Conservative friends, if it weren’t clear to you already that the halcyon days for theologically orthodox people of faith in America are over, read the ominous, hostile, and arrogant words of Mark Tushnet, William Nelson Cromwell professor of law at Harvard Law School:

The culture wars are over; they lost, we won…. For liberals, the question now is how to deal with the losers in the culture wars. That’s mostly a question of tactics. My own judgment is that taking a hard line (“You lost, live with it”) is better than trying to accommodate the losers, who—remember—defended, and are defending, positions that liberals regard as having no normative pull at all. Trying to be nice to the losers didn’t work well after the Civil War, nor after Brown. (And taking a hard line seemed to work reasonably well in Germany and Japan after 1945.) I should note that LGBT activists in particular seem to have settled on the hard-line approach, while some liberal academics defend more accommodating approaches. When specific battles in the culture wars were being fought, it might have made sense to try to be accommodating after a local victory, because other related fights were going on, and a hard line might have stiffened the opposition in those fights. But the war’s over, and we won.

Conservatives are the equivalent of racists and Nazis because they believe human beings whose lives begin at conception have a right to exist and that marriage has an intrinsic nature central to which is sexual differentiation. No more need for politically expedient rhetorical deception about tolerance and diversity. Carpe Diem, Tushnet proclaims. To the victors belong the spoils, which to “progressives” like Tushnet just might include the presumptive “right” to abrogate the religious liberty of conservative losers.

What accounts for Tushnet’s cocksureness? Tushnet makes clear that it derives from the current composition of the courts:

Several generations of law students and their teachers grew up with federal courts dominated by conservatives. Not surprisingly, they found themselves wandering in the wilderness, looking for any sign of hope. The result: Defensive-crouch constitutionalism, with every liberal position asserted nervously, its proponents looking over their shoulders for retaliation by conservatives….

It’s time to stop. Right now more than half of the judges sitting on the courts of appeals were appointed by Democratic presidents…the same appears to be true of the district courts. And, those judges no longer have to be worried about reversal by the Supreme Court if they take aggressively liberal positions.

Now that the judiciary is controlled by liberals, Tushnet argues that “Liberals should be compiling lists of cases to be overruled at the first opportunity on the ground that they were wrong the day they were decided,” and that they should “Aggressively exploit the ambiguities and loopholes in unfavorable precedents that aren’t worth overruling” [emphasis Tushnet’s].

Tushnet clerked for Thurgood Marshall and was instrumental in shaping and articulating Marshall’s position in Roe v. Wade which, in turn, influenced Harry Blackmun. Tushnet, in a  “significant letter” written for Marshall and sent to Harry Blackmun said this:

I am inclined to agree that drawing the line at viability accommodates the interests at stake better than drawing it at the end of the first trimester. Given the difficulties which many women may have in believing that they are pregnant and in deciding to seek an abortion, I fear that the earlier date may not in practice serve the interests of those women, which your opinion does seek to serve.

…

It is implicit in your opinion that at some point the State’s interest in preserving the potential life of the unborn child overrides any individual interests of the women. I would be disturbed if that point were set before viability, and I am afraid that the opinion’s present focus on the end of the first trimester would lead states to prohibit abortions completely at any later date.

Professor Tushnet, a prolific writer and non-observant Jew, is the father of Eve Tushnet, a prolific writer and theologically orthodox Catholic who identifies as a lesbian but because of her deep faith, has chosen a life of celibacy. Eve Tushnet was “raised somewhere between atheism and Reform Judaism,” and “entered the Catholic Church in 1998, during her sophomore year at Yale University.”

Is Mark Tushnet’s daughter one of the losers against whom Professor Tushnet seeks a hard line?

The Obama Administration’s executive overreach, criticized even by liberal legal scholar Jonathan Turley, has alerted many conservatives to the imbalance of power between the legislative and executive branches which in theory should be co-equal. “Progressives” are taking their gloves off and putting their jackboots on. They’re hungry and seeking to devour whatever morsels of liberty conservatives yet retain. Perhaps Tushnet’s clanging voice will be the alarm needed to arouse slumbering conservatives before their plate is empty and progressives arrive at our church doors slavering at the cup and gnawing at the host.

Can you support our work with
a tax-deductible donation?

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

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

Tacoma “trans” sideshow

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

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

Actually, they’re not.

Are “transwomen” women?

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

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

 “Gender,” sex, and safety

Gender:

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

Sex:

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

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

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

True “trans” goal

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

Follow IFI on Social Media!

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

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

On Wednesday May 18, Mayor Rahm Emanuel introduced an amendment to a Chicago human rights ordinance that if passed would make it even easier for men to use women’s restrooms and other facilities in which private activities take place.

On Wednesday June 8, the Chicago City Council’s Human Rights Committee recommended approval by the whole city council. This Wednesday it moves to the full city council for a final vote.

The current ordinance is bad enough in that it allows gender dysphoric men and women to use opposite-sex facilities as long as they can provide falsified government documentation, such as driver’s licenses or passports, identifying them as the sex they are not.

The proposed amendment, also sponsored by members of Chicago’s lesbian, “gay,” “bisexual,” and “transgender” caucus, eliminates the requirement regarding government documentation. The amendment states that “‘sex’” includes both biological category and gender identity. Each person determines his or her own gender identity; no proof shall be required except his or her expression of his or her gender.”

The ordinance applies to restrooms, shower rooms, bathhouses, dressing rooms, health clubs, single-sex “sleeping rooms,” single-sex residential facilities (e.g., women’s shelters), and single-sex classes that are open to the public.

Kim Hunt, executive director of Pride Action Tank, claims that “This is a matter of human dignity and human rights.”

If gender dysphoric men who wish they were women are denied their human dignity and rights if they cannot shower with only women, then are actual women denied their human dignity and rights if they cannot shower with only women?

The Chicago City Council is voting on this dangerous amendment on Wednesday. If the public does not oppose this ordinance change with a loud and unequivocal voice, the city of Chicago will have co-ed restrooms and showers.

The end of sex-segregation everywhere continues apace.

Take Action:  Please take three minutes to look up your local Alderman HERE, then call or email them to express your opposition to this ordinance.

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

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

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

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

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

Its slogan?

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

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

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

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

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

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

It is temporal control.

And it is spiritual defiance.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The spiritual battle is a foregone conclusion.

*WARNING: Explicit content not suitable for younger readers*

A recent New York Post story  illuminates the tragic consequences of the sexual revolution that separated sex from procreation, sex from marriage, and marriage from children. Children are intentionally and cavalierly separated from their biological parents.

The Post tells the story of peculiar 40-year-old City University New York (CUNY) math professor Ari Nagel who has sired 22 children with 18 women over the past 12 years.

