of a man is as appealing to many as a dead body, but putting that aside, I didn’t list same-sex-sex alongside necrophilia, the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders did. Both, along with quite a few other variations, are listed as paraphilias. It must be noted that the APA is a highly politicized organization that is constantly moving classifications around in order to avoid hurting anyone’s feelings. (And we all know that there is nothing more important in life than avoiding that.)

Here’s our old friend Wikipedia:

Necrophilia, also called thanatophilia or necrolagnia, is the sexual attraction to corpses. It is classified as a paraphilia by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the American Psychiatric Association. The word is derived from the Greek words: νεκρός (nekros; “dead”) and φιλία (philia; “friendship”). The term was coined by the Belgian alienist Joseph Guislain, who first used it in a lecture in 1850.

Just one more thing: It’s important to note that necrophiliacs typically aren’t in long-term relationships. (Sorry.)

Now it is time for a question. We close all of these articles with a question as a public service in order to help society prepare for the future.

If someone were to donate to an organization that lobbies against Necrophiliac “rights,” will this donor be fired from the company Mozilla?

Articles in this series, from oldest to newest:

Identity Politics and Paraphilias: Introducing a Series

Identity Politics and Paraphilias: Incest

Identity Politics and Paraphilias: Body Integrity Identity Disorder

Identity Politics and Paraphilias: Impact & Transgenders

Transgenderism a Choice or Disorder?

Why the Term “Sexual Orientation” is Nonsense

Identity Politics and Paraphilias: Man’s Search for Meaning

Identity Politics and Paraphilias: LGBT Is Not a Color & Fetishism

Identity Politics and Paraphilias: ‘Public Discourse’ Weighs In & Bisexuality

Identity Politics and Paraphilias: More from ‘Public Discourse’ & Autassassinophilia

Identity Politics and Paraphilias: An Ugly Fight & Bestiality/Zoophilia

Identity Politics and Paraphilias: Tribalism & Urolagnia

Identity Politics and Paraphilias: Ideas & Voyeurism

Charlottesville: A Return to the Topic of Identity Politics

Paraphilias of the Day: Pedophilia, Hebephilia, Ephebophilia, and Pederasty

Identity Politics and Paraphilias: Sports & Exhibitionism

The entire Identity Politics and Paraphilias series can be found here.

PLEASE consider a financial gift to IFI to sustain our work.
We have stood firm for 25 years, working to boldly bring a biblical perspective to public policy.

IFI received a return-request letter via priority mail this week from Dunner Law, a law firm based in Washington D.C. that specializes in intellectual property law. The letter came from Adam Sikich, senior counsel with Dunner Law (and according to his bio, a “Star Wars aficionado”) on behalf of Dunner’s “Client,” the American Psychological Association (APA). In this letter, Sikich kinda, sorta implied Dunner might slap IFI with a $150,000 lawsuit if we don’t remove three illustrations we used in recent articles about a children’s picture book celebrating “pride” parades titled This Day in June by lesbian author Gayle E. Pitman.

Star Wars aficionado Sikich first told us how very important his “Client” is:

We represent the American Psychological Association, Inc. (“our Client”) in its intellectual property matters. We write to you regarding your organization’s use of protected illustrations from the copyrighted work This Day in June.

As you may be aware, our Client is the largest and most prestigious publisher in the field of psychology, mental health and development. Our Client’s children’s book division, Magination Press, publishes books that help children deal with the many challenges and problems they face as they grow up.

How have so many people for so many decades not realized how desperately little children need picture books about “pride” parades to help them face the challenges and problems they face—you know, the problems created for them by adults who sought to mainstream sexual deviance?

Then Aficionado Sikich informed IFI of the seriousness of our potential crime and the potential penalties for our potential lawbreaking:

Your organization’s use and posting of illustrations from This Day in June without our Client’s permission and without attribution to our Client or the book’s illustrator, Kristyna Litten, violates our Client’s exclusive rights in its work, including the right to control the publication, reproduction and distribution of the illustrations within the work. These actions subject your organization to copyright infringement liability under the U.S. Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § I 06, entitling our Client to injunctive relief as well as statutory damages in an amount up to $150,000 if your organization is found to have willfully infringed the protectable rights in the illustrations. [emphasis added]

Clearly, Aficionado Sikich and the “Client” are miffed that the “Client” and illustrator were not given their due attribution. Well, Sikich’s command is my command, which I with subservience and alacrity hereby fulfill: The talented illustrator of Gayle E. Pitman’s rhetorically banal and offensive picture book This Day in June, which is published by the American Psychological Association’s Magination Press, is Kristyna Litten.

Oddly, Aficionado Sikich never mentioned the Fair Use Law which is used to determine whether copyright infringement has taken place:

Under the doctrine of “fair use,” the law allows the use of portions of copyrighted work without permission from the owner…. [T]he fair use of copyrighted material without permission is allowed when used for the following purposes: criticism; comment; news reporting; teaching.

What a coinkydink! Those were IFI’s–a non-profit organization–exact purposes. I just bet that impish Sikich knew that.

(Why, oh, why couldn’t he be a Harry Potter aficionado, so I could say “that impish Quidditch-pitchin’ Sikich”?)

Even odder was this remark from Sikich:

That your organization has used this work to support an anti-tolerance, anti-gay rights agenda makes the unauthorized and unattributed use all the more troubling.

How does IFI’s disagreement with Leftist assumptions about the nature and morality of homosexuality and the “trans” ideology or our views on what constitutes age-appropriate material for young children make our potential copyright infringement “all the more troubling”? How is Sikich’s angst about IFI’s moral views legally relevant?

Aficionado Sikich conveniently casts our views as “anti-tolerance, anti-gay rights.” How does Sikich or the “Client” define “tolerance”? Is Sikich or the APA (or the American Library Association for that matter) “tolerant” of conservative views on the nature and morality of volitional homosexual activity or the “trans” ideology? If so, how does their tolerance manifest? What specifically are the “gay rights” to which Sikich or the “Client” refers?

And this brings me to the most remarkable part of Aficionado Sikich’s letter: In it I learned that Magination Press is the children’s publishing arm of the American Psychological Association.

Wowzer!

To remind IFI readers, Magination Press is the publishing company that published This Day in June as well as conducted an interview in which Pitman was asked what her book is “really about.” She said this:

I LOVE this question! This Day in June is really about being who you are, and not apologizing for it. When I wrote this story, I wanted Pride to be featured as realistically as possible. I wanted to see drag queens, guys in leather, rainbows, political signs, the Dykes on Bikes —everything you would see at Pride. I didn’t want any of it to be watered-down or sugarcoated. Lots of people have asked me, “Do you think that’s appropriate for children?” And my answer always is—YES. There’s something very powerful about allowing something to be portrayed authentically, because it teaches children in an indirect way to be as authentic as they can. It’s also important to recognize that children respond to Pride very differently than adults do. When adults see people wearing leather, they make certain associations to that. Children see people wearing leather and think they’re just wearing a costume, or playing dress-up. What I love most about This Day in June is that the illustrations are age-appropriate AND authentic at the same time.

With Pitman’s fervent belief in the power of “authenticity” and her absolute opposition to “watered-down or sugarcoated” illustrations, why are all the illustrations actually watered-down, sugarcoated, and whitewashed images of the inappropriate things children really see at “pride” parades? And why aren’t there any cartoon-y pictures of topless women, bare-bottomed men playing dress-up in chaps and mouth gags, or men engaged in simulated sex acts? What are her criteria or the “Client’s” criteria for determining age-appropriateness?

Isn’t it even a wee bit troubling to the APA that this picture book exposes children to watered-down images of people wearing leather without understanding the perverse “kink” culture with which it is associated? Doesn’t this constitute a form ideological grooming? In other words, through these illustrations, aren’t Pitman, Litten, and the APA normalizing homosexuality, the “trans”-ideology, and “kink” long before children are able to understand the authentic reality and critically examine the assumptions embedded in the watered-down, sugar-coated, inauthentic illustrations?

Imagine if a children’s author were to offer this rationalization for including sugar-coated illustrations of a KKK rally: “When adults see people in white robes and pointy hats, they make certain associations, but when children see people wearing them, they think they’re just wearing a costume or playing dress-up.”

