1

Identity Politics and Paraphilias: Ideas & Voyeurism

Here is David French writing at National Review:

Identity politics works like this: Progressives do everything in their power to explicitly and unequivocally stoke race- and gender-related resentments and grievances. Any push-back against identity politics is labeled denialism at best and racism or sexism at worst. Progressive ideas are so self-evidently superior that opposition is best explained as grounded in misogyny or the always-reliable “fear of change.”

“It’s a poisonous ideology,” French writes, and “it’s straining our national unity”:

In the aftermath of the election, the Democrats are doing their own soul-searching, with many of the questions boiling down to a battle between ideas and identities. Did they lose because they nominated a bad candidate who advanced insufficiently attractive ideas? Or did they lose because, in this election cycle at least, there were just too many racists and sexists?

It’s understandable and human that Hillary would point the finger rather than look in the mirror, but if her side wins the argument, look for Democrats to do their dead-level best now and in the future to inflame race- and gender-based grievances. They will tell millions of Americans that the color of their skin and their “gender identity” should dictate their thoughts and beliefs, and that opposition isn’t based on reason or logic but rather hate and fear.

Here’s the thing, though — that destructive narrative is so powerful that, next time, it might just win. If it does, Democrats will feel vindicated, triumphant liberal culture warriors will redouble their assault on conservative ideas and institutions, and the national fabric will continue to fray.

To our paraphilia of the day: Voyeurism. Here is Wikipedia:

Voyeurism is the sexual interest in or practice of spying on people engaged in intimate behaviors, such as undressing, sexual activity, or other actions usually considered to be of a private nature.

The voyeur does not normally interact directly with the subject of his/her interest, who is often unaware of being observed. The essence of voyeurism is the observing but may also involve the making of a secret photograph or video of the subject during an intimate activity.

Let me ask our readers to search their hearts for any bigotry that might be in there concerning voyeurs. It’s who they are.

And our closing question: Will the letter V be added to the LGBTQIA (etc.) abbreviation?

Up next: Identity Politics and Paraphilias: Tribalism & Urolagnia

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



Please Support Neighborhood Pro-Family IFI

Your support of our work and ministry is always much needed and greatly appreciated. Your promotion of our emails on Facebook, Twitter, your own email network, and prayer for financial support is a huge part of our success in being a strong voice for the pro-life, pro-marriage and pro-family message here in the Land of Lincoln.

Please consider making a donation to help us stand strong!




IFI’s Higgins Discusses the Transgender Agenda With Rios

American Family Radio* (AFR) talk radio host Sandi Rios is familiar to many Illinoisans since for many years her show was based in Illinois, on WYLL. Last week on her “Sandi Rios in the Morning” show, Laurie Higgins was a guest – and it is a podcast worth listening to. Their topic was the “Transgender Agenda and How to Combat It.” 

Discussing the growing problem of leftist ideologues running our taxpayer funded government schools, Rios and Higgins agreed that increasingly the pro-LGBTQIA advocates are succeeding in indoctrinating students with views that are contrary to the values of the parents of those students. 

Among the issues Rios and Higgins covered include the problem of both Christian teachers and informed parents who are surrendering the field without a fight. That must change, Higgins says, even if it means facing a backlash from the school administrators or neighbors. “Christians need to be ready to suffer for Christ” and bear witness to the truth. 

“School administrators are not deep thinkers,” Higgins says, as they rarely consider the long term consequences of the policies they promote. Every leftist argument is easily countered, Higgins said, though work on our part is needed to learn how to engage in this combat. 

Also discussed is the fact that some schools are even promoting the notion that gender identity can change from day to day. “I can’t believe we’re talking about this,” Rios says at one point, calling much of the left’s reasoning “nonsense.”

We highly recommend that you stream or download the podcast of this program and take time to listen to it in the near future, and then please consider sharing this interview with your friends, family and neighbors. It will bless you and equip you in defending our faith.

Click on the button below to stream the MP3 or click, “Download” to save it to your computer:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/sr_20170512.mp3

If you like this interview, you may want to check out Laurie’s interview with Craig Dellimore for his weekly “At Issue” news program to discuss religious liberty versus the radical LGBT agenda.

You can also check out Laurie’s visits with Monte Larrick and Dave Smith on the Illinois Family Spotlight podcast:

Bathroom Wars Go Back to School

Countering the New Bathroom Agenda

*AFR has seven radio station in central, southern Illinois, and one in Geneseo.  Click here for more information.


Please Support Neighborhood Pro-Family IFI

Your support of our work and ministry is always much needed and greatly appreciated. Your promotion of our emails on Facebook, Twitter, your own email network, and prayer for financial support is a huge part of our success in being a strong voice for the pro-life, pro-marriage and pro-family message here in the Land of Lincoln.

Please consider making a donation to help us stand strong!




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

It is worth restating my premise for these articles: The letters “LGBT” don’t really end with the letter “T,” and all the letters that follow deserve an equal footing with the first four. Thus, expect increasing irrationality and craziness from the radical political leftists in the months and years ahead.

Many fiscal conservatives consider themselves “enlightened” and thus look down on anyone concerned about those pesky and backward “social issues.” They can consider this another wake up call. The breakdown of the family and an increasingly divided society resulting from identity politics means your efforts to restore limited government (even a little bit) are doomed to fail.

You can’t tear up the social fabric and expect a lean government. You can’t have one kind of society and another kind of government. Here’s more bad news: you cannot separate the economic issues from the social issues.

Last November Daniel Payne posted a piece at The Federalist titled, “Why Liberals’ Coming Fight Over Identity Politics Will Be Ugly.” Here was the introductory sentence: “The more practical wing of the Democratic Party and the more manic, single-minded constituency largely comprised of young liberals are in for a giant fight.”

