Speech to the Illinois District 109 Board of Education Regarding the Forcible Transfer of Children from Parents to the State (August 21st, 2025)

     What follows is my fourth speech to the Illinois District 109 Board of Education, regarding the locker room policy at Alan B. Shepard Middle school in Deerfield, Illinois.

     In February 2025, at Shepard, at least three administrators who were strangers to students, allegedly coerced several 12- and/or 13- -year-old girls into undressing and changing, while evidently failing to ensure that a transgender-identifying student, born male, was able to see them.

     This speech was read at the monthly business meeting of the District 109 Board of Education, which meets on the third Thursday of each month at 517 Deerfield Road in Deerfield, at 7:00 P.M..

     The time limit for speakers is three minutes; this speech would have taken about four or five minutes to read in full. It was delivered with edits, in an abbreviated form.

      Since April, I’ve been advocating for the construction of more locker rooms and restrooms for non-binary individuals. But I just watched an interview with Nicole Georgas, from March, in which she claimed that the locker room controversy began when the trans-identifying student had access to a non-binary bathroom but refused to use it.

     So – assuming that’s true – I'd like to clarify, by saying this:

     It is important to build an equal number of bathrooms – for non-binary, intersex, and transgender people – for the sake of ensuring equal accommodations. If equal accommodations can be ensured, then there is no excuse to object to designating non-binary restrooms as the restrooms that non-binary students are supposed to use.

     The restroom problem has been solved; the new problem seems to be that the trans student doesn't want it solved. But the locker room problem persists; so please build new locker rooms for non-binary students.

     I left you last time by asking you to look up the phrase “forcible transfer of children from one group of people to another”. I mentioned that phrase because it is one of the components of genocide, and because I worry that your staff may have committed it in February.

     To be clear, I am not directly accusing you of genocide. Rather, I am saying that, if children were an ethnic group, then the Illinois Democrats – the people who want you to enforce this locker room policy – would arguably be complicit in genocide (and so might you, by extension, for helping to enforce it, rather than exercising your natural right to conscientiously object to abusing children as part of your jobs).

     To review:

     Since you caused children to fall into the custody of at least three strangers, you arguably committed unlawful detention, and possibly even kidnapping (because transfer that happens without parental knowledge cannot possibly be consensual on the part of either the parents or the child). If it’s not consensual, then it’s coercive; and therefore (covertly) forcible.

     I submit that this is the same type of "forcible transfer of children" which the definition of genocide describes; hence, my concern.

     I will now cite the definition of genocide, from the Cornell Law School’s law dictionary, to defend my argument.

     As I explained, one of the components of genocide is the forcible transfer of children from one protected group of people to another. Also, to commit genocide, someone must target an ethnicity for destruction.

     It is worth noting here - as an aside - that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights says that each of the world's independent nations has "the right to compulsory education" of children. Children have a right to be educated... by force.

     Excuse me, but if we're having a "say something that doesn’t make sense" contest, then I raise you "children are an ethnicity".

     Ethnicity is not a strictly genetic concept, in the way that race is, because it can include religion. Under the widest possible definition of “ethnicity”, children could count as an ethnic group, because they all have a shared custom in common; namely, child's play.

     But even if children could never legally be considered an ethnicity, they are still a protected class (because the case of Troxel v. U.S. affirms that child custody is conditional upon not abusing the child). And parents, likewise, have the protected right to retain custody, provided they refrain from abusing their kids.
     [And if you doubt that the state is a protected class, you can study 11^th Amendment case law regarding the state’s sovereign immunity, its right to extend that immunity to others, and legal limitations upon the right to sue the government.]

     So, then, it would not be out of line to suggest that these children were forcibly transferred from one protected group of people (parents) to another protected group of people (the school, which is part of the state), in a way that comports with the definition of genocide.

 

     Last month, I talked about the sterilization of kids with the puberty blocker Lupron. I don't know how many of you are in favor of puberty blockers, but you should know that eleven- and twelve- year-old girls are having hormone-emitting devices installed in their arms while they scream. I hope you do not support that. But to those of you who do, I say this:

     The children at Shepard were forcibly transferred; some of the girls who were victimized might decide never to have children because of this.

     You also, arguably, destroyed this group of children "as such", meaning that you took their childhoods; destroying them inasmuch as they were children. Destroying a group "as such" is another component of genocide. As Stromboli says in Pinocchio, "They don't come back [from Pleasure Island] as boys".

