Tony Sanders, the chief executive officer of School District U-46 which serves 40,000 students in Cook, DuPage, and Kane Counties in Illinois, has declared that a middle school locker room is henceforth co-ed. He has declared from on high that a student who wishes to be the opposite sex may use whichever locker room his or her heart desires. Even more troubling, Sanders has further declared that no parents in the district may be apprised of the fact that their children may be sharing a locker room with an opposite-sex student. If it weren’t for one courageous school board member, Jeanette Ward, who alerted the community to this presumptuous decision on the part of the administration, parents would still be unaware of the practice that took effect on September, 6, 2016.

Opposition to co-ed restrooms and locker rooms does not constitute hatred of those students who suffer from gender dysphoria. And opposition to co-ed restrooms and locker rooms is not solely or centrally about the physical safety of students posed by close encounters of the undressed kind, although by high school such risks are not nil.

Rather, opposition to co-ed restrooms and locker rooms is driven by a recognition of the arguable assumptions embedded in and promoted by such practices. In other words, allowing co-ed restrooms and locker rooms depends on first accepting a number of controversial ideas about biological sex. Further, allowing co-ed restrooms and locker rooms necessarily means teaching those underlying ideas to all students. Practices and policies teach.

For example, such practices teach all students that feelings of modesty and the desire for privacy when engaged in intimate bodily activities have no necessary connection to biological sex. Co-ed restrooms and locker rooms teach all students that subjective feelings about one’s sex take precedence over biological sex in even the most private spaces. Such practices teach all students that in order to be compassionate and inclusive, they must share restrooms and locker rooms with persons of the opposite sex. Attorney General Loretta Lynch has, in effect, told girls the truly wicked lie that their desire not to share restrooms and locker rooms with boys is tantamount to the refusal of white racists to share restrooms with blacks. While many parents teach their sons and daughters that they should leave a restroom or locker room if an opposite-sex student enters, schools now teach them that leaving would be hateful and bigoted.

In a Facebook statement district CEO Tony Sanders explained his feckless decision:

While the vast majority of transgender students in our schools prefer to change in private, the needs of each student is addressed on a case by case basis.

State and federal statutes prohibit districts from releasing information about any student without parent permission. If we provide information regarding a student that would lead to the identification of the student without parental permission, we would be in violation of the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act and the Illinois Student Records Act. As such, administration will not share with a school community if a transgender student is utilizing the locker room of his or her choice.

Any student who does not feel safe in a locker room or a restroom should immediately contact the school principal. Schools can then work to address any concerns and, if appropriate, find an alternative location to address privacy or safety concerns.

Sanders must be kidding. He’s exploiting the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) and the Illinois Student Records Act to rationalize not telling parents that their children’s privacy will be invaded by an opposite-sex student? If these laws, which were passed in part to give “parents the right to have some control over the disclosure of personally identifiable information from their education records,” are now used or abused to allow school administrators to prevent telling parents that their children will be sharing restrooms or locker rooms with opposite-sex students, then the laws need to change. School administrators can make parents aware of the decision to allow co-ed restrooms and locker rooms without giving student names. Withholding a general notification about the end of sex-segregated restrooms and locker rooms violates the rights of other students and their parents.

Here are a list of questions that should be posed to your favorite teachers, school board members, and administrators:

• Do you believe children who wish they were the opposite sex have the right to use opposite-sex restrooms and locker rooms?

• Do you believe students have a right to use restrooms and locker rooms with only persons of their same-sex?

• Do you believe that parents have a right to know if their children may be sharing a restroom or locker room with opposite-sex students?

• Why should girls who are uncomfortable sharing girls’ restrooms or locker rooms with a biological boy (formerly known as a boy) be forced to use other facilities (as Tony Sanders suggested above)?

• Should “gender fluid” or “gender non-binary” students be permitted to choose on a daily basis which restrooms or locker rooms they want to use?

• If policies that prohibit “discrimination” based on both sex and “gender identity” are applied to bathrooms and locker rooms, on what basis could schools prohibit a non-gender-dysphoric boy (i.e., a normal boy) from using girls’ restrooms or locker rooms? If schools argue that he can’t use girls’ facilities, he could point out the inconsistency of allowing another boy—the gender-dysphoric boy—to use the girls’ facilities while prohibiting him. He could also claim that since allowing a boy who “identifies” as a “transgirl” to use the girls’ facilities, while prohibiting him—a “cisboy,” they’re discriminating against him based on his “gender identity.”

• Does physical embodiment as male or female per se have any meaning relative to modesty and privacy?

• Why is it acceptable to allow a boy who wishes he were a girl in the girls’ locker room but not the girls’ shower?

• Should objectively female students who “identify” as male be permitted to use urinals in boys’ bathrooms using “stand-to-pee” devices? If not, why not?

• Should an objectively female coach of a boys’ swim team who “identifies” as a man be allowed in the boys’ locker room while the boys are showering and changing? If not, why not?

• Should an objectively female swimmer who “identifies” as male but has chosen not to have “top surgery” be permitted to wear a boy’s Speedo for swim practices and meets? If not, why not?

• Should an objectively female swimmer who “identifies” as male and has had a double mastectomy be permitted to change and shower with the boys? If not, why not? If all the boys and their parents are okay with her changing and showering with the boys, would she be permitted to do so?

• Staff and faculty routinely use student restrooms. Should male teachers who pretend to be women be allowed to use girls’ restrooms? Should biologically male teachers who “identify” as women but choose not to take cross-sex hormones, cross-dress, or have any surgery be allowed to use girls’ restrooms?

If you can get your school leaders to respond, their answers will likely reveal several things. (And don’t let them get away with responding to any of the hypothetical scenarios posed above with the all too common responses of “That will never happen,” or “That’s different.”)

First, their answers will likely reveal that our public school leaders have not thought about the ramifications of the ideas embedded in the practices and policies they are already implementing.

Second, their answers will likely reveal the inherently contradictory nature of the leftist ideas they are implementing.

Third, these leaders will likely reveal that they do, in fact, believe that objective, immutable biological sex per se has meaning: Biological sex is the source of feelings of modesty and the desire for privacy.

Opposition to co-ed restrooms, locker rooms, and showers in public schools has little to do with the risk of sexual assault by boys who “identify” as girls (or claim to), though that risk increases in middle school and high school. Opposition to such subversive practices stems from the abandonment of any recognition of and respect for the deep meaning of objective biological sex. Leftists are persuading or coercing public schools to treat subjective, disordered feelings about biological sex as if they are of greater importance than objective, immutable sex.

One of the many troubling lessons I learned from working in a well-respected public high school (Deerfield High School) for a decade and sending four children through public school is that few public school teachers, administrators, and school board members are deep thinkers. That is not to say they’re not intelligent. Rather, they rarely think critically about their own assumptions or about the logical outworking of ideas. In fact, many become become downright angry if pressed to think deeply about ideas—particularly ideas that challenge their usually unchallenged dogma.

Another critical issue that I hope becomes evident by thinking through these questions is where the chuckleheaded ideas, practices, and policies—which are embraced by foolish administrators, teachers, school board members, and parents or tolerated by cowardly administrators, teachers, school board members, and parents—will lead. They will lead to unrestricted co-ed restrooms, locker rooms, and showers everywhere. Eventually, there will be no more privacy curtains in locker rooms, no more separate showers, no more accommodations of just a few gender-dysphoric students.

Those who prefer not to rock boats—including even the pirate ships that are carrying away their children—will assuage their prickly consciences by repeating the empty mantras “Oh well, it’s just a few confused children,” or “Oh well, they’re  taking cross-sex hormones and are going to have surgery, so they’ll look like the sex they’re pretending to be.” What these cowardly boat-steadiers don’t realize is that “transactivists” and their political enablers like Barack Obama don’t think “transgender” persons need to cross-dress, take cross-sex hormones, or have surgery (By the way, having “top” or “bottom” surgery does not transform women into men or vice versa). In the doctrinaire leftist cosmos, a “trans” person doesn’t have to feel distress about their biological sex. All that’s needed for a person to be “trans” is his or her claim that he or she feels like the opposite sex (or both sexes or neither sex)—today.

The logic of leftist arguments necessarily leads to the end of sex-segregation everywhere. Don’t dismiss these changes in practices or policies as trivial or as affecting only a few students. These changes affect all students, and they are profound. In fact, these changes are the portents of the most radical cultural revolution in modern history.