Payne writes:

The tried-and-true formula of liberal success served reasonably well throughout the young twenty-first century and quite well throughout much of the second half of the twentieth. Yet this boiling stew of identity politics centering on race, sex, and sexual orientation failed the Democrats at precisely the moment it should have been their Excalibur.

“There is good reason for the Left to consider an alternative way to do politics,” Payne writes, and suggests that the Leftists discard “identity politics for something better.”

And what might that be? A package of policy proposals guaranteed to work? Like $20 trillion in federal debt? A war on poverty that hasn’t worked? Obamacare and other entitlement programs that are not structured properly? A K-12 and higher education system that is both inefficient and ineffective?

Payne defines identity politics just as I do in this series:

This will be a problem for Democrats looking to soften the party’s approach to identity issues. On questions of “identity,” or what is often broadly termed “social issues,” younger voters are far more liberal than their older counterparts.

Payne continues:

Consider, for instance, the millennial position on LGBT rights. Data suggest that overwhelming majorities of young voters favor “LGBT nondiscrimination protections,” while nearly three-quarters of Millennials favor re-defining marriage to include same-sex couples. Half of the same demographic believes “gender isn’t limited to male and female.”

Yep. The same kids that think Bernie Sanders was onto something are also confused about biology. That’s fixable. It calls for conservatives of all stripes to start fighting and winning the information war. Learning is a lifetime activity and the Millennial generation will require more continuing education than most.

You can read the rest of Daniel Payne’s article here. He touches on other areas of Leftist and Millennial generation ignorance.

Now to our paraphilia of the day: Bestiality/Zoophilia. Sorry, but it is a paraphilia. Are the Millennials ready to embrace this or are they backward bigots? Here’s Wikipedia‘s opening note:

For other uses, see Zoophilia (disambiguation).
“Bestiality” redirects here. For other uses, see Bestiality (disambiguation).
Not to be confused with Zoophily.

Certainly none of us want to confuse it with Zoophily.

Zoophilia is a paraphilia involving a sexual fixation on non-human animals. Bestiality is cross-species sexual activity between human and non-human animals. The terms are often used interchangeably, but some researchers make a distinction between the attraction (zoophilia) and the act (bestiality).

Although sex with animals is not outlawed in some countries, in most countries, bestiality is illegal under animal abuse laws or laws dealing with crimes against nature.

One reader brought a 2012 article to my attention written by Antonio M. Haynes, a Cornell University law student: “’Dog on Man’: Are Bestiality Laws Justifiable?” Just to be clear, I only read the first four pages so I have no idea what his argument is. It wasn’t easy getting that far — call it intolerance on my part if you’d like.

The following passage is from the book, Strained Relations: The Challenge of Homosexuality by Bill Muehlenberg:

The Gay Report, a book much praised in homosexual communities, contains testimonials without adverse comment of homosexual encounters with Labrador retrievers, cows and horses. The 1992 report mentioned above found that 15 per cent of male homosexuals and 19 per cent of male bisexuals had sex with animals, compared with three per cent of male heterosexuals. As lesbian activist Sara Cohen puts it: “What’s wrong with a little bestiality?”

Enough said.

To our basic and important question of the day: Should a person who is morally opposed to Bestiality/Zoophilia behavior be allowed to have a show on HGTV?

Up next: Normalizing Deviance & Sadomasochism.

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



Please Support Neighborhood Pro-Family IFI

Your support of our work and ministry is always much needed and greatly appreciated. Your promotion of our emails on Facebook, Twitter, your own email network, and prayer for financial support is a huge part of our success in being a strong voice for the pro-life, pro-marriage and pro-family message here in the Land of Lincoln.

Please consider making a donation to help us stand strong!




The Health Hazards of Homosexuality: An Important New Book from MassResistance (Part 2)

Last time I introduced the new and impressively researched book from MassResistance, which runs about 500 pages and adds another 100 pages of footnotes. These days when the meaning of the word “gay” has been radically changed by leftwing radicals, this book puts the lie to the idea that the word, as used, is a synonym of “happy.”

Social conservatives should buy a copy of this book so they can have the facts about “What the Medical and Psychological Research Reveals.”

In Tammy Bruce’s 2003 book The Death of Right and Wrong, Bruce, a self-described lesbian conservative, describes many of her fellow LGBTers with harsh language:

For people whose entire identity and reason to live is based in their sexuality, what do they need to do in order to fit comfortably into our society? They must work to sexualize every part of society…

From where does this madness spring? Why this compulsion to change our society’s culture to mirror the Left Elite’s own worldview? This pattern of the Left Elite’s projecting their issues onto society isn’t as odd as you may think.

It makes perfect sense, according to the most respected psychoanalysts of our age. Childhood trauma, stress disorders, and the resulting malignant narcissism all play a part in the Left’s victim mentality and in their effort, mostly subconscious, to shape our world to mirror their own damaged psyches.

In chapter 3 of the book, MassResistance surveys the mental health data and provides footnotes for the reader to learn more. “There is widespread agreement among researchers,” the chapter begins, “that the GLB population shows significantly higher incidence of mental health problems than heterosexuals.”

Here is the sad list: “anxiety, depression, suicidal thinking and attempts, substance abuse, eating disorders, promiscuity, sex addiction, risk taking, and unstable relationships. If that isn’t bad enough, chapter 4 focuses on GLB “partner abuse.”

Those who read The Health Hazards of Homosexuality, may, like me, be surprised at the long list of physical ailments that are common in the GLB community — and yes, that includes lesbians. While the list is longer for men, bisexual men play the role of helping spread many of the diseases to women.