The moral of this creepy tale is that the APA, the “most prestigious publisher [or is it most litigious publisher?] in the field of psychology, mental health and development,” cannot be trusted with children. The “Client”—foolish and cruel step-sibling of Big Brother—demonstrates a malformed understanding of child development, a grotesque view of age-appropriateness, and no sense of sexual morality.

Listen to Laurie read this article in this podcast:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/The-Creepy-Tale-of-a-D.C.-Law-Firm-the-APA-and-IFI.mp3

PLEASE consider a financial gift to IFI to sustain our work.
We’ve stood firm for 25 years, work diligently to accomplish our mission to
“boldly bring a biblical perspective to public policy” in Illinois.

**CAUTION: Not for younger readers**

The sexual revolution is a ravenous monster, devouring everything good in sight, and especially savoring the most precious of delicacies: the flesh, hearts, and minds of children. The newest—but not last—manifestation of the sexual revolution is “transgenderism.”

To capture and devour children and adults has required some cunning and now familiar strategic maneuvers. You know the drill:

1. Control language (also known as Newspeak).
2. Appeal to emotion (i.e., talk endlessly about the suffering of those who experience gender dysphoria).
3. Selectively marshal research from the egregiously politicized and unstable field of social “science” research.
4. Litigate.
5. Legislate.
6. Intimidate (i.e., bully)

And hoo-boy, when I say bully, I mean bully.

Not even feminists who support most of the “trans” agenda are exempt from the wrath of “tolerant” trannies. Adults who impersonate the opposite sex have created the derogatory acronym “TERF,” which stands for “trans-exclusionary radical feminists,” to insult and marginalize those feminists who don’t want men in women’s private spaces. Here are just a few of the tweets from “trans”- cultists about “TERFS” that have been collected on the website “TERF IS A SLUR”:

• Kill all TERFs
• All TERFS deserve to be shot in the head.
• Do you know a terf? cave their head in with a rock.
• I wanna direct a snuff film where multiple terfs get shot in the head but don’t die, they just suffer in agony.
• Enjoy my ladyd*ck in your mouth, c*ntwipe

And here’s this from another “TERF”-hating man who pretends to be a woman:

we need to…start making their lives hell. terfs need to be absolutely terrified to share their hatespeech in public…. ridicule them. continue calling them ugly, doxxing them, and calling their employers. don’t let them make a single post or thinkpiece without being unchallenged. flood their notes with tenfold the hatred they give us. they are slimy fascists and they need to be entirely obliterated. make subscribing to terf ideology about as wise as shooting yourself in the foot. and to any terf who wants to accuse me of “male violence” or whatever, please go choke on a nail.

Not all “TERF”-haters are trannies. Some are “liberal feminists” (as opposed to “exclusionary radical feminists”) who have jumped aboard the “trans” train that will steamroll right over all sex-segregated spaces—and ALL means ALL. Liberal feminists see sex-segregated restrooms, locker rooms, shelters, semi-private hospital rooms, and nursing home rooms as “exclusionary” bugaboos that must be eradicated in order to serve the absurd, reality-denying “trans” ideology.

Just as the Left has found “diversity” a tactically useful term, so too have they found the terms “inclusion” and “exclusion.” But just as there is nothing intrinsically good about diversity, there is nothing intrinsically good about inclusion or bad about exclusion. There are phenomena that should be excluded from some contexts. For example, people with congenital penises should be excluded from women’s locker rooms.

Soon, a mere claim from a man that he “identifies” as a woman and abracadabra the doors to previously women-only private spaces will swing wide open. No castration, no vaginoplasty, no feminizing hormone-doping, no tracheal shaves, no electrolysis, no cross-dressing, no make-up, no diagnosis of gender dysphoria—not even the experience of gender dysphoria will be necessary to access women’s private spaces. No siree, Bob—er, I mean, Bobette. The word of “transwomen” will be their passport to the soon-to-be all-inclusive Shangri-la (costs paid by actual women).

Once objectively male “transgender” persons are allowed in women’s private spaces, on what basis could other men be prohibited from accessing these spaces? Society couldn’t prohibit them from accessing these spaces based on the fact that they are “cisgender”  because that would constitute discrimination based on “gender identity.”

“Trans”- cultists hate feminists like Sam Reitger who tell the truth. In response to a Facebook photo of a young man who just after surgery to reconstruct his penis into the semi-likeness of a vagina, exclaimed “I have a vagina,” Reitger wrote this:

No, he does NOT have a vagina.

I understand that folks want to be sensitive to transgender people’s identities. However, reality does not cease to be reality just because there are people in this world who don’t like it. This man (yes, he is STILL a man!) got his penis surgically inverted. A surgically-inverted penis is not and never will be the same thing as a vagina.

Biology is a real thing and subjective feelings of identity don’t make truth and fact go away.

Lastly, I think it says something very disturbing about the way men view women when a man can mutilate his penis and folks will indulge him in his delusions about possessing a vagina. A vagina is not just some hole that exists between a woman’s legs. It is a functioning organ and crucial part of female reproductive anatomy.

Whatever you want to call the gaping wound this guy has between his legs, it is absolutely not a vagina.

Feminist Charlie Rae, a colleague of Reitger, posted the following comment on the Facebook wall of Kat Blaque, an objectively male black person who pretends to be a woman:

I’ve been thinking about transitioning to a black person. any resources you could help me out with?

Not surprisingly, Blaque’s friends responded:

• “First look in the mirror, Understand that you are not black, then understand that you will never be black.”
• “It’s simple. You CAN’T. Run along now.”
• “I think ingesting rat poison helps”
• “I heard that drinking 2 capfulls of bleach helps. You should try it.”

Rae then points out the irony in their responses, asking, “how is it ‘transphobic’ to tell a man who wants to be a woman that he CAN’T (because it’s not possible), but it’s not ‘transracism’ to tell me that?”

Reitger exposes the incoherence of the claim by “trans”-identifying males that inside their skulls reside lady brains, which they “know” because they are attracted to the arbitrary socially constructed phenomena (e.g., girls clothes or toys) that society imposes on girls:

Imagine, for a moment, we were being told to look for ‘black brains’ in white bodies because some white people like watermelon or rap music. The premise is certainly faulty. We don’t look for what makes someone black in their brains based on stereotypes that have been forced onto black people; we look at skin color because that’s what being black is. When we look at sex, you could look at a myriad of characteristics, and brains simply exist within these bodies.

For these commonsense views on the “trans” ideology, the “trans” community hurls invectives and threats at “TERFS.”

“Trans”-cultists and their ideological accomplices seek to impose their wildly anti-science dogma through coercion that includes imposing financial penalties or jail time for refusing to use grammatically incorrect pronouns; through indoctrination in public schools—including even elementary schools; and through bullying name-calling:

• Anyone who dares to say that only women have vaginas and uteruses is “transphobic.”
• Anyone who dares to say that only men have penises and testes is “transphobic.”
• Men who don’t want to have sex with people who claim to be women but have anatomically correct and normally functioning penises (or did before they elected to be castrated) are “transphobic.”
• Women who don’t want to change clothes in close proximity to or room with objectively, immutably biologically male persons are “transphobic.”

What will conservatives do when their children are told by teachers that they are hateful bigots for believing that boys have penises and girls have vaginas? Will conservative parents say anything when their children are forced to refer to “trans” classmates or teachers by grammatically incorrect pronouns? Will they stand with upright spines and refuse to allow their sons and daughters to share locker rooms and restrooms with opposite-sex peers? Or will they again bend it like Gumby?

Gender dysphoria is a real phenomenon which, like Body Integrity Identify Disorder (i.e., those who identify as amputees), can entail tremendous suffering. Those who experience it deserve compassion and proper treatment which is increasingly hard to find because of the radical “trans”-affirming social and political movement that works like the devil to normalize disordered thoughts, damaging medical quackery, and immoral behavior. Those who identify as “trans” should be treated with civility, but their ideology and the cultural revolution they pursue should be treated with the condemnation they deserve. Treating their false beliefs with respect harms people.

We ignore the fringes of this anti-culture at our own peril. Silence and acquiescence ensure that fetid fringe ideologies become our miasmic mainstream.

Listen to Laurie read this article in this podcast:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/TERF-Wars-Are-Heating-Up.mp3

Prayerfully consider how you can support
the work and ministry of IFI through a donation.

