Written by Scott Phelps

Charlie Sheen’s HIV diagnosis comes as a great surprise to Hollywood and the rest of the nation. Sheen says that the news of his infection was “a mule-kick to my soul.” Indeed. The news is particularly startling because HIV in the U.S. is an extremely rare disease even among those who like Charlie Sheen are notoriously promiscuous.

According to the Centers for Disease Control, there are an estimated 20,000,000 cases of sexually transmitted diseases per year in the United States. Of these infections, an estimated 41,000 are HIV. This means HIV represents less than one quarter of one percent of all STDs. This isn’t to minimize concerns about HIV but rather to place it in context with other STDs such as human papilloma virus, chlamydia, and herpes for example.

Sheen’s news is especially surprising because while HIV is rare, it is almost unknown among white heterosexual men in the U.S.  Of the estimated 41,000 annual cases of sexually transmitted HIV, the CDC estimates that white heterosexual males account for just 422 of those cases.  That estimate is about 40 percent higher than the reported 305 cases in the current report.  In other words, the high-water CDC estimate is that white heterosexual men account for just 1 percent of HIV cases in the U.S.  So yes, Charlie Sheen’s news is a big surprise.

With Hollywood, the internet, and the entertainment media being the primary educators of our youth in today’s culture, those of us who are parents and teachers have our work cut out for us to wrestle back our roles as primary educators on these matters. The CDC provides helpful guidelines:

“School systems should make programs available that will enable and encourage young people who have not engaged in sexual intercourse and who have not used illicit drugs to continue to:

• Abstain from sexual intercourse until they are ready to establish a mutually monogamous relationship within the context of marriage.

• Refrain from using or injecting illicit drugs.”

“For young people who have engaged in sexual intercourse or who have injected illicit drugs, school programs should enable and encourage them to:

• Stop engaging in sexual intercourse until they are ready to establish a mutually monogamous relationship within the context of marriage.

• To stop using or injecting illicit drugs.”

This is the primary prevention message on HIV/AIDS of which we hear far too little and is virtually unknown to America’s youth.

On World AIDS Day and throughout the year, we who are parents, pastors, and educators would do well to provide a clear, honest, simple message for our youth: “HIV is an almost entirely preventable disease and the best way to avoid infection is to save all sexual activity for marriage.”

Charlie Sheen says he will now work to help others avoid his fate. If he will promote this primary message he will succeed where many have failed and will leverage his pain for the good of others. We wish him all the best in this noble effort.

Scott Phelps is executive director of the Abstinence & Marriage Education Partnership near Chicago. Learn more at abstinenceandmarriage.com.

This article was originally published at chicago.suntimes.com.

ACLU attorney John Knight who represents the gender-dysphoric boy in the lawsuit against District 211 has issued this statement about the agreement reached between the district and the Office for Civil Rights (OCR)—a clarification that should deeply trouble District 211 community members:

We also remain disturbed by the inaccurate, misleading and fundamentally troubling language used by the District, even as they adopt this agreement. For example, the District said last night that transgender students who are provided access to locker rooms consistent with their gender identity “will utilize a private changing station when changing clothes or showering” and will not be allowed unrestricted access to the locker room. This is not what the agreement with OCR provides. The agreement specifically says that “based on Student A’s representation that she will change in private changing stations in the girls’ locker rooms, the District agrees to provide Student A access to locker room facilities designated for female students at school.” Nowhere does the agreement require Student A to use a private area to dress and such a requirement would be blatantly discriminatory. [emphasis added]

According to the ACLU of Illinois, the Office for Civil Rights “clearly stated that our client, like all students, does not have to use a privacy curtain. She may choose to do so, but she is not required to use the privacy curtain under the settlement.”

To my non-attorney eyes, it appears that Knight and the OCR are correct. This is what the agreement actually states:

For the duration of Student A’s enrollment in the District:

1. based on Student A’s representation that she will change in private changing stations in the girls’ locker rooms, the District agrees to provide Student A access to locker room facilities designated for female students at school and to take steps to protect the privacy of its students by installing and maintaining sufficient privacy curtains (private changing stations) within the girls’ locker rooms to accommodate Student A and any students who wish to be assured of privacy while changing;

There is no requirement that the boy use the private changing stations.

Moreover, again according to the ACLU of Illinois, the OCR claims the agreement between District 211 and the OCR “applies to all students, not just our client,” which directly contradicts what the district is claiming in its Frequently Asked Questions:

Will this Resolution Agreement require specific locker room access for all transgender students in District 211?

No. The Resolution Agreement pertains to one student in District 211 — the student who filed the original complaint with the Office for Civil Rights.

Will this Resolution Agreement require specific locker room access for transgender students in all school districts throughout the state and nation?

No. The Resolution Agreement pertains to one student in District 211 and does not extend to other students in District 211 or to other school districts.

District 211 taxpayers should be troubled by either the incompetent lack of understanding by district leaders or their deception.

In another frequently asked question, the district admits that the school which the gender-dysphoric boy attends will not be identified and that no parents will be notified if a gender-dysphoric student will be using a locker room with their sons or daughters.

Hard science-denier John Knight also made this ludicrous and ironic statement:

[T]he District continues to demonstrate a wanton ignorance of the science of gender by persisting in drawing a false distinction between transgender persons’ gender and anatomy. Let me be clear. My client is a girl – full stop.

The District’s refusal to accept transgender students as girls and boys is extremely harmful for all students, but especially those who are transgender. We had hoped the District would embrace this moment as an opportunity to educate itself and its community about what it means to be transgender. Unfortunately, that has not happened.

Precisely what “science” proves that there exists no distinction between gender-dysphoric persons’ “gender and anatomy”? If there were no distinction between their “gender” and anatomy, then gender-dysphoric persons would not be lopping off breasts and penises, shaving down Adam’s apples, adding fake breasts, and taking puberty-blockers and dangerous cross-sex hormones.

