I was recently asked by an atheist to watch a video on transgenderism. This isn’t my field of inquiry or interest, but I figured I’d take a look. I’ll split this discussion into a few different areas: Science, Transgenderism, and Ethics. The issues often center around ethical implications, but it’s essential to explore the scientific and philosophical underpinnings as well. I am neither a biologist nor a scientist.
Science
The person in the video outlines his views on what science is meant to achieve, claiming to debunk pseudoscience and demarcate it from actual science. The first issue here is that there is no universally accepted criterion for distinguishing science from non-science. Calling other models non-scientific without providing clear criteria for what constitutes science is question-begging. Additionally, the video asserts that science gives us direct access to reality. This is contentious since many argue that science provides models that better fit our observations rather than direct access to reality. The speaker also claims that science offers unbiased access to the world, which is incorrect; no field of inquiry is entirely neutral.
For more on these issues, see my previous discussions:
- The Myth of Neutrality
The video frequently reifies science, attributing agency to it by saying things like “science says.” In reality, it is scientists who make claims. The speaker criticizes Young Earth creationism as non-scientific because it starts with a conclusion and then investigates. However, all inquiries begin with some form of preconception or worldview. Many significant scientific advancements have begun with thought experiments or intuitions rather than empirical methods. Consider Einstein’s relativity, which started with thought experiments, or the theoretical predictions made by Pauli and Dirac. As Steve Hays notes:
“Wasn’t Relativity inspired by thought-experiments and mental pictures long before Einstein had empirical confirmation? What about Pauli’s dreams. Or Dirac’s mathematical intuition, based on ‘beauty’? What about Newton’s bucket and Newton’s canon? Actually, a basic function of scientific theorizing is to go beyond the available evidence by making predictions. In many cases, a scientist wouldn’t need to make a prediction in the first place if he already had the evidence in hand. Predictions are not simply ways of testing a theory, but discovering new evidence. A theoretical prediction points scientists in a particular direction. They look for evidence where the theory predicts they should find it. Sometimes that confirms the theory, sometimes that discomforts the theory. Take Bell’s theorem. That was formulated well before the equipment existed to test the theoretical experiment.” (Do Scientists Assume Their Conclusions?)
The video operates on a shallow view of the scientific enterprise. Peer review, which the video upholds as the gold standard, is not infallible. Many groundbreaking scientific theories did not follow the so-called scientific method or undergo initial peer review.
- A Start for a Philosophy of Christian Science: Part 1
Transgenderism
The video defines its terms, and I will do the same, borrowing from Dr. James Anderson:
- Ontological Sex: A person’s basic sexual identity as either male or female.
- Biological Sex: Male or female according to chromosomes (XX/XY) and physiology.
- Gender: The psychological, social, and cultural manifestations of maleness and femaleness.
- Gender Identity: How one perceives and experiences oneself as male or female.
The trans community has diverse beliefs, with some viewing gender as a choice (anti-realists) and others as biologically grounded (realists). If gender identity is subjective, it reduces to mere opinion, making it irrelevant to scientific inquiry. The only coherent position is realism, grounding gender in biological facts. The classical view, rooted in divine creation, asserts that God made humans male and female.
The video presents the “Wrong Brain” view, where a person’s brain corresponds to the gender they identify with rather than their biological sex. However, the evidence is inconclusive, and further research is needed. Studies like “Regional gray matter variation in male-to-female transsexualism” suggest that various factors, including genetics, environment, and hormonal exposure, might influence gender identity.
“Further research needs to resolve whether the observed distinct features in the brains of transsexuals influence their gender identity or possibly are a consequence of being transsexual. Alternatively, other variables may be independently affecting both the expression of a transsexual identity and the neuroanatomy in transsexuals that led to the observed association between both. Some possible candidates include genetic predisposition, psychosocial and environmental influences, hormonal exposures, or most likely an interplay between these variables. In support of the influence of genetics and environment, multiple cases of transsexualism occurring within families have been reported (Green, 2000) as well as studies on heritability in twins (Coolidge et al., 2002) and preliminary findings on specific genetic variations in MTF transsexuals (Hare et al., 2009; Henningsson et al., 2005). Furthermore, both genes and environmental demands have been demonstrated to determine brain anatomy (e.g., regional gray matter) (Draganski et al., 2004; Thompson et al., 2001). Finally, hormones have been shown to affect brain development (Arnold and Gorski, 1984), and neuroanatomical alterations in MTF transsexuals (Kruijver et al., 2000; Zhou et al., 1995) have been detected in cerebral structures shown to significantly change in response to hormonal exposure (Del et al., 1987; Guillamon et al., 1988). The MTF transsexuals of the current study had no history of hormonal treatment. Thus, we can exclude the potential effects of administered female hormones as a confounding factor for our findings. Moreover, it has been demonstrated that naturally circulating hormones in adult MTF transsexuals at baseline do not differ significantly from hormonal levels in male control subjects (Goodman et al., 1985; Meyer, III et al., 1986; Spijkstra et al., 1988). However, it remains to be established whether pre-, peri-, or postnatal hormonal effects in early childhood could foster transsexualism. Further studies will need to resolve the degree to which genetic variability and environmental factors influence the development of gender identity (Schweizer et al., 2009), possibly (but not necessarily) via affecting brain structures.”
Other factors, such as lifestyle and daily activities, can also shape brain structures. For example, learning to play an instrument establishes new neural pathways, changing brain states. As Carlos Flores notes:
“Indeed, it should not come as a surprise to find out that our daily activities shape our brain-states or alter the way our brains behave. After all, it is more or less common knowledge that says, the process of learning to play an instrument has the effect of establishing new neural pathways, thus causing a change in brain-states. Thus Dr. Norman Doidge comments: ‘Now we know the brain is ‘neuroplastic,’ and not only can it change, but that it works by changing its structure in response to repeated mental experience.'” (Violin Learning and Brain Plasticity)
For further reading, see Steve Hays’ insights on the circular nature of transgender brain studies:
“On the face of it, the studies are viciously circular. How do researchers know that they are examining transgendered brains in the first place? Unless they already know that the test-subjects are transgender, and that neurological differences are what distinguish gendered from transgendered brains, they are assuming what they need to prove. How do they recruit test-subjects? Are these test-subjects who ‘self-identify’ as transgendered? But whether or not that has a basis, in fact, is the very issue in dispute. Researchers can’t take that as a given. They need independent physical evidence to distinguish gendered from transgender test-subjects before they can compare and contrast their brains.” (Racial Dysphoria)
The argument that brain structures explain sexual attraction is inadequate. People can be attracted to various entities, but this doesn’t mean they have the brain of those entities. For example, people are attracted to animals and children, but they don’t have the brain of a dog or a baby. How exactly does the biology incorporate the issue of attraction?
Additionally, pornography consumption has been linked to changes in brain matter:
Similarly, alcohol consumption and being a musician can affect brain structures:
Ethics
Is God condemning us for who we are? The answer is both yes and no. We are fallen sons and daughters of Adam, deserving the wrath he incurred. We are born with a sinful nature and desires. God punishes us for our sinful actions, and repentance is the path to forgiveness. Promoting transgenderism as an alternative to God’s design disrespects His works and commands. For a detailed Christian perspective on transgenderism, see:
Furthermore, as an atheist, there is no objective moral standard to complain about God’s justice. Without a transcendent basis for morality, ethical objections lack grounding. Why should we care about transgenderism from an atheistic perspective?
For further reading on this topic, visit:
The Council 