SB 1619, the comprehensive sex ed bill that is heavily promoted by the ACLU and Planned Parenthood, is one more demonstration of the left’s fervor to mainstream homosexuality and Gender Identity Disorder through legislation. Some may wonder just how ideas about homosexuality and “transgenderism” will work their way into sex ed curricula if this bill should pass. This dangerous goal will be accomplished through SB 1619’s requirement that “all course material and instruction shall be free from bias in accordance with the Illinois Human Rights Act.” There are significant problems with this language and its intent.
First, the Illinois Human Rights Act defines sexual orientation as “actual or perceived heterosexuality, homosexuality, bisexuality, or gender-related identity, whether or not traditionally associated with the person’s designated sex at birth.” The tortured silliness and postmodern slipperiness of the phrase “gender-related identity, whether or not traditionally associated with the person’s designated sex at birth,” should be so obvious as to require no discussion. But the reasons for this silliness may be less obvious. For those untutored in the ways of concealing sexual deviancy, “gender-related identity” is a more publicly palatable term for Gender Identity Disorder and its attendant cross-dressing behavior. Proponents of “comprehensive” sex ed seek to disassociate cross-dressing and elective amputations of healthy body parts from the reality that these behaviors are manifestations of a disorder.
Second, the word “bias” never appears in the Illinois Human Rights Act.
Third, the term “bias” is not defined in SB 1619. You can bet your bottom dollar if proponents are compelled to define “bias,” they will define it in such a way as to result in the inclusion of resources that affirm subversive assumptions about homosexuality and Gender Identity Disorder.
Liberal ideologues use “bias” to refer to any moral propositions with which they disagree. But The American Heritage Dictionary defines “bias” as “a preference or inclination, esp. one that inhibits impartial judgment.” In its usage note it further explains that “Bias has generally been defined as “uninformed or unintentional inclination.” This definition reveals that informed, intentional, thoughtfully constructed opinions — even negative opinions — do not constitute bias. The belief that heterosexual acts are morally superior to homosexual acts does not constitute bias unless it is uninformed. Conversely, those who believe that heterosexual acts and homosexual acts are morally equivalent would be guilty of bias if they had not thought and read deeply on the foundational ontological and moral issues.
Fourth, the intent of including the reference to the Illinois Human Rights Act is to require that public schools treat homosexuality and cross-dressing as if they were ontologically and morally equivalent to heterosexuality, which, of course, requires prior assent to the propositions that they are ontologically and morally equivalent to heterosexuality. Treating homosexuality as if it’s ontologically and morally equivalent to heterosexuality is necessarily an act that embodies and expresses a moral belief. It is decidedly not a morally neutral act. Why should the left’s radical and unproven ontological and moral assumptions be codified in law?
And why should any Illinoisan allow the feckless notion that Gender Identity Disorder is not a disorder to be implicitly promoted in law and our schools. The accurate, apolitical term for the mental disorder in which an individual falsely believes that he or she is born in the wrong body is Gender Identity Disorder. This is the term used in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders that is published by the American Psychiatric Association. Only liberal activists hell-bent on normalizing all manner of disordered thoughts, impulses, and behaviors would seek to use the euphemisms “gender identity,” “gender-related identity,” “gender expression,” or “transgender.” Those terms have no place in legal documents or school policies. Any legislator, school administrator, or school board member with an ounce of intelligence would vigorously oppose the inclusion of what are clearly political and rhetorically manipulative terms.
The presence of ambiguous, undefined, and euphemistic language in SB 1619 is yet more reason to reject this controversial bill that homosexual activists and their ideological accomplices are using to propagandize children.