“Laurie’s Chinwags”

Have you had a chance to checkout the latest special feature we are calling “Laurie’s Chinwags?” For the past few weeks, we’ve been adding audio recordings (aka podcasts) to articles written by Laurie. We hope this new feature will serve the needs and desires of IFI subscribers. We would appreciate any constructive feedback.

“For the wisdom of this world is folly with God.”
~ 1 Corinthians 3:19~

I just read with interest a breaking  “news” story on Wheaton College that reported that Wheaton has been listed as the “worst” college on the Princeton Review’s list of “LGBTQ-Unfriendly” schools and included on the “Shame List” by Campus Pride, an organization committed to normalizing homoeroticism.

“Objective” news reporter Leonor Vivanco neutrally reports that the “Shame List” is composed of campuses that have “applied or received a Title IX exemption to allow institutions to discriminate against LGBTQ persons, or that have a demonstrated history of anti-LGBT actions [emphasis added].” These are reporter Vivanco’s “unbiased” words—not Campus Pride’s.

Translated, this means that Wheaton College, a theologically orthodox college whose motto is “For Christ and His Kingdom,” makes distinctions based on the Bible between licit and illicit sexual behaviors.

Campus Pride cites as evidence for the inclusion of Wheaton on its Shame List Wheaton’s invitation to Rosaria Butterfield to speak on campus. Butterfield is a former feminist English professor who formerly identified as a lesbian and is now a follower of Christ, wife, and mother. For those unfamiliar with Butterfield, she is a compassionate and erudite speaker who has written two books about her conversion: The Secret Thoughts of an Unlikely Convert and Openness Unhindered: Further Thoughts of an Unlikely Convert on Sexual Identity and Union with Christ.

Vivanco quoted two Wheaton alumni who affirm homosexual identities and who describe commitments to theological orthodoxy as creating an unwelcoming, unsupportive, and dangerous place. There were no quotes from Wheaton alumni who affirm theological orthodoxy and who disagree with the implied proposition that in order to be welcoming, supportive, and safe, Wheaton must abandon the clear teaching of Scripture on matters related to homoeroticism.

Vivanco also mentioned an unusual and uncivil incident that took place last year at Wheaton when “a student threw an apple at a classmate who questioned the school’s president about LGBT people at a school event.” Two of my children and their spouses graduated from Wheaton College, and one of them also received a master’s degree in Systematic and Historical Theology from Wheaton, so I have some familiarity with the character of Wheaton students and the climate of the college. The apple-throwing incident was an unfortunate and remarkable aberration that I’ve heard offended the vast majority of Wheaton students and alumni—including those who affirm theological orthodoxy. It’s also unfortunate that Vivanco failed to report on the aberrational nature of the apple-throwing incident and how offensive it was to students and former students. Perhaps she would have known that if her research had extended beyond those who reject theological orthodoxy.

By being ranked the “worst” school by those who choose to place their unchosen homoerotic attraction at the center of their identity, Wheaton College is revealed as among the best colleges for those who place Christ at the center of their identity—including some who experience unchosen homoerotic attraction.

Affirming theological orthodoxy on sexual matters is not mutually exclusive of deeply loving those who believe differently and make choices based on those beliefs. In fact, those who value divers peoples and demonstrate tolerance of their beliefs do it every day.

“And he said to all, ‘If anyone would come after me,
let him deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me.’”
~Luke 9:23~

Presenting “Laurie’s Chinwags”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Presenting “Laurie’s Chinwags”

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

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

If your daughter, sister, mother or friend “identified” as a fat person trapped in a perilously emaciated body – if she truly believed she was obese, but, in reality, suffered from anorexia – would you affirm her “fatness” and get her liposuction, or would you go to the ends of the earth to help her bring her subjective (and mistaken) identity into alignment with objective reality? When someone is engaged in demonstrably self-destructive behavior, it is not loving, but hateful, to encourage persistence.

It was, ironically, lesbian activist and writer Dorothy Allison who once wrote, “Things come apart so easily when they have been held together with lies.” In validation of this truism, a series of new peer-reviewed studies have just been released that serve to utterly debunk and deconstruct key “progressive” homosexual-activist talking points.

‘Sexuality and Gender: Findings from the Biological, Psychological, and Social Sciences’

This study, conducted by world renowned Johns Hopkins University scientists Dr. Lawrence S. Mayer and Dr. Paul R. McHugh, is a meta-analysis of data from over 200 peer-reviewed (and left-leaning) studies regarding “sexual orientation” and “gender identity.” It was published in the fall 2016 edition of The New Atlantis journal and is, far and away, the most objective, exhaustive and comprehensive study on the topic to date.

The research established, among other things:

• “The understanding of sexual orientation as an innate, biologically fixed property of human beings – the idea that people are ‘born that way’ – is not supported by scientific evidence.”

• “Sexual orientation” in adolescents is “fluid over the life course for some people, with one study estimating that as many as 80 percent of male adolescents who report same-sex attractions no longer do so as adults.”

• “Compared to heterosexuals, non-heterosexuals are about two to three times as likely to have experienced childhood sexual abuse.”

• “Gay”-identified people are “at an elevated risk for a variety of adverse health and mental health outcomes.”

• “Gay”-identified people experience “nearly 2.5 times the risk of suicide.”

• “The hypothesis that gender identity is an innate, fixed property of human beings that is independent of biological sex – that a person might be ‘a man trapped in a woman’s body’ or ‘a woman trapped in a man’s body’ – is not supported by scientific evidence.”

• “Studies comparing the brain structures of transgender and non-transgender individuals … do not provide any evidence for a neurobiological basis for cross-gender identification.”

• “[S]ex-reassigned individuals [are] about five times more likely to attempt suicide and about 19 times more likely to die by suicide.”

• “[T]he rate of lifetime suicide attempts across all ages of transgender individuals is estimated at 41 percent, compared to under 5 percent in the overall U.S. population.”

• “Only a minority of children who experience cross-gender identification will continue to do so into adolescence or adulthood.”

Lest you buy the liberal talking point that so-called “homophobia” leads to high rates of suicide and other devastating consequences of the “LGBT” lifestyle, a recent study from “gay”-affirming Sweden dispels this myth. The research, published in the May issue of the European Journal of Epidemiology, found that people entering into a “gay marriage” were, as mirrored above, nearly three times as likely to commit suicide than their heterosexual counterparts.

“Even in a country with a comparatively tolerant climate regarding homosexuality such as Sweden,” observed the researchers, “same-sex married individuals evidence a higher risk for suicide than other married individuals.”

To borrow from James Carville: It’s the lifestyle, stupid.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)

Meanwhile, the CDC, no bastion of conservatism, just released this month a report establishing and detailing the devastating effects of “LGBT” identity and behaviors on teens “grades 9-12.”

Writing at WND, child advocate Linda Harvey expressed frustration that, despite its irrefutable conclusions, the CDC yet insists upon using such propagandist terms as “sexual minorities” to describe same-sex-attracted teens. She notes that “these adolescents no more qualify as ‘minorities’ than kids who eat junk food,” and cuts through the smokescreen to summarize the report’s findings:

“Self-labeled homosexual and bisexual teens were twice as likely as heterosexual teens to have been victims of sexual or physical dating violence, to be regular cigarette smokers, to have tried marijuana before age 13, to ever have used cocaine, hallucinogenic drugs, ecstasy, taken prescription drugs without a doctor’s prescription, or to have felt sad or hopeless.

“They were more likely to be current marijuana users than heterosexual students, more likely to drink alcohol, and over four times as likely to have used methamphetamines or heroin.

“They were four times as likely to actually attempt suicide.

“Homosexual and bisexual students were about 25 percent more likely to have had sexual intercourse, and more likely to be currently sexually active and to have had four or more partners.

“They are more than twice as likely to have had sexual intercourse before age 13. Can we just have a heart and ask: with whom? Were these adult ‘partners’? (aka molesters).”

It’s notable here that, in past studies, researchers with the CDC have indeed discovered that “gay” men are “at least three times more likely to report CSA (childhood sexual abuse),” while the left-leaning Archives of Sexual Behavior similarly determined in a 2001 study that nearly half of all “gay”-identified men were, as children, molested by a homosexual predator: “46 percent of homosexual men and 22 percent of homosexual women reported having been molested by a person of the same gender. This contrasts to only 7 percent of heterosexual men and 1 percent of heterosexual women reporting having been molested by a person of the same gender.”

Considering the above non-biased, replicated, empirical and irrefutable scientific facts, its little wonder that an earlier study in the International Journal of Epidemiology (IJE), determined the “life expectancy at age 20 years for gay and bisexual men is 8 to 20 years less than for all men.”