Sometimes he “donates” his sperm the old-fashioned way by having sex with women. Sometimes he “donates” his sperm by masturbating—with the help of porn viewed on his cell phone—into a cup in Target or Starbucks men’s bathrooms and rushing it to an ovulating recipient, who then scampers into the women’s restroom to deposit the donation where the sun don’t shine. Nagel says, “‘It’s better when it’s fresh.’”

With Target’s new co-ed bathroom policy, he will no longer have to make that long trek from the men’s restroom to a waiting recipient. He can masturbate in the women’s restroom with the recipient waiting in the neighboring stall to make her deposit. His donation will be uber-fresh.

Sometimes when Nagel is “donating” the old-fashioned way to a lesbian who has never had sex with a man, her partner will sit in bed with them holding her partner’s hand for moral support. Loss of virginity can be traumatic, so it’s nice to see that human compassion still exists.

Single women and lesbians all over the country have found Nagel via word-of-mouth, Craigslist, and “Known Donor Registry, a free website for those looking for sperm donors.” They solicit his services because of his “’good looks, personality and high sperm count.” Man-boy Nagel toots his own horn, claiming that his sperm count is “off the charts.”

Nagel’s children range in age from 11 months to 12-years-old and live in New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Florida, Virginia, Illinois, and Israel. According to the Post, “Some he sees once a week, some he sees once a year, some he’s never met.”

Half of Nagel’s paycheck is garnished as a result of five mothers successfully suing him for child-support. But that’s okay with Daddy Nagel: “‘Financially, it’s bankrupted me, but I’m still very happy with the way things turned out….I got 22 million in the bank — in my kids.’”

His kids? Does he mean the ones he sees once a week, or the ones he sees once a year, or the ones he’s never met? How valuable to his kids is he, if his primary investment in them was a porn-induced teaspoon of semen delivered in a Target men’s bathroom.

Glib New York television news anchors, Sukanya Krishnan and Scott Stanford, interviewed a smirking Nagel on his unseemly hobby, mischaracterizing Nagel’s rejection of normal sperm donation channels as evidence of his desire for a more “rewarding experience.” Waxing sycophantic, Krishnan exults, “He knows most of the children and has connections with them, which I think is great!”

Only fools would think that men who know most of their children but raise none are “great” fathers.

In the world of “progressivism” where virtually every desire transmogrifies into a “right” which society is obligated to accommodate, facilitate, and celebrate, the rights of children are little discussed. Women who are not blessed with marriage or choose not to marry are not entitled to children. And those  who choose to be in intrinsically sterile homoerotic unions—that is, unions that are by design non-procreative—should not be procuring children. Children have intrinsic rights, one of which is to be raised whenever possible by a mother and a father, preferably their own biological parents. This right supersedes the desires of single women and lesbians to bear and raise children.

Follow IFI on Social Media!

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

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

Mainstream Media are master stagers, adept at slick productions edited to create the cultural scene, the public perception of their desiring.

In the world of stratospheric real estate, stagers move in furnishings and artwork, paint, light candles, bake bread or cookies — everything possible to touch the emotions of potential buyers and elicit a sale.

In the world of what poses as journalism, the authors and pundits selectively edit and present the news through the Leftist lens, such that Americans at large consume not facts, but ideologies.

If you had to ask John Doe on the street, “What issues are most important to Millennials?” their answers based on CNN, MSNBC, ABC, NBC, etc., would most likely be climate change, “choice,” LGBT and marriage equality issues, and marijuana legalization. Alas, John D. would be wrong.

Oh, Obama and his cohorts keep lambasting us with the “Climate Change is the biggest threat to mankind!” rhetoric.

Modern day climate and ecology tyrants exemplify Romans 1:

²⁵ They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

The President is unable to utter the words “radical Islamic terrorism” in the same sentence and in that order. And yet, our POTUS recites ad nauseam the LGBTQ mantra of Pride! Does Pres. Obama realize his words confirm more verses in Romans 1?

²⁴ Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. ²⁵ They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

²⁶ Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. ²⁷ In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

²⁸ Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done.

²⁹ They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, ³⁰ slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; ³¹ they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy.

President Obama proclaims “Islam is a religion of peace!” and the Islamic call to prayer is “one of the prettiest sounds on Earth at sunset.”

The Left’s secular, Socialist indoctrination of America and her youth marches on, driven by education elites and the media.

And yet, despite this ever present Climate and Sexual Perversion Propaganda, millennials march to a slightly different beat.

A recent Ipsos study of 2016 election issue concerns which surveyed “1,141 adults age 18-34 from the continental U.S., Alaska and Hawaii” returned strikingly unexpected results. Ipsos is a global market research company with worldwide headquarters in Paris, France.

Look closely at the chart below which lists the “most important issues for the next President of the United States to prioritize”:

Notice that Climate Change is number 9, Abortion number 13, Marijuana number 12 and LGBTQ issues number 13.

Those results are slightly heartening and would be more so were it not for MSM’s wholesale silence on the survey. All we hear in the ethernet and on broadcast news are the proverbial crickets of verboten knowledge.

Also of note, on page six of the report, 57 percent of the respondents either strongly or somewhat agree that “Terrorism fueled by religious extremism is a bigger threat than gun violence” and 58 percent either strongly or somewhat agree that “The government should protect the Second Amendment right of all Americans to buy guns if they want to.”

What this report and these results mean is there is hope!

With all of The Left’s high-powered marketing, glitzy Hollywood production, and monopoly of the broadcast news and education establishment, they still have not completely eradicated independent thought and values. Millennials do not quite yet walk in Progressive lockstep.

Conservatives and Christians, for the most part, are about 100 years late to the culture war Progressives (née Socialists/Marxists) have been waging via every possible societal gatekeeper.

What now?

Time to wake up. Time for each and every Conservative, every Bible-believing Christian to make haste and dive headlong into the fray. There are hearts and souls, and ultimately the future of our beloved nation in the balance.

We must use our time and our money to reach those whose hearts have not yet hardened to the truth of Psalm 32:12 Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord.

We must remind each American of the precepts of the Founders, which were the precepts of the Bible. We must implement superior marketing to message the sanctity of life and natural marriage, and every other value we hold dear.

Conservatism is no fad, no flash in the pan. It is a time-tested worldview tempered by biblical principles, principles which, when acted upon result in life and abundant life for individuals, families, and nations.

Mainstream Media has staged its Progressive Production; time for Conservatives to shatter that evil facade and deliver the truth that could rescue not only Millennials, but all of America.

Follow IFI on Social Media!

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

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

“Teenagers have sex. Deal with it.”

That was a dismissive statement by a blogger in 2012 who taught at Yale University’s School of Public Health.

Fortunately, teens DID deal with it – by NOT having sex. They seemed to have missed this flippant blog and ignored this careless advice from adults who should know better.

