Academia is being infected with the virus of absurdity.

Theology, philosophy, arts, and social sciences have all been infiltrated with truth-denying ideologies which, starting out as seemingly innocent statements, eventually turn into denial of some of the most basic and objectively verifiable statements known to man.

And while it’s one thing for the arts and the humanities to fall victim to modern fallacies, it’s extra shocking when “hard” sciences start to cave as well.

Here are my thoughts on an article by Sarah Eddy on “gender-inclusive biology classrooms,” published in the Illinois Eagle late last month.

Ms. Eddy attempts to establish the “scientific fact” that sex is a spectrum. She then proceeds to argue that biology classrooms should be more inclusive and not teach “oversimplified ideas about sex and gender.”

Ms. Eddy starts off her argument in a rather confusing way:

“In nature, there is a huge diversity in how sexes are arranged within bodies. For example, the sex of some organisms is classified by the size of their gametes, or sperm and eggs. Some species produce both gametes in one body. Some change whether they produce sperm or eggs over their lifetime. Others technically don’t have a sex at all.“

Ms. Eddy begins by slam-dunking a point that has nothing to do with human sex. It is all very well and fine that other organisms produce both gamete types in one body, or change the type they produce over time, or don’t even have a sex—but those “other organisms” are not humans!

I think both Ms. Eddy and I can agree that we should teach the biology of each organism in a way that reflects what is true of that particular organism.

For me, that means I agree wholeheartedly with Ms. Eddy that—absent genetic defects—each earthworm has both male and reproductive cells. For Ms. Eddy, that means she should agree wholeheartedly with me that—absent genetic defects—each human has only one of the two (more on this below).

Implying that human sex isn’t binary by invoking the biology of non-human organisms is somewhat like asserting that not all humans have to be warm-blooded, because lizards are cold-blooded.

Human biology is just that: the biology of humans.

But to be fair, Ms. Eddy then does attempt to prove—from the basis of human biology—that sex is non-binary:

“Sex in humans is actually an amalgamation of many traits, which include the type of gametes a person produces as well as their reproductive tract anatomy, hormone levels and secondary sex characteristics like hair growth and chest shape. These traits are determined not just by a few genes on the X and Y chromosomes but also by a myriad of genes on other chromosomes as well as the developmental environment.”

I’ve written several past articles warning against the danger of wordplay (see here, here, and here), and this is no exception.

Saying “sex is an amalgamation of traits” makes it sound like these traits are all independent of each other and are lumped together in random combinations in humans.

But a brief look at a human anatomy and physiology textbook reveals that a set of hormones—testosterone and estrogen—cause both primary sex characteristics (genitalia) and secondary sex characteristics (such as voice, muscle growth and distribution, bone shape, and hair growth) to form.

Many of the different traits that manifest themselves as sexual characteristics are actually remarkably coordinated by hormones within the body and are far from being an “amalgamation” of traits.

Ms. Eddy claims that “When many genes contribute to a trait, it appears as a continuum.”

…Except that sex doesn’t even appear as a continuum. The vast majority of people are clearly male or clearly female, because their hormones coordinate their physical characteristics within one of two clearly differentiated categories: male and female.

Now, Ms. Eddy attempts to prove this continuum by referencing the small population of intersex individuals, those who don’t have the complete set of chromosomes or genitalia that perfectly match what is normally seen in both categories.

But referencing genetic defects to prove a sexual continuum is like referencing babies born with congenital limb anomalies (a partially formed arm, for example) to prove that limbs come in a continuum of shapes and sizes as well.

Sexual genetic abnormalities—like all other genetic abnormalities—are the exception to the basic principles of human anatomy & physiology, and they do not change the rule.

Finally, not only are Ms. Eddy’s scientific observations misleading, but she builds on them to advocate a twisted view of how science should be taught in schools.

“I and my colleagues found similar downstream effects on college students: Trans and nonbinary students reported feeling isolated and uncomfortable in biology courses that teach sex and gender only as a binary. They felt they couldn’t form relationships with their teachers or peers, and this lack of a supportive personal network prevented them from requesting letters of recommendation or getting involved in research. Some dropped out of STEM, and many others contemplated it.”

I agree with Ms. Eddy’s sentiment that if the content of a class makes a student less interested in the subject, then there is probably something wrong. It means there is a conflict between the content being taught and the desires of the student. So which should give way?

This is where I disagree with Ms. Eddy—her conclusion that the content being taught is at fault and must be adjusted to accommodate the desires of the student.

Rather, if the content being taught is true—and from a biological standpoint, it is—then a good education will actually influence the student to change his or her desires to align with the truth. Ms. Eddy commits a fatal error by attempting to conform reality to the student.

Education has always been about conforming the student to reality.

Whenever we teach a student that 2 + 2 equals 4 instead of 5 (even if they don’t want it to be), whenever we teach a student that George Washington was the first President of the United States (even if they thought he was the first czar of Russia), and whenever we teach a student that human sex is binary instead of continuum-based (even if they feel differently), we are fulfilling the true role of education:

contradicting lies and supporting truth in the student’s mind.

The true role of education is instruction, not affirmation.

It’s sad to see even the “hard sciences” sacrificed on the altar of ideology.

But I think the most perceptive among us could have seen this coming a long time ago.

All objective truth—whether “soft” social science or “hard” biology—is God’s truth, and when we allow ideology to taint even the “softest” of God’s truths, we are setting up a ticking time bomb for ideology to corrupt even the “hardest.”

Let’s pray that our world would recognize that when our preferences collide with reality, reality must prevail and our preferences must go.