Unnatural behaviors beget natural consequences. “Gay” is not who they are. “Gay” is what they do.

You think me callous. You think I hate. I’m not and I don’t. Truth is hate to those who hate truth. I love self-identified “LGBT” individuals with a love beyond my own power to summon. I love them because Christ first loved me. I love them because, like them, I am a sinner in need of a Savior. They are under deception. The enemy of man is the father of lies, and he prowls like a lion seeking to both deceive and devour us all.

I know what it’s like to have someone close to me struggle with same-sex attraction and adopt an aberrant sexual identity. I have a dear family member wasting away with AIDS at this very moment. While I love him, I also understand that if I were to affirm his lifestyle and offer well-intentioned yet dangerously misguided “compassion,” I would be hurting him, not helping him.

I offer true compassion. I offer truth, in love.

If you truly love someone, you should never, ever encourage them in a demonstrably destructive and subjective “gay,” “lesbian,” “bisexual” or “transgender” identity. Love them unconditionally, but encourage them to find freedom from it.

Because, whether spiritual, physical, or both, it may be the difference between life and death.

IFI Faith, Family & Freedom Banquet

We are excited to have as our keynote speaker this year, former Congresswoman and Tea Party Caucus Leader, Michele Bachmann!  She distinguished herself by not only forming and chairing the Tea Party Caucus in 2010 in the U.S. House but also through her courageous and outspoken pro-life leadership as attested to by her rating of zero from NARAL.

Please register today before the early bird special expires.

Fabulist: a liar or someone who invents and tells dishonest stories

(*CAUTION: Not for younger readers*)  

Perhaps you’ve been living in the real world—and by real, I mean the world that actually exists, where actual science matters, where language exists that corresponds to objective phenomena, where truth is valued more than subjective feelings, and where life is yet enveloped in a cozy blanket of freedom.

Because of your immersion in reality, perhaps you’ve been blissfully unaware that an alternate ontological, epistemological, teleological, and moral universe has sprung up in our midst. Let’s call it Wonderland. No, that’s too much fun. Let’s call it Oceania. Oceania has its own language whose purposes are to obfuscate reality and compel linguistic, political, social, and religious obeisance to the gods of sexual deviance who now rule. That language is Newspeak.

Who speaks Newspeak? Leftists of every color of the rainbow. Perversion-activists, academicians, public school teachers, political leaders, physicians, psychologists, attorneys, actors, musicians, novelists, and members of the fabulist Fourth Estate.

While you’ve been living relatively peaceful lives suffused with liberty and reality, you may have felt some disturbances in the created universe that you dismissed as kind of icky but ultimately trivial. I mean, that’s what our political leaders—always the founts of wisdom—keep telling us abut the so-called “social issues.”

Well, prepare for the incursion. Dark unreality is poised to break through in ways so profound that your comforting blankets of freedom will be torn asunder.

A recent piece in the formerly respectable The Atlantic illustrates the idiocy of leftist journalists who have packed up their computers and moved lock, stock, and poison pens to Oceania. The article titled “What it’s Like to Chestfeed” and subtitled “The many obstacles trans men and other transmasculine people run into when feeding infants” is infused with delusional, deceitful leftist rhetoric itself informed by anti-science leftist ideology.

The article profiles a chemically induced bearded lady who mutilated her body in a futile effort to convince herself and the world that she is in reality a man. This woman, “Trevor” MacDonald, is legally married to a man. She’s had a double-mastectomy, which removed milk ducts and glandular tissue, but she left her nether region and internal female organs intact. In 2010, she stopped taking testosterone so that she and her husband who “identifies” as “gay” could have children the old-fashioned way. She and her husband now have two children, a 5-year-old and an 18-month-old. Here’s an excerpt from the deceitful Atlantic article:

When Trevor MacDonald started chestfeeding about five years ago, he didn’t know anyone who had attempted it, nor had any of his doctors ever encountered someone who had. In fact, he was shocked that his body could even produce milk. As a trans man—someone who was assigned female at birth but has transitioned to identifying as male—he was born with the mammary glands and milk ducts required for lactation, but he’d had his breasts removed.

Ms. MacDonald has written a book titled Where’s the Mother?: Stories from a Transgender Dad  that Buzzfeed says offers “insight into what it was like for MacDonald to be both male and pregnant.” Her book has also been positively reviewed by the non-credible Publisher’s Weekly, which describes it as a “refreshing and insightful narrative,” that details “circumstances that…challenge his privilege.”

Ms. MacDonald was also instrumental in forcing a change to the La Leche League’s policy on leadership requirements. When Ms. MacDonald originally applied to be a leader, La Leche responded,  “Since [a La Leche League Canada] leader is a mother who breastfed a baby, a man cannot become an LLLC leader. This enraged the homosexual and sex-rejecting communities.

But in 2014, La Leche League Canada changed its policy saying,  “It was thought that only women could breastfeed. Once it became clear it wasn’t as straightforward as that, the policy had to change.” In 2016, La Leche League International changed its policy. Bearded Trevor MacDonald is now a La Leche League breastfeeding coach.

Ms. MacDonald was not yet done with her science-denying pursuits. Her next effort involved using the money of hardworking Canadian taxpayers to conduct a pseudo-scientific study. The Atlantic, while referring to the scientifically female MacDonald as “he,” calls her study “a scientific approach.” Apparently The Atlantic doesn’t see the irony. Here’s The Atlantic’s description of Ms. MacDonald’s study:

He teamed up with a diverse group of lactation experts, nurses, midwives, and researchers to publish “Transmaculine individuals’ experiences with lactation, chest feeding, and gender identity,” a study that was funded by a grant from the Canadian Institute of Health Research….It’s a qualitative attempt at defining the internal and external difficulties transmasculine people face when chestfeeding. 

The study recruited 22 participants who self-identified as transmasculine and who either were or had been pregnant. MacDonald and his team interviewed these participants about their experiences, and analyzed the conversations “with a goal of describing and interpreting patterns and themes that emerged,” in the study’s words. It’s an approach that’s community-based and trans-led. [emphasis added]

I can just imagine the chortles of laughter from real scientists reading this description of Ms. MacDonald’s “scientific” study. Evidently anticipating potential push-back from real scientists, another of the study’s authors defended their research study. Again from The Atlantic:

Alanna Kibbe, a registered midwife out of Toronto, Ontario…explains this approach by contending that “the wisest people in a community who can speak for it are those people living in the community and with lived experience, not the person with the most degrees or years of clinical practice.

No need for any pesky science degrees when employing a “scientific approach.” No siree, all that’s needed is a smidge of wisdom and a dollop of “lived experience.”

Kibbe does have some advice derived from her and Ms. MacDonald’s “scientific” research. She urges the use of Newspeak:

Kibbe…is urging care providers to….educate themselves about terminology that is gender neutral, as opposed to the gendered-female language that currently dominates lactation support.

The Fourth Estate, having moved to Oceania, refers to women who have given birth as “men” and breastfeeding as “chestfeeding.” Clearly, the untethering of journalism from reality means journalists are no longer using their noggins, and the ideas they promote are phantasmagorical at best. So I, while still inhabiting a shrinking corner of reality, will refer to mainstream journalists as fabulists and their untruths as fanny-fancies.

Influential 20^th Century journalist Walter Lippmann, borrowing from Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part I, said, “There can be no higher law in journalism than to tell the truth and to shame the devil.” Now 21^st Century journalists tell lies and honor the devil.

Presenting “Laurie’s Chinwags”

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

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

A group of suburban Chicago students and parents are fighting the Obama administration’s policy to make public school restrooms and locker rooms accessible to the opposite sex.

IFI Faith, Family & Freedom Banquet

We are excited to have as our keynote speaker this year, former Congresswoman and Tea Party Caucus Leader, Michele Bachmann!  She distinguished herself by not only forming and chairing the Tea Party Caucus in 2010 in the U.S. House but also through her courageous and outspoken pro-life leadership as attested to by her rating of zero from NARAL.

Please register today before the early bird special expires.

Written by Ryan T. Anderson

A major new report, published in the journal The New Atlantis, challenges the leading narratives that the media has pushed regarding sexual orientation and gender identity.

Co-authored by two of the nation’s leading scholars on mental health and sexuality, the 143-page report discusses over 200 peer-reviewed studies in the biological, psychological, and social sciences, painstakingly documenting what scientific research shows and does not show about sexuality and gender.

The major takeaway, as the editor of the journal explains, is that “some of the most frequently heard claims about sexuality and gender are not supported by scientific evidence.”

