Scientists Say You’re Wrong
Scientists Say You’re Wrong
“Scientists say you’re wrong…”
That’s what you’ll hear from time to time when someone wants to try to ignore what’s obvious by insisting that “experts agree,” or “studies show,” or “recent polling indicates…”
There’s two kinds of information: The kind that brings clarity to the truth and the kind that distracts from it.
Subject matter experts and polling data can be very instrumental in helping to guide and reinforce sound judgement. But when you intentionally distort the criteria you use to gather and analyze your information, not only are your conclusions flawed, but they have the capacity to make a bad situation worse because of the credibility that’s associated with institutions that are being asserted as unbiased.
In other words, just because you’ve got some letters after you name, doesn’t mean you get to speak into reality things that aren’t true. That’s not science, that’s gossip.
When it comes to transgenderism and homosexuality, you have a perspective that is supposedly informed by educated sources that insists these things are either normal or explained by anomalies that cannot be criticized, only accommodated.
Ryan T. Anderson received his bachelor of arts degree from Princeton University, graduating Phi Beta Kappa and magna cum laude. He went on to receive his doctoral degree in political philosophy from the University of Notre Dame. His research has been cited by two U.S. Supreme Court justices, Justice Samuel Alito and Justice Clarence Thomas, in two Supreme Court cases.
In his book, “When Harry Became Sally,” he reveals the contradictions and the harm being suffered by those who are being encouraged to subscribe to an sustainable distortion of reality, all in the name of “science.”
He makes a great point by saying, “On the one hand, transgender activists want the authority of science as they make metaphysical claims, saying that science reveals gender identity to be innate and unchanging. On the other hand, they deny that biology is destiny, insisting that people are free to be who they want to be.” (Transgender Ideology is Riddled with Contradictions. Here are the Big Ones)
You can’t acknowledge Biology as a definitive science, and, at the same time, say that it becomes subjective, depending on the way a person feels. That is the fundamental claim of the “science” supporting transgenderism. In that context, transgenderism isn’t supported by science, as much as it’s refuted by it. It’s like a detective who isn’t looking for evidence, as much as they’re trying to create a verdict. In this instance, however “complex” the problem might be, you’re not bringing clarity to the truth as much as you’re distracting from it by insisting that a man can have a uterus.
How Does This Concern You?
Attempting to introduce a bottom line that exists independently of the way a person thinks or feels is toxic to some people because of the way submitting to thatr eality requires a willingness to be held accountable to something greater than yourself.
You can’t champion that kind of approach directly without sounding either selfish or foolish. But you can effectively avoid being revealed as not having a rational argument by accusing anyone who disagrees with you as being either overbearing, hypocritical, or unethical. At that point, the focus isn’t on what’s being said as much as it’s the supposed character flaws of the one who’s speaking.
You see that approach manifested in several comments: “You can’t force your beliefs on me,” “What’s true for you isn’t true for me,” “I’m not hurting anyone,” or “How does this concern you?”
Embedded within each statement is a dynamic that implies truth is based on preferences more so than principles. Therefore, any attempt to assert a reality that cannot be altered based on a person’s disposition is an inappropriate act of aggression that is hurtful and disrespectful.
It can easily shut down any legitimate dialogue because of the way most will rush to avoid being labeled cruel and hateful.
You can, however, counter those tactics by bringing the conversation back to the subject matter being discussed and emphasizing how the truth isn’t something you can ignore just because you don’t like the way it’s packaged.
For example, when someone wants to discredit your platform by suggesting that since you’re not being impacted, you have no reason to be critical…
- Just because my money isn’t in the bank that’s being robbed, doesn’t mean that I can’t rightfully oppose stealing.
- Should they choose to say that, since they’re not hurting anyone, any criticism is unnecessary, you can remind them that, more often than not, that phrase is used by people who’ve decided that regardless of the problems their choices produce, if it doesn’t matter to them, it shouldn’t matter to anyone else. That’s not making an argument, they’re just declaring their indifference.
When it comes to homosexuality, you’ve got three things going on simultaneously.
1) Not good for you
From a physiological standpoint, you have a lifestyle that represents a parade of STDs, some of which are lethal. You also can’t procreate, which qualifies your perversion, not only as something that’s detrimental to your health, but also as a complete departure from the way the human species is designed. (see sidebar)
2) Bad for the team.
This is coming from SAGE Publications, the world’s largest independent scholarly publisher. This captures both the physiological problems as well as the problems that impact society in general.
Are homosexuals “not dangers to society” and is homosexuality “compatible with full health”? To answer these questions 4,340 adult respondents drawn via area probability sampling from 5 metropolitan areas of the USA self-administered an extensive sexuality/public order questionnaire of over 500 items. Bisexuals and homosexuals (about 4% of the sample) as compared to heterosexuals: (1) more frequently exposed themselves to biological hazards (e.g., sadomasochism, fisting, bestiality, ingestion of feces); (2) exposed themselves sexually to more different bodies (e.g., more frequently admitted to participating in orgies, reported considerably larger numbers of sexual partners); (3) more frequently reported participating in socially disruptive sex (e.g., deliberate infection of others, cheating in marriage, making obscene phone calls); and (4) more frequently reported engaging in socially disruptive activities (e.g., criminality, shoplifting, tax cheating). From the standpoints of individual health, public health and social order, participating in homosexual activity could be viewed as dangerous to society and incompatible with full health. (National Library of Medicine)
Some want to try and justify Homosexuality by insisting that homosexuals were born that way. But according to the “American Psychological Association,” There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation.”1
3) You have to pretend there are no rules.