This is not an exhaustive list: HIV/AIDS, HPV, condyloma, genital warts, anal warts, anal cancer, Kaposi’s sarcoma, genital herpes, molluscum, viral hepatitus, hepatitus A, hepatitus B, hepatitus C, chlamydia and LGV, gonorrhea, and syphilis. Okay, that’s enough. There are many more, but you get the picture.

There were many other things I had been unaware of beforehand. Here are just a few of them:

“Bathhouses are accepted as ‘mainstream’ by homosexual organizations.” There is actually something called the North American Bathhouse Association. For some reason I was under the impression that their “disproportionate impact on the spread of disease” had led health organizations to shut them down.

If you were to read closely the pages about “fisting,” you could probably be counted as an expert on the topic. That was one of the sections I just paged-through. Thanks, but no thanks. But again, it’s important information, albeit completely awful to be made aware of.

If you’re still reading this article, I applaud your stamina. The good news is that we’re almost done. Just one more thing. From chapter 8:

Homosexuals would deny that any in their community engage in bestiality (intercourse with animals). If that is so, why is there a section discussing it at the pro-homosexual AIDS advice site, The Body? Why are bestiality videos sold at the International Mr. Leather event?

I’ll spare you the titles of the videos given as examples.

In this information age, it is astounding how much information remains mostly, and purposefully hidden. The politicized health organizations are as much to blame as the Leftist media and others advancing the LGBT agenda. This book can go a long way to helping solve this information problem — but only if social conservatives buy it and help spread the word.

People are “suffering unnecessarily,” as MassResistance’s executive director Brian Camenker writes in the Forward. The Introduction of the book states it clearly:

The mainstreaming of homosexuality is a serious threat to the public health and to the health of individuals caught up in the homosexual lifestyle.

The American public is not being told how dangerous homosexuality is to the physical and mental health of its practitioners, as well as to our larger society.

Click here to learn more about the book and to buy a copy.


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




Healthcare Professionals File FTC Complaint Against the SPLC, HRC and NCLR

Finally, medical and mental health professionals are bringing a gun to the gunfight.

The National Task Force for Therapy Equality (NTFTE), “a coalition of psychotherapists, psychiatrists, physicians, public policy organizations, and clients who experience unwanted same-sex attractions and gender identity conflicts,” has filed a complaint with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) asking the FTC “to investigate and stop the libelous, slanderous, deceptive, and misleading actions of the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), Human Rights Campaign (HRC), and National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR).

The NTFTE alleges that the aforementioned sexuality anarchists have done the following:

  • “actively and knowingly engaged in deceptive and fraudulent marketing practices of the kind the FTC considers malicious….”
  • “supported witnesses on the state, federal, and international level that have delivered unverifiable and fraudulent testimony in front of law-making bodies in the effort to persuade legislative action to ban psychotherapy….”
  • “are actively raising large sums of money in the effort to ban psychotherapy by using deceptive and fraudulent practices….”
  • “actively and knowingly distorted the research to promote efforts to ban psychotherapy for clients with sexual and gender identity conflicts….”
  • “actively distorted the scientific research in promoting the “Born Gay” hoax, a notion that has been disproved and refuted by organizations such as the American Psychological Association….”
  • “engaged in smear and defamatory attacks on licensed psychotherapists and faith-based ministries providing help and assistance to those who experience sexual and gender identity conflicts.”

The NTFTE is asking the FTC that the “FTC take enforcement action to end the actions of the SPLC, HRC, and NCLR, which seek to defame change therapies, change therapists, and their clients, or to render a judgment against the three organizations for their actions, which are deceptive and misleading to consumers and the general public.” In addition, the NTFTE is asking that the “FTC require these organizations to cease publishing slanderous remarks about change therapies, change therapists, and their clients, and require them to cease and desist publishing all deceptive statements including those within their public speeches, social media, online videos, and on their websites.”

It’s about time someone challenged the lying liars and reprobates at the Southern Poverty Law Center, Human Rights Campaign, and National Center for Lesbian Rights.


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 25 years, working to boldly bring a biblical perspective to public policy.

donationbutton




The Health Hazards of Homosexuality: An Important New Book from MassResistance (Part 1)

Charles Dickens famously opened his novel A Tale of Two Cities with the words, “It was the best of times, it was the worst of times.” Those words came to my mind as I clawed my way through the new book by MassResistance, The Health Hazards of Homosexuality. The book is as important as it is difficult to get through. It is the best resource I’ve seen on one of the worst topics in the modern public square.

Here is the book’s subtitle: “What the Medical and Psychological Research Reveals.”

If you’re unfamiliar with the organization MassResistance, you should get familiar. It is one of those small but hard-hitting and effective groups that fear nothing. Sometimes it’s the smaller teams of activists that accomplish the more difficult tasks — and MassResistance long ago earned the respect of many across the country and around the world for their boldness and tenacity.

“MassResistance is a pro-family activist organization that educates people to help them confront the attacks on the traditional family, children, religion, and society,” its website states and then asks “What makes us different?”

Boston Herald columnist Howie Carr once described us as a “hardcore pro-family group.” Through uncompromising first-hand reporting we expose the agendas and horrors targeting children in schools and the institutions of society. We provide analysis so the average person understands what’s really happening. And we give citizens and activists everywhere the tools and strategy to effectively confront the anti-family forces against them. Most people are unfortunately ill equipped to deal with this on their own.