Here are four of the report’s most important conclusions:

The belief that sexual orientation is an innate, biologically fixed human property—that people are ‘born that way’—is not supported by scientific evidence.

Likewise, the belief that gender identity is an innate, fixed human property independent of biological sex—so that a person might be a ‘man trapped in a woman’s body’ or ‘a woman trapped in a man’s body’—is not supported by scientific evidence.

Only a minority of children who express gender-atypical thoughts or behavior will continue to do so into adolescence or adulthood. There is no evidence that all such children should be encouraged to become transgender, much less subjected to hormone treatments or surgery.

Non-heterosexual and transgender people have higher rates of mental health problems (anxiety, depression, suicide), as well as behavioral and social problems (substance abuse, intimate partner violence), than the general population. Discrimination alone does not account for the entire disparity.

The report, “Sexuality and Gender: Findings from the Biological, Psychological, and Social Sciences,” is co-authored by Dr. Lawrence Mayer and Dr. Paul McHugh. Mayer is a scholar-in-residence in the Department of Psychiatry at Johns Hopkins University and a professor of statistics and biostatistics at Arizona State University.

McHugh, whom the editor of The New Atlantis describes as “arguably the most important American psychiatrist of the last half-century,” is a professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine and was for 25 years the psychiatrist-in-chief at the Johns Hopkins Hospital. It was during his tenure as psychiatrist-in-chief at Johns Hopkins that he put an end to sex reassignment surgery there, after a study launched at Hopkins revealed that it didn’t have the benefits for which doctors and patients had long hoped.

Implications for Policy

The report focuses exclusively on what scientific research shows and does not show. But this science can have implications for public policy.

The report reviews rigorous research showing that ‘only a minority of children who experience cross-gender identification will continue to do so into adolescence or adulthood.’

Take, for example, our nation’s recent debates over transgender policies in schools. One of the consistent themes of the report is that science does not support the claim that “gender identity” is a fixed property independent of biological sex, but rather that a combination of biological, environmental, and experiential factors likely shape how individuals experience and express themselves when it comes to sex and gender.

The report also discusses the reality of neuroplasticity: that all of our brains can and do change throughout our lives (especially, but not only, in childhood) in response to our behavior and experiences. These changes in the brain can, in turn, influence future behavior.

This provides more reason for concern over the Obama administration’s recent transgender school policies. Beyond the privacy and safety concerns, there is thus also the potential that such policies will result in prolonged identification as transgender for students who otherwise would have naturally grown out of it.

The report reviews rigorous research showing that “only a minority of children who experience cross-gender identification will continue to do so into adolescence or adulthood.” Policymakers should be concerned with how misguided school policies might encourage students to identify as girls when they are boys, and vice versa, and might result in prolonged difficulties. As the report notes, “There is no evidence that all children who express gender-atypical thoughts or behavior should be encouraged to become transgender.”

Beyond school policies, the report raises concerns about proposed medical intervention in children. Mayer and McHugh write: “We are disturbed and alarmed by the severity and irreversibility of some interventions being publicly discussed and employed for children.”

They continue: “We are concerned by the increasing tendency toward encouraging children with gender identity issues to transition to their preferred gender through medical and then surgical procedures.” But as they note, “There is little scientific evidence for the therapeutic value of interventions that delay puberty or modify the secondary sex characteristics of adolescents.”

Findings on Transgender Issues

The same goes for social or surgical gender transitions in general. Mayer and McHugh note that the “scientific evidence summarized suggests we take a skeptical view toward the claim that sex reassignment procedures provide the hoped for benefits or resolve the underlying issues that contribute to elevated mental health risks among the transgender population.” Even after sex reassignment surgery, patients with gender dysphoria still experience poor outcomes:

Compared to the general population, adults who have undergone sex reassignment surgery continue to have a higher risk of experiencing poor mental health outcomes. One study found that, compared to controls, sex-reassigned individuals were about five times more likely to attempt suicide and about 19 times more likely to die by suicide.

Mayer and McHugh urge researchers and physicians to work to better “understand whatever factors may contribute to the high rates of suicide and other psychological and behavioral health problems among the transgender population, and to think more clearly about the treatment options that are available.” They continue:

In reviewing the scientific literature, we find that almost nothing is well understood when we seek biological explanations for what causes some individuals to state that their gender does not match their biological sex. … Better research is needed, both to identify ways by which we can help to lower the rates of poor mental health outcomes and to make possible more informed discussion about some of the nuances present in this field.

Policymakers should take these findings very seriously. For example, the Obama administration recently finalized a new Department of Health and Human Services mandate that requires all health insurance plans under Obamacare to cover sex reassignment treatments and all relevant physicians to perform them. The regulations will force many physicians, hospitals, and other health care providers to participate in sex reassignment surgeries and treatments, even if doing so violates their moral and religious beliefs or their best medical judgment.

Rather than respect the diversity of opinions on sensitive and controversial health care issues, the regulations endorse and enforce one highly contested and scientifically unsupported view. As Mayer and McHugh urge, more research is needed, and physicians need to be free to practice the best medicine.

Stigma, Prejudice Don’t Explain Tragic Outcomes

The report also highlights that people who identify as LGBT face higher risks of adverse physical and mental health outcomes, such as “depression, anxiety, substance abuse, and most alarmingly, suicide.” The report summarizes some of those findings:

Members of the non-heterosexual population are estimated to have about 1.5 times higher risk of experiencing anxiety disorders than members of the heterosexual population, as well as roughly double the risk of depression, 1.5 times the risk of substance abuse, and nearly 2.5 times the risk of suicide.

Members of the transgender population are also at higher risk of a variety of mental health problems compared to members of the non-transgender population. Especially alarmingly, the rate of lifetime suicide attempts across all ages of transgender individuals is estimated at 41 percent, compared to under 5 percent in the overall U.S. population.

What accounts for these tragic outcomes? Mayer and McHugh investigate the leading theory—the “social stress model”—which proposes that “stressors like stigma and prejudice account for much of the additional suffering observed in these subpopulations.”

But they argue that the evidence suggests that this theory “does not seem to offer a complete explanation for the disparities in the outcomes.” It appears that social stigma and stress alone cannot account for the poor physical and mental health outcomes that LGBT-identified people face.

One study found that, compared to controls, sex-reassigned individuals were about five times more likely to attempt suicide and about 19 times more likely to die by suicide.

As a result, they conclude that “More research is needed to uncover the causes of the increased rates of mental health problems in the LGBT subpopulations.” And they call on all of us work to “alleviate suffering and promote human health and flourishing.”

Findings Contradict Claims in Supreme Court’s Gay Marriage Ruling

Finally, the report notes that scientific evidence does not support the claim that people are “born that way” with respect to sexual orientation. The narrative pushed by Lady Gaga and others is not supported by the science. A combination of biological, environmental, and experiential factors likely account for an individual’s sexual attractions, desires, and identity, and “there are no compelling causal biological explanations for human sexual orientation.”

Furthermore, the scientific research shows that sexual orientation is more fluid than the media suggests. The report notes that “Longitudinal studies of adolescents suggest that sexual orientation may be quite fluid over the life course for some people, with one study estimating that as many as 80 percent of male adolescents who report same-sex attractions no longer do so as adults.”

These findings—that scientific research does not support the claim that sexual orientation is innate and immutable—directly contradict claims made by Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy in last year’s Obergefell ruling. Kennedy wrote, “their immutable nature dictates that same-sex marriage is their only real path to this profound commitment” and “in more recent years have psychiatrists and others recognized that sexual orientation is both a normal expression of human sexuality and immutable.”

But the science does not show this.

While the marriage debate was about the nature of what marriage is, incorrect scientific claims about sexual orientation were consistently used in the campaign to redefine marriage.

In the end, Mayer and McHugh observe that much about sexuality and gender remains unknown. They call for honest, rigorous, and dispassionate research to help better inform public discourse and, more importantly, sound medical practice.

As this research continues, it’s important that public policy not declare scientific debates over, or rush to legally enforce and impose contested scientific theories. As Mayer and McHugh note, “Everyone—scientists and physicians, parents and teachers, lawmakers and activists—deserves access to accurate information about sexual orientation and gender identity.”

We all must work to foster a culture where such information can be rigorously pursued and everyone—whatever their convictions, and whatever their personal situation—is treated with the civility, respect, and generosity that each of us deserves.

Article originally published at DailySignal.com.

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/Obamas-Radical-Revolution.mp3

The most radical cultural revolution in modern history is taking place, fomented and facilitated by Barack Obama’s egregious abuse of power. He is incrementally obliterating any public recognition of and respect for sexual differentiation. In Obama’s brave new world, immutable biological sex will be rendered meaningless.