Leftists are increasingly making it easier for social conservatives to convey their message of common sense to the public at large. No better example of this exist than how male/female sports are being impacted. Here are short excerpts from two writers on the topic — first up is Joy Pullmann — here is the title of her post:

Boys Will Keep Winning Girls’ Sports Trophies Until We Are Willing To Re-Assert Sex Distinctions
The assumption in Obergefell that the sexes are interchangeable is affecting laws and regulations that concern sex differences in many other forms.

From the article:

The latest girls’ 100- and 200-meter dash winner from Cromwell High School in Connecticut has some broad shoulders, manly biceps, and a mustache — because he’s not a girl. The power of social stigma is strong enough, however, in this politically and culturally Left community to coerce an entire girls’ track team and their families to affirm an idea their eyes and experiences can easily disprove and which is directly harmful to their own aspirations and children.

. . .

Obergefell is a head domino, and we’re about to see it knock down a lot more sex-distinct policies. It’s a pretty sure bet Americans did not expect tolerance for two consenting adults doing whatever behind closed doors to become a spearhead for forcing naked boys to shower next to naked girls and make girls second-class players on their own fields. That’s what happens when you base social policy on feelings retroactively justified by pretend reasoning, and use courts as a major vehicle for turning those feelings into policy rather than through elected officials more responsive to legislating by consent.

Here is Dr. Michael Brown’s title:

Is this what leftists and progressives mean by ‘equality’?
When it comes to male and female athletic competition, we divide based on biological sex.

From the article:

In recent weeks, we’ve read about a female high-school wrestler who identifies as male and who has been taking testosterone to prepare to “transition” to male. Unsurprisingly, she defeated the other girls, all of whom are not taking testosterone.

We also read about a male weightlifter who now identifies as female. Unsurprisingly, he defeated the women he competed against, setting a new record along the way.

“Today,” Brown writes, “common sense is in danger of extinction, and concepts like fairness and equality are turned upside down.”

Even according to activist ideology, gender is a social construct but sex is biological. And when it comes to male and female athletic competition, we divide based on biological sex.

In the end, this is just one more example of why I believe LGBT activism will ultimately defeat itself.

You cannot wage a winning war against gender distinctions any more than you can redefine marriage while preserving its integrity.

. . .

And so, I appeal to progressivists, leftists, feminists, and LGBT allies and their allies, along with all those who cherish fairness, equality, and justice. Look carefully at the trajectory of your activism, and ask yourself: Is this really the kind of world that you want?

Onto our paraphilia of the day: Exhibitionism. Here is Wikipedia:

Exhibitionism is the act of exposing in a public or semi-public context those parts of one’s body that are not normally exposed – for example, the breasts, genitals or buttocks. The practice may arise from a desire or compulsion to expose themselves in such a manner to groups of friends or acquaintances, or to strangers for their amusement or sexual satisfaction or to shock the bystander. Exposing oneself only to an intimate partner is normally not regarded as exhibitionism. In law, the act of exhibitionism may be called indecent exposure, “exposing one’s person”, or other expressions.

Wikipedia provides more information by having sections on “types of exposure” and “classifications.” I’ll spare the reader the details and move onto our closing question.

Will “Exhibitionism” be added to enumerated anti-discrimination policies and laws? If America is to be truly free, shouldn’t all sexcentric-identified individuals be treated equally under the law?

The entire Identity Politics and Paraphilias series can be found here.

Up next:

Articles in this series, from oldest to newest:

Identity Politics and Paraphilias: Introducing a Series

Identity Politics and Paraphilias: Incest

Identity Politics and Paraphilias: Body Integrity Identity Disorder

Identity Politics and Paraphilias: Impact & Transgenders

Transgenderism a Choice or Disorder?

Why the Term “Sexual Orientation” is Nonsense

Identity Politics and Paraphilias: Man’s Search for Meaning

Identity Politics and Paraphilias: LGBT Is Not a Color & Fetishism

Identity Politics and Paraphilias: ‘Public Discourse’ Weighs In & Bisexuality

Identity Politics and Paraphilias: More from ‘Public Discourse’ & Autassassinophilia

Identity Politics and Paraphilias: An Ugly Fight & Bestiality/Zoophilia

Identity Politics and Paraphilias: Tribalism & Urolagnia

Identity Politics and Paraphilias: Ideas & Voyeurism

Charlottesville: A Return to the Topic of Identity Politics

Paraphilias of the Day: Pedophilia, Hebephilia, Ephebophilia, and Pederasty

PLEASE consider a financial gift to IFI to sustain our work.
We have stood firm for 25 years, working to boldly bring a biblical perspective to public policy.

Anyone who missed our introductory article in this series click here. The full series is found here.

What the heck is hebephilia? At times it can be difficult to keep over 500 paraphilias straight, since so many of them run together. Heaven forbid that we confuse any of this — the spelling and/or the age brackets.

A recent post at BarbWire included this line:

Pedophilia…also spelled paedophilia; often confused with hebephilia, ephebophilia, and pederasty.

The efforts to break down common sense moral barriers is being chronicled on this website, and in an article published at BarbWire, “Promoting Pedophilia,” contributor Bill Muehlenberg writes:

Andrew Gilligan has written an important piece looking very closely at the attempt to make paedophilia fully normal and acceptable. He begins:

“Paedophilic interest is natural and normal for human males,” said the presentation. “At least a sizeable minority of normal males would like to have sex with children … Normal males are aroused by children.”

Was this statement from some yellowing tract from the Seventies or early Eighties era of abusive celebrities or the infamous PIE, the Paedophile Information Exchange? No. Was it made by an anonymous commenter on some underground website? No again.

The statement that paedophilia is “natural and normal” was made last July. It was made as one of the central claims of an academic presentation delivered, at the invitation of the organizers, to key experts at a conference held by the University of Cambridge. Other presentations included “Liberating the paedophile: a discursive analysis,” and “Danger and difference: the stakes of hebephilia.”

Muehlenberg also notes this:

Says Gilligan, “After a fierce battle in the American Psychiatric Association (APA), which produces it, a proposal to include hebephilia as a disorder in the new edition of the manual has been defeated.”

That sure sounds familiar, doesn’t it?

Let’s get to our paraphilias for today — today we’re lopping a few together for the sake of time.

These definitions are from our old friends at Wikipedia*:

Pedophilia or paedophilia is a psychiatric disorder in which an adult or older adolescent experiences a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children, generally age 11 years or younger. As a medical diagnosis, specific criteria for the disorder extends the cut-off point for prepubescence to age 13. A person who is diagnosed with pedophilia must be at least 16 years of age, but adolescents who are 16 years of age or older must be at least five years older than the prepubescent child before the attraction can be diagnosed as pedophilia.

Hebephilia is the primary or exclusive adult sexual interest in pubescent individuals approximately 11-14 years old, and is one of several types of chronophilia (sexual preference for a specific physiological appearance related to age). It differs from ephebophilia, which is the primary or exclusive sexual attraction to individuals in later adolescence (generally ages 15-19), and differs from pedophilia,which is the primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children (with the prepubescent age range extending to 13 for diagnostic criteria).

Ephebophilia is the primary or exclusive adult sexual interest in mid-to-late adolescents, generally ages 15 to 19. The term was originally used in the late 19th to mid 20th century. It is one of a number of sexual preferences across age groups subsumed under the technical term chronophilia. Ephebophilia strictly denotes the preference for mid-to-late adolescent sexual partners, not the mere presence of some level of sexual attraction. Some authors define ephebophilia as a sexual preference for pubescent and adolescent boys.

Pederasty or paederasty (US /ˈpɛdəræsti/ or UK /ˈpiːdəræsti/) is a (usually erotic) homosexual relationship between an adult male and a pubescent or adolescent male. The word pederasty derives from Greek (paiderastia) “love of boys”, a compound derived from παῖς (pais) “child, boy” and ἐραστής (erastēs) “lover”.

It’s who they are, right? It’s about love, isn’t it?

That’s enough for today. As promised, click here to read through our important list of questions. Just fill in the blanks with today’s paraphilias and put on your thinking cap.

In the meantime, join us next when we’ll take a look at another paraphilia. If America is to be truly free, shouldn’t all sexcentric-identified individuals be treated equally under the law?

* Author’s note: The above definitions are now 3 years old — if you’d like to compare the 2013 versions with the 2017, I encourage you to do so. Wikipedia, with its Leftist bent, is always trying to refine and lessen the ridiculousness of all of the paraphilia’s definitions.