     So if you're in favor of risking committing kidnapping, and traumatizing people into not reproducing, and sterilizing non-consenting minors with chemicals - and I and the girls' parents are against those things - then whom, exactly, is committing the genocide against trans children?

      There’s more than one theory, here, about who “the real Nazis” are.
     Stop enforcing the locker room policy. The use of force is wrong.

Written and published on August 21st, 2025

Based on notes taken in July 2025.

Edited on August 22nd, 2025.

Speech to the Illinois School District 109 Board of Education Regarding Gender Integration of Locker Rooms at Shepard Middle School (April 10th, 2025)

I. Introduction

      The following text is a speech I delivered, in part, at the April 10th meeting of the Board of Education of Illinois School District 109, which governs Shepard Middle School in Deerfield.

     Readers seeking additional context and background for this article, should read my previous article about the topic - titled "Reaction to Shepard Middle School Staff Pressuring a Girl to Disrobe in Front of a Trans-Identifying Boy" - which was published on March 20th. That article is available at the following address:

     http://aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2025/03/reaction-to-shepard-middle-school-staff.html

     The speech below would probably take about six minutes to read, the board's normal limit is three minutes - and their limit was reduced to two minutes on April 10th in order to accommodate more speakers - so an abbreviated version of the speech was delivered to the board.
     What follows is my second draft of the speech, without omissions or abridgement. This is the full text of what I would have said, had my time been unlimited.

     The April meeting of the District 109 Board of Education was held at 7:00 P.M. on the evening of Thursday, April 10th, 2025, at Caruso Middle School, located at 1801 Montgomery Road in Deerfield.
     Another meeting will take place at the same time and location, on Thursday, May 8th, 2025.

     [Notes:
     1. I plan to use the initialization "B.L.I.N.T." to refer to "Bathrooms and Locker-rooms for Intersex, Non-binary, and Trans Individuals" in upcoming writing and/or campaigns.
     2. During the April 10th meeting, I learned that one of the causes for the conflict was that not enough private stalls were available to biological cisgender girls who wished to change in a room apart from the trans-identifying male. I think it is reasonable to assume that the reason not enough private stalls were available, was probably because a majority of the girls did wish to change separately from the trans child.]

II. Speech

     Pardon me for speaking quickly.
     My name is Joe Kopsick, I’m a security guard who attended Lake Forest -area schools, and I pay taxes that fund schools in Waukegan, where I live.

     While I support Nicole Georgas’s proposal to label existing locker rooms for biological males and females, I would also like to urge the school to add additional private stalls in boys' and girls' locker rooms, as well as new locker rooms and bathrooms which would provide equal access and accommodations to transgender, intersex, and non-binary individuals.

     Providing private changing facilities to girls who don’t want to undress in the same room as a trans student… was already the compromise position, just a few years ago. But now, even that has been taken away.
     There is no reason to limit normal access to the private stalls within the girls’ locker room, by biological cisgender girls; because prior to February, one hundred percent of the people who used that room, were satisfied with those arrangements.
     In many schools, boys and girls play sports together on the same fields and courts, at the same time; including in wrestling. Yet nobody makes the boys and girls change or shower in the same room. There would be no need for that. So, then, why must the fact that boys and girls and trans kids are playing together on the field, mean that they also must change and undress and shower together, off the field? No reason at all. So why do it?
     Neither girls' comfort nor trans people's comfort is more important than the other. That’s why each group should be afforded the same equal right to exclude, in order to achieve a relative degree of privacy.
     If someone assigned male at birth, wants to use the girls’ locker room, and there is no mutual agreement that they’re welcome in either locker room, then they need a third locker room. They would have plenty of room, and plenty of privacy, and would know that they can never get kicked out.
     If we’re going to have gender-integrated sports, then 1) boys, girls, and non-binary students should not be made to undress in the same room as each other; 2) students and parents should be fully informed of any risk of injury from sports; and 3) students should be free to choose whether to play on a gender- integrated or -non-integrated team. That’s the only way this can be consensual for everyone involved.

     Additionally: The school seems adamant that nobody was forced to undress. If that’s true, then it’s only because the girl resisted. The girl complained, and called her mom. That’s the evidence of force.
     They tried to make her undress; that’s the force. …If you’re charged with attempted murder, you don’t get to go free just because your attempt didn’t succeed. The attempt was still illegal. You still attempted to force a child to undress. That's the force.
     Beatings and assault are overt force. But pressure, intimidation, manipulation, and threats are covert force. So is taking away alternatives, which are normally available, for no good reason – such as the private changing stall.
     You might say, “Well, the other girls complied. Certainly that was voluntary.” Not true; they were given no choice but to undress. Their parents didn’t know that that was happening to them at the time. Most of the girls probably undressed because they were afraid not to. They were intimidated. That’s the force.