Last week, reports surfaced that both the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and the General Administrative Services (GSA) have issued “guidelines” or regulations essentially mandating that those government organizations and institutions that fall under the purview of these agencies must treat humans as if their intrinsic, objective, immutable biological sex has no meaning, not even in the most private and intimate contexts.

Department of Housing and Urban Development

In 2012, HUD published its “Equal Access to Housing in HUD Programs Regardless of Sexual Orientation or Gender Identity final rule,” which stated that “Inquiries as to sex are permitted…when determining eligibility for a temporary, emergency shelter that is limited to one sex because it has shared sleeping areas and/or bathrooms.”

But no more.

A new document was published in February 2015 which reverses that position:

Best practices suggest that where the provider is uncertain of the client’s sex or gender identity, the provider simply informs the client or potential client that the agency provides shelter based on the gender with which the individual identifies. There generally is no legitimate reason in this context for the provider to request documentation of a person’s sex in order to determine appropriate placement, nor should the provider have any basis to deny access to a single-sex emergency shelter or facility solely because the provider possesses identity documents indicating a sex different than the gender with which the client or potential client identifies. The provider may not ask questions or otherwise seek information or documentation concerning the person’s anatomy or medical history. Nor may the provider consider the client or potential client ineligible for an emergency shelter or other facility because his or her appearance or behavior does not conform to gender stereotypes. [emphasis added]

This policy change means that any shelter that receives government funding may no longer take into account the sex of persons when assigning them to single-sex accommodations. In order to receive government funds, shelters must house men and women in accordance with the sex they wish they were or claim to be rather than the sex they actually are.

Shelters—like the 200 shelters run by Catholic Charities—will be prohibited from asking anyone seeking emergency shelter in single-sex accommodations about their sex. All that’s required for men to access women’s shelters where abused and traumatized women are often housed is the claim by men that they “identify”—whatever that means—as women.

According to the Washington political newspaper The Hill, this new “guidance” will be finalized in September.

General Administration Services

Just days after the HUD news came out, news broke that the GSA will be requiring all restrooms in the 9,000 buildings and offices it oversees, including “federal courthouses…the Social Security Administration and the Department of Veterans Affairs,” to be co-ed. This new regulation will apply to both federal employees who work in those government buildings as well as all visitors. According to GSA officials, this regulation “is based on a review of recent rulings and directives from the Departments of Education and Justice and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.”

And so, the ideological collusion comes to light.

The Departments of Justice and Education

Obama’s GSA is basing its decision on Obama’s Department of Justice (DOJ) and on Obama’s Department of Education (ED), both of which divined and declared that the word “sex” in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Title IX of the Education Amendment of 1972 respectively didn’t actually mean sex but instead meant sex and “gender identity.”

For those who may have forgotten, it was Obama’s radical attorney general Loretta Lynch who proclaimed that separate restrooms for men and women are analogous to separate restrooms for blacks and whites. (I assume, therefore, that Lynch refuses to use women’s restrooms as an act of civil disobedience against unjust discriminatory practices. Come to think of it, what a paltry act of defiance using the men’s restroom would constitute in the face of such a grave social evil. Lynch should be showering with men in the Capitol Hill health club to demonstrate her commitment to “inclusivity, diversity, compassion and open-mindedness” and her solidarity with oppressed men who wish they were women.)

The ED is similarly abusing its power by requiring all minor children and college students in government schools to share restrooms, locker rooms, dorm rooms, and hotel rooms for school-sponsored overnight trips with persons of the opposite sex.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) also plays a role in this toxic ideological potage. Lesbian Chai Feldblum, Obama’s recess appointment to the EEOC, was instrumental in redefining the word “sex” for the purposes of advancing sexual deviance in the EEOC case Macy v. Holder. In 2010, “Mia” Macy, a male police detective who pretends to be a woman, applied for a job with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. He was turned down and filed a complaint with the EEOC which found in his favor:

The EEOC stated that Title VII’s ban on sex discrimination prohibits discrimination on the basis of both biological sex and gender and that ‘gender’ encompasses not only a person’s biological sex but also the cultural and social aspects associated with masculinity and femininity. Thus, discrimination against a person because that person is transgender is discrimination based on sex. [emphasis added]

More recently, in a landmark case, the “EEOC as an agency of the federal government, sued a private business on behalf” of a man who pretends to be a woman. Fortunately, in a rare instance of judicial sanity, a judge ruled against “Aimee” Stephens who sued the private funeral home that fired him. The judge ruled that “Enforcement of Title VII ‘would impose a substantial burden on [the funeral home’s] ability to conduct business in accordance with its sincerely-held religious beliefs.’”

So, Obama has used the Department of Justice, the Department of Education, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the General Services Administration, and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to advance his radical, anti-science social and political revolution. The expansion of the federal government into the behemoth it has become has made this revolution possible. This expansive, intrusive, coercive federal monster now demands that all Americans treat biological sex as if it has no meaning. Bureaucrats are forcing all Americans—including children—to treat gender-dysphoric, sex-rejecting persons as if they are, in reality, the sex they wish they were as opposed to the sex they actually are.

What next? Force us to pretend the world is flat?

Take ACTION:  Click HERE to send a message to your U.S. Representative, urging him or her to rein in the un-elected, leftist federal bureaucrats who are putting our family members in uncomfortable and dangerous situations.

Demand that they take action to stop to the federal takeover of shelters, restrooms, and locker rooms.

You can also place a phone call to your federal lawmaker via the United States Capitol switchboard by calling (202) 224-3121.

IFI Faith, Family & Freedom Banquet

We are excited to have as our keynote speaker this year, former Congresswoman and Tea Party Caucus Leader, Michele Bachmann!  She distinguished herself by not only forming and chairing the Tea Party Caucus in 2010 in the U.S. House but also through her courageous and outspoken pro-life leadership as attested to by her rating of zero from NARAL.

Please register today before the early bird special expires.

Written by Richard Ostling

Suddenly transgender rights is the hot “culture wars” topic. Religious folks with traditional convictions about such matters have been largely silent, or else many newswriters haven’t yet figured how to locate them in order to report the other side of this crucial debate.

Thus, there’s useful sourcing in the strongly-worded “Transgender Identification Ethics Statement” issued by the Christian Medical and Dental Associations.

This group is made up of 16,000-plus professionals who affirm “the divine inspiration and final authority of the Bible as the Word of God.” CMDA had Big 10 origins at the University of Illinois and Northwestern and went national in 1941. It’s one of many such U.S. fellowships for vocational and academic specialists. Most of these were launched by Evangelical-type Protestants but have long since welcomed Catholic and Orthodox participants.

The transgender statement, approved at a CMDA conference April 21 but publicized only recently, urges doctors to treat these patients with understanding and grace. On the other hand, CMDA champions professionals’ right to freedom of conscience, asserting that it is not “unjust discrimination” if a physician in conscience declines treatment that is considered “harmful or is not medically indicated.”

On the religious aspect, CMDA contrasts the Old and New Testament belief that “God created humanity as male and female” with current “confusion of gender identity.” “Gender complementarity and fixity are both good and a part of the natural order,” it says. The “objective biological fact” is that sex “is determined genetically at conception” and is “not a social construct arbitrarily assigned at birth or changed at will.”

The statement focuses on transgender persons whose psychological “gender identity” is the opposite of biology and genetic makeup – the current public issue – and distinguishes this syndrome from medical treatment of rare abnormalities in which the sexual phenotype and chromosomes conflict (e.g. ambiguous genitalia, androgen insensitivity syndrome, congenital adrenal hyperplasia).

That is, “the purpose of medicine is to heal the sick, not to collaborate with psychosocial disorders. Whereas treatment of anatomically anomalous sexual phenotypes is restorative, interventions to alter normal sexual anatomy to conform to transgender desires are disruptive to health.”

CMDA leaders think physicians should be aware of evidence that persons who identify as transgender, use cross-sex hormones, or undergo sex reassignment surgery, generally suffer more depression, anxiety, suicidal thoughts, substance abuse, and risky sexual behaviors. The organization is especially critical of doctors who prescribe hormones for a biologically healthy child in order to block normal growth and fertility. On sex-change surgery, CMDA says the medical evidence on outcomes is incomplete but there are potential dangers there as well. In addition, “transgender designations may conceal biological sex differences relevant to medical risk factors.”

Such professional concerns, which have received little media notice thus far, provide good fodder for interviews with transgender advocates, physicians included.