Clearly there is a distinction between the gender-dysphoric boy’s anatomy/biology and his “gender” (i.e., his desire about his anatomy/biology). His objective, scientifically verifiable anatomy (and barring the presence of an intersex condition, his DNA) is male. He desires to be female. That, Mr. Knight, is a distinction.

No one is obligated to accept the a-scientific proposition that the descriptor “girl” refers to a psychological condition rather than a biological condition. Mr. Knight’s client is a boy—full stop.

Support the work of IFI

Did you hear?  IFI has been given a challenge match of $55,000. So, between now and the end of the year, you can help us raise $110,000!  Please consider making an end-of-year donation to help us stand strong!

Illinois Family Institute
P.O. Box 88848
Carol Stream, Illinois 60188

(Gifts to IFI are tax-deductible.)

Palatine resident and pastor of the Village Church of Barrington, David W. Jones, attended the District 211 Board of Education meeting on Wednesday night and sent the following letter to the District 211 School Board immediately following the meeting. If only every pastor, priest, elder, and lay person would follow Pastor Jones’ example, perhaps further harm to children and truth can be prevented.

Make no mistake, the kind of assault on truth and reality that is taking place in District 211 is coming to all public schools—including elementary schools. The issue of how biological sex is treated in public schools should not concern just families with children in schools. It should concern every follower of Christ. First, the children in school today will be our culture-makers tomorrow. Second, if we love our neighbors as ourselves, we should care deeply about the dissemination of body- and soul-destroying lies. And third, what our taxpayer-funded schools teach through curricula, policy, and praxis is a stewardship issue.

Please read, be inspired by, and emulate Pastor Jones:

I am writing to express my disagreement with the outcome of last night’s school board meeting vis-à-vis the OCR agreement. I was present at the meeting. It was clear that a significant majority were opposed to settling with the OCR. Although I did not keep score, I would estimate that at least 80 percent of those who spoke—some eloquently—were opposed to any compromise with the federal government on this issue. It grieves me that the board caved in to the OCR’s unlawful demands. The OCR cannot redefine our society’s legal definition of gender. What will the federal government demand next? (I acknowledge the previous sentence to be a type of “slippery slope” argument. But that form of argument is not always invalid, if one can demonstrate the mechanism by which further changes will likely happen.)

It was also surprising to find the D211 website updated shortly after the meeting with several statements that appear to have been worded carefully and approved by legal counsel. This suggests that the decision was a fait accompli before the hearing began. If this is true, then it was not a hearing at all but rather only the appearance of one. It is hard not to feel betrayed as a resident and taxpayer. This feeling only increased when I read the board’s statement: “We have implemented practices surrounding transgender student access to restrooms for two-and-a-half years, without incident.” Is this the first time that policy has been made public? If so, why were not parents informed about this earlier?

We are kidding ourselves if we think that this issue is limited to one student. Now that the precedent has been set, and the OCR knows that it can intimidate local school districts in general and D211 in particular, it will just be a matter of time before it comes knocking again. There will be more gender-dysphoric students, and they will demand special rights like “Student A.” How can they be denied? Also, how will a school board be able ultimately to deny access to any student who claims to be the opposite gender? How could that person’s claim be invalidated? If male students begin to populate female sports teams, that will give them an unfair advantage. If female students begin to populate male sports teams (e.g., football), they could actually be hurt. Title IX was originally about leveling the playing field. The OCR’s current interpretation will actually have the opposite effect, putting female students at a distinct disadvantage. That is not a little ironic.

With all due respect, last night’s decision by the board was a bad one. It fails to protect adequately the privacy of actual females, while granting special rights to a young man who is confused about his gender. The requirement to retain an adolescent gender expert—at taxpayer expense—also concerns me. What ideology will drive this individual? What else will they force upon our schools and, therefore, our students? I am afraid that the board’s decision could have significant consequences down the road, many of them unintended. I do not know if the board can reverse its decision; I would urge you to do so.

Sincerely,

David W. Jones

Support the work of IFI

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

Please consider making an end-of-year donation to help us stand strong!

Illinois Family Institute
P.O. Box 88848
Carol Stream, Illinois 60188

(Gifts to IFI are tax-deductible.)

Against the wishes of the majority of community members who spoke at last night’s District 211 Board of Education meeting, the district capitulated to most of the Office for Civil Rights’ (OCR) demands with regard to the gender-rejecting boy who wants unfettered access to the girls’ locker room.

According to one attendee, approximately 80 percent of attendees who spoke opposed any capitulation to the leftist demands of the OCR, and yet within hours of the meeting’s conclusion, the agreement with the OCR had been posted on the school website, indicating that the “hearing” was merely for show. The Faustian bargain had already been struck and the school board held the charade of a hearing just to placate community members. Community members never really had a voice in the district’s momentous, ignorant, unjust, anti-science, anti-rationality, anti-sex decision.

The only small bit of good news is that the gender-rejecting boy at the center of the controversy still does not have unfettered access to the girls’ locker room. He may enter the locker room at will, but when changing clothes, must use private, curtained areas. Apparently any girls who wish not to be seen unclothed by him must use these areas also.

Now that a boy is allowed in the girls’ locker room, the district will provide what are essentially uber-tiny locker rooms within locker rooms.

Even locker rooms that exist solely to separate boys from girls can no longer separate boys from girls. Nothing, not even reality can stand in the way of feelings of sexuality anarchists.

In addition to forcing girls into privacy stalls if they don’t want to be in the presence of a boy while changing clothes in their own locker room, the district has caved to the almighty and highly politicized federal bureaucrats by agreeing to hire a consultant to make sure their capitulating efforts are sufficiently Leftist.

To ensure that the district’s efforts to pretend this boy is a girl are pleasing to Leftists, it must not only hire a consultant who is practiced at the art of deception but must also report back to the OCR begging for their approval and a forgiving kiss on the brown nose.

According to the agreement, the consultant must be an expert in “transgenderism” and “gendernonconformity,” which means the consultant must embrace Leftist assumptions about “gender identity.” Before the district may hire this consultant, it must be granted permission from the unelected, dictatorial, paternalists at the OCR.

