Category: Christian Anthropology

Posted on

Two Gametes, Two Sexes, and the Truth About Creation

Walk across almost any college campus today and you’ll hear that “sex is a spectrum” or that “male and female are just social constructs.” Yet when you strip away the slogans and look at the science, the truth is simple: there are two gametes, two sexes, and therefore two genders. This isn’t a matter of prejudice—it’s the foundation of biology itself. And it’s a truth that aligns deeply with the Christian understanding of creation.

What the Biologists Are Saying

Carole Hooven, an evolutionary biologist from Harvard, recently wrote in Tablet:

“Sexual reproduction in animals can only occur when two distinct types of gametes (specialized sex cells containing DNA) fuse: the small mobile ones (sperm) and the large immobile ones (eggs). We call animals that produce sperm ‘male’ and those that produce eggs ‘female.’ That’s about it. The bottom line is that there are two gamete types and thus two sexes.” 

Hooven points out that this is not a controversial view in her field. Among mainstream evolutionary biologists, the “gametic view” is the consensus. The controversy, she argues, is political, not scientific.

Francis (Sid) Dougan makes the same case in his paper published in Archives of Sexual Behavior. He explains the evolutionary process called anisogamy, where reproduction depends on the existence of two—and only two—types of gametes. Dougan writes:

“The two-sex system originates in anisogamy: the condition where reproduction involves two distinct gamete morphs, large and small. This evolutionary split is the foundation of ‘female’ and ‘male.’ Claims about ‘third sexes’ misunderstand or misapply this biology.” 

In other words, while there may be rare medical conditions or variations, there is no such thing as a “third sex.” Dougan continues:

“The existence of only two sexes is not a cultural construct, but a biologically constrained inevitability of anisogamous reproduction. As such, there are only two sexes, and there can never be more.” 

Why This Matters

Hooven warns that confusing identity with biology leads to real-world harm:

  • In medicine, ignoring sex differences can obscure crucial data on disease risk and treatment.
  • In sports, blurring the categories of male and female undermines fairness and safety.
  • In law and policy, redefining sex creates ambiguity that destabilizes rights and protections.

As she puts it:

“Facts do matter. The gametic definition matters in science. It’s the only one that applies across all sexually reproducing species. It is indispensable in evolutionary biology, medicine, and public health.” 

A Christian Response

For Christians, none of this should come as a surprise. Scripture is clear from the beginning: “Male and female he created them” (Genesis 1:27). Creation is not chaotic but ordered, and the existence of two sexes is part of God’s design for life, family, and fruitfulness.

This does not mean we dismiss or mock people who are confused about their identity. Compassion is essential. But compassion must be anchored in truth. To affirm what is false—whether scientifically or biblically—is not love, but harm.

St. Paul reminds us that creation itself reveals God’s order (Romans 1:20). Biology is bearing witness to what Scripture has declared all along. Hooven and Dougan, though not writing from a Christian framework, are echoing the reality that God has woven into creation: there are two gametes, two sexes, two genders.

Conclusion

In a culture that insists everything is fluid, it takes courage to affirm what is fixed. But truth and love belong together. Christians can and must speak with both clarity and compassion: honoring the biological reality of male and female while pointing to the deeper truth that our identity is most fully found in Christ 1For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him.

Or as Jesus Himself said, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female?” (Matthew 19:4).

There are only two gametes. There are only two sexes. And that is not a problem to overcome but a gift to receive.

SOURCES:

Carole Hooven
Tablet Magazine Article

F. S. Dougan
X-account

Achives of Sexual Behavior

Companion Post

More Than Two Sexes?

+++

Posted on

Polyamory & Adoption in Canada

For those who shouted “That’s just fearmongering, nothing more!” Or worse….

Three gay men in a polyamorous relationship adopt a three year old child in Quebec, Canada. One of the ‘fathers’ said:

“[Quebec’s Youth Protection Services] learned that we are a little different because we’re three, but we’re not different from any other family.”

Video link here: https://twitter.com/CollinRugg/status/1971944709804511583

and here:

https://video.twimg.com/amplify_video/1971944606632996864/vid/avc1/1920×1080/RYsxd23KOISdBC85.mp4?tag=21

I want to begin by saying: any child deserves love, protection, and stability. The vulnerable children waiting for adoption deserve careful, conscientious decisions — not experiments in social engineering. What’s at stake is not ideology alone, but a child’s well-being, her development, her sense of identity and belonging.