When you’re a part of a team, you have a responsibility to contribute in a way that benefits the team as a whole. You don’t just wear the jersey, you play in a way that helps move the ball down the field. But if you’re determined to believe that there are no rules and you can play however you want to, that puts an unnecessary strain on the team’s ability to succeed. In that context, you’re not “independent,” you’re just selfish.
The person who wants to see themselves as their own absolute will not confess to being selfish, however. Instead, they’ll insist that their rights are being violated – that they are victims of an intolerant society. They won’t admit to being irresponsible or negligent, instead they’ll say that there are no boundaries and anyone who disagrees is either ignorant or cruel.
The problem with that mindset is that it ignores reality. They want to pretend that they can speak a standard into existence, simply because they want it to be true, rather than submitting to a standard because it is true.
The result is a compromised collective. It’s not about a lack of variety or an intolerant authority, as much as it’s an unnecessary increase in pain and problems that stem from a resolve to reduce truth to a tradition.
The LGBQT community requires that husbands and wives, along with moms and dads have to be redefined as social constructs as opposed to fundamental institutions. They dismiss the consequences of their perversion as “risks” and any objective evaluation of their behavior as “discrimination.” This is the only path that can be taken if their approach to the human experience is going to make any sense, and it is the same kind of path that is used by everyone that wants to normalize a flawed way of thinking: Replace what’s real with a manufactured reality where there are no bottom lines and truth is whatever an individual wants to believe.
The problem with homosexuality, or any kind of sexual misconduct, is the way that it poisons society by compromising both the definition and the function of a healthy family. Adultery and fornication lead to children who are either unwanted or reduced to pieces of property being fought over by two angry adults. Homosexuality is incapable of producing children, and the kids that are raised in a homosexual household struggle because of the way they’re constantly being told that truth is nothing more than a tradition.
In short, in order for the homosexual lifestyle to make any sense, the human experience has to be reinvented, medical realities have to be ignored, societal damage has to be dismissed, and morality in general has to be redefined.
It Makes No Sense
It makes absolutely no sense when you consider that, among the negative health consequences of same sex behavior, you have:
- Reduced Life Expectancy
- Sexually Transmitted Diseases
- Cancer
- Mental Health Issues
- Domestic Violence
- Increased Suicide Risks
And yet…
Those who challenge the normalcy and equivalence arguments of GLBT advocates are predictably met with the jamming tactic of being labeled bigots, haters, and homophobes so as to pre-empt reasonable debate. Disagreeing with GLBT sexual practice is neither hatred, harassment, phobia, nor violence, but the expression of opinion firmly grounded in medical literature.2
The Fundamental Dispute
Attempting to defend Homosexuality by saying that “Science says you’re wrong,” is ignoring the fact that it’s raining because it wasn’t forecasted by your favorite weatherman.
When you say “Science says your wrong,” you’re implying a conclusion shared by a majority that is neither questioned or disputed. But that isn’t the case.
At the end of the day, there’s more to these disagreements than a competing collection of facts and studies. The fundamental dispute comes down to how you define truth. You define it either according to what’s real or how you feel. If you define it according to how you feel, you’re inevitably restricted to what amounts to an unsustainable hypocrisy. If you’re determined to justify yourself by saying that truth is whatever an individual wants to believe, then you can’t logically disagree with someone and say they’re wrong if there is no right or wrong.
LGBTQ, Socialism, ProChoice – all of these things depend on a perspective that maintains the individual as his own bottom line. Any policy or personality that threatens the authority of the person who’s empowered themselves to dictate the difference between right and wrong is going to be first criticized, then ignored, and then, silenced.
You don’t counter that kind of agenda without incorporating an approach that addresses the philosophical poison that refuses to acknowledge the boundaries of truth, common sense, and sound reasoning. You’re not questioning their logic, you’re challenging their authority, and apart from asking those questions that reveal the self-defeating aspect of their philosophical foundation, in their mind, they’re either different or they’re damaged, but they’re never wrong.
For further reading, as far as the biblical perspective on Homosexuality, read the “Is Homosexuality Sinful” series by clicking here.
1. “Understanding sexual orientation and homosexuality”, “American Psychological Association”, https://www.apa.org/topics/lgbtq/orientation, accessed June 7, 2026
2. “Negative Health Consequences of Same-Sex Sexual Behavior”, “Christian Medical and Dental Associations”, https://cmda.org/article/negative-health-consequences-of-same-sex-sexual-behavior/, accessed June 7, 2026
Johnny the Walrus
Negative Health Consequences of Same-Sex Sexual Behavior – this elaborates on Dr. Francis S. Collins’ assertion that Predisposition is not destiny.
Same Sex Marriage and the Threat to Religious Liberty
Key Health Concerns for MSM (Men Who have Sex with Men)
Effect of homosexuality upon public health and social order
Are Some People Born Gay?
Fatherhood and Motherhood in a Diverse and Changing World