Up next: Identity Politics and Paraphilias: Sports & Exhibitionism

Articles in this series, from oldest to newest:

Identity Politics and Paraphilias: Introducing a Series

Identity Politics and Paraphilias: Incest

Identity Politics and Paraphilias: Body Integrity Identity Disorder

Identity Politics and Paraphilias: Impact & Transgenders

Transgenderism a Choice or Disorder?

Why the Term “Sexual Orientation” is Nonsense

Identity Politics and Paraphilias: Man’s Search for Meaning

Identity Politics and Paraphilias: LGBT Is Not a Color & Fetishism

Identity Politics and Paraphilias: ‘Public Discourse’ Weighs In & Bisexuality

Identity Politics and Paraphilias: More from ‘Public Discourse’ & Autassassinophilia

Identity Politics and Paraphilias: An Ugly Fight & Bestiality/Zoophilia

Identity Politics and Paraphilias: Tribalism & Urolagnia

Identity Politics and Paraphilias: Ideas & Voyeurism

Charlottesville: A Return to the Topic of Identity Politics

IFI depends on the support of readers like you. Donate now

-and, please-

Schools and churches in Illinois could soon begin feeling the impact of legislation signed into law by Governor Rauner. Beginning January 1, 2018, residents will be allowed to change the sex designation on their birth certificates without having to undergo surgery.

Can you hear the harmonious choir of diverse voices echoing from the Downers Grove Public Library Board of Trustees? You can’t? Oh, that’s right, Tuesday night in the service of diversity and inclusion, the Downers Grove Village Council expelled the one conservative member from the library board.

The controversy began when a “monitor” from the League of Women Voters attended a recent library board meeting at which board member Arthur Jaros expressed concerns over these three items that had been unexpectedly added by a yet-unnamed staff member (or members) to a proposed long-range strategic plan:

1. Provide regular training for all staff in equity, diversity, and inclusion.
2. Incorporate inclusive practices into library services.
3. Create a diversity strategy for hiring.

The “monitor,” Susan D. Farley, claims that Jaros “proceeded to continue to express his personal view on how we should… reject any… people different from white straight people.” This claim—which Jaros vigorously denies—clearly suggests that Jaros seeks to reject persons and that he holds racist views.

Jaros objected to #2 because he believed the term “inclusive” was too ambiguous. He’s of course right. Only sociopaths would think all phenomena or all perspectives on all phenomena should be included in libraries, particular in the children’s section. The library board agreed and struck item #2 from the list.

Jaros objected to #3 because such language usually refers to hiring quotas based on identity politics, and he believes that hiring should be based on merit. He’s right again. I would go further to say that the term “diversity”—like “inclusive”—is too ambiguous. Diversity is neither intrinsically good nor bad. It simply refers to differences. In the service of diversity, does the board want to hire KKK members, infantilists, and Antifa anarchists who have no respect for authority, rules, policies, or social conventions?

Most Americans by now know that “diversity” is code for race, class, sex, homosexuality, and “transgenderism.” The staff member (or members) who surreptitiously added these action items likely meant that the library should hire based on membership in these categories. What this phantom staff member (or members) surely did not mean is that library hiring decisions should ensure ideological diversity among staff members. The board voted to change the word “hiring” to “recruiting.” Meh.

And now we come to the part that twisted up the knickers of monitor Farley. Jaros opposed any requirement that all staff members be “trained” in “diversity” and “inclusion.”

“Diversity” and “inclusion” are terms exploited by the Left to justify purchasing picture books that celebrate two phenomena integral to Leftist sexuality dogma: homosexuality and biological-sex rejection (aka “transgenderism”). Leftists’ commitments to diversity and inclusion are, shall we say, inconsistently applied. Sometimes that is a good thing.

You don’t (yet) see librarians bleating about the dearth of picture books positively portraying polyamory. If love is love, why no picture books about consensually non-monogamous love for the kiddies? Nor do you see those bigoted speciesist librarians begging for picture books that celebrate zoophilia.

Could they be imposing their own prejudiced, provincial, hateful moral beliefs on all of society?

In order to do just that—that is, impose their subjective moral beliefs on all of society—social regressives continue to compare skin color to homosexuality and now to the science-denying “trans” ideology. But subjective erotic/romantic feelings or internal subjective desires to be the opposite sex have no points of correspondence to skin color—an inconvenient fact that Leftists ignore so they can virtue-signal and call people hateful bigots. Just don’t go calling them “hateful bigots” for their moral views. That would be bullying and make them feel unsafe.

Downers Grove Public Library presumably embraces the Library Bill of Rights that it includes in its library board policies:

• … Materials should not be excluded because of the… views of those contributing to their creation.

• Libraries should provide materials and information presenting all points of view on current… issues. Materials should not be proscribed or removed because of partisan or doctrinal disapproval.

• Libraries should challenge censorship…. Libraries should cooperate with all persons and groups concerned with resisting abridgment of free expression and free access to ideas.

• A person’s right to use a library should not be denied or abridged because of… views.

Apparently diversity of views matters when it comes to resources but not when it comes to the composition of the board. Instead of banning books, the Village Council of Downers Grove bans people.

“Progressives” are nothing if not hypocrites. While they claim to oppose “book banning,” they engage in de facto “book banning” by simply neither purchasing nor requesting books that offend their sexuality sensibilities. While claiming to value diversity, they seek nothing less than a complete ideological monopoly when it comes to their doctrinaire sexuality ideology.  While claiming to value tolerance and inclusivity, they kick board members who don’t toe the ideological line off library boards. In their foolishness, presumptuousness, and self-righteousness, regressives violate their own principles, stooping to coercive and oppressive tactics to eradicate diversity and dissent.

“Progressives” claim to value diversity and inclusion even as they fight like pit bulls to quash both. The idea-police rationalize their censorship, people-banning, and assault on the First Amendment by arguing that some ideas may hurt the feelings of some people. So, are we as a society willing to apply that principle consistently? Are we willing to say that any idea that may hurt the feelings of people must be banned from public expression and that anyone who expresses those ideas must be prohibited from working or serving on diverse boards in America?

In prior rational times, safety entailed the absence of physical harm—not the absence of ideas we don’t like to hear. The First Amendment guarantees the right to speak freely and that includes the right of people whom Leftists hate to express moral propositions Leftists hate.

You know what’s as least as scary as book-banning? A society that can no longer distinguish right from wrong is at least as scary. A society that prevents people from working because of their moral beliefs about sexual behavior is at least as scary. And a society that places sexual desires above children’s needs, religious liberty, and speech rights is at least as scary.

In the packed room of 200 people on Tuesday night, 21 people spoke: 16 in favor of the village council’s decision to oust Jaros, 5 opposed. In a town of 49, 500, are there not 20—or 200—conservatives with the spine to come alongside Jaros?

Fortunately, Jaros is an attorney. He’s suing monitor Farley, the local chapter of the League of Women Voters, and village councilman Greg Hosé for defamation.

Remember James Damore, the Google software engineer who in a measured and smart internal memo made a persuasive case that Google was an “ideological echo chamber” and was promptly fired? Downers Grove Mayor Martin Tully and his Gang of Six just “googled” Arthur Jaros.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/Downers-Grove-Village-Council-Ousts-Only-Conservative-Library-Board-Member-in-Service-of-Inclusion.mp3

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

It does make a difference.

It is time to return to our Identity Politics and Paraphilias series, and events surrounding Charlottesville serve as the path back.

This focus on identity politics is important because while it’s being written about a lot, in my view it’s still not receiving the serious level of discussion that it deserves.

Leftists want to fundamentally transform the United States. Unfortunately, they do not nearly have the level of support they need to accomplish it. What they would sell—socialism which leads to Venezuela-type poverty and tyranny—they can’t, so they seek to distract and destroy with divisive identity politics.

They need countless aggrieved sects fighting each other. This has always been a big part of the strategy of the cultural Marxists.

The purpose of the other part of this series — our highlighting of paraphilias — is to outline more fully the dangerous agenda of the identity politics champions. Many of these champions ride under the banner of LGBTQIA. What they don’t want you to know is that those letters represent only the beginning of the show.

The country has now been introduced to a growing number of genders — who knew that there could be so many? Silly common sense used to hold that there were only two. Here is one list that runs 13 pages.

The number of paraphilias is far greater than both the number of letters currently listed following LGBT and the count of gender varieties.