On June 9, the CDC released the  new  2015 data from the  most recent Youth Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS), which updates what we know about youth and their engagement in health risk behaviors.  The results show that fewer teens are drinking than before, less are involved in physical fighting, and teen smoking hit its lowest level since the government began tracking it in 1991.

But the big news is the dramatic increase in the percentage of teens who have never had sex.

Since 1991 (the first year the CDC began tracking youth risk behaviors), the percent of high school students who have never had sex has increased 28%. In real numbers, that means that nearly 6 in 10 teens are making the healthiest choice by waiting for sex.[1] The highest percent to date.

When the CDC released the news a few months ago that teen birth rates are now at an all-time low, few suggested that waiting for sex might be a significant reason. Instead, many proposed the decline was due to teens using more contraception, or teens’ concern with the economy, and even the effects of the MTV reality show, “16 and Pregnant.” They weren’t getting pregnant, but many thought it almost inconceivable that teen birthrates might be dropping because teens weren’t having sex!

Valerie Huber, President/CEO of Ascend said, “ Now that we know that the percent of high school students who have never had sex has increased by more than 10% in only 2 years [2], Ascend anticipates a public acknowledgement of the relevancy and efficacy of the Sexual Risk Avoidance (SRA) message in both press and policy. Since being evidence-based is a high commodity in the Teen Pregnancy Prevention arena, there should be a rush to accept and affirm the role that SRA education has played to bring it about this positive trend.”

Astonishingly, some are proposing that teens don’t have time for sex. Why?  Because they are so busy interacting on social media. However, this explanation doesn’t wash because the decline began before social media was popular. There is more to the story.  The 28% percent increase in students who have never had sex is unprecedented and has been two decades in the making. This fact should calm the concerns of those who have suggested this good news could be merely a statistical blip.

We are seeing an encouraging trend that has been sustained for more than two decades. More teens in every high school grade are waiting for sex in greater numbers than ever before. Overall, almost 60% of all teens have not had sex. The majority of high schoolers are waiting until their senior year to experiment sexually [3] – a time when most schools don’t have any education to reinforce the healthiest choice to wait. Even so, many more High School seniors are waiting than they did 2 decades ago.

Huber added: “I think this data is very clear. It confirms that SRA is realistic and that it resonates with teens.  It also tells us that we need to be more intentional with the messages we send to teens – and the importance of giving teens the skills to graduate high school without any of the negative consequences that can surround teen sex. Today, those messages normalize sex, especially for older students.  This must change.”

Ascend encourages Congress and local communities to use this new data to give more emphasis on the SRA approach to sex education. Teens themselves are proving waiting is doable. The recent CDC data makes a strong case for SRA education. Policymakers must respond in-kind, rather than capitulating to the troubling sound bite like, “Teens have sex. Deal with it.” Fewer teens are having sex, so we can deal with that by reinforcing their good choices.

Read the results of the entire CDC study here.

[1] YRBS trend data shows that the percent of teens who have never had sex increased from 45.9 in 1991 to 58.8 in 2015 

[2] YRBS trend data shows that the percent of teens who have never had sex increased from 53.2 in 2013 to 58.8 in 2015 

[3] YRBS trend data shows that teens are waiting longer to have sex. More than half haven’t had sex in 11^th grade and 42% haven’t had sex in 12^th, up from 33% in 1991. Even Seniors have increased waiting for sex by 27% since 1991.

Written by Josh Hetzler

Earlier this month, President Barack Obama issued a Presidential “proclamation” asserting that by his authority, the month of June will be celebrated as “Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Pride Month”.

It’s a curious thing, really, to have a whole month officially devoted to feeling pride for traits which represent “who you are”, as the proclamation puts it. Perhaps by this same logic someone should convince the President to proclaim a month of pride for being white, or male, or heterosexual, or human, or perhaps being left-handed, big-footed, or diabetic. Or how about a month of pride for being a secretary, a doctor, a janitor, or a pilot? All of these seem at least as worthy of feelings of pride for those who identify as such.

And for that matter, this Presidential tribute to certain sexual proclivities seems to raise an obvious question: What about the other 31 gender types that are already being lawfully recognized in places like New York City? Why has the President excluded those? Are there simply not enough months in the year? This sort of passive inequality should outrage us all! Though, to his credit, the president did acknowledge that “There remains much work to do to extend the promise of our country to every American.” So it seems.

Then again, I’m not sure how or why the government ever got into the “pride” business to begin with. By my understanding of the law, it seems that inner feelings of pride and love are reserved to the People rather than the government – and certainly not the federal government. (See: 9th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution)

In the law, there is a procedural tactic known as a motion to dismiss for lack of standing. It’s essentially where one party says to the judge: “Regardless of whether my opponent is right or wrong on the substance of his case, he loses because he doesn’t even have a right to be here.”

Excepting the fact that Obama’s proclamation carries no weight at all, I’d like to make a motion that it be totally dismissed for lack of standing. Without even having to address the complete incoherence of the President’s statements, he loses because he has no right to declare what the American people ought or ought not to be proud of.

Mr. President: Respectfully, if you would spend less time trying to “fundamentally change America” through endless edicts, guidance letters, and proclamations, and more time reading the U.S. Constitution you swore to “preserve, protect, and defend” (especially the 9th and 10th Amendments), I can all but guarantee that you would cause America to develop a greater and more authentic “pride” than any that you would otherwise impose upon us through hollow or lawless means.

Now go give us something to really be proud of.

This article was originally posted at The Family Foundation blog.

Written by Stella Morabito

As usual, tyranny comes disguised as “civil rights.”

The latest exhibit of this general rule is President Obama’s directive that seeks to force a transgender bathroom, locker room and dorm policy on the entire nation, starting with schoolchildren. Many of us are taken aback by this news, but we really shouldn’t be. The order is merely the latest incarnation of a long line of social engineering. The goal, as is always the case with such movements, is to remake humanity. What the people behind this latest version won’t tell you is that their project requires each and every one of us to deny our own humanity.

Let me explain.

The transgender movement has never been about “gender.” It’s all about sex. Sex is the real target. “Gender” is merely the politicized linguistic vehicle that facilitates a legal ban on sex distinctions. There aren’t a whole lot of dots to connect to uncover the logic of where this leads: if you abolish sex distinctions in law, you can abolish state recognition of biological family ties, and the state can regulate personal relationships and consolidate power as never before.

Let’s Review Reality

Physical reality exists independent of “gender identity non-discrimination” law—or any man-made law. Laws have no power to make reality go away, but they can change how people behave in response to reality. They can enforce disregard for reality through speech protocols, social and economic pressures, invasions of privacy, and thought policing. And that is what the effect of Obama’s executive order is all about.

It will serve to outlaw speech that identifies males as males and females as females. At the moment, it may not seem that way, since we see people striving to pass as one specific sex or the other. But, trust me, we’re all being forced to “transition” into conformity of thought. In New York, you can now be fined if you don’t re-engineer your speech (and thoughts) to align with new and ever-changing pronoun protocols.

