By Scott Ventureyra
Crisis Magazine
March 21, 2025
On February 5, three prominent biologists and presidents of major biological associations wrote a letter to President Trump and Congress opposing his January 2025 Executive Order 14168, titled "Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government." The letter alleges that scientific evidence contradicts the binary view of sex by emphasizing the complexity of sex determination involving chromosomes, hormones, and anatomy, and highlighting variations that suggest sex and gender are not strictly binary traits.
What Does the Evidence Really Say?
The biologists' perspective conflates biological sex with gender identity. Biological sex is determined by the type of gametes produced: males produce sperm, and females produce eggs. This dichotomy is consistent across sexually reproducing species, underscoring the binary basis of sex. This is noted in a response letter written by some eminent biologists, such as neo-atheists Jerry Coyne and Luana Maroja, and also backed by the British zoologist Richard Dawkins, which addresses the misconceptions about definitions about biological sex: "The universal biological definition of sex is gamete size."
The letter challenging Trump's executive order asserts that "sex and gender result from the interplay of genetics and environment," conflating gender-a social construct-with biological sex. Even though the assertion that sex exists on a spectrum has been propagated in some academic and political spheres, it is an unscientific perspective. As Coyne and Maroja state,
However, we do not see sex as a "construct" and we do not see other mentioned human-specific characteristics, such as "lived experiences" or "[phenotypic] variation along the continuum of male to female", as having anything to do with the biological definition of sex.
Some argue that intersex conditions challenge the binary nature of sex. However, conditions like Turner syndrome (XO), Klinefelter syndrome (XXY), and Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome are rare anomalies, not distinct sexes. As biologist Jerry Coyne notes in a letter to Nature, "In animals, which of course include humans, sex is as close to binary as you can come, with only 0.018% of individuals being neither male nor female, but intersex." These rare exceptions do not redefine the biological framework but instead reaffirm that sex is binary with occasional anomalies.
Biological Sex as a Construct: How Did We Get Here?
To understand the shift in discourse on biological sex, we must examine how contemporary ideological movements, like the Frankfurt School, extended Marxist critiques into culture and identity politics, which has infected the natural sciences.
How have we reached the point where prominent scientists ( Neil deGrasse Tyson on the Gender Spectrum ) feel compelled to deny fundamental biological realities? Part of the answer lies in emotional appeals and the common fallacy of appeal to pity, which often drives academics to reject truth in favor of ideological conformity. Couple this with the appeal to authority fallacy as exemplified in the presidents' letter and you have a combination of fallacies that run rampant throughout our educational, medical, legal, and media establishments.
These logical fallacies have influenced policy decisions without taking actual evidence and logic into consideration. This trend has been no more evident than in the Covid debacle (something I discuss in my book COVID-19), climatology, and in this particular case, the gender and sex debate. The rise of biological denialism-the rejection of sex as a binary reality-can be traced to several modern philosophical movements, whether implicitly or explicitly.
Hegelian Dialectics
Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel's dialectics is a triadic process: 1) Thesis: a dominant view or existing reality; 2) Antithesis: an opposing idea that challenges the thesis (a contradiction or negation); and lastly, 3) Synthesis: integrating elements of the thesis and antithesis, formulating a new mode of thinking or paradigm. This triadic process fuels biological denialism in the following way: 1) Thesis: the traditional view that biological sex is either male or female and can't change; 2) Antithesis: ideas that question biological essentialism in favor of non-binary views; and 3) Synthesis: The synthesis would transcend the opposition between binary and non-binary sex by proposing a gender spectrum or gender fluidity. This position argues that sex and gender exist along a continuum, acknowledging the diversity of human experiences.
Extending Marxism: The Frankfurt School
Unlike economic Marxism, which focuses on class struggle, the Frankfurt School expanded Marxist theory into cultural and ideological domains. The Frankfurt School, led by thinkers like Herbert Marcuse, Max Horkheimer, and Theodor Adorno, critiqued Enlightenment rationality and bourgeois society, laying the foundation for critical theory. These thinkers expanded Marxism beyond economics, focusing on culture and ideology. They incorporated psychoanalysis, studied mass media's influence, and examined mass culture's role in shaping society. Their goal was to challenge perceived power structures and embed Marxist theory into modern social discourse.
Consequently, they have attempted to dismantle sex as a biological category by using critical theory. The Frankfurt School's thought has led to the reformulation of Marxism into Neo-Marxism (commonly known as cultural Marxism). This ideological shift has allowed critical theorists to argue that biological sex is merely a social construct, despite overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary. James Lindsay and Helen Pluckrose's book Cynical Theories is an excellent critique of critical theory in general and how it has heavily infiltrated the academy since the 1970s.
Postmodernism
Similarly, postmodern philosophy has also played a significant role, even though incoherent, in shaping the denial of objective truth and consequently many fundamental aspects of science. For instance, Jacques Derrida's deconstructionismchallenges Western binary distinctions, including the male-female dichotomy, arguing that all categories, even biological ones, are unstable and fluid. Michel Foucault's work on power and sexuality contends that sex itself is a product of discourse, not an objective truth, as he argues in The History of Sexuality.