Thus, paraphilias deserve attention. According to Leftists, if America is to be truly free, all sexcentric-identified individuals should be treated equally under the law. Therefore, there is no logical answer from them as to why discrimination should be allowed for any other perversions.

So — identity politics and paraphilias fit nicely together. The Leftists know that we can’t remain a county whose motto is “out of many, one.” They want the opposite, “out of one, many.” Did I mention that not all the identities involve sex and gender? There are also “oppressed” minority groups. And a lot of them!

And now Charlottesville has brought into the spotlight a few more labels — such as crazies and anarchists: Neo-Nazis, KKK members, Antifa, and Black Lives Matter.

Commentator Tammy Bruce penned an article with this title and lead:

The deadly impact of identity politics
By conflating white supremacists and Trump supporters, the ‘Resistance’ pours hate on hate

Americans know full well the environment of hate and violence that identity politics has served us.

The concerted effort by the so-called “Resistance” to further divide this nation is disgusting and dangerous. By singularly focusing on such a craven goal of race hatred and suspicion, and conflating white supremacists with all Trump voters, they not only ignore the real issue of the danger of identity politics, they contribute to it.

In the wake of Charlottesville, commentator Michael Brown wrote:

Identity politics can be just as dangerous as outright racism. Both are divisive, both demean the value of others, and both make judgments based on skin color or ethnicity.

Writing at Mercatornet, Jarrett Stepman notes:

In a country of 320 million people of stunningly diverse ethnic backgrounds and philosophies, this is a fire bell in the night for complete cultural disintegration. The end result will be uglier than the already sickening events that took place this past weekend.

Bruce Thornton, one of my favorite writers, notes in an article at Front Page Mag:

Identity politics based on grievance and victimization requires that there always be grievances and victims. Progress cannot be admitted, no more than any of us can be born free from Original Sin. The permanence of racial sin, and the need for whites to act in ways that advantage the “victims,” forbid such reconciliation.

It used to be called the “culture war.” The phase we are moving into will make that war look like the good old days. Now it’s bigger, and on purpose. Fueled by Leftists on a mission, violent radical groups are, in the words of Jarrett Stepman, stepping up “their efforts to plunge the nation into constant social unrest and civil war.”

Up next: Paraphilias of the Day: Pedophilia, Hebephilia, Ephebophilia, and Pederasty

Articles in this series, from oldest to newest:

Identity Politics and Paraphilias: Introducing a Series

Identity Politics and Paraphilias: Incest

Identity Politics and Paraphilias: Body Integrity Identity Disorder

Identity Politics and Paraphilias: Impact & Transgenders

Transgenderism a Choice or Disorder?

Why the Term “Sexual Orientation” is Nonsense

Identity Politics and Paraphilias: Man’s Search for Meaning

Identity Politics and Paraphilias: LGBT Is Not a Color & Fetishism

Identity Politics and Paraphilias: ‘Public Discourse’ Weighs In & Bisexuality

Identity Politics and Paraphilias: More from ‘Public Discourse’ & Autassassinophilia

Identity Politics and Paraphilias: An Ugly Fight & Bestiality/Zoophilia

Identity Politics and Paraphilias: Tribalism & Urolagnia

Identity Politics and Paraphilias: Ideas & Voyeurism

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

It does make a difference.

Leftist Chicago Tribune columnist Rex Huppke has penned a column on the recently released Nashville Statement. His article is titled “150 Evangelicals DENY love for LGBT people.” The Nashville Statement is a critically important and desperately needed document that succinctly affirms theologically orthodox positions on homosexuality, marriage, and the objective goodness and immutability of maleness and femaleness.

The Nashville Statement signatories include these Evangelical luminaries: Sam Allberry, Alistair Begg, Michael Brown,  Rosaria Butterfield, Denny Burk,  D.A. Carson, Francis Chan, Matt Chandler, Mark Dever, Kevin DeYoung, James Dobson, Ligon Duncan, John Frame, David French, Robert A. J. Gagnon, Wayne Grudem, R. Kent Hughes, John MacArthur, C. J. Mahaney, Al Mohler, Russell Moore, J. P. Moreland, Paul Nyquist, Marvin Olasky, J.I. Packer, Tony Perkins, John Piper, R. C. Sproul, Thomas Schreiner, Sam Storms, Owen Strachan, Eric Teetsel, Bruce Ware, and Christopher Yuan.

Pastor, theologian, and signatory John Piper says this about the Nashville Statement:

It speaks with forthright clarity, biblical conviction, gospel compassion, cultural relevance, and practical helpfulness. There is no effort to equivocate for the sake of wider, but muddled, acceptance.

It is built on the persuasion that the Christian Scriptures speak with clarity and authority for the good of humankind. 

Here are Huppke’s beliefs about what Scripture teaches about love—which is something quite different from what Scripture teaches about love:

The love Jesus encouraged is often distorted in ways that, in my mind, run afoul of what the man was talking about. The Nashville Statement is one of those distortions, a declaration that some love is acceptable and some love isn’t…. I don’t buy that. I’ll never buy that….

What must Huppke think of the judgmentalism of Jesus who told the adulteress to stop “loving” all those men? And what about the Apostle Paul who condemned a man for “loving” his step-mother? And then there was that judgmental Moses carrying on about those who “love” their close relatives and animals.

George Bernard Shaw famously said animals are his friends. Shouldn’t people be free to “love” their friends? I mean, love is love. Who are we to judge?

Huppke says that “declaring LGBT people and their allies sinners doesn’t strike me as a particularly kind gesture.”

The Bible declares that all people are sinners—not just “LGBT” people and their allies:

“None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God. All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one.”

“There is no fear of God before their eyes.… for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God…”

 

Not very kind by the standards of post-Christian cultures.

Yes, Rex Huppke is a sinner. Ellen DeGeneres is a sinner. Mother Theresa was a sinner. Jim Elliot was a sinner. All the signatories to the Nashville Statement are sinners.  Everyone who works for Apple, Google, and the Human Rights Campaign is a sinner. And I am a sinner.

Huppke believes “it’s an offense to God to not acknowledge that all humans are different, to ignore the fact that telling LBGT people that they’re sinners, that their identity is wrong, that they’re somehow imperfect, is wildly and dangerously damaging, not to mention a sin in and of itself.”

• So, does Huppke apply that principle consistently? Does he argue that moral disapproval of, for example, adult consensual incest, zoophilia, or polyamory constitutes an offense to God?

• Are all behaviors impelled by unchosen, powerful, and persistent desires intrinsically moral simply because someone says they form the core of their identity?

• Aren’t all humans imperfect, and aren’t our imperfections revealed in part through engaging in immoral behaviors?

• Does the expression of all moral propositions with which someone may disagree damage those people?

• Has Huppke damaged theologically orthodox Christians through his indictment of beliefs that are central to their identity?

The wisest words Huppke expressed in his column are, “I’m not a theologian.” Huppke, who believes God celebrates homosexuality and biological-sex rejection, also says, “I’m not even a particularly good Catholic.” Yes, embracing apostasy/heresy makes him not a “particularly good Catholic.”

Perhaps Huppke’s most dishonest statement is this: “I’m not going to tell anyone what they should believe or what God wants or what makes someone a good Christian.” Then he goes on to tell everyone what they should believe, what God wants, and what makes someone a good Christian, and he does so from an acknowledged position of theological ignorance.

Affirming what the Bible says is never unkind, though it may be unpleasant for some to hear. Affirming as good volitional acts that God condemns may be pleasant to the “itching ears” of those who want to engage in those acts, but it is profoundly unloving.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/Stop-the-Presses.mp3

Read more:

Can a Progressive’s ‘Inclusive Values’ Include Christianity? (National Review Online)

The Nashville Statement Isn’t About Trump, And A Ton of Evangelicals Support It (The Federalist)

The Progressives Who Cried Bigotry (The Week)

Why The Nashville Statement Is Needed (The American Conservative)

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

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

It does make a difference.

Written by Thomas Madison

On August 28th, the West Chicago Public Library Board voted 6-1 to retain the homosexuality-celebrating picture book This Day in June. IFI thanks you for your support in emailing the library director Benjamin Weseloh to share your concerns about this book.