In contrast, rather than being truthful and confrontational, too many pro-family groups are more interested in being viewed as “reasonable and “not extreme.” They tend to “fight” by writing commentary, re-posting shocking articles, and putting up a polite opposition to the latest left-wing lunacy. And they don’t accomplish much.

But MassResistance focuses on exposing the often harsh truth — and fighting back without compromise. We welcome people from everywhere who are willing to be part of this counter-revolution.

All true.

Brian Camenker, MassResistance’s executive director, penned the Forward to the book and opens it also with a question: “What makes this book different?” His answer: “It is a unique resource on an ‘untouchable’ subject.” And it is an awful subject:

A disproportionate incidence of pathologies is found among homosexual men, lesbians, and bisexuals. Yet the general public is told very little, if anything, about the baneful nature of homosexuality and its associated addictions and behaviors. The popular culture tells us, “Look the other way; there’s nothing to see here.”

There is an enormous volume of information available, but it’s widely dispersed and often hard to find. We spent several years collecting and organizing it. This book provides detailed discussion of homosexual lifestyle issues, sexual practices, and their medical and psychological consequences. We include background information and historical context which may be new to many readers.

And what are their sources? Brian Camenker lists them — most of which are pro-LGBT politically: The U.S. Centers of Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the American Psychological and Psychiatric Associations, the Gay & Lesbian Medical Association, the Fenway Institute in Boston, various other LGBT-friendly clinical guides, and numerous research studies.

The Preface outlines the “why” of the book:

This book aims to alert the public — especially young people and their parents — on the serious physical and psychological health dangers inherent in adopting a “gay,” lesbian, or bisexual (GLB) identity.

An important quote from psychologist Joseph Nicolosi sums up the sad reality:

Most medical groups have embraced the homosexual agenda and are advocating that lifestyle despite all the scientific studies and medical evidence that demonstrates medical and psychological risk. Homosexual activism and political correctness are clearly trumping science.

“The mainstreaming of homosexuality is a serious threat to the public health,” the book states, and the “American public is not being told how dangerous homosexuality is to the physical and mental health of its practitioners.”

Said another way: “Greater societal acceptance of homosexuality has resulted in even more disease and suffering.”

If someone was to have witnessed me reading major parts of the book they would have assumed I was a speed reader. I am not. Some of the information included in the book is not easy to get through. And as important as it is to have the ugly realities included, I can always revisit those pages later should I need to know more about things such as “felching.” No, you don’t want to Google it.

So why am I recommending a book filled with such disgusting things? Because we have to deal with the world as it is — even as extreme cultural leftists work almost nonstop to hide critical facts from the public.

Up next — a few things I learned by reading this excellent book.



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




Leftist “Illinois Women March on Springfield”

If there were laws requiring truth in political advertising, today’s evasively-named “Illinois Women March on Springfield” would be called “Illinois Feminists’ Jackbooted March for Womb-Killing and Sexual Perversity.”

“Progressive” feminists will be stomping into Springfield later today lobbying lawmakers to, among other odious things, force taxpayers to fund abortion through Medicaid; eliminate in law any recognition of sex differences between men and women through support for the misnamed Equal Rights Amendment; make it easier for gender-dysphoric men and women to access fraudulent birth certificates; and through opposition to the Pupil Physical Privacy Act, force all Illinois public schools to allow co-ed restrooms and locker rooms.

“Progressives” appeal to compassion, equality, and justice to mask evil and injustice. They pervert concepts that appeal to Americans in order to advance policies, laws, and values that thwart human flourishing and the public good while advancing radical autonomy and selfishness. Don’t be deceived by feminist sophistry or cowed by their epithets.

Conservative women have far wiser words to offer on these issues:

“Is this a proper and moral solution to an unexpected pregnancy for poor women? Can’t Illinois find a way to raise the opportunities for its citizens so they can afford to house, feed and educate their children and welcome new life, rather than tell them: kill your children, we don’t want them.” ~Ann Scheidler– Vice President, Pro-Life Action League

“Imagine my surprise to find out that a Women’s March to Springfield is really a March to promote a pernicious agenda that will have far reaching and unintended effects; spiritual, physical and mental on women. The March’s agenda, being promoted, seems to center around a woman’s unfettered license to do whatever, whenever, she wants, regardless of any consequences or victims.” ~Bonnie Quirke– President, Lake County Right to Life

“The true strength of women is revealed in the uniqueness in her female gender. Only a woman can bring a life into the world. These women would be better served to recognize and celebrate their true beauty and dignity – their ability to procreate and the natural instincts women have to nurture children.” ~Dawn Fitzpatrick– President, Chicago March for Life

In 1979, to counteract the feminist NOW organization and The Equal Rights Amendment, Beverly LaHaye founded Concerned Women for America –America’s largest public policy women’s organization. Beverly LaHaye declared, “Feminists don’t speak for me!” and thirty-eight years later more than 500,000 active CWA members still agree. Feminists’ anti-God, anti-family ideology never has represented the beliefs of millions of America’s Christian women and never will. ~Deborah R. Leininger– Illinois State Director, Concerned Women for America

You too can make your voice heard. Take ACTION on these three items:

1.)  Click HERE to urge your state representative to OPPOSE taxpayer funding of abortion through HB 40.

2.)  Click HERE to urge your state representative to OPPOSE HB 1785 and uphold birth certificates as legal documents.  The state of Illinois has no duty or right to make it easier for men and women who wish they were the opposite sex to falsify their birth certificates.

3.)  Click HERE to urge your state senator and state representative to OPPOSE the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA), SJRCA 4.

Please also make a couple of calls to reinforce your emails. The Capitol switchboard number is (217) 782-2000.