We’re being pushed to “evolve” rapidly from laws that seem to allow male-female distinctions to laws that will categorically reject those distinctions in the not-too-distant future. Federal forms are already reflecting these changes by erasing sexed terms such as “mother” and “father.” And at every turn, we’re seeing the specific term “sex” replaced with the meaningless, ambiguous term “gender.”

This puts us on the path to banning recognition of the reality that every single human being exists through the union of one male and one female. There are no exceptions to this reality. You exist as the union of the two opposites through whom you were created.

So the administration’s action is an order for a somewhat suicidal type of behavior modification: it attempts to make us deny the reality of our humanity. In a real sense, this amounts to a denial of our very existence. All such denials of reality require heavy-handed censorship. We have already seen the governors of South Dakota and Georgia fold in the face of threats that federal funding would be withheld and big businesses would withdraw from the states if they attempted to enforce single-sex restrooms.

Without Sex, There Are No Families

What will happen when all of society is sexless in both language and law? If the law does not recognize your body as physically male or female—applying only the word “gender” to your internal, self-reported self-perception—does the law even recognize your body? Every single cell of you has either “male” or “female” written into its DNA, but the law refuses to recognize such categories. Such laws will only recognize an infinite, immeasurable “gender spectrum,” your place on which is determined only by your mind. So what exactly are you after the law has de-sexed you? In what sense is your body a legal entity?

And what happens to your familial relationships after the law has de-sexed you? Are they legally recognized? I don’t see how they could be. Certainly not by default, certainly not by the recognition that each child comes through the union of two opposite-sex parents.

In a society de-sexed by law, would the state recognize your relationship as a husband or a wife? Mother or father? Daughter or son? Those are all sexed terms. A system that does not recognize the existence of male and female would be free to ignore the parentage of any child. You might be recognized as your child’s “legal guardian,” but only if the state agrees to that. Anybody can be a guardian to your child if the state decides it’s in the child’s “best interest.” In this vision, there is nothing to prevent the state from severing the mother-child bond at will.

In such a scenario, the state controls all personal relationships right at their source: the biological family. The abolition of family autonomy would be complete, because the biological family would cease to be a default arrangement. The “family” would be whatever the state allows it to be. Again, in the de-sexed world of gender politics, all personal relationships end up controlled and regulated by the state.

Martha Fineman, a gender legal theorist, touched on this in her 2004 book The Autonomy Myth. In it, she argues for the abolition of state-recognized marriage because it allows for family privacy, writing that “Once the institutional protection [is] removed, behavior would be judged by standards established to regulate interactions among all members of society” (emphasis added).

Gender ideology is an effective statist tool. Cultural Marxists use it to corrupt language and sow confusion, especially among children. It paves the way for the removal of the institutional protections for freedom of association and family privacy that stand in the way of “regulating interactions among all members of society.”

How Could a Society Reject Its Own Freedom?

Getting free people to reject freedom may seem a tall order. How, you might ask, could people ever be convinced to let go of their families and consent to such a dystopian social structure? How do you get public opinion on board with an agenda that leads them to deny the reality of their own humanity?

There are lots of pieces to this puzzle, including the erosion of social trust, the breakdown of family, social polarization, and growing ignorance of history. But the groundwork has been laid over a long period of time.

First, virtually all outlets of communication had to be on board—Hollywood, academia, the media. Check. All medical personnel, particularly mental health personnel, had to be “educated” to comply with the transgender program or risk losing their licenses. Check. The educational establishment had to imbue schoolchildren with the ideology. Check. Large corporations had to get on board as stakeholders and enforcers. Check. And, of course, the push to legally de-sex society had to be embedded—Trojan Horse style—within a slightly less alien idea, with the slick slogan “marriage equality.” Check. Churches had to be brought on board so that even religion became a conduit for anti-truth. Check. Social, emotional, and economic pressures had to be established to censure anyone who dared to question the wisdom of it all. Check. Any such person had to be labeled a bigot, a hater, and a non-person. Checkmate.

At this point, the most primal and universal of human fears comes into play: the fear of being socially rejected. Self-censorship takes off. People start falsifying what they believe, until they eventually don’t even know what they believe anymore. Nobody can talk openly to one another. In the end, it’s as though we are each being marched into a separate solitary confinement cell. That’s what happens when free association takes a hit, when the state severs particular relationships in the name of a collective togetherness. Then, when we can’t verify reality with one another anymore—because we are so afraid of being ostracized—we end up living in an age of mass delusion.

The only way out is to affirm reality. We must reclaim our full humanity. Let’s start by reinjecting our language with one very good word that points to reality: sex. Yes, let’s revive the word “sex,” and use it generously whenever referring to the biological reality of our physical nature. (And spiritual nature too.) At the same time, let’s refuse—always—to use the word “gender” when we mean sex. It’s a poisoned and weaponized word that has been used to legally de-sex and thus dehumanize us all. We must work together to resist its deceptions.

Stella Morabito is a senior contributor to The Federalist and blogs about relationships, power, and freedom at stellamorabito.net. Article originally published at PublicDiscourse.com.

Some may remember the ecstatic press accounts of the first two women, Capt. Kristen Griest and 1st Lt. Shaye Haver, to make it through the grueling Army Ranger School. Well, here’s what former Marine Jude Eden shares in an article in Crisis Magazine about their headline-grabbing accomplishments:

The females who graduated Ranger School were given additional training and recycled at least twice through each phase where men are only allowed two recycles—at most—over the whole program. The third graduate got three recycles in at least one phase of Ranger School. Their graduation was planned in advance and the Army shredded their records less than a month after. Those records are usually kept for one to two years at the least, but the Army saw fit to destroy them for these individuals. Their graduation was presented as proof that women are just as capable as men of succeeding at combat. The reality was quite different, but why let the truth get in the way of a good story?

People magazine provided some illuminating details about the extra assistance offered to these women in the furtherance of “equality” and to ensure that at least one graduated:

• Women were first sent to a special two-week training in January to get them ready for the school, which didn’t start until April 20. Once there they were allowed to repeat the program until they passed – while men were held to a strict pass/fail standard.

• Afterward they spent months in a special platoon at Fort Benning getting, among other things, nutritional counseling and full-time training with a Ranger.

• While in the special platoon they were taken out to the land navigation course – a very tough part of the course that is timed – on a regular basis. The men had to see it for the first time when they went to the school.

• Once in the school they were allowed to repeat key parts – like patrols – while special consideration was not given to the men.