You think my rhetoric is excessive? Well, chew on this excerpt from the agreement:

Reporting Requirement: Within 30 calendar days of the execution of this Agreement, the District will provide OCR with a written summary of the expert consultant it proposes to engage, including that individual’s application and resume and/or documentation concerning the individual’s previous position(s), employer(s) or professional affiliation(s).

The OCR has final approval of the Leftist consultant “nominee,” whose salary must be covered by the district.

Oh, but that’s not all, no that is not all.

Already, unbeknown to community members, the district has allowed gender-rejecting students to use opposite-sex restrooms, play on opposite-sex athletic teams, and change their names and sex on official school forms. This spanking new agreement forged in secret with no community input, however, also requires the following:

• When the district sponsors off-campus activities (e.g., prom), the district must work with the hosting facility to ensure that the gender-rejecting boy has access to opposite-sex facilities in the “least disruptive manner” for him. No mention about the degree of disruptiveness high school girls or the employees of the hosting facility must endure.

• The actual sex (or as Leftists and District 211 call it “assigned sex,” by which they must mean “assigned by DNA”) of the gender-rejecting boy on any school documents must be kept separate from his school records in order to better conceal reality and in order to better deceive others.

• If any other students request additional privacy, the school must make reasonable accommodations. So, if a girl—I mean an actual girl—is uncomfortable changing in one of the uber-tiny, makeshift, curtained “privacy” rooms with a boy changing in the uber-tiny “privacy” room beside her, the school must find another solution, and report all of this to the OCR. Of course, what high school girl is going to risk being called hateful by saying this whole mess makes her uncomfortable? The Left wins by humiliating people into submission.

• If the gender-rejecting boy desires a “support team,” well by golly, he gets an entire support team that must include “at a minimum” the boy, his parents, “an advocate or representative of the parents’ choice (if any), a medical professional of the parents’ choice (if any), and relevant District personnel familiar” with the boy. All details related to the composition of the team and content of the meetings must be reported to Big Brother.

• The district is required to create and submit for approval to Big Brother a new non-discrimination policy, and is required to submit “compliance reports” so that Big Brother can make sure the district is behaving in a sufficiently toady-like fashion.

• The district is required to provide a “detailed description of all gender-based discrimination or harassment complaints or incidents” that occur during the OCR’s “monitoring” period which extends to June 30, 2017.

The ACLU, who represents this tragically confused boy, the OCR, and every other Leftist organization promoting ignorant beliefs about sexuality are also guilty of exploiting children. Lying homosexualists put children on the frontlines of an ugly cultural war against truth and then blame those who speak truth when children are bloodied.

Every board member who voted for this agreement should be voted out come their next election, and the cowardly superintendent should be fired.

While those efforts are underway, parents should seriously consider alternative educational options for their children. Public schools are only going to get worse.

Support the work of IFI

If you believe in the mission and purpose of Illinois Family Institute, please send your most generous contribution to IFI today. IFI is supported by voluntary donations from individuals like you across the state of Illinois. Donations to IFI are tax-deductible.

Illinois Family Institute
P.O. Box 88848
Carol Stream, Illinois 60188

(All gifts to IFI are tax-deductible.)

Big liberal government is putting the boot on a local school district–remove the gender barriers in your lockers rooms or lose taxpayer funding. But a pro-family leader says parents must fight back and demand that education leaders adhere to common sense.

Consider an end of year tax-deductible Gift

If you think our work is worthy, would you please consider an end of the year tax deductible gift to support the work of the Illinois Family Institute?

Click HERE to donate online now.

Again, thank you for caring enough to be part of our mission to represent Illinois’ Christian families. As you know, there will be much more work to be done in 2016 and together we are making a difference educating and motivating the Christian community in Illinois.

Your support is directly helping us establish a strong and consistent presence in the public square — representing your voice, and your values — proudly pro-life, pro-marriage and pro-family.

Written by Kaeley Triller

A stunning rift within the cultural/political movement to normalize sexual perversion has emerged or, more precisely, been exposed. While the leftwing press, with feigned drama as if they’re revealing a state secret, proclaims to the world differences among conservatives, they are masters of concealing rifts among their own darling constituencies, and this one’s a doozy.

A petition drive has been started by homosexuals calling for the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD), Lambda Legal, HuffPost Gay Voices, and  the homosexual magazines The Advocate, and Out Magazine to sever ties between the “LGB” community and the “trans” community.

Here are excerpts from the startling and ironic accusations against the “trans” community made by petitioners on the left-leaning petition-generating site Change.org, claims that will sound familiar to conservatives who have been fighting pro-homosexual tyranny:

1.)  The homosexual petitioners accuse “trans” people of “the vilification and harassment of women and gay/lesbian individuals who openly express disagreement with the trans ideology; a simple disagreement over an issue can result in responses that range from insults (‘transphobic bigot’) to threats of physical harm (often, in the case of women, rape) and even death….”  

2.)The homosexual petitioners accuse “trans” people of “The infringement of the rights of individuals, particularly women, to perform normal everyday activities in traditional safe spaces based on sex; this is most pernicious in the case of men claiming to be transgender demanding access to bathrooms, locker rooms, women’s shelters and other such spaces reserved for women.”  

3.)  The homosexual petitioners strongly oppose the early diagnosis of children as “transgender”: “Most troubling, by persuading parents and health professionals to diagnose children as young as four as transgender, despite considerable research that shows that more than 90 percent of children who express “gender dysphoria” at a young age grow out of it by adolescence…”

What? Disagreement over ideology results in insults and threats of harm? How shocking. Almost as shocking as finding gambling going on in Casablanca.

I keep a running document of the threats of harm I receive from homosexuals for daring to express my disagreement with their ideology. Not even the ignorant Fred Phelps ever issued a threat as malignant as the ones (click here and here. *WARNING*) that I have received from homosexual men because I disagree with their ideology.