Meanwhile, CMDA is involved in another developing story, the federal lawsuit filed July 19 by the Alliance Defending Freedom against Vermont’s Board of Medical Practice and its Office of Professional Regulation. The suit charges that these agencies interpret “Act 39,” the state’s 2013 suicide law, to require death-by-doctor counseling, in violation of medical ethics and conscience rights.

Resources:

– CMDA media office in Bristol, Tenn.: 423-844-1000.

– Transgender affirmation from the Human Rights Campaign.

– The former chief of psychiatry (and a Catholic) explains why the Johns Hopkins University hospital halted sex-change surgery.

This article was originally posted at GetReligion.org

Illinois’ ban on sexual identity counseling is facing a legal challenge from pastors who fear they could be charged with consumer fraud if they provide pastoral counseling to young people who want to turn away from same-sex attraction.

IFI Faith, Family & Freedom Banquet

We are excited to have as our keynote speaker this year, former Congresswoman and Tea Party Caucus Leader, Michele Bachman!  She not only distinguished herself by forming and chairing the Tea Party Caucus in 2010 in the U.S. House, but as a courageous and outspoken pro-life leader, as attested to by her rating of zero from NARAL.

Please register today, before the early bird special expires…

Click HERE for MP3 audio download

There’s a brief interview on the Desiring God website with Australian theologian and pastor Dr. Rob Smith. It’s titled “Why Did the Transgender Revolution Catch Us by Surprise?” Although it’s helpful in explaining the philosophical and political origins of the revolution to normalize the abnormal rejection of one’s biological sex, it ignores one of the most significant reasons that the so-called “transgender” revolution has caught most Christians by surprise: the failure of many (perhaps most) church leaders to address it.

Dr. Smith discusses Enlightenment ideas, the development of antibiotics which removed the fear of STD’s, and the development of the birth control pill which severed sex from procreation and sex from marriage, all of which paved the way for the sexual revolution of the 1960’s. He explained how the 1960’s sexual revolution coincided with Second Wave feminism which promoted sometimes contradictory notions about “gender” (i.e., that gender was socially constructed and arbitrary or that femaleness has an objective nature that is intrinsically superior to maleness). And he touched on how  subversive ideas about sexuality, “gender,” and the social taboos associated with them began being challenged, which ineluctably resulted in the social and political effort to normalize homosexuality and then sex-rejection (aka “transgenderism”). In other words, he explained what intellectual trends and events caused the revolution.

But in response to the important question “Why Did the Transgender Revolution Catch Us by Surprise?,” Dr. Smith said only this:

I think it is just the prominence of the homosexual revolution that kind of has obscured the transgender revolution as it were, just tucked in behind. And now that same-sex marriage is being realized in many parts throughout the western world, it is in some ways moved to one side so that the transgender movement has now stepped forward as the major point of social and legislative and other kind of engagement.

Do, theologians, pastors, and priests who failed to think deeply about the cultural implications of the intellectual trends and social and political revolutions present since at least the 1960’s bear no responsibility for the revolution at hand?

Do Christian leaders whose cowardice or desire to be approved of by man led them to ignore the homosexual and “trans” revolutions bear no responsibility for the cultural havoc and suffering that we see today?

Do church leaders bear no responsibility for failing to help their congregations understand and respond to the secular lies that defy biblical truth and undermine respect for the authority of Scripture?

Do church leaders bear no responsibility for the often brusque ways they have rebuffed members of their own congregations who did see the homosexual and “transgender” revolutions coming and begged their pastors and priests to address them?

Do church leaders bear no responsibility for claiming that the homosexual and now “transgender” revolutions are political issues and, therefore, no business of the church even though the ideas about homoerotic activity, biological sex, and marriage foundational to these revolutions are perversions of foundational biblical issues?

Does pride, stubbornness, cowardice, intellectual sloth, or elitism on the part of church leaders who have failed to read enough, think deeply enough, listen to church members, teach adequately (or at all), or otherwise take action help explain why Christians have been caught by surprise by the transgender revolution just as they were caught by surprise by the homosexual revolution?

Of course, the failure of church leaders to lead is not the sole reason for the shocking and tragic revolutions that are eviscerating the family and destroying the bodies, minds, and hearts of countless men, women, and children. Hollywood, academia, government schools, professional medical and mental health organizations, and the press are in the tank for deviance. But Christians—including those who are charged with leading—should look first to the motes in their eyes.

A pastor recently asked me the question I most long to hear from pastors regarding the cultural embrace of false beliefs about homosexuality and gender dysphoria: “What can pastors do?”

Church leaders can do many things, including offering classes, workshops, and sermons for adults, senior high students, and middle school students that do the following:

• Teach the biblical view of maleness and femaleness.

• Teach the biblical understanding of marriage as a picture of Christ and the church. If Christians come to believe that there is no difference in nature or role between men and women including even in marriage, then there is no difference in nature or role between Christ and his bride, the church. Christians need to understand that marriage has a nature—an ontology—that neither court decisions nor laws can change. And Christians need to understand that the belief that marriage has a nature central to which is sexual differentiation is not an exclusively religious or Christian belief—though it is consonant with Christian doctrine.

• Expose the intellectual errors in the specious secular arguments used to normalize homosexuality, to normalize rejection of maleness or femaleness, and to justify the legal recognition of same-sex unions as marriages. It is the secular arguments to which Christians are exposed relentlessly that confuse, deceive, and persuade.

• Teach that Christians are promised in Scripture that they will be persecuted and even hated. Christians need to be encouraged to think about the kinds of trials they will encounter and what kinds of persecution they are willing to endure. They need to think about what compromises they will and won’t make. Are they willing to lose friends and family in order to follow Christ? If they’re public school teachers, will they refer to gender-dysphoric students by opposite-sex pronouns, which John Piper and others say they must never do? If they work in wedding-related businesses, will they serve celebrations of unions that God detests? If they’re small business owners, will they permit multi-person co-ed restrooms? Are they willing to come alongside those brothers and sisters in Christ who are persecuted, including helping them financially if they lose their jobs?

• Provide a proper understanding of the separation of church and state. Many Christians falsely believe that it is constitutionally impermissible for their biblical beliefs to shape or inform their political decisions.

Although it’s possible to find this information online and in books, Christians would need to know where to look and which scholars and organizations to seek out for answers. And only rarely are all the answers they need available in one place.  The church (including theologians, pastors, and priests) is the only cultural institution with the reach, power, and wisdom to battle secular or theological lies (i.e., heresy) effectively. Christians shouldn’t have to beg their teachers to teach and their leaders to lead. One would think Christian leaders would have learned that lesson from the history of the church’s shameful failure to oppose slavery and the bigotry of the Jim Crow era.

IFI Faith, Family & Freedom Banquet

We are excited to have as our keynote speaker this year, former Congresswoman and Tea Party Caucus Leader, Michele Bachman!  She not only distinguished herself by forming and chairing the Tea Party Caucus in 2010 in the U.S. House, but as a courageous and outspoken pro-life leader, as attested to by her rating of zero from NARAL.

Please register today, before the early bird special expires…

(Caution: may not be suitable for younger readers)

MP3 Version:

The revolution to recast homoerotic activity as morally, ontologically, and teleologically equivalent to heterosexuality has been built on a foundation of lies, and one by one those lies are being exposed. Unfortunately, the same culture that swallowed those poisonous lies has been so thoroughly indoctrinated, or is so incapable of critical thought, or is so cowed by fear of homosexualists that the exposure of deceit will not matter.

We were told homosexuals constitute 10% of the population. That was a lie.

We were told that “sexual orientation” is biologically determined like race. That was a lie.

We were told that “sexual orientation” is in all cases immutable. That was a lie.

And the cultural landscape shifted based on these lies.

The consequences of this perverse sexual revolution are visited most tragically upon children—children who are being acquired by men and women to be raised intentionally as motherless or fatherless, who are being taught lies about sexuality by the government, and who are being denied proper care for their disordered thoughts and feelings.

A new Centers for Disease Control (CDC) study exposes the profound dysfunction and suffering of teens in grades 9-12 who “identify” as homosexual, bisexual, or are unsure of their “sexual identity.” While the press focuses on the sections of this study that address the serious issue of bullying, here are other deeply troubling statistics regarding homosexuality that demand at least as much or more attention as well as unbiased examination of possible causes:

Forced to Have Sexual Intercourse

• 5.4% of heterosexual students had ever been physically forced to have sexual intercourse when they did not want to while 17.8% of gay, lesbian, and bisexual students had been.

