In public debate today, few subjects provoke more confusion, emotion, and controversy than gender ideology. Supporters of transgender activism often claim that the science is “settled” and that those who question the legitimacy of “gender identity” are engaging in harmful denialism. One talking point that has grown more common is the claim that “baseline studies” proving gender ideology have been suppressed by conservatives.
The implication is twofold: first, that there exists a solid body of objective scientific research confirming the claims of gender theory; and second, that religious or politically conservative actors have conspired to bury, defund, or discredit these findings for ideological reasons. Like most propaganda, this narrative contains a grain of truth mixed with a heavy dose of exaggeration, omission, and misdirection.
This article examines that claim head-on. It will walk through the studies and researchers most commonly cited—both implicitly and explicitly—by gender activists when referencing so-called “baseline data.” It will also expose what these studies actually concluded, how they were received in the academic world, and why the idea that conservatives “suppressed” them is historically dishonest.
We’ll begin with the most infamous name in the early history of gender theory: Dr. John Money.
John Money and the Tragedy of David Reimer
The Man Behind the Theory
Dr. John Money (1921–2006) was a New Zealand-born psychologist and sexologist who spent much of his career at Johns Hopkins University in the United States. He is often hailed as one of the intellectual founders of modern gender theory. In fact, Money was one of the first researchers to draw a clear conceptual distinction between biological sex and gender identity. He coined terms like gender role and gender identity in an attempt to explain what he believed were the socially constructed aspects of how people understand themselves as male or female.
Money was not merely interested in definitions. He was a pioneer—some would say a crusader—for the belief that gender could be learned. In his view, if a child were raised as a boy or a girl, regardless of the biological sex they were born with, they could internalize and live out that role successfully, assuming the environment was properly controlled.
The Experiment: David Reimer (The John/Joan Case)
In 1965, a baby boy named Bruce Reimer was born in Winnipeg, Canada. At the age of eight months, Bruce underwent a botched circumcision procedure using an electrocautery device. The tragic result was the complete destruction of his penis. The Reimer family, distraught and desperate, eventually came into contact with Dr. John Money, who recommended that Bruce be raised as a girl. He was surgically castrated and given the name Brenda. From that point forward, the Reimers raised their son as a daughter, following Money’s advice to use female pronouns, clothes, toys, and behaviors.
Money used this case to promote his theory. He claimed that gender identity was malleable and that a child could be successfully re-socialized to adopt a gender identity different from his or her biological sex. In publications and presentations, Money declared the experiment a success. The so-called “John/Joan” case became a cause célèbre among academics and was cited in textbooks, university curricula, and gender policy proposals for decades.
But behind the scenes, the reality was deeply disturbing.
The Reality Behind the Rhetoric
Contrary to Money’s public declarations, “Brenda” Reimer (biologically male) never truly accepted a female identity. From early childhood, Brenda exhibited classically male behaviors and experienced deep confusion and distress. She preferred rough-and-tumble play, rejected dresses, and was bullied for not behaving like a typical girl.
Despite Money’s glowing reports, “Brenda” was not thriving. In fact, the treatment sessions with Money included graphic and unethical sexualization, including forcing the Reimer twins to engage in mock sexual acts under the guise of teaching “gender roles.” These disturbing methods—never widely disclosed during Money’s lifetime—have since come to light and are condemned even by those sympathetic to gender ideology.
By the time “Brenda” reached adolescence, she was severely depressed and expressed suicidal ideation. At age 14, her parents finally told her the truth: she had been born male. She immediately rejected her female identity, changed her name to David, began hormone treatments, and eventually underwent reconstructive surgery to approximate a male anatomy.
David went on to marry a woman and adopt her children. But the psychological trauma he endured would linger. In 2004, at the age of 38, David Reimer died by suicide—three years after his twin brother had also taken his own life.