British homosexual journalist Milo Yiannopoulos writing for Breitbart vigorously endorses the petition indicting the “trans” community and inadvertently the homosexual community:

It’s time to eject transgender people–specifically, the screeching, bullying, authoritarian trans rights lobby–out of the gay club….

[I]t’s trannies forcing their way into the high school girls’ locker room courtesy of Title IX, a set of rules designed primarily to assist female athletes. We’re even seeing the growth of a cottage industry of mediocre male boxers who declare themselves “women” and start dominating female competitions, doing serious injury to “cis” women in the process….[V]ery often those playing the trans card in the media, whether personally transgender or not, are very often the most awful people on the planet: hectoring, nannying control freaks…

And I must warn you. Should you dare to question transition surgery as the most effective or humane treatment pathway for patients with gender dysphoria – and I’m the only high-profile LGBT person to have repeatedly done it, even after sustained and bilious backlash –…. They threaten to burn you in effigy on a pride float designed by heterosexual accountants, and that’s just the start.

IFI is in complete agreement with the petitioners who argue that “a discussion must be opened up to these issues, which for too long are being suppressed and censored….[W]e feel that the transgender ideology is not compatible with the rights of women…and children.”

We agree that sex matters—and by “sex” we mean objective biological sex—and that women—and by women, we mean humans with XX chromosomes—are entitled to private spaces for private activities.

We agree that the “transgender” ideology is incompatible with the rights of children.

We agree that minors ought not be labeled “transgender.” Children should not receive puberty-blockers, cross-sex hormones, mutilating surgery, or be referred to by opposite-sex hormones.

And we agree with the proposition that ideological disagreement should not result in epithet hurling or threats.

The freedom to disagree ideologically extends even to the frighteningly well-armed border around homoeroticism. People have the right to disagree with the epistemological, teleological, and ontological assumptions of the Left regarding all things homosexual.

And we believe that those who dare to dissent from “LGB-QQIAP” dogma should be free to refuse to bake anti-wedding cakes and still keep their jobs.

We need you now more than ever!  Please partner with IFI
as we stand on the front lines for marriage, family, life and liberty.

For some time now I’ve been saying that gay activists will overplay their hand and that the bullying will backfire. I’ve also said that we can outlast the gay revolution and ultimately, by God’s grace, turn the moral tide in America.

Of course, to speak like that is to invite all kinds of scorn and ridicule, not to mention the ugliest death wishes you could imagine. How dare we not roll over and die!

But events from the last 10 days remind us that, even though the cultural battles promise to be long and difficult, many Americans are ready to push back.

To begin with, the significance of the election results from last Tuesday can hardly be overstated.

In Kentucky, while the liberal media mocked Kim Davis the people of her state stood with her, electing Matt Bevin as governor in a crushing and unexpected victory over Attorney General Jack Conway.

And make no mistake about it: This was a direct statement about religious freedoms and redefining marriage.

After all, it was Conway who rose to national fame last year when he refused to defend the state’s ban on same-sex ‘marriage,’ despite his oath of office, explaining to Time magazine that, “Once I reached the conclusion that the law was discriminatory, I could no longer defend it.”

I guess the people of Kentucky didn’t get the memo that the ship has sailed and the culture wars are over.

Then, in Houston, lesbian activist mayor Annise Parker suffered a stinging defeat when her “anti-discrimination” bill, which focused on LGBT “rights,” was crushed by the voters.

In the aftermath of the massive defeat – 62 to 38 percent – Parker was reduced to insulting those who voted against the bill, calling them “transphobes” and more.

So, the people of Houston, America’s fourth largest city, are a bunch of transphobes.

Or, perhaps the triumph of LGBT activism is not so inevitable and there are real issues that having nothing to do with “homophobia” and “transphobia”? And perhaps there’s something to the fact that some strongly conservative Republican presidential candidates are polling better than Hillary Clinton?

Perhaps this really is time for pushback?

And what should we make of the fact that the NFL has decided to bring the Super Bowl to Houston in 2017 despite the defeat of Parker’s bill, even though proponents of the bill had warned that Houston would lose the Super Bowl if the bill was defeated? Perhaps even the NFL, well-known for preaching LGBT “inclusion,” sees the bigger picture?

In the aftermath of the Houston defeat, there were also small signs of a breach between gay activism and transgender activism, as indicated by a petition launched on Change.org by “a group of gay/bisexual men and women who have come to the conclusion that the transgender community needs to be disassociated from the larger LGB community; in essence, we ask that organizations such as the Human Rights Campaign, GLAAD, Lambda Legal and media outlets such as The Advocate, Out, Huff Post Gay Voices, etc., stop representing the transgender community as we feel their ideology is not only completely different from that promoted by the LGB community (LGB is about sexual orientation, trans is about gender identity), but is ultimately regressive and actually hostile to the goals of women and gay men.”

The petition was named “Drop the T,” and it’s a reminder of the fact that transgender activists have often felt left out by mainstream gay activism, as reflected in headlines like “Why The Transgender Community Hates HRC” (2007) and “Even After All These Years, HRC Still Doesn’t Get It” (2013).

This too is noteworthy, reminding us that there are cracks in the foundations of LGBT unity that could become wider in the coming years.

There’s one more story from Houston which is of interest, providing yet another example of LGBT overreach, this time in a case involving two Christians who were fired from the daycare center at which they worked when they refused to call a little girl a boy.

The girl in question, just 6-years-old, is being raised by two gay male parents, and we can only wonder if that has something to do with the child’s gender confusion.

As explained to Breitbart Texas by one of the fired workers, Madeline Kirksey, “the problem was not so much with the transgender issue as it was with telling young children that the little girl was a boy when she was not, and with calling her ‘John’ (not the name given) when that was not her name.”

Kirskey also noted that, “sometimes the little girl refers to herself as a little boy, and sometimes she tells the other children to not call her a boy or to refer to her by her masculine name.”

This child is clearly confused and needs professional help.