Marine Corps study on women in combat

A close look at a troubling Marine Corps’ study on the integration of women into the combat arms reveals what  common sense formerly revealed to reality-affirming people and may throw a wet army blanket on combat sex-integrationists’ celebration:

Combat Effectiveness

• Overall: All-male squads, teams and crews demonstrated higher performance levels on 69% of tasks evaluated (93 of 134) as compared to gender-integrated squads, teams and crews. Gender-integrated teams performed better than their all-male counterparts on (2) events.

• Speed: All-male squads, regardless of infantry [specialty], were faster than the gender-integrated squads in each tactical movement. The differences were more pronounced in infantry crew-served weapons specialties that carried the assault load plus the additional weight of crew-served weapons and ammunition.

• Lethality: All-male…(rifleman) infantry squads had better accuracy compared to gender-integrated squads. There was a notable difference between genders for every individual weapons system…within the 0311 squads, except for the probability of hit & near miss with the M4.

• Male provisional infantry (those with no formal 03xx school training) had higher hit percentages than the 0311 (school trained) females.

• All-male infantry crew-served weapons teams engaged targets quicker and registered more hits on target as compared to gender-integrated infantry crew-served weapons teams, with the exception of M2 accuracy.

• All-male squads, teams and crews and gender-integrated squads, teams, and crews had a noticeable difference in their performance of the basic combat tasks of negotiating obstacles and evacuating casualties. For example, when negotiating the wall obstacle, male Marines threw their packs to the top of the wall, whereas female Marines required regular assistance in getting their packs to the top. During casualty evacuation assessments, there were notable differences in execution times between all-male and gender-integrated groups, except in the case where teams conducted a casualty evacuation as a one-Marine fireman’s carry of another (in which case it was most often a male Marine who “evacuated” the casualty).

Starting in the 1960’s, reality-denying sexual revolutionaries began building a wall between common sense and nonsense. On the common-sense side of the wall now live a remnant of marginalized humans who still know what women and men are and that they are different. On the nonsense side live those who can’t tell the difference. Maybe the commonsensers can crowdfund a campaign to airdrop flyers with excerpts from the Marine Corps study into the Land of Nonsense.

Timeline on combat sex-integration efforts

Last December, Defense Secretary Ash Carter opened up all combat positions to women, including Navy SEALS and Army Rangers, refusing a request from the Marines for an exemption that would allow “infantry, machine gunner, and fire support reconnaissance” positions to remain “men-only.” No vigorous congressional debate complete with research-based evidence proving that such a radical change will not compromise military effectiveness. No siree.  Just another feckless fiat from the Obama Administration.

In February, Army Chief of Staff General Mark Milley, and Marine Corps General Robert Nelle testified before a U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee, stating that they believe women should be required to register with the Selective Service (SS) upon turning 18.

In April, two Republicans, U.S. Representatives Duncan Hunter (R-CA) and Ryan Zinke (R-M)—whose daughter is a Navy diver—introduced the “Draft America’s Daughters” amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for 2017.  They introduced the amendment only to spark congressional debate—not because they support women in combat or requiring them to register for the SS.  This ill-conceived maneuver resulted in the House Armed Services’ Committee passing the amendment 32-30. If it weren’t for six Republicans (Walter Jones [R-NC], Chris Gibson [R-NY], Joe Heck [R-NV]), Sam Graves [R-MO], Martha McSally [R-AZ], and Steve Knight [R-CA]) voting with Democrats, the amendment would not have passed.

In May, the U.S. House stripped the language that would have required women to register for the SS from the defense bill.

On May 26, U.S. Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) sponsored an amendment to the NDAA, stripping it of language requiring women to register with the SS. U.S. Senators Ted Cruz (R-TX), James Inhofe (R-OK), Mike Rounds (R-SD), Ben Sasse (R-NE), and Roger Wicker (R-MI) have co-sponsored the amendment, while establishment lawmakers Senators Lindsay Graham (R-SC), John McCain (R-AZ), and Mitch McConnell want to force women to register with the SS.

Conclusion

Eden identifies the purpose of the SS and why the politically motivated effort to require women to register ill-serves the country:

SS registration exists in order to induct “combat replacements” in a large-scale national emergency. It is not to fill desk jobs and support roles, it is to replace infantrymen who are dying by the thousands at the sharp end of our military spear….Where adding women palpably degrades combat effectiveness and adds significantly more risk and liability, there is no decent reason to draft women. The draft, like integrating combat units, is about the needs of the military, not equal career opportunity.

In this unstable time during which threats to national security are diverse and many, Eden reminds us of the importance of an effective military—something that is ill-served by nonsensical, futile efforts to pretend that men and women are the same.

Take ACTION: U.S. Senate debate on the NDAA, including on Sen. Lee’s amendment, is taking place this week. Please click HERE to send an email or fax to both U.S. Senators Dick Durbin and Mark Kirk as well as your local U.S. Representatives to tell them not to draft our daughters.

Follow IFI on Social Media!

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

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

Summer is the season during which countless parents take their children to visit our magnificent national parks. And this is a special year for our National Park Service in that August 25 marks the 100^th anniversary of the day President Woodrow Wilson signed the bill that officially recognized the National Park Service.

During this centennial year, President Barack Obama has decided that what the world needs now is a national park dedicated to sexual deviance. In his unbiblical belief that homoeroticism is something to be publicly celebrated, on June 24 President Obama proclaimed that the 1969 Stonewall riot that took place outside a seedy homosexual bar in NYC and which officially marks the start of the social and political revolution to normalize sexual deviance should be commemorated:

“I’m designating the Stonewall National Monument as the newest addition to America’s National Park System….I believe our national parks should reflect the full story of our country, the richness and diversity and uniquely American spirit that has always defined us.”

This proclamation follows as expectedly as dark night follows day from a president who has defaced the White House in the garish and misappropriated colors of the rainbow to honor the destruction of marriage by the five Supreme Court justices. About this defacement, Obama was pleased to say “how good the White House looked in rainbow colors.”

The rainbow, the symbol of God’s promise never to destroy the world for our iniquities, is now the appropriated symbol of the celebration of iniquity. The rainbow has been purloined by the perverse to represent the wholesale rejection of God’s order for maleness, femaleness, sex, and marriage. And our president, who claims to be a follower of Christ, not merely shares in the celebration of wickedness but uses the office established by God-fearing men to promote it.

Does Obama know something St. Paul did not, because while Obama celebrates faux-marriage, the creation of intentionally motherless and fatherless children, and riots in support of body- and soul-destroying sexual acts, St. Paul warns of the eternal consequences of homoeroticism:

“The men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error” (Romans 1:27).

“Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God” (1 Corinthians 6:9-10).

Was Obama’s unseemly act a proclamation of social and political liberation from unjust oppression, or was it the ordination of a gnostic/neopagan monument to the unyoking of sex from truth?