The Fallout and the Cover-up
Despite the abject failure of the Reimer case, Money continued to present it as a success for years. His publications were cited in support of gender-neutral parenting, transgender affirmation, and academic curricula. His influence was so strong that many in the psychological and educational fields refused to question the official narrative.
It wasn’t until the late 1990s, when journalist John Colapinto published an exposé in Rolling Stone (later expanded into the book As Nature Made Him), that the truth was publicly acknowledged. After that, the academic world could no longer ignore the devastating results of Money’s experiment.
Ironically, critics of gender ideology—often conservatives—were the ones who exposed this case. They didn’t suppress the research; they highlighted it. They didn’t bury the evidence—they brought it to light, revealing that the most famous “baseline study” in gender theory was in fact a scientific and moral disaster.
To this day, many gender activists either ignore or downplay the Reimer case. When it is mentioned, it is often excused as a “product of its time” or as an isolated misstep. But that is intellectually dishonest. The Reimer tragedy is not peripheral—it was central to the claim that gender identity is socially constructed and can be changed through parenting and environment. If anything was “suppressed,” it was the truth about what happened.
Alfred Kinsey and the Fabrication of Sexual Fluidity
A Reputation Built on Revolution
Dr. Alfred C. Kinsey (1894–1956), a biologist and sexologist at Indiana University, is often hailed as the “father of the sexual revolution.” His two groundbreaking and controversial works—Sexual Behavior in the Human Male (1948) and Sexual Behavior in the Human Female (1953)—shattered mid-20th-century taboos and introduced an entirely new framework for understanding human sexuality.
At the heart of Kinsey’s project was the idea that sexual behavior exists along a continuum. He famously developed the Kinsey Scale, which ranged from 0 (exclusively heterosexual) to 6 (exclusively homosexual). According to Kinsey, a large portion of the population did not fall neatly into the “heterosexual” or “homosexual” categories, but somewhere in between.
While Kinsey’s immediate focus was on sexuality, not gender identity, his work laid the psychological and academic groundwork that allowed later theorists to separate biological sex from inner identity. Kinsey normalized fluidity. If sexual behavior was not fixed, but changeable, socially conditioned, and diverse, then—by extension—so too might be gender identity.
The Problem: How Kinsey Got His Data
The most damning criticisms of Kinsey’s work stem not from the topics he studied, but from how he studied them. His research was not based on randomized, representative samples of the general population. Instead, Kinsey frequently relied on:
- Convicted sex offenders and prisoners,
- Homosexual men recruited from urban social networks,
- Individuals engaged in highly unconventional or even criminal sexual behavior,
- Self-selected volunteers, not representative of the broader public.
The most explosive revelations came from Table 34 in Sexual Behavior in the Human Male, which details the sexual responses of children—including infants—as young as 5 months old. The data shows, in shocking detail, the timing and duration of supposed “orgasms” in prepubescent boys and infants, raising obvious ethical red flags.
Where did this data come from?
Kinsey cited “trained observers” who had allegedly documented these responses, but never clearly identified who they were. It was later discovered that at least one source was a pedophile named Rex King, who kept meticulous logs of the children he molested—logs which Kinsey’s team accepted and used as scientific data.
Kinsey never reported this to authorities. Instead, he incorporated the findings into his research under the pretense of objective science. The grotesque truth is that Kinsey’s team accepted, used, and normalized data derived from sexual abuse.
Judith Reisman and the Case Against Kinsey
For decades, Kinsey was treated as a scientific hero, even a cultural prophet. But in the 1990s, researcher Dr. Judith Reisman (1935–2021) began to systematically expose the moral and methodological failures in his work. A former liberal feminist and survivor of child sexual abuse, Reisman brought an unmatched moral urgency to her critiques.
In books such as Kinsey: Crimes and Consequences and Sexual Sabotage, Reisman documented how Kinsey:
- Falsified data to make aberrant sexual behaviors appear more common than they are,
- Used criminal abusers as sources of “scientific” insight,
- Created a climate of moral relativism in academic and public discourse,
- Gave cover to activists who sought to destigmatize adult-child sexual relationships.