Instead, rather than getting help for the child, two Christians have lost their jobs, and I cite this example to say again that Americans will only put up with madness like this for so long, just as the selection of Bruce Jenner as Glamour’s woman of the year drew sharp criticism from a wide spectrum of women, including one well-known feminist.

The pushback continues, and the more that LGBT activists overplay their hand, the quicker the tide will turn against them. It’s only a matter of time.

And so, while as followers of Jesus we should seek to be peacemakers in our communities, loving our neighbors (including our LGBT neighbors) as ourselves, we should also stand tall against aggressive LGBT activism.

This too is part of our calling to be the salt of the earth and the light of the world (Matthew 5:13-16).

This article was originally posted at TownHall.com

Is it true that the push for “transgender rights” is simply a compassionate effort to protect a tiny, vulnerable portion of society? Is it an innocent, well-meaning effort that will not adversely affect other Americans? The answer to these questions is decidedly No. While we should be compassionate to those who struggle with gender identity issues, we should beware of the push for “transgender rights.”

To be sure, we already have reason to be concerned about the normalizing of transgender identity in our society, from the almost satirical choice of Bruce Jenner to be Glamor magazine’s Woman of the Year to shocking stories like this one, reported by family activist Linda Harvey:

A 17-year-old Chicago girl recently had healthy breasts amputated because she read about the possibility of becoming ‘transgendered’ and decided this was the answer to her depression and suicidal tendencies — and her parents said, ‘Well, OK.’ So Emily is now called ‘Emmett’ and has just begun hormone therapy to (supposedly) become a male.

Yet there is far more at stake than public perceptions about gender identity and the health and well-being of teenagers who amputate healthy body parts.

We’re talking about downright dangerous legislation that even affects our children in their schools. Under the guise of LGBT non-discrimination bills, an aggressive agenda is being advanced across the country, one that protects LGBT “rights” at the expense of the rights of other citizens, foremost of which are our religious rights.

Thankfully, many American Christians have recognized the very real, gay-activist threat to these freedoms of speech, conscience and religion. But when it comes to transgender issues, most are not as aware of the real issues involved.

One obvious concern is the impact on our privacy, specifically, in public bathrooms and locker rooms. If LGBT activists have their way, public bathrooms and locker rooms would be rendered gender neutral, leading to obvious chaos, confusion and possible danger.

As a woman, would you want to use a gender neutral bathroom? As a father, would you want to send your daughter into one? How about you as a woman having to get undressed in the fitness center’s locker room next to a biological male who identifies as a female? (This is not hypothetical; see here.)

How about that biological male getting undressed in the locker room next to your wife, sir?

Transgender activists want to be able to use the bathroom and locker room of their perceived gender identity, no matter how uncomfortable it would make anyone else, thereby imposing the struggles of less than 1 percent of the population on the other 99 percent.

And, while I do not believe that a man who truly believes he is a woman is going into the bathroom in order to check out the ladies — or worse — I’m quite sure that heterosexual predators have taken advantage of these situations to pose as transgender women in order to have access to unsuspecting women. As reported October 8, the “University of Toronto Dumps Transgender Bathrooms after Peeping Incidents.”

Yes, “The University is temporarily changing its policy on gender-neutral bathrooms after two separate incidents of ‘voyeurism’ were reported on campus September 15 and 19. Male students within the University’s Whitney Hall student residence were caught holding their cellphones over female students’ shower stalls and filming them as they showered.”

What kind of madness is this?

It is the madness of the gender-neutral bathroom craze, a direct result of transgender activism. More seriously still, younger children are being negatively impacted, without parental knowledge or consent. As reported by MassResistance on February 19, 2013, “The ‘transgender agenda’ onslaught is now hitting Massachusetts schoolchildren with full force. What you are about to read is nothing short of madness. But it is happening.”

These charges are then outlined in disturbing detail, with direct citations from the Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education’s Gender Identity document, including:

• There is a difference between a child’s “assigned sex at birth” and his or her “gender-related identity.”
• All schools must include “gender identity” in policies, handbooks and written materials.
• “A student who says she is a girl and wishes to be regarded that way throughout the school day and throughout every, or almost every, other area of her life, should be respected and treated like a girl. So too with a student who says he is a boy and wishes to be regarded that way throughout the school day and throughout every, or almost every, other area of his life. Such a student should be respected and treated like a boy.”
• Parents can be excluded from the process of a student changing his or her gender identity if the student so desires, meaning that if Jane decides to become Joe at school while hiding this from her parents, she can do so, provided she has a letter from a “parent, health care provider, school staff member familiar with the student (a teacher, guidance counselor or school psychologist, among others), or other family members or friends” verifying that she wants to be treated as a boy.
• The concept of “gender”/biological sex will be removed from all school life.
• There will be mandatory transgender diversity training for children and school staff.
• There will be no tolerance for other students’ discomfort with transgenderism.

As Brian Camenker of MassResistance said to the school board when these changes were being announced, this is “complete lunacy.” But it could well be coming to a school near you if transgender activists succeed.

You have been forewarned.

This article was originally posted at the Stream.org.

The controversy over locker room policy for gender-confused students in Township High School District 211 here in Illinois has erupted nationally. The Office for Civil Rights, a division of the intrusive Department of Education, has decided that the district violates federal legislation by not allowing a gender-dysphoric high school boy unrestricted access to all areas of the girls’ locker room. Since the highly politicized Office for Civil Rights is publicly lying pretending that District 211 in Illinois is violating Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, it might be helpful to read the relevant parts of Title IX:

[T]itle IX of the Education Amendments of 1972…is designed to eliminate (with certain exceptions) discrimination on the basis of sex in any education program….A recipient [of federal funds] may provide separate toilet, locker room, and shower facilities on the basis of sex, but such facilities provided for students of one sex shall be comparable to such facilities provided for students of the other sex.

In 2014, unelected employees with no legislative authority in the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) unilaterally proclaimed that the term “sex” in Title IX includes “gender identity” and “gender expression.” They sent their astonishingly arrogant proclamation—referred to as “Dear Colleague” letter—to all public schools.