“For am I now seeking the approval of man, or of God? Or am I trying to please man?
If I were still trying to please man, I would not be a servant of Christ”
(Galatians 1:10)

It is undeniably true to say that never before in U.S. history has homosexuality been more acceptable, celebrated and promoted than it is today.   Although almost never mentioned, this change is having a negative impact upon many American’s physical health.  What we are seeing now may only be the tip of the iceberg as more and more young people are taught that homosexuality is a perfectly normal alternative lifestyle choice.

For example, a new report from the federal Centers for Disease Control (CDC) finds that disease among homosexuals is at a level not seen in 35 years before the scare of AIDS.    “We’re concerned about our high levels of syphilis among men who have sex with men – really we’re back to the level of disease – burden of disease – in gay men that we were seeing before HIV in this country,” said Gail Bolan, director of the CDC’s Division of STD Prevention at an event on Capitol Hill to lobby for more federal funds.

While rates among both men and women have risen, syphilis is a disease that disproportionately impacts men, who make up 90 percent  of the cases.   However, homosexual men now account for 83 percent of all the syphilis cases in America.   Homosexuals make up just 3 percent of the U.S. population.  The CDC also finds that half of men who have sex with men (MSM) who are infected with syphilis also have HIV.

The newest fad in American culture is faring even worse.  A report out last week from the CDC citing a systematic review of various studies concludes that 28 percent of all transgender women have HIV.  (A “transgender woman” is a biological male who identifies as a female, like Caitlyn Jenner.)      The health risks are even higher among black transgendered.  The CDC found that “56 percent of black/African American transgender women had positive HIV test results.”

While this message won’t appear in the movies, or pop culture, the CDC recommends that homosexuals get tested for HIV, syphilis, Hepatitis B, Hepatitis C, chlamydia and gonorrhea every year.   It is doubtful that any article about Bruce Jenner, or any school cowering to the Obama Administration’s push for genderless school bathrooms, has noted that people involved in transgender behavior now have the highest rate of newly identified HIV infections among any group according to the CDC.

Although it should be obvious, Christian pro-family activists take absolutely no joy in stories like this.  We care about all people. We believe that there is a much better way of life.  We believe that many times the most loving and compassionate thing one can do is to warn, “danger ahead . . . please don’t go there.”  This is much like a “no swimming” sign at a gravel pit, a “bridge out ahead” road sign or efforts to keep drugs and alcohol away from children.

Written by Anita Staver

The purpose of a public restroom is not to make a political statement. Sex-specific facilities were designed for male and female biological differences. Safety concerns are not bigotry.

Target recently highlighted its “inclusive” policy in an announcement, opening the door for any man, regardless of appearance, to stalk women and girls. Target’s policy will invite sexual predators to its stores, exposing women and girls to men peeking through cracks, over and under doors, or waiting for their next victim. Statistical data is not necessary.

I was traveling when the controversy heated up. Using Twitter to warn others, I retweeted an article about a boycott of Target that has ensued following the new policy. Next, I read about a 29-year-old Canadian high school basketball player, and tweeted: “Perhaps he identifies as a teen.”

Fresh from self-defense training with a rented Glock .45, en route to a Wal-Mart in gun-friendly Oklahoma, I constructed another satirical tweet: “I’m taking a Glock .45 to the ladies room. It identifies as my bodyguard.”

I added #BoycottTarget” as the trending topic. Tagging @Target on the end, I intended to draw the company’s attention to women’s safety, not to imply that I would go there. If I intended to visit Target I would have said, “I’m taking a Glock .45 to the @Target ladies room,” instead of adding @Target afterwards.

Our Facebook pages and Twitter feeds filled. Within a few days, the bodyguard tweet gained national media attention, combative commentary and an interview with Alan Colmes of Fox News.

More people agreed than not. One woman messaged me: “With how ‘social media brave’ people are lately, I admire that you keep your cool, continue to be a classy adult and don’t stoop to their level.”

Others — mostly radical leftists, sex addicts and porn-crazed perverts with vulgar profiles — painted me as a vigilante who would barge into a Target with an “assault rifle,” murder a transgendered person and terrify small children. Read my tweet. I never said I was going to Target, with or without a gun. Of course, a “bodyguard” is strictly for defense. Peace through strength.

If physically attacked, I would do as I was taught in self-defense class, and only take the action necessary to stop the aggression. Nothing in my tweet shows a violent intent, notwithstanding frequent and vigorous attempts to twist my words. But truth is irrelevant to “tweet-shamers,” Facebook trolls, smut bloggers and the complicit media.

When I share my concern about sexual predators, the bullies added snarky comments and victim-blaming rape stereotypes such as, “You don’t have to worry, honey no one would touch you!”

I will not be intimidated into silence. This issue is personal.

As a teen, I was the victim of two attempted sexual assaults by strangers in public places, but I managed to escape. In my 20s, a revolver became my constant bodyguard.

Instead of panicking over the prospect of a well-armed woman, the naysayers should be up in arms about sexual assault. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reports that nearly 20 percent of women in the United States have been victims of actual or attempted sexual assault. And those were just the women who admit to the attacks. I predict that number will increase when sexual predators realize they have easy access to potential victims.

Target’s policies and similar laws passed by misguided government leaders endanger lives. A quick online search for “sexual assault Target store” will bring numerous accounts of crimes already happening inside the stores. It is common sense that publicity about the company’s lax policy invites additional attackers. You may open your window for fresh air, but you wouldn’t broadcast it to potential burglars.

Special rules and laws favoring those who “identify” as the opposite sex can lead to outrageous incidents. In 2012, a middle-aged man born Clay Scott Francis, who called himself “Colleen,” insisted on using the women’s locker room at Evergreen State College in Washington. He was taking estrogen but did not undergo surgery and was attracted to women.

Mr. Francis exposed himself to girls on a school swim team who practiced at the college. Their request for privacy was rejected by the administration and the girls were forced to squeeze into smaller locker room to avoid a naked man.

There are numerous other reports of men who disguised themselves and victimized women. For the safety of women, a biological male should use the men’s bathroom due to physical differences. That is the solution that will keep some women from becoming victims. It is not unreasonable discrimination.

Company policymakers and government lawmakers must not paint a bullseye on women when we are already vulnerable to sexual predators in public places. Women just want to be safe.

Anita L. Staver is president of Liberty Counsel. Article originally published at WashingtonTimes.com.

Written by Denise Schick

Maybe parallel universes really do exist. Maybe, as my husband and I hiked through the deep, dark forest a few years ago, we somehow crossed through a portal, a stargate into another dimension—a universe that, superficially at least, looks quite similar to the one I’d known most of my life.

I almost hope that’s true. I’d like to believe it, because in the world I now inhabit—which outwardly resembles the one I remember—everything seems to have been turned inside out and become utterly bewildering.

Yes, I find myself wanting to believe that weird matrix explanation and to resist the more likely truth that the world I grew up in could have changed so completely.