Reisman’s work was dismissed by many as alarmist, but she was eventually vindicated. Even researchers who reject her theological framing have come to acknowledge the deep flaws in Kinsey’s methods, especially the grotesque handling of child data.
In 2012, a German researcher and Kinsey biographer, Dr. Lothar Machtan, stated:
“Kinsey violated basic ethical standards. That’s not something one can simply excuse as a product of his time.”
From Kinsey to Gender Ideology
Why does Kinsey matter in a conversation about gender?
Because Kinsey laid the moral and epistemological foundation for separating identity from nature. He taught a generation of academics to view sexuality—and by association, gender—not as an objective biological fact, but as a subjective continuum, open to personal exploration.
He popularized the idea that what people feel, want, or experiment with is just as valid as what nature dictates. His work helped set the stage for a postmodern view of personhood, in which the body is no longer an anchor, but an obstacle to self-expression.
That’s why Kinsey is often name-dropped (albeit indirectly) in contemporary gender discourse. When activists argue that being “nonbinary” or “genderfluid” is just as natural as being male or female, they’re drawing on a worldview pioneered by Kinsey: one in which behavior defines identity, and moral norms are social constructs.
But again, the claim that Kinsey’s work was suppressed is nonsense. In truth, his work was promoted, not silenced. It was heralded by the academy, echoed in the media, and institutionalized in universities and medical schools. If anything, it’s the critics of Kinsey—like Judith Reisman—who were ignored, mocked, or marginalized.
“Gender-Affirming Care,” Institutional Capture, and the Illusion of Scientific Consensus
The Current Claim: Science Supports Transitioning, but Conservatives Interfere
One of the central assertions made by gender activists is that “gender-affirming care”—a catch-all term that includes social transition, puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and surgical interventions—has been proven to reduce suicide risk, improve mental health, and validate a person’s “true self.” They claim that those who question these protocols, especially for children and adolescents, are engaging in pseudoscientific bigotry.
And yet, beneath the loud appeals to “trust the science,” something critical is often missing: actual high-quality, long-term, controlled studies that justify these interventions.
Proponents often say the evidence is “settled,” but what they cite rarely lives up to that claim.
Let’s examine the actual research landscape.
The Studies Often Cited to Support Gender-Affirming Care
1. The 2011 Study by Cecilia Dhejne (Sweden)
This is one of the most comprehensive longitudinal studies on post-operative transgender individuals. Published in the PLoS ONE journal, the study followed individuals who underwent sex-reassignment surgery over a 30-year period in Sweden, a country known for its progressive policies and robust social safety net.
Findings:
- Trans individuals had a suicide rate 19 times higher than the general population—even after undergoing surgical transition.
- They also had increased rates of psychiatric hospitalization, substance abuse, and mortality.
How it’s used:
Activists often cite this study as proof that trans individuals need support and validation. Ironically, it has been used to justify affirming care.
What it actually proves:
That medical transition does not resolve the mental health struggles of many trans-identifying individuals. The authors themselves noted that transition should not be viewed as a cure-all and recommended psychiatric follow-up care as essential.
2. The “Suicide Prevention” Argument (Trevor Project, 2020s)
Many activist organizations, like the Trevor Project, claim that refusing to affirm a child’s chosen gender leads to increased suicide risk. Their surveys claim that trans-identifying youth are far more likely to consider or attempt suicide if they are not supported in their gender identity.
The flaw:
These are self-reported, cross-sectional surveys—not longitudinal, controlled, peer-reviewed studies. The data does not prove causation. It only shows correlation between mental health issues and gender dysphoria. More critically, the participants are often recruited through LGBTQ+ advocacy groups, which introduces selection bias.
This isn’t rigorous science—it’s marketing data with a political agenda.