Even though the OCR is lying through its rainbow-tinted teeth, let’s conduct a thought experiment, which is another way of saying let’s explore the logical outworking of another flaky and destructive Leftist assumption.

Since “LBTQQIAP” activists are nothing if not dogged in their pursuit of unfettered sexual anarchy, and since far too many conservatives, especially political leaders, are largely ill-informed cowards, let’s imagine that Lefties win the day and are permitted to determine what the meaning of “sex” is. “Sex” in our thought experiment now means objective biological sex, and “gender identity,” and “gender expression.”

In a disturbing segment on the FOX News show The Kelly File last night, host Megyn Kelly interviewed Dr. Daniel Cates, superintendent of District 211. In her interview Kelly stated that District 211 has not only set up a private changing area in the locker room for the gender-dysphoric boy but also agreed to allow his friends—that is to say, girls—to change with him. This decision, along with allowing the boy to use the girls’ restrooms, necessarily means that the district no longer has an absolute prohibition against boys and girls sharing restrooms or changing areas. If, as the superintendent said in a recent statement, “boys and girls are in separate locker rooms for a reason” related to anatomical differences, why allow this boy in the girls’ locker room or restrooms at all? And why allow girls to voluntarily change with him?

Moreover, if objectively male students are permitted to use girls’ restrooms and enter girls’ locker rooms, and if girls may voluntarily choose to change clothes with an objectively male student, why is such mixing of sexes permitted only for those students who wish they were the opposite sex? Wouldn’t allowing only gender-dysphoric students to use opposite-sex restrooms and locker rooms constitute discrimination based on “gender identity”?

Presto change-o, the Left will effectively efface another essential boundary. In the twinkling of a winking eye, all boys will be able to use girls’ restrooms and locker rooms, and vice versa. The ancient heresy of Gnosticism that devalues physical embodiment and the pagan worldview of “oneism” that seeks to merge opposing binaries rear their ugly heads again, obliterating any cultural recognition of the meaning of sexual differentiation. As theologian and pastor Doug Wilson said in a recent (and soon to be released) IFI interview, “All idolatries have contradictions built into them.”

Let me be clear: The logical and inevitable conclusion of these restroom/locker room policies, which are embedded with non-factual assumptions about the nature of physical embodiment, is to eradicate all distinctions in language, law, and social institutions between male and female.

Chew on that for a moment, then gather those dust-collecting spines from the attic, and do something courageous with the doggedness of the Left.

Partner with Illinois Family Institute as we continue to stand
on the front lines for marriage, family, life and liberty.

Article originally posted on WND.com

In 2012, the fast-food restaurant Chick-fil-A came under intense criticism from homosexual groups and their supporters after CEO Dan Cathy said he was “guilty as charged” for supporting traditional marriage.

Christians overwhelmingly gave their support, filling restaurants with new customers who turned out, not only for the food, but to make a statement.

That may all be about to change.

Chick-fil-A is now listed as a sponsor for Level Ground, a “faith-based LGBT film festival,” reports Christian News Network — a discovery that has sparked an online petition demanding the company clarify its “corporate stance regarding previously stated Christian values on marriage and stewardship.”

According to Level Ground’s website, the group “creates safe space for dialogue about faith, gender, and sexuality through the arts.” The group’s film festival started as a student-run event in 2013. It has since expanded and hosted programming in six cities across the U.S., billing itself as “the world’s first film festival connecting lesbian, gay and transgender sexuality with faith and evangelical Christianity.”

Baptist Press reported participants in Level Ground’s most recent film festival, held Oct. 8-10 in Nashville, Tennessee, included former contemporary Christian artist Jennifer Knapp, who came out as a lesbian in 2005, and Karen Swallow Prior, a Liberty University English professor and research fellow for the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention. Gracepointe Church, an evangelical church in Franklin, Tennessee, that came out in January in support of same-sex marriage was also a sponsor.

Prior tweeted her appreciation to Chick-fil-A for its support in Nashville.

image: http://www.wnd.com/files/2015/10/pryor_tweet.jpg

“Outlasting the Gay Revolution” spells out eight principles to help Americans with conservative moral values counter attacks on our freedoms of religion, speech and conscience by homosexual activists

This is not the first indication of a possible Chick-fil-A about-face. In June, a local restaurant donated 200 sandwiches and side dishes to the Iowa City Pride Fest’s picnic. The restaurant’s owner, Adam Donius, agreed to this arrangement, according to local reports, after being approached by event organizers.

“We offered him different ways he could contribute and be a part of our bridge, help us build community,” Iowa City Pride chairwoman Jewell Amos said. “He said he totally believes in building community. So he was like, ‘sure.’”

Likewise, Chick-fil-A franchisees in Southern California are participating in fundraisers for Level Ground.

Chick-fil-A has been under pressure since 2012 when CEO Dan Cathy gave an interview to Baptist Press, saying, “We are very much supporting of the family — the Biblical definition of the family unit. We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that.”

Later in a radio broadcast, Cathy expressed his concern about the growing call to legalize same-sex marriage.

“As it relates to society in general, I think we’re inviting God’s judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at him and say, ‘We know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage,’” he said. “And I pray God’s mercy on our generation that has such a prideful, arrogant attitude to think that we have the audacity to try to redefine what marriage is about.”

Christian News Network reached out to Chick-fil-A for comment and explanation from the corporation regarding the reported sponsorship of Level Ground, but received no response. Following the controversies of 2012, the company had announced its “intent … to leave the policy debate over same-sex marriage to the government and political arena.”

“For many months now, Chick-fil-A’s corporate giving has been mischaracterized,” the fast-food chain wrote in a separate news release. “Our intent is not to support political or social agendas.”

But now, some Christians see the Chick-fil-A brand re-entering the debate supporting an agenda to distort and infiltrate their faith.