IFI Forums on Climate Change & the Christian

Join us at one of our four stops as we have Dr. Calvin Beisner, the founder & national spokesman for The Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation lead a discussion about the Christian responsibility to the environment and learn how to discern truth and myth in the climate change controversy.

April 25th in Rockford
April 26th in Arlington Heights
April 27th in Orland Park
April 28th in Peoria

Click HERE to learn more!




Dove Ad Features Real Dad Pretending to Be Real Mom

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


We need your support!




Stop the Anemic Responses to School Indoctrination Days

According to a survey conducted by Harris Poll on behalf of the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation and a survey from the Public Religion Research Institute, there is a marked increase in millennials “identifying” as bisexual or as other  peculiar sexual “identities.”

These surveys raise a critical question: Do these statistics reflect the eradication of destructive social taboos that prevented bisexuals, “transmen” (i.e., women), “transwomen” (i.e., men), “agender,” “gender fluid,” and “gender expansive” persons from publicly revealing their “authentic” selves, or do these statistics reflect the indoctrination of millennials who have had transgressive ideas poured into them from virtually every cultural institution since their births—including their public schools—and as a result are behaving in self-destructive ways that accord with this poisonous sexual ideology?

IFI believes that unrelenting indoctrination has led us to this place in which our young people are engaging in body and soul-destroying actions that they view as freedom. What makes this all the more shocking and tragic is that our taxes subsidize this destruction through our government schools.

Leftist assumptions about sexuality are disseminated and reinforced through our schools’ social and emotional learning standards; “comprehensive” sex ed; professional development for staff and faculty; theater productions; and curricular and supplementary resources teachers assign in class, including novels, plays, essays, magazine articles, movies, and activities.

One of those activities now reaches into thousands of high schools and increasing numbers of middle schools. It’s called the Day of Silence, and it takes place in most schools this Friday, April 21. The Day of Silence is an indoctrination day that exploits legitimate anti-bullying sentiment to eradicate disapproval of homosexual activity and the “trans”-cult movement or to make it socially impossible to express such disapproval.

The Day of Silence is a political event sponsored by the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN) that urges students (and teachers) to refuse to speak for an entire school day, including during class time, in order to draw attention to the plight of students who “identify” as homosexual or as persons of the opposite sex. In other words, students are encouraged to hijack instructional time and exploit a captive audience (i.e., their peers) to advance their subjective beliefs about sexuality. GLSEN offers a panoply of instructions to students on how to plan and implement Day of Silence in their schools and to teachers on how to turn their classrooms into indoctrination seminars.

A national coalition of conservative pro-family organizations is urging parents to contact their children’s schools and ask an administrator this question: Do you permit students and/or teachers to refuse to speak on the Day of Silence?

If the answer is evasive or “yes,” keep your child or children home from school. Many schools lose money for each student absence and in most cases, money talks more loudly to school administrators than does reason.

The ACLU has publicly stated that students have no legal right to refuse to speak on the Day of Silence if teachers ask them to speak, so conservative teachers should plan activities that require student participation. For years now, in many schools teachers have been accommodating student-refusal to speak by planning lessons that permit silence or permit students to write out responses. It’s time for conservative teachers to actively oppose GLSEN and reclaim the classroom for sound education.

Some conservative parents argue that rather than keeping children out of school on the Day of Silence, Christians should keep their kids in school and encourage them to “dialogue” about homosexuality.

As I wrote two years ago, I believe the real motive for this foolish and anemic proposal is to find some sort of defense for inaction. Some Christians are desperate to rationalize compliance and conformity. I say “inaction” because almost no Christian kids will do this, nor should they be expected to.

This anemic proposal fails to take into account three realities: 1. the nature of adolescents, 2. the nature of public schools, 3. the nature of the Christian role models most Christian teens have had in their lives.

Children and teens are not missionaries. It’s not their job in school to teach ethics or engage in apologetics. I’m not suggesting that children and teens shouldn’t do these things. I’m arguing that these are the years that children and teens should be trained up in the way they should go. Their formal educational contexts should not be places of emotional intimidation, political indoctrination, and affirmation of falsehoods as truth. Are they emotionally, spiritually, and intellectually equipped to do that? How many of their parents are emotionally, spiritually, and intellectually equipped to debate issues related to gender dysphoria and homosexuality? Sound, holistic education and training precede the mission field.

Children and teens are vulnerable to false ideas and the influence of charismatic and cunning teachers.

Children and teens already have more than enough to contend with during this emotionally turbulent time of their lives, including family breakdown and dysfunction, economic pressures at home, academic challenges, athletic pressures, peer conflict, substance abuse, and eating disorders. They do not need to be confronted at school with the single most controversial issue dividing this nation and one which most adults—including our political and church leaders and parents—avoid like the proverbial plague.

Children and teens have as powerful a desire to fit in as their parents. Peer pressure and the prospect of ridicule and ostracism make countercultural witnessing to truth almost impossible for teens who are not yet fully mature. I would argue that the silence of adult Christians on these matters reveals that too few of them have matured much beyond adolescence emotionally, psychologically, or spiritually.

How many adult Christians are willing to speak truth about homosexuality in the public square or even in the private sphere to close family members or friends who may disagree?

How many parents, pastors, and priests show up at school board meetings to oppose the sexual integration of restrooms and locker rooms?

How many Christian lawmakers speak boldly (and articulately) in defense of true marriage; or against co-ed restrooms, locker rooms, and shelters; or against adoption by homosexuals?

How many Christian teachers speak out to colleagues or administrators in opposition to the dissemination of homosexuality-affirming resources or the refusal to balance curricula with resources from conservative scholars?

How many priests and pastors preach on homosexuality or gender confusion or teach on these topics in other contexts?