Methodological Weaknesses in the Gender Medicine Field
Major reviews of existing transgender medical literature reveal some disturbing patterns:
- No randomized control trials (RCTs): The gold standard in medical research is virtually absent in this field.
- Short follow-up periods: Many studies follow patients for less than a year, meaning no reliable data on long-term harms or regrets.
- Lack of control groups: Few studies compare treated vs. untreated populations.
- Self-reported outcomes: Patients often assess their own satisfaction, which is vulnerable to placebo effects or social desirability bias.
- Ideological interference: Many researchers are activists or ideologically committed to “affirmation” models.
Even a 2022 review by the British Medical Journal—hardly a conservative outlet—noted that most “affirming care” studies are of low or very low quality.
The Cass Review: A Turning Point
In 2020, the UK’s National Health Service (NHS) commissioned pediatrician Dr. Hilary Cass to conduct an independent review of gender identity services for youth. Her final report, published in 2024, sent shockwaves through the medical establishment.
Key findings:
- There is no reliable evidence that puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones provide long-term mental health benefits for minors.
- The data on desistance (those who outgrow dysphoria) was ignored in much of the clinical literature.
- There was a rush to affirm without adequate psychological evaluation.
- The Tavistock Gender Identity Development Service (GIDS) failed to uphold basic safeguarding standards.
Result:
The Tavistock Clinic—England’s primary youth gender clinic—was shut down.
Far from being suppressed by conservatives, these conclusions were produced by a government-commissioned review in a secular, left-leaning country. It wasn’t driven by ideology but by medical ethics and concern for child safety.
Sweden and Finland: The Nordic Reversal
Other progressive nations have followed suit. Sweden and Finland, long seen as leaders in transgender medical care, have reversed course.
- Sweden’s Karolinska Hospital (2021): Halted puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones for minors outside of clinical research settings.
- Finland’s Council for Choices in Healthcare (COHERE): Emphasized a psychotherapeutic approach, citing lack of evidence for medical transition in youth.
These are not right-wing countries. Their shifts represent a reckoning with poor evidence and rising regret rates, not pressure from religious fundamentalists.
Who Is Actually Suppressing Whom?
Let’s step back. If these studies and reversals exist—and are not published in obscure journals but in national policy documents and major scientific outlets—why are so many people still convinced that gender-affirming care is “proven” and that conservatives are the ones doing the silencing?
The answer is institutional capture.
In the United States, most major medical associations—American Psychiatric Association (APA), American Academy of Pediatricians (AAP), and American Medical Association (AMA)—have adopted “affirmation-only” policies. But their decisions are often based on position papers, not exhaustive systematic reviews. And dissenters within their ranks face professional retaliation. Whistleblowers like Jamie Reed (a progressive who worked at a Missouri gender clinic) have detailed how these institutions suppress internal criticism.
In this climate, it is not conservatives who are suppressing data. In fact, it is often Christians, concerned parents, detransitioners, and centrist scientists who are demanding more transparency—and being labeled as “bigots” or “anti-science” for doing so.
Who’s Really Being Silenced? Littman, Bailey, and the Censorship of Dissent
The narrative that “conservatives suppress gender science” collapses when confronted with the real-world record. In truth, the suppression almost always flows in the opposite direction: it is those who question the orthodoxy of gender ideology who face professional backlash, reputational damage, and attempts to silence their research. Three major examples stand out: Dr. Lisa Littman, Dr. Michael Bailey, and the growing army of detransitioners whose voices are routinely muted.
1. Dr. Lisa Littman and the ROGD Backlash
In 2018, Dr. Lisa Littman, then affiliated with Brown University and the Rhode Island Department of Health, published a peer-reviewed study titled “Rapid-Onset Gender Dysphoria in Adolescents and Young Adults: A Study of Parental Reports.”