How did America get from “Mayberry” to “gay marriage?” Here’s the explanation, in “A Queer Thing Happened to America: And What a Long, Strange Trip It’s Been.”

Geoffrey Grider, Christian blogger at NowTheEndBegins, criticized the Chick-fil-A association with Level Ground, saying the group has “one agenda, the promotion of the ‘Love Gospel,’ … a perverted brand of “christianity” that only focuses on the love of God, and leaves out everything having to do with sin and judgment. The Love Gospel states that because the Bible says that ‘God is love,’ then everything and everyone must be accepted. You have to accept same-sex marriage, transgender, cross-dressing, whatever …”

Grider continued: “Shame on you, Dan Cathy. Christian Americans stood by you and Chick-Fil-A every step of the way back in 2012 when you were persecuted for taking a stand for Jesus Christ. But we will not stand with you on this. No sir. One of my favorite places to get lunch is at one of your restaurants, but that can and will change. Your move.”

Article was originally posted here

By 2nd Vote

Again, the City of Houston is at the center of the liberal assault on religious liberty and traditional values.

Today, Houstonians head to the ballot box to vote on Proposition 1, also known as the Houston Equal Rights Ordinance (HERO).

The latest article from The Daily Signal’s Kelsey Harkness highlighted the high stakes of today’s decision using 2nd Vote’s research:

[R]esidents aren’t the only ones having a say in the debate. According to groups supporting the measure, a number of big businesses have gotten behind the ballot initiative, urging voters to say “yes.” Seven of the biggest include:

1.     Apple
2.     BASF
3.     Dell
4.     Dow Co.
5.     General Electric
6.     Hewlett Packard
7.     United Airlines

HERO has been controversial since it was first implemented in 2014 and Houston area pastors leading the effort to recall the measure had their sermons subpoenaed by city attorneys. 2nd Vote stood with the Family Research Council and the Houston pastors just one year ago this week in support of religious liberty.

More on the HERO measure from The Heritage Foundation

Ryan T. Anderson, Senior Research Fellow:

Once again big business wants its freedom to operate according to its values, but wants to deny that freedom to others… In Houston they are advocating for the kind of policy that has elsewhere penalized family businesses of bakers, florists and photographers, as well as faith-based adoption agencies. This is cultural cronyism at its worst.

United Airlines Funds Advocacy for HERO

2nd Vote’s research team found political advertising paid for by the Business Coalition for Prop 1 in the weeks leading up to today’s vote. A newspaper ad signed by executives from JPMorgan Chase, UnitedHealthCare, Citi, HSBC Bank and others in support of the HERO measure ran in the Houston Chronicle.

The latest election finance reports shows a direct contribution of $10,000 made by United Airlines to this organization.

Does United Airlines align with your values? Tell their leadership why companies shouldn’t undermine religious liberties here or through the United Airlines Twitter page.

Thousands of parents in District 211, the largest high school district in Illinois, should be outraged. And anyone who rightly fears the ravenous appetite of the slavering dumb beast we call the federal government should be equally outraged. The beast’s minions in the laughingly called Office for Civil Rights (OCR), which is a gangrenous section of the cancerous federal Department of Education, has concluded its 2-year investigation of District 211’s actions with regard to a male student who wishes he were a girl. Through its minion the OCR, the Fed-Beast (FEAST), lusting after the bodies and brains of children, has concluded that District 211 has violated federal law.

The very troubled boy—and he is a boy—at the center of this phantasmagorical tale wishes to remain anonymous, so hereafter he will be referred to as “Lola.” Lola has been seeking unrestricted access to the girls’ locker room—yes, you heard that right. Lola—an actual, factual boy, complete, one presumes, with the requisite anatomical parts—wants unrestricted access to the girls’ locker room, which would, of course, include the shower.

Plot summary

What District 211 has already agreed to:

In acts of contortionist-worthy back-bending and misguided charity, the district has agreed to have all school records identify gender-dysphoric students by their new names, identify them as the sex they are not, and refer to them by opposite-sex pronouns (which is to say that the district is lying on school records). In addition, gender-rejecting students are allowed to use opposite-sex bathrooms and are allowed to play on opposite-sex sports teams.

But that’s not all, folks, oh no, that’s not all. According to the Chicago Tribune, the district has also “installed four privacy curtains in unused areas of the locker room and another one around the shower.” This means a boy may, if he wishes, walk through the locker room to the shower area, where presumably girls are showering, to use these private changing areas.

But, even that leaves the beast, its minions, and its allies slavering for more.

What beast-ally John Knight demands:

John Knight, Lola’s ACLU-attorney and FEAST’s ally, vehemently opposes the district’s excessive accommodation of Lola, bleating that requiring Lola to use private dressing areas is unacceptable:

It’s not voluntary, it’s mandatory for her [sic]….It’s one thing to say to all the girls, ‘You can choose if you want some extra privacy,’ but it’s another thing to say, ‘You, and you alone, must use them.’ That sends a pretty strong signal to her [sic] that she’s [sic] not accepted and the district does not see her [sic] as girl.

Word to Knight, neither the “the district” nor any student has a moral obligation to “see her [sic] as a girl,” because he isn’t a girl.

What the beast-minion OCR has decided:

Student A has not only received an unequal opportunity to benefit from the District’s educational program, but has also experienced an ongoing sense of isolation and ostracism throughout her high school enrollment at the school….All students deserve the opportunity to participate equally in school programs and activities—this is a basic civil right….Unfortunately, Township High School District 211 is not following the law because the district continues to deny a female student the right to use the girls’ locker room.

So, now it’s a civil right for boys to use girls’ restrooms, changing areas, and showers.

By “law” the OCR is referring to Title IX, the federal law that prohibits discrimination based on “sex,” which the unelected minions in the OCR have unilaterally decided includes “gender identity” and “gender expression.” When the law was written, “sex” meant objective biological sex, and the law has not changed. The school policy changes that the beast-minion OCR is demanding would require that if gender-rejecting humans with male DNA and penises want to change clothes and shower with girls, they must be allowed to do so—and girls must comply or change in private areas. Not wanting to shower with boys is now seen as an act of bigotry and hatred.