I’d like to believe that somewhere back there the world I accidentally exited still exists—that world where gender was a fixed biological fact, determined at conception.

But no, this is not the Twilight Zone; it is not an inexplicable parallel universe.

This is 21st century America, and, according to an ABC news article on guidelines recently handed down by the U.S. Departments of Justice and Education:

There is no obligation for a student to present a specific medical diagnosis or identification documents that reflect his or her gender identity, and equal access must be given to transgender students even in instances when it makes others uncomfortable, according to the directive.

Yes, we really do live in a nation in which our government tells us girls and boys should be able to share restrooms and locker rooms. We really do live in a culture that values transgender rights over basic morality and children’s safety.

But the very hard reality in this topsy-turvy world is that transgender people are hundreds of times more likely to attempt suicide than the general U.S. population.

And what does our enlightened culture do about this very sad statistic?

Well, we make it easier for people to transition to this sad and depressing lifestyle. Helping them struggle down the hard road of facing reality is just too judgmental; it’s better to let them move into a make-believe life in which they face a 4-in-10 chance of attempting suicide.

My father gave in to his make-believe transgender impulses and became Becky. He’d spent most of his life dreaming of making that transition. When he finally left his family and got what he’d long desired, he still wasn’t fulfilled.

He considered suicide, but, thankfully, resisted. But later, pumped full of unnatural hormones and chemicals and adorned in women’s clothing, he died a sad, confused, forgetful, and regretful old man.

I missed Harold, the one who, during his periods of resisting his impulses, treated me as a father should treat his daughter.

I miss him dancing with my little feet placed on top of his, his big hands reaching down to clasp my little five-year-old hands. I miss those days of his sexual sobriety when we worked together at his father’s seed company and went to lunch together. I miss all those times when he accepted the reality that he was Harold, a man—a husband, father, and grandfather.

I don’t miss Becky, or those transition times when my father gave in to his transgender impulses. I don’t miss him telling me, when I was just nine years old, of his desire to become a woman and then requiring me to keep that confession a secret. I don’t miss the fanciful alternate world he transported into, leaving my mother emotionally distraught and financially destitute.

My father was the one who had entered another dimension, a make-believe dimension. And rather than returning to the real world, he wanted the real world to accommodate his make-believe world.

That’s what this small but vocal minority and their enablers want from the rest of the real world.

I’d like to believe that world in which truth is objective, and children’s modesty and safety is more important than being politically correct still exists and somehow I might find the portal to return to it. Back to that world where adults looked out for children’s best interests, even if doing so meant saying no and then dealing with rather than succumbing to the resultant temper tantrum.

I’d like to think that, in that parallel universe I inadvertently ambled out of, women and children’s safety is still more important than appeasing a tiny-but-very-vocal minority.

But it appears I’m no longer in that universe. I’m in one where choices—no matter how illogical—trump obvious facts.

I find myself in a world in which stating a very plain and evident biological fact is now considered a form of hate speech.

I’m now in a world that tells me I must not only tolerate but also celebrate behaviors that in just a relative eye’s blink before were condemned as detrimental to society.

 Originally published at TheDailySignal.com.

I have long said that the cultural tide will turn against sexual anarchy when its child victims grow up and tell their stories. In a culture that rejects reason and faith while concomitantly exalting subjective feelings, narratives carry immense power.

Eventually children who have been acquired by couples in inherently sterile homosexual unions will tell of their feelings of sadness at being intentionally deprived of a mother or father. Children of lesbians will expose the emotional and relationship instability in their homes. Children of homosexual men will share the pain of being raised in homes where promiscuity or sexual “non-monogamy” is accepted.

And one day, gender-dysphoric children will tell their tragic stories—children whose parents were persuaded that allowing their confused children to “transition” was not only the appropriate treatment protocol but also the only way to prevent their children’s suicides.

Children who were permitted to take chemicals to prevent puberty (and thus the formative social experiences that attend pubertal physical and emotional changes), who were permitted to take risky cross-sex hormones whose effects—including sterility—are permanent, and in some cases were permitted to have breasts amputated or testes excised will tell their stories.

Surely some will regret never knowing who they would have become if they had been permitted to develop in accordance with their objective nature. Some will regret never having had the social experiences that attend the sex they actually are. Some will regret not waiting to see if their gender- dysphoric feelings abated. Some will regret their sterility. And some will regret the health effects like venous thromboembolism, osteoporosis, or cancer that may result from a lifetime of hormone-doping.

Ironically, “progressives” who oppose trace amounts of hormones in the chicken they consume support the practice of cross-sex hormone-doping for minors for which there is little conclusive assurance of long-term safety. While leftists prefer their free-range chickens to be free of hormonal interference, they’re okay with mad scientists mutilating their bodies and pumping them up with risky chemicals.

The stories of two young women may be the harbingers of more sad revelations to come.

The first story is from Isaac Preiss, the only child of filmmaker Jeff Preiss and painter Rebecca Howe Quaytman, who appears in the Frontline documentary titled Growing Up Trans. Isaac, 19-years-old when the film was made, is objectively female and has followed the entire Dr. Moreau-esque protocol: She took puberty blockers, had a bilateral mastectomy, and continues to take testosterone.  Here are her tragic and insightful words:

I started realizing at around age 16, 17 what a huge, huge decision I had made, to embrace this masculine part of myself so deeply.  Going through an artificial puberty, I didn’t experience the sort of formative time, and I kind of mourn that…[W]e all know puberty is that sort of gross, slimy molding of everybody into a person,  and the way that I went through that was meticulously tested and controlled and dosed….[I]t’s been good, but I wonder what…role [natural puberty] has in a person’s conception of his or her gender. And I can never know that.

None of this is to say I made any…wrong decision or regret transitioning because it was really painful to be presenting as male and not be on testosterone and not have top surgery [i.e., bilateral mastectomy], and my mind was really cleared of that sort of pain after that….But it’s become really clear in recent years that any sort of big problems that I thought I would fix by transitioning weren’t really fixed.

I really don’t like to use the term regret, although it’s kind of hard to speak about how I feel about my gender without there being some element of regret or at least of fear…of what the implications of the choices that I made are. I’m putting a chemical into my body once a week….And there are very, very, very clear effects of that. And I’m assuming that there are also unclear effects. I mean, it is super easy as a kid to hear that these things are irreversible, and be like “Okay, I don’t care….I want it!,”…because you don’t think of time in the same way when you’ve only experienced a tiny, little sliver of it.

…I would like at some point to take a break at least from testosterone because I don’t like to imagine that the entirety of the time that I spend on this earth will be spent…separate from what my body actually is…I don’t really know what it is to be a man…in the body I was born in because I’ve only really been a man in the constructed body, which I enjoy and it’s comfortable, but also it’s not really my body.

How difficult it is to hear this young girl express what the adults in her life should have known about the inability of children to comprehend time and the implications of choosing irreversible chemical and surgical mutilation.