How many pastors, priests, and elders submit letters to the press on cultural issues related to homosexuality or co-ed locker rooms?

And yet some Christians expect Christian teens and children to do what adult Christians steadfastly refuse to do.

Here’s an idea for those who favor sending their young ones to school on the Day of Silence to dialogue with GLSEN’s disciples: Keep your children home from school this Friday, and then encourage them to dialogue about homosexuality and gender dysphoria on any of the other 185 school days.

For more information on what to do about the Day of Silence, click here.


IFI Forums: Climate Change & the Christian

Join us during the last week of April as we have Dr. Calvin Beisner, the founder & national spokesman for The Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation discuss the Christian responsibility to the environment as we learn how to discern truth and myth in the climate change controversy.

April 25th in Rockford
April 26th in Arlington Heights
April 27th in Orland Park
April 28th in Peoria

Click HERE to learn more!




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

Last time we covered two recent articles from Public Discourse — here are brief excerpts from three more.

The first is from Ryan T. Anderson — note the important introduction following the title:

How to Think About Discrimination: Race, Sex, and SOGI
Sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI) antidiscrimination laws are unjustified, but if other policies are adopted to address the mistreatment of people who identify as LGBT, they must leave people free to engage in legitimate actions based on the conviction that we are created male and female and that male and female are created for each other.

Here is Anderson’s first paragraph:

In a new report for the Heritage Foundation, “How to Think About Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity (SOGI) Policies and Religious Freedom,” I argue that current proposals to create new LGBT protections with varying types of religious exemptions will not result in what advocates claim is “Fairness for All.” Instead, they will penalize many Americans who believe that we are created male and female and that male and female are created for each other—convictions that the Supreme Court of the United States, in Obergefell v. Hodges, recognized are held “in good faith by reasonable and sincere people here and throughout the world.”

Mr. Anderson is a talent and conservatives benefit greatly from his work. However, like Victor Davis Hanson yesterday, I’m not sure he grasps how far “identity politics” goes. This series shows that it extends far beyond the relatively narrow “LGBT.” In fact, there is almost no end to the number of letters that can follow the “T.”

Here is the next article from Public Discourse — this one is by Scott Beauchamp. For the sake of space I’ll only list the title and its introductory sentence which says a lot:

The Kids Aren’t All Right: What the Gender-Identity Revolution Has in Common with 1960s’ Drug Culture
The LSD consciousness-expansion movement of the late sixties and today’s gender-identity fixation are both counterfeit revolutions. The two might initially appear very different, but they share similar intellectual assumptions and make analogous mistakes.

And lastly, from Emily Zinos:

Biology Isn’t Bigotry: Christians, Lesbians, and Radical Feminists Unite to Fight Gender Ideology
Public schools have a duty to serve all children, but a school cannot serve children and a totalitarian ideology all at once. For the sake of children’s well-being, Christian mothers are uniting with their radical feminist and lesbian sisters to reject the idea of “gender identity.”

Just three sentences from the article:

The belief that one’s internal sense of self determines maleness or femaleness and that subjective feelings take precedence over an objective physical reality constitutes a severing of mind from body. Our sex is who we are: it can’t be amputated from our body like a limb. But the true believers in gender ideology are hard at work, pulling in converts to this gnostic worldview that shuns the material that we humans are made of: the body.

I realize many readers are terribly anxious to learn about today’s paraphilia so let’s get to it. (Oh, and I’m sorry, TheOnion.com, you can’t have this one since it’s real and not satire.)

Once again we’re going to rely on trusty Wikipedia. As an aside, just so you know, I am fully aware of the problems with Wikipedia. If you’re not sure what I’m referring to, check out here how they duplicate the Oprah Winfrey “pregnant man” lunacy (spoiler alert: “Thomas,” formerly Tracey, was born a girl).(Would it be disrespectful at this point to include the letters ‘LOL’?)

So…here’s Wikipedia:

Autassassinophilia is a paraphilia in which a person is sexually aroused by the risk of being killed. The fetish may overlap with some other fetishes that risk one’s life, such as those involving drowning or choking. This does not necessarily mean the person must actually be in a life-threatening situation, for many are aroused from dreams and fantasies of such.

Be sure to click on this link to learn more — because you need to be ready when Nintendo bows to pressure and creates a video game which includes autassassinophilias. Your kids might need it explained — that is, if they haven’t gotten to that chapter in the diversity textbook at school.

Up next we’ll take a look at another example of the ways people experience “intense sexual arousal to atypical objects, situations, or individuals.” If America is to be truly free, shouldn’t all sexcentric-identified individuals be treated equally under the law?

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




A Question for Leftists and Progressives: Is This What You Mean by ‘Equality’?

I did not intend to write about this story, but when I saw a picture of the teenager in question, I had to. He is 15-years-old, clearly a biological male. Look at his picture for yourself, mustache and all. As Joy Pullman notes on The Federalist, he has “not taken drugs nor undergone surgery to mimic femininity.” Yet he was allowed to compete against other girls in a recent sporting event, and to no one’s surprise, he won – quite handily, at that. Is this what is meant by “equality”?

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.

Other examples could be supplied as well, since this is becoming more and more common.

How is this fair? How can progressives and liberals and leftists and LGBT activists and their allies think this is right? And do the feminists of the world really want to engage in head-to-head athletic competition with their male peers?

If this was done in the world of professional sports, there would not be a single woman winning, let alone playing, at the elite, highest levels.

Not one female basketball player would earn a berth in the NBA. Not one female athlete would make it to the Olympics – in swimming or rowing or weightlifting or skiing or running or jumping or hurdling or boxing. Not one.