So when I read the news that a threesome of men — a “throuple” — was recently allowed to adopt a three-year-old girl in Quebec, I was deeply disturbed. From my vantage point, this is not a neutral act of inclusion; it is a deliberate reshaping of family norms, undertaken in the name of “equity,” “diversity,” or “acceptance” — above all, an assertion that adults have the right to arrange families however they choose. But that should not be the overriding criterion. The question must always be: What is best for the child?

1. Children are not props in a social experiment.

Children are not placeholders in a public relations campaign or ideological manifesto. A child places trust in her caregivers to orient her to life, to guide her, to mirror her humanity. She needs anchors of stability, especially in early childhood. In these formative years, a child gains meaning from how her caregivers love her, relate to her, discipline and teach her, and model human flourishing.

When states give priority to novel family configurations — beyond what biological, psychological, and the historical evidence of human (and specifically Judeo-Christian) history says is optimal — they risk treating children as instruments in a culture war. And that is dangerous.

2. Sexual dimorphism and the complementarity of male and female roles matter.

We are a sexually dimorphic species. Males and females differ, broadly speaking, in temperaments, hormonal patterns, relational inclinations, modes of emotional expression — and these differences matter in child raising. To deprive a child of exposure to both male and female perspectives is to limit the richness of her growth. This is not about rigid stereotypes or denying individuality; it’s about acknowledging that children benefit from the balance and healthy tension that arises from complementary parental roles.

Yes, many single parents do fine and provide love. But, we would be wrong to suggest this is optimal. It certainly doesn’t mean all configurations are equal in every regard — and we ought not abandon the principle that the best possible environment includes as much balance as possible. To say otherwise is to pretend biology, psychology, and embodied identity don’t matter.

3. The “necessity” argument is weak and disingenuous.

I hear this often: “Well, perhaps this little girl had no better options. Perhaps no heterosexual couple was willing or available.” But that is a slippery slope. Do we accept every claim of “lack of alternatives” as justification? I find it implausible that Quebec’s adoption system — with its reach, its networks, its profession of safeguarding children — could not find a stable, married man–woman couple ready and capable of adoption. To assume otherwise diminishes those many couples who wait, who are screened, who abide by strict adoption criteria. It also elevates an ideological preference — “we must allow this novel family form” — above the practical task of matching children with the most suitable homes.

One is left to wonder: how many qualified heterosexual couples were considered and rejected? Why were they rejected? Why, then, was a “throuple” prioritized?  This reads like a political priority masquerading as child welfare.

4. The slippery slope: Where are the limits?

Once you concede that children may have three, four, or more legal “parents,” what stops us at five or six? Or children adopted by collectives? Or children raised by rotating adult pods with shifting authority? If the only criterion is adults’ preferences or relational arrangements, any boundary is arbitrary and vulnerable to ideological redefinition.

We must have limiting principles — principles grounded in what promotes a child’s flourishing, not what affirms adult desires. And those limits must respect biological, psychological, and moral realities, not yield entirely to social engineering.

5. Misplaced Priorities: Ideology over Children

My concern is not that these 3 men intend harm — my concern is that the adoption system has placed on this child a responsibility she did not consent to: to become a poster child for a new regime of family life. She is not theirs to baptize into ideology; she is first and always a child.

The vulnerable children who come into the system deserve better guardrails — clearer commitments to what children truly need, not what adult ideologues want to normalize. The marriage of one man and one woman provides balanced perspectives, anchor points in sexed reality, relational tension and complementarity. We ought not abandon that standard.

At the end of the day, this is not simply about “tolerance” or “inclusion.” It is about human nature, the dignity of the child, and moral responsibility. When we subordinate what is best for the child to what affirms an adult ideology, we risk doing the very thing we pretend to oppose: injustice against a voiceless one.

Companion Posts

How We Got Here
Gay Parenting, Science, and the Well-Being of Children: A Surprising Vindication of the Regnerus Study

+++

“But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.’“
Jesus
(Mark 10:6)

Posted on

Confusion about Creation and the Rise of Political Violence

When Rebellion Against Nature Turns Deadly: The Troubling Pattern of Political Violence and Gender Ideology

In a culture that increasingly confuses affirmation with compassion, we risk ignoring some very disturbing truths.