What bothers Lola:

According to the Chicago Tribune, “the student, who plays for the school on a girls’ sports team, said she [sic] broke down in tears after her [sic] coaches reprimanded her [sic] for using the locker room to change. The coach told her [sic] some students felt uncomfortable dressing in front of her [sic].”

Think about what that means. It means Lola—a boy—is offended that girls don’t want to change clothes in front of him. Lola is essentially demanding that everyone accept his delusion that he is in reality a girl.

What Superintendent Daniel Cates rightly and courageously said about this arrogant and preposterous decision:

“The policy that OCR seeks to impose on District 211  is a serious overreach with precedent-setting implications….The students in our schools are teenagers, not adults, and one’s gender is not the same as one’s anatomy….Boys and girls are in separate locker rooms—where there are open changing areas and open shower facilities—for a reason.”

Conclusion

It’s not tax rates or immigration policy or ISIS that most gravely injures and weakens America. It’s the bloodthirsty devouring of the hearts, minds, and bodies of our children; the dismantling of marriage and family; and the erosion of the First Amendment. Deception and depravity are consuming our children, often by nibbles that barely register and at other times by huge chunks. The father of lies conceals his deceit under a cloak of compassion. Christians should not be so easily deceived or so easily cowed.

“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone,
“it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”

“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.” “The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master—that’s all.”
~Through the Looking Glass, Lewis Carroll~

Boldly standing for the truth.  Is truth a priority for you?

By Bill Bumpas

A pro-family organization says it was surprised to learn that “American Girl Magazine” has decided to step into the culture war in favor of homosexuality.

“American Girl,” owned by toy manufacturer Mattel, featured a picture of a family with two dads in an article about adoption.

One Million Moms, a ministry of the American Family Association, says it supports adoption but “glorifying sin” is not how to bring attention to it.

By praising the homosexuals’ adoption, says OMM director Monica Cole, Mattel has decided it will force a conversation between parents and children, even though that’s a topic that “parents may not feel that their child is ready to have yet.”

The website for “American Girl” states that the bi-monthly magazine reaches more than 400,000 girls. The magazine is targeted at girls ages eight and up.

On its website, OMM features a photo of the magazine story on its website, describing how “Daddy” and “Dada” adopted children from foster care.

The picture was published in the magazine’s November/December issue, which could end up affecting Mattel’s bottom line.

“I believe the retailer is shooting themselves in the foot,” says Cole, “because conservative and traditional families will not be able to purchase their products in good conscience this Christmas season.”

One Million Moms is asking its members and others who are concerned to contact “American Girl” and Mattel, and urge the company to remain neutral in the culture war. Contact information is on the OMM website.

This article was originally posted here

Jonah Goldberg

It’s been a good month for champions of the traditional family, but don’t expect the family wars to be ending any time soon.

In recent weeks, a barrage of new evidence has come to light demonstrating what was once common sense. “Family structure matters” (in the words of my American Enterprise Institute colleague Brad Wilcox, who is also the director of the National Marriage Project at the University of Virginia).

And Princeton University and the left-of-center Brookings Institution released a study that reported “most scholars now agree that children raised by two biological parents in a stable marriage do better than children in other family forms across a wide range of outcomes.” Why this is so is still hotly contested.

Another study, coauthored by Wilcox, found that states with more married parents do better on a broad range of economic indicators, including upward mobility for poor children and lower rates of child poverty. On most economic indicators, the Washington Post summarized, “the share of parents who are married in a state is a better predictor of that state’s economic health than the racial composition and educational attainment of the state’s residents.”

Boys in particular do much better when raised in a more traditional family environment, according to a new report from MIT. This is further corroboration of Daniel Patrick Moynihan’s famous 1965 warning: “From the wild Irish slums of the 19th century Eastern seaboard, to the riot-torn suburbs of Los Angeles, there is one unmistakable lesson in American history; a community that allows a large number of men to grow up in broken families, dominated by women, never acquiring any stable relationship to male authority, never acquiring any set of rational expectations about the future — that community asks for and gets chaos.”

Perhaps most intriguing — and dismaying — a new study by Nicholas Zill of the Institute of Family Studies found that adopted children have a harder time at school than kids raised by their biological parents. What makes this so dismaying is that adoptive parents tend to be better off financially and are just as willing as traditional parents, if not more so, to put in the time and effort of raising kids.

Zill’s finding highlights the problem with traditional family triumphalism. Adoption is a wonderful thing, and just because there are challenges that come with adoption, no one would ever argue that the problems adopted kids face make the alternatives to adoption better. Kids left in orphanages or trapped in abusive homes do even worse.

In other words, every sweeping statement that the traditional family is best must come with a slew of caveats, chief among them: “Compared to what?” A little girl in a Chinese or Russian orphanage is undoubtedly better off with two loving gay or lesbian parents in America. A kid raised by two biological parents who are in a nasty and loveless marriage will likely benefit from her parents getting divorced.

“In general,” writes St. Lawrence University professor Steven Horwitz, “comparisons of different types of family structures must avoid the ‘Nirvana Fallacy’ by not comparing an idealized vision of married parenthood with a more realistic perspective on single parenthood. The choices facing couples in the real world are always about comparing imperfect alternatives.”

Of course, that point can be made about almost every human endeavor, because we live in a flawed world. And just because we don’t — and can’t — live in perfect consistency with our ideals, that is not an argument against the ideals themselves.

It shouldn’t surprise anyone that family structure is so controversial. The family, far more than government or schools, is the institution we draw the most meaning from. From the day we are born, it gives us our identity, our language and our expectations about how the world should work. Before we become individuals or citizens or voters, we are first and foremost part of a family. That is why social engineers throughout the ages see it as a competitor to, or problem for, the state.

And the family wars will never end, because family matters — a lot.

This article was originally posted at the Los Angles Times.