Men would dominate in every event, and women would be relegated to cheerleading.

That’s why we have men’s sports and women’s sports, men’s world records and women’s world records. And that why we celebrate the accomplishments of female athletes as females rather than comparing them to males.

There is nothing sexist about this. There is nothing hateful about this. There is nothing condescending about this. This is a matter of fairness, equality, and common sense.

At least it should be. Today, common sense is in danger of extinction, and concepts like fairness and equality are turned upside down.

The 15-year-old in question goes by the name of Andraya Yearwood, and as the Hartford Courant reported, Andraya’s first event with female peers was a cause for celebration: “With family, friends and teammates cheering her on at her first high school track meet, Andraya won the girls 100- and 200-meter dashes, and helped her 4 x 100-meter relay team take second place.”

What did this look like in person? One picture says it all, as Andraya leaves the other girls behind, girls who trained so hard for these events, only to be beaten by a boy. And I mean beaten decisively.

But Andraya’s mother had a response to anyone would protest the event: “I know they’ll say it is unfair and not right, but my counter to that is: Why not? She is competing and practicing and giving her all and performing and excelling based on her skills. Let that be enough. Let her do that, and be proud of that.”

What kind of logic is that? Because this 15-year-old biological male is competing and practicing and giving his all, that makes it fair and right for him to compete with his female peers? No matter what these other girls do, no matter how hard they try, no matter how much they push themselves, they will not be able to keep up with an equally devoted male peer. How is this fair and right to them?

Andraya’s father is also supportive, saying that his son is competing just where he should be competing, also explaining that you are born into a particular body but you grow into being a particular person.

But athletic events are conducted in the body, regardless of how the person inside that body identifies. Yet when people ask Mr. Yearwood, “Why is your daughter running with the girls?” his response is, “Because she’s my daughter, much like the reason your daughter is running with girls.”

With all respect to the Yearwood family, and with understanding that for them this was a matter of life and death for their child, what Mr. Yearwood is saying is patently false. His child is not running with the other girls the same way the other daughters are running, just like his child does not have to deal with monthly periods or female hormonal changes, since Andraya is not like the other girls.

“But,” you ask, “what about Andraya? What if Andraya has gender dysphoria? What if identifying as female will save her life?”

That is between Andraya and his family and the Lord. But Andraya’s personal struggles cannot be imposed on everyone else, meaning, as a biological male, he has no business competing with other girls, or, for that matter, sharing their locker rooms and shower stalls. That is not the meaning of equality.

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. As expressed by Joy Pullmann, “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.”

Exactly.

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?


This article was originally posted at Townhall.com




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

One of the email newsletters I receive is from the Witherspoon Institute’s “Public Discourse,” and often link to and/or excerpt articles posted at their website. Recently there has been a number of articles touching on “identity politics.” In this post and in the next I will link to and excerpt from a few of the the articles.

First up is from Professor Anthony Esolen.

Pronouns, Ordinary People, and the War over Reality
Do not dismiss the pronominal wars as nonsense or assume that its warriors are merely daft.

It cannot possibly be to any living thing’s advantage to be confused about male and female. As it is, sex is far more strongly marked upon the human body than it is upon the bodies of dogs or cats or horses or many of the species of birds. A man’s face is not like a woman’s face. … A man’s shoulders do not look like a woman’s shoulders, and a woman’s hips do not look like a man’s hips. Men and women differ down to their very hair, as anyone can perceive who looks at a woman’s smooth chin or a man’s bald pate.

Ordinary and healthy people love that it is so,” Esolen writes. And:

The sexual revolution always has been a war waged against the ordinary family, against the ordinary ways of men and women and children. The moral law as regards sex is meant to protect that family from threats without and within: from the pseudo-marriage that is fornication, from the betrayal of marriage that is adultery, from the rickets and scurvy of impure habits, and from the mockery of the marital act that is sodomy.

And yes, Professor Esolen doesn’t pull his punches.

Our next article is by R.J. Snell — note the subtitle!

Swastikas and Safety Pins: The Grim Heritage of Identity Politics
A war of every group against every other is the sine qua non of identity politics. The peacefulness of classical liberalism is rejected root and branch, for war is the goal.

In it, Snell links to several articles, one of which includes a word I’ve never seen before: “identitarian.”

There is only space here to highlight a couple of things. Note this paragraph:

Without the discipline of party politics, social movements devolve into mere feeling, especially in our age of expressive individualism. People march and feel good and think they have accomplished something. They have a social experience with a lot of people and fool themselves into thinking they are members of a coherent and demanding community. Such movements descend to the language of mass therapy.

And this:

The definition of America is up for grabs. Our fundamental institutions have been exposed as shockingly hollow. But the marches couldn’t escape the language and tropes of identity politics.

I always recommend reading the entire articles I excerpt.

Now to our paraphilia — the poor little mostly-ignored “B” from the identity politics pioneers at “LGBT”:

Bisexuality is romantic attraction, sexual attraction or sexual behavior toward both males and females. The term is mainly used in the context of human attraction to denote romantic or sexual feelings toward both men and women. It may also be defined as encompassing romantic or sexual attraction to people of all gender identities or to a person irrespective of that person’s biological sex or gender, which is sometimes termed pansexuality.

Got it? Are you sure? Want to read that again just to make sure? Are you ready to be quizzed, for example, on the “all gender identities” part?

If you’ve really got it, then let’s get to our closing question: How will society respond to a future well-funded marriage “equality” effort for those in bi-sexual relationships?

Up next: More from Public Discourse.

 

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




Men in Women’s Bathrooms?