There were roughly 80-100 people in attendance, and 90 percent of them were pro-LGBT supporters of the book. Unfortunately, this is usually the case when book controversies arise. Those who seek to normalize disordered sexuality are far more passionate, tenacious, and bold than are those who oppose the normalization of sexual deviance. The Left seems to care far more about promoting lies to young children than conservatives do in protecting them from lies.

Those community members who had the wisdom and courage to oppose this troubling picture book needed much more verbal support at the meeting. IFI is disappointed in the absence of local community support for those brave men and women. We know significant opposition to this book exists because of the hundreds of messages that were sent to the director, but emails alone are insufficient if real change is to occur. Sometimes people are unable to make meetings, but often emailing concerns represents indefensible cowardice or surrender.

The supporters of the book came out strongly against IFI, explicitly attacking us and making numerous spurious statements. The most obviously false statement was that IFI is a hate group. IFI’s positions on homosexuality no more constitute hatred of persons who believe differently than does disapproval of polyamory or polygamy constitute hatred of polyamorists or polygamists. Leftists are either unable to understand this distinction or unwilling to admit it because they know that fallacious ad hominem attacks work.

The most startling remarks made in support of the book were that the content was not sexual. This is a complete denial of reality and a reminder that people will pervert the truth to suit their own lifestyles. The book is specifically intended toward “helping” children recognize and accept the diversity of sexual preferences. It features men kissing men and women kissing women. Since when is romantic kissing or even simply kissing romantic partners not a sexual act?

Some of the board members noted the importance of the library representing the diverse views found in its community. The speciousness of this claim is revealed in the absence of books on a host of topics. This absence is due—at least in part—to librarians imposing their moral views through the purchasing process. When they impose their views, it’s called responsible text selection. When conservatives want purchases to reflect their views, leftists call it censorship and book-banning.

We were disappointed not only in learning how the board members voted but also in learning that regardless of their votes, the book would have stayed on the shelf. According to the parliamentarian, the policy of the board is to let the library staff decide for themselves the quality of material, so last night’s vote was a non-binding vote. The board’s policy is reflective of the American Library Association (ALA), the far-leftist organization that wanted children’s computers to have access to pornography) and which actively promotes homosexuality and the “trans” ideology. Should unelected library staff whose training comes through the highly politicized and leftist field of library science be granted such near-absolute autonomy?

Ultimately, if community members want to see this inappropriate book moved to a restricted area—as it is in other local libraries like Downers Grove—or removed altogether, they will either have to convince the staff to move or remove the book, or West Chicagoans must elect better board members to change board policy.

West Chicago Public Library employee Joan Happel posted this celebratory announcement on Facebook, “The library director’s decision is to keep the book where it is! That decision was never in question.” Happel evidently finds nothing problematic about a picture book for young children whose author said this:

When I wrote this story, I wanted Pride to be featured as realistically as possible. I wanted to see drag queens, guys in leather, rainbows, political signs, the Dykes on Bikes—everything you would see at Pride. I didn’t want any of it to be watered-down or sugarcoated. Lots of people have asked me, “Do you think that’s appropriate for children?” And my answer always is—YES.

Unfortunately, numerous libraries throughout the country and in Illinois are using public monies to promote the normalization of homosexuality and the “trans” ideology. The battle against dissenting views—including Judeo-Christian views—continues. Those relatively few brave souls who step up to oppose deception—especially deception that harms children—need many others to come alongside them. IFI wonders how many area pastors showed up to make statements about this book.

Here is a breakdown of how the West Chicago Library Board voted and their respective term expiration years.

Voted in Support of the Book:

Nancy Conradt – President, term expires – 2019

Frank Fokta – Vice President, term expires – 2019

Richard Bloom – Treasurer, term expires – 2021

Rosario Herbst, term expires – 2019

Diane Kelsey, term expires – 2021

Patricia A. Weninger, term expires – 2019

Voted to Remove the Book:

David W. Reynolds, Sr., Term Expires – 2021

IFI depends on the support of Christians like you. Donate now

-and, please-

Never poke a sleeping bear or the ideology of “tolerant” librarians. IFI’s recent article by John Biver about a controversy brewing in West Chicago over a picture book for young children that positively portrays the “pride” parades that pollute city streets throughout the country every June has unleashed the fury of freedom-lovin’ librarians across the nation.

Here’s what lesbian Gayle E. Pitman, author of This Day in June and professor of gender studies and psychology at Sacramento City College, said when asked what her book is “REALLY about”:

I LOVE this question! This Day in June is really about being who you are, and not apologizing for it. When I wrote this story, I wanted Pride to be featured as realistically as possible. I wanted to see drag queens, guys in leather, rainbows, political signs, the Dykes on Bikes—everything you would see at Pride. I didn’t want any of it to be watered-down or sugarcoated. Lots of people have asked me, “Do you think that’s appropriate for children?” And my answer always is—YES. There’s something very powerful about allowing something to be portrayed authentically, because it teaches children in an indirect way to be as authentic as they can. It’s also important to recognize that children respond to Pride very differently than adults do. When adults see people wearing leather, they make certain associations to that. Children see people wearing leather and think they’re just wearing a costume, or playing dress-up. What I love most about This Day in June is that the illustrations are age-appropriate AND authentic at the same time.

Pitman’s picture book also depicts the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence, the Catholic-hating drag queens who call themselves “queer nuns.” They include “Sister Anni Coque l’Doo, “Sister Guard N O’Pansies”, and “Sister Hera Sees Candy.”

What precisely is “authenticity” to Pitman and “progressive” librarians? Is “authenticity” acting on all powerful, persistent, unchosen desires? If so, is a society in which everyone is “authentic” a society conducive to moral order and human flourishing? And if a parade that features dykes on bikes, drag queens, and guys in leather is “age-appropriate,” what isn’t? What criteria do “progressives” in libraries and public schools use to determine age-appropriateness?

Pitman is not done yet. She has just released another gem for our little ones: When You Look Out the Window. It’s a picture book about infamous lesbians Phyllis Lyon and Del Martin who became lovers in 1950 and co-founded the country’s first lesbian political organization, the Daughters of Bilitis, in 1955.

John Biver’s article unleashed a torrent of librarian wrath from sea to shining sea. From all across this great land in which our forefathers spilled their blood to secure freedom for homosexuals to destroy marriage, rob children of their birthrights, and march through our streets in leather thongs, librarians are descending on IFI’s Facebook page to leave “non-judgmental” comments and reviews like these:

Meghan Cirrhito (librarian, feminist), Long Island, New York: “Advocates hate. Do not recommend or support this group.”

Deborah M Monn Bifulk (librarian), Saint Paul, MN: “Hate is not a family value. Rejecting the myriad of families that exist outside heterosexual unions is bigotry, plain and simple.”

Dawn Betts-Green (“radical militant lesbrarian”), Tallahassee, FL: “As a Pagan queer person, I don’t want to see all of the viscious [sic], hateful religious books, but guess what, they exist on the shelves of many libraries for hateful people just like you.”

Ingrid Conley-Abrams  (director-at-large of the Leftist American Library Association’s  GLBT Round Table, and a children’s librarian who has called for librarians everywhere to leave bad reviews of IFI on our Facebook page), New York City: “You are entitled to your beliefs. I do, however, find them hateful…. I won’t spend my time catering to your homophobic fantasies….”

Fobazi Ettarh, Philadelphia: “They spread ignorance and bigotry in the name of Jesus. He would be ashamed of these people.”

Leftists get apoplectic when conservatives talk about Jesus, but when Leftists do, it’s a whole different and way better ball of wax. So, since Ettarh did bring up religion, I have some questions, like, how does expressing theologically orthodox views on sexuality and marriage constitute spreading ignorance and bigotry? Why would Jesus be ashamed of those who accept his definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman? Was she referring to the Jesus in whose name and by whose authority the Apostle Paul wrote the following:

For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions, for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.

In a revealing blog post in which Ettarh discusses the ideology of “intersectionality” in which race, sex, class,” “sexual orientation,” and “gender identity” compete for top spot on the hierarchy of oppression, Ms. Ettarh says this:

A common value taught in library school is the importance of the librarian as an objective and neutral professional. As public servants, librarians must serve all communities equally regardless of moral values and political views. The librarian’s primary role is that of a facilitator in the public’s access to information and knowledge.

However, librarianship is inherently political. Even activities in which librarians are specifically trained to maintain “neutrality,” such as collection development, are intrinsically political…. [M]ost libraries… actively cause harm in the name of neutrality by giving voice to hate speech when neutrality is interpreted as giving equal voice to “both sides.”