Foucault disputes what is deemed to be "natural," questioning the idea of the stability and uniformity of nature, while instead emphasizing the social and historical understanding of how humans relate to nature. In turn, he argues that sex is the result of historical and cultural conditioning, which in turn functions to challenge the truth of biological sex. Judith Butler's Gender Trouble introduces the concept of "gender performativity," where she argues that sex, like gender, is also a social construction that is fashioned by cultural norms and repeated behaviors rather than in the universality of the binary nature of biological sex.
Standpoint epistemology, developed by feminist theorists Nancy Hartsock and Sandra Harding, argues that marginalized groups possess a unique epistemic advantage due to their lived experiences (the presidents of the biological societies make reference to "lived experience"). Hartsock's Money, Sex, and Powercombines Marxist historical materialism with feminist theory, asserting that women's experiences in a patriarchal society provide a unique epistemological standpoint.
In The Science Question in Feminism, Harding went even further with this idea by saying that in order for science to be objective, it should include the views of oppressed groups in order to counter the biases of dominant discourses. Applied to biology, this framework challenges scientific objectivity by prioritizing subjective identity claims over empirical evidence. This perspective has influenced contemporary gender debates by asserting that biological sex is a construct shaped by social and historical contexts rather than an objective category. For a deeper discussion on gender ideology and its many dangers, see my book Making Sense of Nonsense.
Ramifications of Biological Denialism
Biological denialism threatens free speech and scientific inquiry. In Canada, Bill C-16 amended the Human Rights Act and Criminal Code to protect gender identity and expression. While presented as an anti-discrimination measure, critics—most notably, psychologist Jordan Peterson—warned that it could lead to compelled speech, forcing individuals to use preferred pronouns or face legal consequences. At the time, he was ridiculed for making such claims. But his words turned out to be prophetic, as exemplified in the case of a female-born minor (AB) who opposed her father's (CD) withheld consent to pursue transitioning. The father faced fines and jail time for his opposition.
The various philosophies mentioned above have infiltrated every aspect of society, including academia, politics, medicine, law, and culture, branding those who uphold biological sex as transphobic. Under Bill C-16, individuals risk legal penalties for rejecting gender identity mandates, creating a chilling effect on scientific discourse and public debate. This politicization of sex has eroded women's rights, distorted medical ethics, and undermined parental authority over gender-transitioning children.
Gender ideology insists that we reject objective reality—the immutable distinction between men and women—in favor of an all-encompassing ideological framework that dictates how we must think, speak, and live. Gender ideology, at its height of malevolence, negatively impacts children by promoting confusion about biological sex, often encouraging them to question their identity at a young age. Schools and institutions constantly undermine parental authority by pushing gender-affirming models without consent.
Hormonal interventions, such as puberty blockers, carry severe risks, including infertility, bone loss, and cognitive impairments. Indoctrination through media and education normalizes biological denialism, effectively brainwashing children into accepting ideology over empirical reality, with lifelong psychological and medical consequences. The physical and mental harm caused by such medical interventions on children is irreversible; this is discussed at length in Abigail Shrier's book Irreversible Damage.
Without a doubt, the most troubling and dangerous aspect of biological denialism is medicalized gender transitions—whether through physical or chemical castration—mirroring eugenics, both relying on pseudo-science to justify the sterilization of children. While eugenics was overtly coercive, pushing gender ideology onto children before they can consent is a more treacherous form of manipulation. Disturbingly, institutions worldwide endorse these practices, yet those who value truth and protect childhood innocence continue to oppose them.
Bills like C-16 and C-4 (a bill that bans conversion therapy, enforcing gender affirmation and criminal penalties) exemplify how state-imposed gender ideology threatens fundamental freedoms. Defending biological reality is not an act of bigotry but a stand for truth against ideological coercion.
The Age of Ideological Madness
The push to deny biological reality echoes George Orwell's 1984: "The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." This trend has created an environment where questioning ideological dogma is met with social and legal repercussions. Similarly, Gad Saad argues in his book The Parasitic Mind that ideologies like biological denialism are infecting society with "idea pathogens" that sacrifice reason, logic, and common sense. Whether it is theologians distorting Scripture due to Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS) or scientists denying biological sex, truth is under assault. In such times, it's heartening to witness vocal atheists like Coyne, Dawkins, and others willing to stand in defense of truth and scientific integrity when so many church leaders lack the courage to do so.
A recent study published in The Journal of Sexual Medicine analyzed data from 107,583 patients with gender dysphoria and concluded the following: "Those undergoing [gender-affirming] surgery were at significantly higher risk for depression, anxiety, suicidal ideation, and substance use disorders than those without surgery." Those who hide behind pseudoscience and destructive ideologies can no longer mask themselves with compassion and empathy. These medical interventions have been shown to be extremely harmful, especially to children, and also exacerbate underlying mental health issues.
Truth is not relative. Reality is not a social construct. Biology cannot be rewritten to satisfy ideological impulses. If we are to preserve scientific integrity, freedom of speech, and fundamental rights, we must stand against the erosion of biological truth—before it is too late.