How Gender Ideology Rewrites Science—and Why Christians Must Resist It
When Every Outcome Proves the Theory
One of the hallmarks of genuine science is that it allows itself to be proven wrong.
A scientific hypothesis must make risky predictions. There must be conceivable evidence that would count against it. If every possible outcome is interpreted as confirmation, then what we’re dealing with is no longer science in the strict sense—it’s an ideology.
That is what struck me most while reading a recent analysis of new data on pediatric gender medicine in Oregon. (City Journal)
For years, advocates of the “gender-affirming” model assured the public that medical transition for minors was extraordinarily rare. Puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones, we were told, were reserved for a tiny number of carefully screened adolescents suffering from severe and persistent gender dysphoria.
But new statewide insurance data from Oregon complicate that narrative. Among insured 17-year-olds, roughly one in 240 girls was taking testosterone, while approximately one in 630 boys was taking estrogen. Oregon is hardly representative of the entire country, but because it has one of the nation’s most supportive legal and insurance environments for pediatric transition, it offers a glimpse of what widespread implementation of the affirming model looks like.
As biologist Colin Wright observes:
“Trans activist Ari Drennen said on X that it ‘should not be shocking’ that 0.4 percent of 17-year-old girls in Oregon are chemically transitioning. But it is shocking. If one in 240 girls aged 17 in a state were receiving any other powerful intervention for a new psychiatric diagnosis that permanently deepened their voice, caused them to grow beards, altered their sexual function, and affected their fertility, no serious person would shrug and say, ‘Sounds about right.’”
That observation gets to the heart of the issue. Before these numbers emerged, advocates frequently pointed to the rarity of pediatric transition as evidence that the medical system was exercising extraordinary caution. Now that the numbers are substantially higher than many expected, the response has shifted. Rather than prompting a reconsideration of the underlying assumptions, the higher prevalence is presented as evidence that more young people are finally receiving the care they have long needed.
Notice what has happened.
If few children transition, the model is vindicated.
If many children transition, the model is also vindicated.
No imaginable outcome appears capable of counting as evidence against the underlying theory.
The Popper Test: Can the Theory Be Proven Wrong?
This is a textbook example of what philosopher of science Karl Popper meant by falsifiability. Popper argued that scientific theories distinguish themselves from ideological systems by exposing themselves to possible refutation. A theory that can explain every possible observation ultimately explains nothing at all.
History offers many examples.
Marxist economic theory frequently interpreted both prosperity and poverty as proof that capitalism was collapsing. If workers revolted, the theory was confirmed. If they did not revolt, that too confirmed the theory because they had supposedly developed “false consciousness.”
Likewise, some Freudian interpretations treated every patient response as confirmation of unconscious motives. Agreement proved the diagnosis. Denial also proved the diagnosis because it demonstrated repression.
In each case, the theory became insulated from correction.
Medicine must never operate this way.
Every medical intervention should be open to the possibility that it is less effective than originally believed—or even harmful. That is why medicine continually revises itself through systematic reviews, replication studies, and long-term follow-up. Indeed, several European health authorities have recently reassessed the evidence for pediatric gender medicine and concluded that the quality of evidence supporting routine medical interventions remains low, leading them to adopt a more cautious approach. (PMC)
When Science Becomes an Ideology
When an idea evolves so that every possible outcome becomes evidence in its favor, we should stop asking whether the evidence supports the theory and begin asking whether the theory has become unfalsifiable.
That question extends well beyond gender medicine.
It is one of the recurring temptations of every ideology.
The healthiest intellectual traditions—whether in science, medicine, theology, or politics—retain the humility to admit what evidence would cause them to reconsider their conclusions. They recognize that truth is not protected by making contrary evidence impossible, but by welcoming honest inquiry, even when it is inconvenient.
That is how knowledge advances.
And it is also how ideologies are exposed.
The Question Science Cannot Answer
This raises an even deeper question.
As Christians, we should insist on honest science. We should welcome rigorous studies, long-term follow-up, transparent data, and the willingness to revise conclusions when the evidence demands it. Christians have nothing to fear from truth because we believe all truth is God’s truth.
But our concern with pediatric gender medicine ultimately goes beyond questions of statistical outcomes.
Medicine is never merely about producing desired psychological states. It is about restoring health according to the nature of the human person.
That is where the current gender-affirming model departs most fundamentally from the Christian understanding of humanity.
The Christian View of the Human Person
Scripture teaches that our bodies are not accidental shells housing our “real selves.” They are gifts from God, intentionally created, received rather than constructed. We are embodied souls, not minds temporarily occupying disposable biological equipment. The body is not an obstacle to our identity but an essential part of it.
This is why the Christian tradition has always understood genuine healing as bringing the person into greater harmony with reality—not altering reality to conform to our perceptions.
The Body is Not the Problem
Of course, human beings experience profound psychological suffering. Christians should never minimize the real distress experienced by those with gender dysphoria. Compassion requires that we take such suffering seriously.
But compassion and affirmation are not the same thing.
When a normally functioning body is permanently altered in order to accommodate a person’s internal perception of himself or herself, medicine has crossed a profound philosophical boundary. The body is no longer treated as something to be understood and cared for; it becomes something to be reconstructed so that it conforms to the mind’s self-understanding.
That inversion should concern everyone. But for Christians, it represents a direct contradiction of biblical anthropology.
From Genesis onward, the human body is received as a gift before it is ever experienced as a project. Our sex is not an arbitrary biological fact to be overcome but part of the good created order. The Fall has certainly introduced disorder into every dimension of human life—including our desires, our perceptions, and our experience of our own bodies—but redemption never consists in rejecting creation. It consists in restoring our lives to harmony with the Creator.
This is why sex-rejection therapy can never be the Christian answer.
The problem is not that the body has told us a lie. The problem is that, like every other part of our fallen humanity, our minds, emotions, and self-perceptions can become disordered. Christian discipleship has always involved bringing our thoughts, desires, and identities into conformity with God’s created reality—not reshaping creation to validate every inward perception.
This is precisely why the Oregon data matter.
Not because higher or lower numbers would ever determine Christian ethics, but because they reveal how difficult it has become to question an ideology that increasingly treats the healthy body as the problem. When every outcome confirms the theory, honest inquiry becomes impossible. And when the body itself is regarded as an obstacle to personal authenticity, medicine loses sight of its proper end.
Christians should resist both errors.
We should reject ideological science that refuses correction by evidence.
But we should also reject any anthropology that asks us to believe that the path to human flourishing begins by rejecting the body God has given us.
The Christian Hope
The Christian hope has always pointed in the opposite direction. It is not escape from the body, but the redemption of the whole person. We do not await liberation from our created humanity; we await the resurrection of the body.
+++