Physical Dating Violence

• Of those students who dated someone during the 12 months before the survey, 8.3% of the heterosexual students reported being deliberately hit, slammed into something, or injured with an object or a weapon as compared to 17.5% of the gay, lesbian, and bisexual students.

Sexual Dating Violence

• Of those students who had dated someone during the 12 months before the survey, 9.1% of the heterosexual students had been forced to do sexual things by the person they were dating as compared to 22.7% of the gay, lesbian, and bisexual students.

Felt Sad or Hopeless

• During the 12 months before the survey, 26.4% of heterosexual students had felt so sad or helpless almost every day for 2 or more weeks in a row that they stopped doing some usual activities as compared to 60.4% of gay, lesbian, and bisexual students.

Seriously Considered Attempting Suicide

• 14.8% of heterosexual students had seriously considered attempting suicide during the 12 months before the survey as compared to 42.8% of gay, lesbian, or bisexual students.

Attempted Suicide

• 6.4% of heterosexual students had attempted suicide one or more times during the 12 months before the survey as compared to 29.4% of gay, lesbian, and bisexual students.

Drank Alcohol Before Age 13

• 16.3% of heterosexual students had drunk alcohol (more than a few sips) for the first time before age 13 as compared to 24.5% of gay, lesbian, and bisexual students.

Tried Marijuana Before Age 13

• 6.8% of heterosexual students had tried marijuana for the first time before age 13 as compared to 13.9% of gay, lesbian, and bisexual students.

Ever Used Hallucinogenic Drugs

• 5.5% of heterosexual students had used hallucinogenic drugs (e.g., LSD, PCP, or mescaline) one or more times during their life as compared to 11.5% of gay, lesbian, and bisexual students.

Ever Used Cocaine

• 4.2% of heterosexual students had used some form of cocaine one or more times during their life as compared to 10.6% of gay, lesbian, and bisexual students.

Ever Used Ecstasy

• 4.1% of heterosexual students had used ecstasy one or more times during their life as compared to 10.1% of gay, lesbian, and bisexual students.

Ever Used Heroin

• 1.3% of heterosexual students had used heroin one or more times during their life as compared to 6.0% of gay, lesbian, and bisexual students.

Ever Used Methamphetamines

• 2.1% of heterosexual students had used methamphetamines one or more times during their life as compared to 8.2% of gay, lesbian, and bisexual students.

Ever Took Steroids Without a Doctor’s Prescription

• 2.6% of heterosexual students had taken steroid pills or shots without a doctor’s prescription one or more times during their life as compared to 9.7% of gay, lesbian, and bisexual students.

Ever Took Prescription Drugs Without a Doctor’s Prescription

• 15.5% of heterosexual students had taken prescription drugs (e.g., Oxycontin, Percocet, Vicodin, codeine, Adderall, Ritalin, or Xanax) without a doctor’s prescription one or more times during their life as compared to 27.5% of gay, lesbian, and bisexual students.

Ever Used Inhalants

• 5.6% of heterosexual students had sniffed glue, breathed the contents of aerosol spray cans, or inhaled paints or sprays to get high one or more times during their life as compared to 17.3% of gay, lesbian, and bisexual students.

Is it possible that some teens who identify as homosexual, bisexual, or unsure developed homoerotic attraction as a result of forced sex, also known as rape? Can leftists reasonably argue that childhood molestation never in any case results in homoerotic attraction or the assumption of a homosexual or bisexual “identity” or uncertainty about “sexual identity”?

Is it possible that both drug use and homoerotic attraction are both symptoms of family dysfunction, childhood abuse, and/or social ostracism and bullying unrelated to “sexual orientation”?

Are leftists so sure that societal disapproval and/or bullying are the central causes of sadness, suicidal ideation, and suicide attempts among homosexual and bisexual teens that counseling which explores other possible contributive factors and may lead to “sexual identity” change should be legally banned?

Can leftists be certain that the unhappiness and dysfunctional behaviors of homosexual and bisexual teens are not caused by an internal, natural, and not socially constructed sense that homoerotic feelings are disordered and homoerotic activity is immoral? In other words, perhaps their sadness and unhealthy behaviors reflect the operation of conscience: “They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them” (Romans 2:15).

Those who truly love children would set aside their own sexual desires and plans for social and political revolution. They would be willing to examine impartially all factors that may contribute to homoerotic attraction or the assumption of a homoerotic “identity” and attendant unhealthy behaviors.

And those whose identity is found in Christ should better balance grace and truth by loving these children while always affirming God’s truth. True and holistic healing come from God: “He heals the brokenhearted and binds up their wounds.” (Psalm 147:3).

Identifying with Christ may not result in the eradication of all homoerotic attraction—though it may—just as it may not result in the eradication of any other of the myriad sinful desires humans experience. It does, however, mean freedom from bondage to those desires. And it points the way to peace and fulfillment in the midst of trials and temptations.

Perhaps leftists should apply these words from President Barack Obama to the tragic suffering of children who experience unchosen homoerotic feelings:

“If there is a step we can take to save even one child…we should take that step.”

Perhaps one step is entertaining the possibility that homoerotic attraction has causes to which leftists prefer to turn their blind eyes.

IFI Faith, Family & Freedom Banquet

We are excited to have as our keynote speaker this year, former Congresswoman and Tea Party Caucus Leader, Michele Bachman!  She not only distinguished herself by forming and chairing the Tea Party Caucus in 2010 in the U.S. House, but as a courageous and outspoken pro-life leader, as attested to by her rating of zero from NARAL.

Please register today, before the early bird special expires…

“For the wisdom of this world is folly with God.”
~1 Corinthians 3:19

(caution: may not be suitable for younger readers)

Men seeking sex with men have been using a particular public restroom in San Jose, California for their semi-clandestine, wholly vile activities for some years. In fact, it’s become such a popular gathering place for men whose sexual predilections involve public lavatories and strange men that a picnic table has been set up by the country health department offering free condoms and pamphlets about HIV and other sexually transmitted infections/diseases. This popular site for perverse sex just happens to be immediately next to a baseball diamond used by children for their baseball games which are, of course, attended by their families.

Attorney Bruce Nickerson, panties in a twist over a 2014-2015 sting operation that resulted in two dozen men being charged with “among other things, loitering near a bathroom with the intent to commit a lewd act,” plans on filing a class action lawsuit against the police department.

Nickerson sees the sting operation as a gross violation of the 14^th Amendment’s guarantee of “equal protection before the law.” How so, you may be wondering. After pouring over the arrest records of the San Jose Police Department for similar sting operations, Nickerson discovered “the department has not made any decoy arrests for male-female lewd conduct,” which he views as a clear violation of the 14^th Amendment. So now taxpayers will foot the bill to defend the purported violation of the rights of men who seek to have sex with men in a public restroom.

I wonder if Nickerson considered the possibility that more men seek sex with men in public restrooms than women seek sex with men in public restrooms or vice versa.

In his lawsuit, Nickerson, who views his effort as “the gay equivalent of stopping Jim Crow laws,” will be asking not only that “the police department stop these stings, but will also ask for the arrests to be removed from the defendants’ records and a ‘modest’ cash settlement.”

San Jose lesbian activist Gabrielle Antolovich argues that “Arresting people does not change anything.” What she wants is “dialogue and discussion” between “two different kinds of people using the same space.”

Yes, what this community needs is dialogue and discussion between children and their families who use the bathroom space for going to the bathroom and homosexuals who use the space for perverse anonymous sex.

I guess this is the kind of worldly “wisdom” we should expect from a lesbian who has been participating in and promoting perversity for decades. Back in 1990, the year she was “International Ms. Leather,” she shared (*warning: article contains offensive material not suitable for all audiences*) her views on lesbian sadism and masochism (S & M):

“Everyone has a different view of what whipping means to them. To the outside world, it all looks the same: flog, flog, flog. But when I have a whip in my hand, that’s an extension of me—from the whip to the person I’m whipping. For me, the whip is like a magic wand. When the body of the partner submits, it’s a gift.”

She stops and points to the center of her palm. “When you use a whip, this part of your hand gets hot. I discovered that in alternative medicine; this is the sexual meridian, the spiritual place. Have you noticed how in Renaissance and other religious paintings, this is where the light comes out?”

…

“Look, I go to S-M parties and sometimes I think, ‘I can’t believe I’m into this,'” Antolovich confesses. “It’s ugly. I want to throw up. So I go to the bathroom and tell myself, ‘This is your old attitude.’ Sometimes I look at my lover and say, ‘I can’t believe I want to do this to her.’ But I know it’s just the old stuff, the old propaganda.”