Her research highlighted a troubling trend: increasing numbers of adolescents—especially girls with no prior history of gender dysphoria—were suddenly identifying as transgender, often after immersion in peer groups or online forums that promoted transition.
She termed this phenomenon Rapid-Onset Gender Dysphoria (ROGD) and proposed that social contagion might be a contributing factor.
Littman’s study was groundbreaking. It didn’t deny that gender dysphoria can be real and distressing. Instead, it challenged the simplistic “born this way” narrative and raised the possibility that external influences—not internal identity—were driving many of these sudden declarations of transgenderism.
The Reaction: Ideological Firestorm
What followed was not scientific debate—it was a mob-style campaign of ideological retaliation.
- Activist groups such as the Human Rights Campaign and GLAAD condemned the study as “dangerous” and “transphobic.”
- Brown University removed the press release promoting the study from its website under activist pressure.
- The journal PLOS ONE issued a “correction” and subjected the already peer-reviewed article to post-publication review—something that almost never happens unless fraud is involved.
This was not about protecting science—it was about protecting an ideology. Littman’s study had merely raised questions, yet it was treated as heresy.
Ironically, since then, several European medical boards have cited Littman’s findings as worthy of deeper exploration. Yet in the United States, her career was derailed, and her name was smeared.
If any research has been “suppressed,” it was hers—and not by conservatives, but by gender activists embedded in media, academia, and professional medicine.
2. Dr. Michael Bailey and the Typology Taboo
Another striking case is that of Dr. Michael Bailey, a psychologist at Northwestern University and author of the 2003 book The Man Who Would Be Queen: The Science of Gender-Bending and Transsexualism. In this book, Bailey drew upon the work of Dr. Ray Blanchard to describe two types of male-to-female transsexualism:
- Androphilic type: males attracted to men, whose gender dysphoria appears early in life.
- Autogynephilic type: males aroused by the thought of themselves as women, often emerging in adolescence or adulthood.
This typology was based on decades of clinical observation and academic literature. Bailey’s goal wasn’t to insult anyone—it was to present an empirically grounded, psychological account of transgender variation.
The Response: Career Assassination
The backlash was ferocious.
- Bailey was accused of “transphobia,” “hate speech,” and “academic misconduct.”
- Activist Jennifer Finney Boylan (now a prominent transgender commentator) and others publicly denounced Bailey, calling for Northwestern to censure or fire him.
- He was subject to an anonymous, coordinated harassment campaign including accusations against his personal life.
The charges were investigated and ultimately dismissed. But the damage was done. Bailey’s reputation suffered, his academic freedom was challenged, and The Man Who Would Be Queen was quietly sidelined in university settings.
Since then, even highly credentialed researchers have become wary of exploring trans typology or psychological motivations. The message is clear: step outside the narrative, and you will pay.
3. Detransitioners: Silenced by Their Own Community
In recent years, an increasing number of detransitioners—individuals who transitioned and later regretted it—have begun sharing their stories publicly.
Their experiences often include:
- Medical complications from cross-sex hormones or surgeries,
- Lack of psychological evaluation before treatment,
- Social or peer pressure to transition,
- Dismissal and shaming by doctors and therapists.
These testimonies are inconvenient for the gender movement, which insists that regret is rare and that gender identity is innate and immutable.
Rather than engage with detransitioners’ concerns, activists and major platforms have chosen censorship.
- Reddit and YouTube have repeatedly removed or shadowbanned detrans content, especially when it critiques medical providers.
- Twitter/X under pre-Musk leadership actively suspended accounts that raised questions about pediatric transition.
- Instagram and TikTok algorithms down-rank detransition content while boosting pro-trans messaging.
Notably, these voices are not coming from the “religious right.” Many detransitioners were originally progressive, LGBT-affirming, and seeking personal liberation. Their stories cut against the grain precisely because they cannot be dismissed as right-wing propaganda.
Organizations like Genspect, Detrans Voices, and Post Trans have sprung up to amplify these stories—but they are routinely attacked and labeled “anti-trans,” simply for advocating caution and informed consent.