Ettarh has admitted that librarians are not and—in her view—should not be neutral. Their work should be informed by their politics. Commitments to neutrality or “giving equal voice” should not be allowed to trump “progressive” politics. And when Ettarh refers to “hate speech,” remember who is permitted to define “hate.” “Progressives” like Ettarh get to define it—or rather redefine it. “Hate” has been redefined to mean “moral assumptions on sexuality and marriage with which Leftists disagree.”

Before “progressives” took control of all major cultural institutions, moral disapproval of volitional behavior was not thought to constitute hatred of persons. And even today, “progressives” don’t apply that principle consistently to their own moral assumptions. They don’t believe their moral disapproval of volitional behavior means they hate those who disagree and who act in accordance with their beliefs.

Leftists now make this fallacious argument:

1.) Conservative moral assumptions about homosexual behavior, the nature of marriage, and the (science-denying) “trans” ideology are “hateful” (meaning Leftists believe they’re wrong).

2.) Hatred may lead to violence.

3.) Therefore, hatred is violence.

4.) And, therefore, expressions of conservative moral assumptions about sexuality and marriage must be censored.

Very tricksy and dangerous rhetorical game.

As I wrote several years ago, libraries use Collection Development Policies (CDP’s) to determine which books they will purchase with their limited budgets. CDP’s hold that librarians should purchase only books that have been positively reviewed by two “professionally recognized” review journals. Well, guess what folks, the “professionally recognized” review journals are dominated by ideological “progressives.” Publishing companies and the field of library science too are dominated by ideological “progressives,” so getting books published that espouse conservative ideas (particularly on the topic of sexuality) is nigh unto impossible.

If librarians really cared about the full and free exchange and availability of ideas and if they really believed that “book-banning” is dangerous to society, they would direct their rage and ridicule at the powerful publishing companies, professionally-recognized review journals, and their own profession, all of which do far more de facto book-banning than does a handful of powerless parents seeking to have a picture book moved.

“Progressives” used to revere the now-deceased Judith Krug, past president of the portentously named Office of Intellectual Freedom (or is it the “Ministry of Truth”?) of the American Library Association. In a 1995 interview, she famously said this:

We have to serve the information needs of all the community and for so long “the community” that we served was the visible community…. And so, if we didn’t see those people, then we didn’t have to include them in our service arena. The truth is, we do have to.…

“We never served the gay community. Now, we didn’t serve the gay community, because there weren’t materials to serve them. You can’t buy materials if they’re not there. But part of our responsibility is to identify what we need and then to begin to ask for it. Another thing we have to be real careful about is that even though the materials that come out initially aren’t wonderful, it’s still incumbent upon us to have that voice represented in the collection…. We can’t sit back and say, “Well, they’re not the high-quality materials I’m used to buying.” They’re probably not, but if they are the only thing available, then I believe we have to get them into the library.”[emphasis added]

I wonder if Leftist librarians will “demand more” conservative “materials” related to sexuality, marriage, and the “trans” ideology in order to serve the increasingly invisible community of conservatives.

Yeah, right.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Tolerant-Totalitarian-Librarians-Really-Hate-IFI.mp3

Join us in Medinah, Illinois, to hear world renowned Christian apologist Ray Comfort. Space is limited, don’t miss this special one time event. Click HERE for more information.

Tickets are $10 each. Call 708-781-9328 or purchase tickets below.

Click HERE for flyer.

The Girl Scouts USA (GSUSA) has got a collective case of the vapors over their discovery of a “covert campaign to recruit girls into programs run by the Boy Scouts.”  How dare the Boy Scouts of America (BSA) even consider allowing girls in the BSA!

Does someone have a towel to wipe up the irony that drips from the brows of the conspiracy theorists who man the helm of the Left-listing GSUSA ship?

It’s ironic in that the GSUSA was the first of the two organizations to admit opposite-sex children into its program six years ago. Now, of course, the BSA does as well. GSUSA admits boys who seek to pass as girls, and BSA admits girls who seek to pass as boys.

A spokesperson for the GSUSA told BuzzFeed that the sexual integration of the BSA is a “‘potentially dangerous and bad idea,’…citing research supporting ‘single gender programming’ which says that girls learn best in an all-girls environment when it comes to scouting.”

I suspect the spokesperson meant to say “single-sex” programming, rather than “single-gender” programming, but he/she/ze/they should be forgiven for his/her/zir/their error. It’s hard to keep up with the shifting definitional sands upon which the Leftist sexuality/gender ideology is built.

If the sexual integration of scouting is at minimum a “bad idea” and “potentially dangerous,”—as the GSUSA claims—why the heck has the GSUSA been admitting boys for six years?

Now that both clubs admit opposite-sex children, what possible justification could the GSUSA offer for opposing a decision by the BSA to admit all girls who want to join? If a club for boys allows girls to be members based on nothing more than the desire of those girls to be boys, why not admit other girls based solely on their desire to be boy scouts? What if these girls internally identify as boy scouts? What if they need to be boy scouts to live authentic lives?

The GSUSA determined six years ago that being objectively, immutably biologically female is not a requirement for membership. Subjective, internal desires supersede objective biological sex when it comes to membership. So why can’t subjective, internal desires about which club a girl desires to be a member of trump biological sex?

Isn’t the GSUSA arguing for discrimination based on sex when it seeks to prevent objectively female children from joining the Boy Scouts?

Or since the GSUSA is hunky dory with objectively female children who “identify” as “trans” joining the BSA, maybe the GSUSA is arguing for discrimination based on “gender identity” when they seek to prevent “cisgender” girls from joining the BSA.

Either way, it seems that the GSUSA has been hoist by its own petard. Its perverse sexuality ideology applied consistently permits no sex-segregation anywhere for anyone.

Either objective, immutable, biological sex as evidenced in anatomy is profoundly meaningful and should be recognized and respected—or it isn’t.

The “trans” cult, borrowing tactics from homosexual activists, exploit the historical plight of blacks, repeatedly claiming that single-sex private spaces constitute the same kind of invidious discrimination that blacks experienced during the slave era and era of Jim Crow laws.

Of course, such a claim is absurd and invidious.

While there are no ontological differences between people of different skin colors, there are significant differences between males and females, which even homosexuals tacitly acknowledge when they say they are romantically and erotically attracted to only persons of their same sex. So, too does research that demonstrates that single-sex educational contexts serve the needs of boys and girls best.

When I worked at Deerfield High School, even “progressive” teachers inadvertently acknowledged these differences when they would good-naturedly gripe about having classes heavily weighted with students of one particular sex. Take a stab at which students—male or female—are generally more disruptive and harder to manage en masse in a classroom context (PE excluded).

The differences between males and females include–but are not limited to–anatomical differences, and it is anatomical differences that account for natural and good feelings of modesty and the desire for privacy. If anatomy has no meaning relative to modesty and privacy and if segregating humans based on objective, biological sex constitutes unjust discrimination, there should be no sex-segregated spaces anywhere for anyone, and that’s exactly what “trans”-cultists seek.

The BSA claims it will continue to allow girls to join only certain of its programs but not all. Remember when it claimed it would not change its membership policy on homosexuality and on girls who wish they were boys? Remember when it took seriously its oath to honor God? Does anyone really believe the Boy Scout leadership will stand firm in the face of pressure from the National Organization for Women to allow girls to join all BSA programs and the Change.org petition started by a young “activist” who is determined to be an Eagle Scout? What reason could the BSA have for allowing girls who wish they were boys to join the Eagle Scouts but not this young activist?

It’s only a matter of time.

Remember, “trans” cultists do not believe that surgery, cross-sex hormone-doping, cross-dressing, a diagnosis of gender dysphoria, or even the experience of gender dysphoria is necessary to identify as “trans” and access opposite-sex spaces and activities. All that’s necessary is their claim that they identify as the opposite sex.

If conservatives don’t speak up as loudly and persistently in defense of the meaning and value of sexual differentiation as Leftists do in defense of their cultic, science-denying “trans” ideology, we will witness one of the most profound cultural revolutions the world has ever seen: We will see the eradication of all public recognition of sex differences everywhere for everyone. This will not result in a handful of gender-dysphoric persons accessing opposite-sex private spaces—which is pernicious enough.