Written by Hendrik van der Breggen

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My reason is simple: prudence.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For further thought:


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

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




Questions About Restrooms and Locker Rooms Leftists Must Answer

While “progressives” continue to push for the eradication of public recognition of and respect for sexual differentiation in restrooms and locker rooms, they also studiously avoid answering essential and relevant questions. Here are the questions conservatives should ask and ask and ask. And they should demand answers from foolish school board members who sexually integrate private spaces.

Does biological sex/anatomy have any meaning related to intimate activities?

  • Does objective, immutable biological sex have any intrinsic meaning relative to modesty and privacy? If not, why do we have any sex-segregated restrooms, locker rooms, shelters, or semi-private hospital rooms? Why not make all of them co-ed for everyone?
  • Those who suffer from gender dysphoria claim that their biological sex as revealed in anatomy is unrelated and irrelevant to their “gender” and “gender identity” (which are internal experiences), 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 gender-dysphoric men demand to use women’s restrooms? How do they know the males using the men’s restrooms do not “identify” as women, and how can they be sure that the females using the women’s restrooms do “identify” as women? Is it possible that gender-dysphoric men are basing their restroom choices on anatomy? If so, why are they permitted to do so, but actual women are not?
  • Do “progressives” believe it is 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?
  • Why should girls be expected to be comfortable with a boy in their locker room simply because he dislikes his sex? Why should a boy’s subjective feelings about his objective sex affect girls’ feelings or beliefs about undressing near him or vice versa?

What constitutes unjust discrimination?

  • 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”?
  • 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?
  • 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 asserted—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? And why is it unjustly discriminatory to have restroom and locker room usage correspond to objective biological sex but not discriminatory to have it correspond to subjective, internal feelings about one’s sex?
  • If it’s unjustly discriminatory to prohibit gender-dysphoric boys from using girls’ locker rooms, then why isn’t it unjustly discriminatory to prohibit gender-dysphoric boys from changing out in the open in girls’ locker rooms?

Are special privileges for those who masquerade as the opposite sex fair?

  • If gender-dysphoric 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 girls (or women) are prohibited from being able to use restrooms with only women? Why should gender-dysphoric men and gender-dysphoric women be allowed to dictate that restrooms, showers, locker rooms, shelters, and hospital rooms no longer correspond to objective, immutable sex?
  • If it’s hateful for girls to say they want to share restrooms and locker rooms with only girls, why isn’t it hateful for gender-dysphoric boys to say they want to share those facilities with only girls?
  • 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?
  • 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 don’t share but whose sex they do share?
  • If restroom stalls and changing areas provide sufficient privacy to allow a gender-dysphoric male student in the girls’ facilities, then why don’t stalls and changing areas provide sufficient privacy to allow all male students in the girls’ facilities?
  • If restroom stalls provide sufficient privacy to allow an objectively male student in girls’ restrooms, should schools allow all male staff and faculty in the women’s staff restrooms that are equipped with multiple stalls?
  • 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, nursing home rooms, and semi-private hospital rooms correspond to “gender identity” as opposed to biological sex which is both objective and stable?
  • Do children and adults have an inalienable and intrinsic right not to share restrooms and locker rooms with persons of the opposite sex?

Are schools maligning students who object to sex-integrated private spaces?

  • When Leftists 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? If so, is that problematic?
  • Do Leftist 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? (Ask this one at school board meetings when board members or community members falsely hurl these epithets in the direction of conservatives.)

Pragmatic issues with co-ed restrooms and locker rooms that schools must address.

  • Pronouns denote and correspond to objective biological sex—not subjective, internal feelings about one’s sex. So, if staff members, teachers, or administrators view the use of opposite-sex pronouns to refer to gender-dysphoric students as lying and for ethical and/or religious reasons object to lying, should schools accommodate their objections? Or, should schools—which are arms of the government—compel employees to lie?
  • Many “trans-activists” argue that “gender identity” is not fixed. It’s fluid. What will schools do when faced with students who “identify” as “bi-gender” or “genderfluid” and demand to use whichever facilities correspond to their fluctuating identities?
  • Female teachers are allowed in girls’ restrooms and locker rooms. Should male teachers who “identify” as female be allowed in girls’ restrooms and locker rooms as well? If not, why not?
  • Liberal sex and gender researchers J. 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?
  • Should gender-dysphoric students be permitted to change clothes in open areas or shower in group showers in locker rooms designated for persons of the opposite sex? If not, why not?
  • If gender-dysphoric students are permitted to use locker rooms designated for persons of the opposite sex, may they walk through areas where opposite-sex students may be changing or showering? If not, why not?

Miscellaneous other important questions for Leftists about gender dysphoria

  • 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?
  • If a man “identifies” as “bi-gender” and has appended faux-breasts to his chest while retaining his penis and testes, should he be permitted to decide which locker room he uses? Should he be permitted to walk about unclothed in women’s locker rooms?
  • Progressives routinely mock opponents of co-ed restrooms and locker rooms, asking 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 women know if the persons seeking access to women’s restrooms are objectively female, or are gender-dysphoric men masquerading as women, or are male predators masquerading as gender-dysphoric men?
  • 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, no harm, no foul.

Before we all jump whole hog into the pigpen of subjectivism where Leftists have been wallowing for half a century, let’s use our noggins and try to force our mucked up friends to use theirs.


Download the IFI App!

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

Key Features:

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



Speaking Out on the Day of Silence

The LGBTQ agenda gets the silent treatment in classrooms in Illinois on April 21st. Also, if House Bill 1785 becomes law, gender-confusion activists are likely to have their demands met in school restrooms and locker rooms.


Download the IFI App!

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

Key Features:

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