     If the teachers blocked the exit (and please correct me if I'm getting any facts wrong), then that's the force. That’s probably unlawful restraint, and therefore possibly also false imprisonment, or maybe even kidnapping. In my opinion, it’s entrapping a minor to commit an act of public indecency. The people who did this, need to be investigated for any and all offenses they might possibly have committed.
     The fact that coaches and administrators would not have forced the girl to change, if it had been another cis girl who had made her uncomfortable, means that this could only have been done for the sake of public humiliation.

     To the parents of the trans-identifying child:
     Nobody hates your kid; we are concerned about your kid. Nobody thinks your kid doesn’t exist, and nobody wants anybody to have to show their genitals in order to enter a bathroom or locker room.
     The trans kid is just a shield, whom the staff is using, to deflect criticism away from themselves, to defend exercising more and more control over your kids every day. Most of the people saying trans kids belong in girls' locker rooms, are doing everything they can to make it look like the people saying they don't, hate trans kids, rather than that they are upset with the teachers (which is the truth of the matter).
     The teachers, coaches, and administrators who allowed this, want to deflect criticism away from themselves; because they don’t want anyone to find out that, every school day, 78.3 students are molested or raped by a teacher or fellow student – and that’s just what’s reported – as of the 2017-18 school year. Assuming a 180-day school year, and seven hours and twenty minutes of school per day, that’s one molestation, somewhere in America, every five minutes and thirty-seven seconds (during school hours).
     [Source: http://www.politico.com/news/2020/10/15/sexual-violence-reports-rise-drastically-at-schools-education-department-data-shows-429663]

     The police, lawyers, and judges in Lake County are doing everything they can to stop lawsuits against abusive teachers from going forward. And the money to hire lawyers to defend teachers for rape, comes mostly from taxpayer funds.

     How am I supposed to sleep, knowing this? How am I supposed to work, knowing what my money will be spent on?

     In effect, all of you are forcing me, and other taxpayers who don't have children, to fund - through my taxes - people who help teachers get away with molesting and raping your children.
     Please stop forcing me to fund this system of molestation factories that you call public schools.

     As far as I’m concerned, every public school should lose federal education funding, whether they end gender separation or not. They rape over fourteen thousand kids per year. On top of that, education was never legally made into a federal issue to begin with.
     We must elect a governor who will nullify Pritzker’s Executive Order 2019 11, and we must amend Section 3B of the Illinois Human Rights Act. We must convince local sheriffs to refuse to enforce laws that force children to engage in public indecency, and to file charges against each and every sex crime suspect (regardless of profession, wealth, or reputation).
     To any children who are listening: Your teachers don’t care about your safety, and your parents have sold you into slavery. Nobody is going to defend you but you. If you get an opportunity to study martial arts, take it.
     Please stop sending your children to these schools; this is insanity. We must stop fooling ourselves, and we must admit that these schools are failing our children.

Written and published on April 7th, 2025.

Edited and expanded on April 9th and 10th, 2025,
including several minor edits which were made
after the speech was partially delivered.

Two notes in introduction added on April 14th, 2025.

Political Violence: Hannah Arendt vs. Niccolo Machiavelli

     Hannah Arendt says that “to force people by violence, to command rather than to persuade, were prepolitical ways to deal with people[,] characteristic of life outside the polis...” [. She continues,] “To be political... meant that everything was decided through words and persuasion and not through force and violence.” She says that as political philosophy grew, the emphasis shifted from action to speech - previously regarded as equal - as a means of persuasion.

     Machiavelli says that “a prince, so long as he keeps his subjects united and loyal, ought not to mind the reproach of cruelty; because with a few examples he will be more merciful than those who, through too much mercy, allow disorders to arise...” [. He continues,] “if one considers everything carefully, doing some some things that seem virtuous may result in one's ruin, whereas doing other things that seem vicious may strengthen one's position and cause one to flourish.”

     Machiavelli does not agree with Arendt at all. He says that good arms and good laws constitute the dual foundations of a well-ordered political system, and that the use of violence can advance political power, while Arendt says that the use of violence is prepolitical.

Written in April 2008 for a course on political theory,

Edited in July 2014