Preiss’s regrets are tepid in comparison to the regrets of Dr. Kathleen Levinstein, a professor of Social Work at the University of Michigan, Flint, who describes the suffering her gender-dysphoric daughter has endured as a result of the “treatment” she has received, including cross-sex hormones and a bilateral mastectomy one day after her 18^th birthday.

In a short interview, Dr. Levinstein describes the rarely discussed correlation between autism spectrum disorder and gender dysphoria. Perhaps this correlation is little discussed because it suggests that gender dysphoria is likely a disorder of the mind—not a chromosomal defect or a defect of the sexual anatomy.

Levinstein also shares the possibility that gender “therapists” might collude with body-mutilating Dr. Moreaus for ill-gotten financial gain.

And she sounds the alarm about the health risks of cross-sex hormones, about the dangers posed by the perverse organization Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG), and about how the selfish, cultural ambitions of the “trans” community stand in the way of research, children’s health, and honest public dialogue:

My daughter, who is on the autism spectrum, as am I, is now 19 years old. She had felt (and told others) that she was a lesbian most of her life. When she was 16, she began watching a TV show called “Degrassi,” which featured an FtoM [female to male] character. After a few weeks, she announced that she was not actually a butch lesbian, as she had previously said, but was in fact trans. She started attending a local PFLAG meeting, where she met many trans people, including a number of FtoM trans teenagers who were raving about a certain “gender therapist.” Although the APA recommends a minimum of one year of “gender counseling” before surgery, this gender therapist (whom I consented to, before really understanding what I was doing) gave my daughter the go-ahead to have a bilateral mastectomy after only two sessions. This gender specialist never reviewed any of the Special Ed records or spoke to my daughter’s previous therapist, who had known her for a decade. And, crucially, she never asked my daughter, “Might you be a lesbian?”

The gender therapist (whom I believe has an unholy financial alliance with the surgeon) gave my daughter (then 18 and one day) the go-ahead for the $30,000 surgery (covered for all university employees and their families where I work). My daughter is now on testosterone (which she clearly is unable to evaluate the risks and consequences of).

…

She has been taken advantage of. Healthy organs were amputated. This is insurance fraud, poor clinical practice, a violation of APA standards, unethical and unjust. It is a crime not just against women, but particularly against disabled women. So many of these young women who are “transitioning” are also autistic.

…

You mention that your daughter previously considered herself a lesbian, and this changed when she started watching the TV program “Degrassi.” Was that the only thing that influenced her to claim a trans identity? Was there anything else?

Other than Degrassi, the PFLAG meetings–which are now the cult of trans–sealed her fate. There were no young lesbians there. In fact, there are very few young lesbians left–they are all transitioning….

She had a legal name change in Dec of 2014, a bilateral mastectomy in April 2015, and started testosterone in Sept 2015.  My daughter has severe Crohn’s Disease, and currently, she is having grave reactions to the testosterone. She has been hospitalized three times now for complications.

Many professionals, as well as some autistic people themselves, have written about the fact that young people on the ASD spectrum are often “gender nonconforming” and have a less stable sense of identity. Can you speak to this regarding your daughter?

I DO believe that there is an overlap with the autistic and transgender populations.  Some studies show a higher level of testosterone in autistic human beings. For males a high enough level of testosterone converts to estrogen. This may explain the large number of autistic people of both sexes claiming that they are transgender….

[A]nyone asking for critical thinking about these issues with autistics is accused of ableism and transphobia. This is often an effective silencing tactic. I have found no allies in the autism community. Instead, there is a vilification of anyone daring to ask questions about these issues, including the evidence of MtoF physical, sexual and psychological violence against women. Women who publicly question receive death threats, threats to rape us and our children, burn us to death with gasoline, decapitate us, and so on. This all coming from people who claim they are our “sisters.”

Given that your daughter was recently hospitalized for health issues related to her use of testosterone, have you found any medical professionals who are willing to speak up about this?

I have found no health professionals willing to go on the record against this. Everyone is afraid of professional suicide and threats of violence. I am standing alone.

My daughter’s latest hospitalization has been described by doctors as due to “absorption issues.” She now has a full beard but still has her period. The testosterone is wreaking true havoc on her system.

Autistic women (again, I am one) frequently have a difficult time, sensory-wise with their periods. But rather than attempting to help us with this difficulty, our problems get labeled “gender dysphoria” and the answer has become to remove our periods from us.

We will find out in 20 years the effects of testosterone on our young women. I am confident that it will not be a pretty picture.

Dr. Levinstein is wise to question the eagerness with which many in the medical communities advocate quack chemical and surgical interventions for gender-dysphoric minors. A 2015 Finnish study on gender-dysphoric adolescents reveals some surprising—and for “trans”-activists, inconvenient—results:

Of children with even severe gender dysphoria and cross-sex identification, about 85% do not develop a persistent transsexual identity in adolescence….

…

Adolescence is a period of identity formation….Identity is formed through diverse physical and psychological developments and in relation to other people and the social environment. An adolescent also faces fundamental identity challenges in the domains of religion, worldview, ethnicity, sexuality and the like. Identification with various groups is often passionate during adolescence, but the object of identification may also change, even several times. Adolescents are more suggestible and submit more readily to group pressure to gain acceptance. Adolescence is a period of maturation of social cognition, and a prerequisite for the maturation of social cognition is the maturation of the central nervous system that continues to the third decade of life. During puberty and adolescent development there may be some overlap between normative testing of sexuality and gender roles in the one end, and gender dysphoria [GD] as a disorder in the other end of the spectrum. This would implicate that GD in adults and in adolescence may not be the same issue in general. For these reasons it is more challenging to assess whether the gender identity of an adolescent is so firmly established that physical intervention is indicated than it is to assess this among adults.

In the majority of the applicants, gender dysphoria presented in the context of wider identity confusion, severe psychopathology and considerable challenges in the adolescent development. At this point it is not possible to predict how gender dysphoria in this group will develop: will gender dysphoria in these adolescents cease with the resolution of wider developmental problems, or perhaps consolidate later into transsexual identity, with the completion of the developmental tasks of adolescence.

…

Adolescents seeking sex reassignment [SR] represent a variety of developmental pathways differentiated by the timing of onset of gender dysphoria, psychopathology and developmental difficulties. It is important to be aware of the different groups, or developmental pathways, in gender dysphoric adolescents in order to be able to find appropriate treatment options. In the presence of severe psychopathology and developmental difficulties, medical SR treatments may not be currently advisable. Treatment guidelines need to be reviewed extended [sic] to appreciate the complex situations.

Perhaps this Finnish study will throw a monkey wrench into the barbaric works of leftists. Oh, who am I kidding. Leftists don’t really care about the welfare of minors. For them, everything is political, including children’s health.