Antolovich says that in the long run the S and M life has made her wiser, more community-oriented, infinitely happier. “I have to be worthy to be given to. I have to develop in the way that a person wants to give to me. I look at my lover and I know I can have anything I want. And she knows she can too. It’s amazing. Think about that.”

Antolovich’s words are amazing. Her words illustrate that the abandonment of truth results in all manner of destruction and chaos, affecting human will, emotions, and thoughts.

Homosexual and sex-rejecting (aka “transgender”) activists have been abusing, exploiting, and perverting the U.S. Constitution to serve their sexually anarchistic cultural revolution for years. Their revolution recognizes no authority and few boundaries. The public good and truth of marriage and properly ordered sexuality, the rights of children, and the Constitution will be sacrificed on the twin altars of perverse sexual desire and absolute autonomy

Our Founding Fathers—deists and theists alike—must be whirling maelstroms in their resting places over the abuse of the U.S. Constitution to enable public homosex.

“The heart is deceitful above all things,
and desperately sick; who can understand it?”
~Jeremiah 17:9

IFI Faith, Family & Freedom Banquet

We are excited to have as our keynote speaker this year, former Congresswoman and Tea Party Caucus Leader, Michele Bachman!

Please register today, before the early bird special expires…

As a result of the passage of the deceptively named “Youth Mental Health Protection Act,” the law firm of Mauck & Baker is today filing a federal lawsuit against the state of Illinois on behalf of a group of Illinois pastors alleging that the Act “unconstitutionally restricts a young person’s right to make personal choices regarding his or her own choice of sexual identity, as well as the pastors’ right to free speech and the exercise of religion.” The suit seeks “a Declaratory Judgment from the court stating that the law should not apply to pastoral counseling.”

Read the Mauck & Baker federal complaint HERE.

The Act, commonly called the “conversion therapy ban” but more properly called the anti-autonomy Act or the anti-identity-choice Act, prohibits professional mental health providers from helping minors who desire counseling for unwanted, unchosen homoerotic attraction. So, while leftists believe minors should be able to access medical help in a futile quest to reject their unwanted sex, these same leftists pass laws prohibiting minors from accessing help in constructing an identity that doesn’t include the affirmation of unwanted homoerotic feelings.

The anti-autonomy Act includes a host of other problems including the following:

• The Act prohibits “any practices or treatments that seek to….reduce sexual or romantic attractions or feelings towards individuals of the same sex.” The hubris of homosexual activists and liberal lawmakers knows no bounds. They passed a law to prohibit teenagers from pursuing ways of reducing unwanted homoerotic feelings.

• The Act makes no distinction between coercive aversion therapies and talk therapies.

• It makes no distinction between involuntary counseling and voluntary counseling desired by minors.

• It fails to address whether, for example, a 14-year-old who experiences homoerotic feelings and admits to having been sexually molested would be allowed to explore the connection between sexual molestation and homoerotic feelings with a mental health provider?

• The Act states that “No person or entity may, in the conduct of any trade or commerce use or employ any…conversion therapy services in a manner that represents homosexuality as a…” In other words, it is now illegal to present homosexuality truthfully.

• The Act presumes without evidence that all counseling efforts to help minors who reject their unwanted, unchosen “sexual orientation” are damaging. It is indefensible to ban counseling efforts for which there is no conclusive evidence of harm.

• The Act applies to licensed psychiatrists, psychologists, social workers, marriage and family therapists, professional counselors and clinical professional counselors, as well as anyone assisting any licensed professionals.

It is encouraging to see pastors take a public stand for unpopular biblical truths and against oppressive, politically driven laws that violate constitutionally protected liberty. We see such courage among church leaders too seldom.

Click HERE to read more.

IFI Faith, Family & Freedom Banquet

We are excited to have as our keynote speaker this year, former Congresswoman and Tea Party Caucus Leader, Michele Bachman!

Please register today, before the early bird special expires…

Written by Kelsey Harkness

The U.S. Supreme Court signaled an interest in taking on the transgender bathroom debate on Wednesday, granting a Virginia school system temporary permission to keep its bathrooms separated by biological sex.

In a 5-3 vote, the justices issued a stay in the case involving a transgender student in Gloucester County who is suing his school board to gain access to the boys’ restrooms. The stay halts a lower court’s order that said the school board must allow the transgender teen, Gavin Grimm, into the bathroom that corresponds with the student’s gender identity.

Gavin, 17, was born female but now identifies as a male.

If the Gloucester County school board’s petition for the Supreme Court to hear the case is denied, the stay will terminate automatically, and Gavin will be allowed to use the boys’ bathroom. If the court decides to take the case, the stay will remain in effect until the justices reach a final decision.

The lawsuit alleges that by prohibiting Gavin from using the boys’ restrooms, the school board’s policy violates Title IX, the federal statute that bans discrimination on the basis of sex.

The U.S. District Court in Eastern Virginia initially rejected that argument, and sided with the school board’s claim that Title IX does not protect against discrimination based on gender identity. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit disagreed, and issued an injunction that required the school to allow transgender students to use restrooms in accordance to their gender identity.

Some in the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender movement downplayed Wednesday’s decision, calling it “just a temporary delay.”

“Across the country, courts and policymakers are recognizing that discrimination against transgender people is sex discrimination,” Shannon Minter, legal director for the National Center for Lesbian Rights, said in a prepared statement. “We are confident that if and when this issue reaches the Supreme Court, the court will affirm that recognition.”

Conservatives, however, call the decision a significant step in their direction.

“It’s significant that the Supreme Court said we’re going to put a hold on that—we’re going to preserve the status quo as it’s always been in society, as it’s always been in schools,” Jeremy Tedesco, a lawyer at the Christian legal group Alliance Defending Freedom, told The Daily Signal. “That boys use boys’ restrooms and girls use girls’ restrooms.”

The implications, Tedesco added, could reach far beyond Gavin and other students in Gloucester County.

In directing schools nationwide to open their showers, bathrooms, and locker rooms to students of the opposite biological sex, the Obama administration cited the Gloucester case.

The Department of Education wrote that its interpretation “is consistent with courts’ and other agencies’ interpretations of federal laws prohibiting sex discrimination,” and linked to the case.

A total of 24 states are now challenging the legality of the administration’s mandate, in addition to dozens of private legal battles playing out nationwide.

“The Department of Education—in all the litigation that’s going on across the country and in their major, chief mandate that they sent out nationally to all the schools saying that Title IX requires schools to allow students of one sex to enter locker rooms and bathrooms of students of the opposite sex—they’re all relying on the Gloucester decision from the 4th Circuit to say that’s required,” Tedesco said. “What the Supreme Court has done is thrown that decision into serious doubt.”

Tedesco, who is involved in several of these challenges, said the decision is “a really important outcome” for Alliance Defending Freedom’s case in Illinois.

In that case, 50 families in the Chicago area are suing the Department of Education and the Justice Department for threatening to take away federal funding if the school does not comply with the Obama administration’s interpretation of Title IX.

Lawyers for the Obama administration, Tedesco said, “have been citing the Gloucester decision over and over again for why they should win.”

Now, he said, “it’s going to be a lot more difficult for them to rely on that case, with the Supreme Court putting the entire decision on hold and calling it into question.”

Gloucester County, located about 140 miles south of Washington, D.C., and just north of Newport News, Virginia, has more than 5,000 students in its eight public schools.

The Gloucester County school board welcomed Wednesday’s decision, saying in a press release that it “continues to believe that its resolution of this complex matter fully considered the interests of all students and parents in the Gloucester County school system.”

My thoughts on yesterday’s “emergency stay” by SCOTUShttps://t.co/RF8zr2cP5W

— Joshua Block (@JoshACLU) August 4, 2016

Josh Block, a lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union representing Gavin, said he was disappointed by the decision because it will leave Gavin isolated from the rest of the student body.

In a blog post, Block wrote:

Gavin was preparing to begin his senior year with a fresh start. He would finally be able to use the restroom without being isolated. Even if the Supreme Court ultimately decides to let the lower court’s decision stand, Gavin will have had to spend most of his senior year forced to use a separate restroom from the rest of his classmates, simply because of who he is.

The high court’s four conservative-leaning justices all voted in favor of the stay. They were joined by Justice Stephen Breyer who wrote that he granted the stay “as a courtesy” in order to “preserve the status quo.”

Only four justices are needed for the Supreme Court to review a case, making it likely that the bathroom fight could be decided soon.

Article originally published at DailySignal.com.