Rather, it will mean all restrooms, locker rooms, dressing rooms, saunas, steam rooms, semi-private hospital rooms, shelters, athletic teams, nursing home room assignments, and clubs will be co-ed.

We’re just one step closer to the phantasmagorical “progressive” world that pretends that sex differences are meaningless.

I wonder, which scouting club should “gender-non-binary” and “gender fluid” kids join?

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Boy-Scouts-to-Go-Co-Ed-Yikes.mp3

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

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

It does make a difference.

Left-leaning Governor Bruce Rauner just signed HB 1785 into law, making it even easier than it already is for men and women who pretend to be the opposite sex to acquire falsified birth certificates. HB 1785 passed the Illinois House by a vote of 63-32 on May 25th and was then passed in the Illinois Senate by a vote of 32-22 on the last regular day of session, May 31st.

Gender-pretenders can now acquire birth certificates that falsely identify them as the sex they are not and that falsely state that this identification happened at birth, which it did not.

In signing this absurd and culturally destructive Leftist bill into law, Rauner has reaffirmed what many Illinoisans already know: He doesn’t care about even profoundly important cultural issues that are not directly fiscal matters. In so doing, he also reveals his ignorance.

For decades Illinois has allowed men and women who impersonate the opposite sex to obtain falsified birth certificates by offering proof that they had had surgery—surgery that actually did not change their sex. But now, thanks to “Republican” Governor Rauner, those who renounce their biological sex will be allowed to acquire falsified birth certificates based on nothing more than the word of a mental health “professional” that they’ve been “appropriately” treated. This is both an ethical and political outrage.

Birth certificates are legal and historical documents that record an event that took place at a moment in time. They document the sex of humans as identified by doctors at the moment of their births. With the rare exception of those persons born with intersex disorders, birth certificates accurately record the sex of humans which never changes. Doctors do not assign or impose “genders” on newborns. Doctors identify their sex—which, again, never changes.

The “trans” cult is not merely seeking to enjoin the law to falsify legal and historical documents. In the dystopian wonderland in which “trans” cultists live and move and have their imaginary being, they are redefining “birth certificate.” Without any public discussion, the “trans” cult is surreptitiously seeking to change what birth certificates are and do. “Trans” cultists are implicitly arguing that birth certificates no longer document an objective historical event, and they no longer record an objective fact of human existence.

In the science-denying cultic world that biological-sex rejecters are creating, “birth certificates” are error-ridden, manipulable documents that record the whimsical guesses of authoritarian doctors who prognosticate and then impose “socially constructed arbitrary behaviors, conventions, and expectations” (i.e., “gender” as defined by Leftists) on newborns.

And Rauner has bought these absurdist notions hook, line, and sinker.

Or has he? Does he really believe such absurd notions or does he just not care enough about science, history, legal ethics, and the meaning of objective, immutable biological sex to take a stand?

Either way, his actions signify how foolish he is. This is just one more incremental step in the march toward the eradication of public recognition of sex differences everywhere for everyone, which Rauner seems to view as a public good.

Well, now that “transgender” persons can obtain falsified birth certificates based on their subjective, internal desire to be the opposite sex, there remains no rational reason to prohibit “trans-aged” persons from obtaining falsified birth certificates that reflect their deeply felt, authentic ages.

It’s a brave new world into which we are—with little resistance—being dragged. It’s also craven, depraved, and irrational.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Governor-Rauner-Endorses-Falsified-Birth-Certificates-Abandons-Ethics-and-Science.mp3

Prayerfully consider how you can support
the work and ministry of IFI through a donation.

Picture this: You’re at the library with your three-and-a-half-year-old daughter whose attention is grabbed by a colorfully illustrated children’s book. She takes it off the shelf and asks you what the book is about.

You are happy to oblige until you see that this colorfully illustrated children’s book is about promoting many aspects of the LGBTQQAP (etc.) agenda.

This is what happened recently to Kurt and Michaela Jaros. Fortunately, Michaela was quick to utilize her mothering skills and answer her daughter’s question without providing a sex ed lesson on the spot.

The book the Jaros’ daughter pulled from the shelves of the West Chicago Public Library is titled This Day in June.  Here is the description from the book’s Amazon.com page:

In a wildly whimsical, validating, and exuberant reflection of the LGBT community, This Day in June welcomes readers to experience a pride celebration and share in a day when we are all united. Also included is a Reading Guide chock-full of facts about LGBT history and culture, as well as a Note to Parents and Caregivers with information on how to talk to children about sexual orientation and gender identity in age-appropriate ways. This Day in June is an excellent tool for teaching respect, acceptance, and understanding of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people.

Sounds wonderful, doesn’t it?

Not to Kurt Jaros, who has taken up the issue with the West Chicago Library Board.

Jaros explains that since libraries work together through inter-library loans, if one library has it, it will be available to regional libraries as well. Therefore, one need not live in the West Chicago Library district make a statement at the meeting.

Jaros further noted that libraries often do not receive enough public comment on controversial issues. He has set up a website to rally support for the effort to have the book either removed from the shelves or be placed where children do not have access to it, as many libraries do.

Some argue that having this and similar books removed from library shelves is “censorship” or “book burning.” As with everything else, Leftists can’t quite grasp the fact that taxpayer have a say in how their tax dollars are spent.

Jaros explained that from cover to cover, This Day in June is filled with pro-LGBTQQAP (etc.) propaganda presented through symbols and messages. He prepared a flyer to provide examples from the book. (This disturbing book is written by Gayle E. Pitman and illustrated by Kristyna Litten.)

Library board member David Reynolds also spoke with IFI about the offensive nature of the book and the inappropriateness of allowing children to have unsupervised access to it. Libraries remove books from shelves all the time for various reasons, he said, but the effort to have this book removed is creating the equivalent of a “constitutional crisis.”

Controversial books should not be placed where children can easily step on cultural land minds, Reynolds said. Books like This Day in June should, at a minimum, be moved to a separate parent/teacher collection as is the policy at many libraries.

Just two days ago, Illinois Family Institute’s Laurie Higgins wrote “In a Heartbeat”: Propaganda for Children. Here is her opening paragraph:

Anyone who doubts that “LGBTQQAP” activists and their “allies” are pursuing the hearts and minds of other people’s children should watch this sweet, well-crafted, animated short film about an adorable, red-headed, closeted middle school boy whose secret crush on another boy is exposed when his anthropomorphized heart leaps from his chest and pursues the boy with whom the main character is besotted.

This Day in June too seeks to capture the imaginations of young children:

Filled with saturated colors and vivid illustrations, this picture book uses rhyming couplets to convey the fun and exuberate feelings assocated [sic] with a pride parade for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people and families. For example, “Rainbow arches/Joyful marches/Motors roaring/Spirits soaring.” The cartoon artwork is richly detailed and capture the “Banners swaying/Children playing.”

Here is a paragraph from that Laurie Higgins’ article reworked to apply to This Day in June:

The book’s creators are making the implicit argument that the biological sex of humans is irrelevant to the morality of sexual activity. Leftists use the adolescent slogan “love is love” to distract the public from the central issue—which pertains not to love but to sex. The central issue concerns sexual morality and sexual boundaries. The Left seeks to skirt that issue by dangling vivid illustrations and rhyming couplets in front of vulnerable and manipulable children.

None of the “profoundly important questions about sexual morality matter,” Higgins writes, “in a culture where cartoons shape feelings—nothing more than feelings.”

IFI also spoke with a veteran of the public library systems who noted the Leftist slant from the local level on up to the Illinois Library Association (ILA) and the American Library Association (ALA). “Libraries do not need to carry these kinds of books,” she said, but often do because so often they are lobbying for one side of a political argument.

Even the ILA and the ALA seem to be less about promoting libraries than pushing political agendas, she said: “They need to be neutral like librarians are taught in library school and how they are trained in collection development.” Librarians are given a lot of control over the latter, she said, so the more liberal the librarians are, the more liberal the book collections will be.

Take ACTION: Click HERE to send an email or fax to the West Chicago Library Board of Trustees, urging them to reject policies that spend tax resources on politically controversial and deviant books targeted at young children.  You may want to point out that this is not an issue of free speech but rather of book selection policy.

More ACTION:  If you are a local resident, please try to attend this meeting, and try to arrive by 6:30 to sign in to make comments, which are limited to three minutes. You may want to type up your comment and read it so as to ensure you don’t exceed the three-minute limit.