Last week, court documents revealed that Nicholas Roske, the man who plotted the assassination of Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, now identifies as a transgender woman named “Sophie.” Roske was arrested in 2022 outside Kavanaugh’s home, armed with a gun and burglary tools. He admitted to targeting not only Kavanaugh, but other justices, in response to the Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision overturning Roe v. Wade.

This isn’t just an isolated incident. According to the Justice Department’s sentencing memo, Roske had spent months researching, planning, and preparing for the attack. He looked up how to break into homes, strangle someone, and escape prosecution. He studied the anatomy of the head and neck. He searched mass shooting footage and sniper techniques. All to eliminate jurists whose legal opinions conflicted with his ideology.

This was a politically motivated assassination attempt—by someone immersed in pro-abortion and transgender-affirming circles.

Unfortunately, Roske’s story is not unique.

A Disturbing Trend

In recent years, we’ve witnessed a growing number of violent incidents involving individuals either identifying as transgender or deeply embedded in trans-activist ideology:

  • In 2023, Audrey Hale, a woman who identified as a man, opened fire at Covenant School, a Christian elementary school in Nashville, killing six people—including three children.
  • Just months later, Robin Westman, another trans-identified shooter, murdered two children and wounded others in a mass shooting at Annunciation Catholic School. Authorities later confirmed Westman harbored anti-Christian sentiments and fantasized about “killing as many children as possible.”
  • In a different case, Tyler Robinson, the man charged with murdering conservative activist Charlie Kirk, reportedly told his trans-identified partner that he couldn’t “negotiate out” the “hate” Kirk represented. According to family members, Robinson had recently become more radicalized around LGBTQ political issues.

These are not mere outliers. Each case represents a violent collision of grievance-based identity politics with moral nihilism. Each involves individuals who had become deeply politicized in the context of gender identity or allied ideologies. And in each case, the targets were Christians, conservatives, or children.

When violence is repeatedly justified or rationalized on the basis of perceived “oppression,” it becomes clear that we are dealing with more than mental illness. We’re dealing with an ideological deformation of conscience.

The Fruits of a Fractured Worldview

These violent acts raise urgent questions about the psychological and spiritual consequences of building one’s identity around inner feelings detached from truth, nature, or moral law.

When people are told that their subjective sense of gender is sacred—and that opposing it is tantamount to violence—we should not be surprised when violence becomes their chosen response to disagreement.

When political movements elevate personal identity over public morality, and self-definition over objective truth, they create the conditions for extremism. They reward victimhood with moral license. They justify hatred of anyone seen as standing in the way of “liberation.”

This isn’t compassion. It’s chaos.

And it’s being fueled—unwittingly or not—by cultural elites, academic theorists, corporate sponsors, and even church leaders who confuse mercy with moral surrender.

Political Violence is Still Violence

There was a time not long ago when political violence was uniformly condemned—regardless of the source. But we now live in a moment where leftist rage is often indulged, and even celebrated, as “understandable” or “justified.”

When pro-life groups are firebombed, or Christian schools are targeted by shooters, or conservative justices are hunted in the night—too many remain silent. The media covers it reluctantly. Activists deflect. Politicians equivocate.

But violence is violence.

The attempted assassination of a Supreme Court Justice is not a form of protest. It’s terrorism. And when it comes from someone driven by a radicalized view of gender and justice, we should stop pretending this is a coincidence.

A Better Way

As Christians, we must be both compassionate and clear. Those who struggle with gender confusion deserve our prayers, our care, and our truth-speaking—not our silence.

But compassion does not mean complicity.

The gospel calls us to affirm that we are not self-created. We are made in the image of God—male and female. To reject that creational truth is to invite disorder into the soul and body, and eventually into the world.

Christians must be prepared to name this disorder—not with hatred, but with courage. Because love without truth is just sentiment. And truth without love is just noise. But love with truth? That is the medicine our world desperately needs.

Courage to Speak

If you’re wondering whether this trend of violence will continue, ask yourself: are the cultural forces driving it slowing down?

Until the church finds the courage to speak plainly about the dangers of identity idolatry, and until society recovers a moral center rooted in something higher than self-expression, we will continue to reap what we have sown.

And the fruit will not be peace.

+++

“Grace and Truth Came Through Jesus“
(John 1:17)