The Suppression Is Real—but Not Where Activists Claim
The pattern is now undeniable:
- When a study supports gender ideology, it is celebrated—regardless of methodological flaws.
- When a study challenges gender ideology, it is censored, attacked, or buried.
And yet, we’re expected to believe that conservatives are the ones doing the silencing?
It’s true that conservative legislators have sought to ban certain procedures for minors or restrict government funding for gender clinics. But these are policy responses, not suppression of science. The censorship, professional retaliation, and scientific blacklisting have overwhelmingly come from within the progressive and medical establishment itself.
A Christian Evaluation and Response to the “Suppression” Narrative
Framing the Real Conflict: Truth vs. Ideology
At its heart, the debate about gender identity is not simply a matter of science versus politics or of progress versus tradition. It is a spiritual conflict between truth and deception—between the created order established by God and the man-made fictions crafted by a fallen world.
The claim that conservatives have “suppressed baseline studies” that support gender ideology is not just factually incorrect; it is a moral reversal of the truth. Scripture has a name for this tactic: suppressing the truth in unrighteousness (Romans 1:18). It’s not new, and it’s not limited to sexual ethics. The Apostle Paul describes a pattern where humanity:
- Knows the truth (v. 19),
- Refuses to honor God (v. 21),
- Exchanges truth for a lie (v. 25),
- And is given over to dishonorable passions and depraved minds (vv. 26–28).
This is exactly what we see in gender ideology today. A rebellion against created design is being sanctified under the label of “identity,” and anyone who points to the Designer is accused of hate.
But Christians must not fall for the lie. We must remain rooted in Scripture and equipped to answer false narratives—even when they are cloaked in scientific language.
What the Facts Actually Show
Let’s summarize the evidence presented in this article:
✅ John Money’s experiment failed.
- The Reimer case, once lauded as “proof” that gender identity is learned, ended in tragedy.
- Money’s unethical methods and false reporting were exposed not by gender activists—but by concerned journalists and Christian critics.
✅ Alfred Kinsey’s research was morally and scientifically bankrupt.
- Kinsey relied on child abusers for data, fabricated normalization of perversion, and laid a corrupt foundation for later sexual and gender fluidity arguments.
- Kinsey was not silenced. He was celebrated. It’s the critics—like Judith Reisman—who were marginalized.
✅ “Affirming care” lacks solid scientific support.
- Major studies show no long-term mental health benefit from transition.
- European countries like the UK, Sweden, and Finland have reversed course, not because of religion, but due to lack of evidence.
✅ Dissenters are the ones actually being suppressed.
- Dr. Lisa Littman’s study on ROGD was attacked and censored.
- Dr. Michael Bailey was smeared for publishing typology-based research.
- Detransitioners are ignored, censored, and labeled traitors—even when they speak from personal trauma.
So the next time someone insists that “baseline studies proving gender identity were suppressed by conservatives,” don’t take the bait. Ask for specifics:
“Which studies? Who did the research? Where were they published? Who suppressed them? And why?”
You’ll quickly find that the claim is rhetorical smoke, not substance.
A Biblical Anthropology: Male and Female He Created Them
Christians must not only refute falsehoods—we must replace them with truth.
The biblical view is clear and unchanging:
- Humanity is made in God’s image (Genesis 1:27).
- He created them male and female—a binary, not a spectrum.
- Our bodies are not mistakes. They are not prisons. They are good gifts.
- While we live in a fallen world that includes disorders and confusion, our Creator does not lie or make errors.
In Psalm 139:13–14, David praises God: “You formed my inward parts; you knitted me together in my mother’s womb. I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made.”
Christians must recapture this confidence—not in ourselves, but in the One who made us.
Why This Matters: The Real Stakes
This debate is not just about bathroom policies or pronoun usage. It’s about truth itself—and whether objective reality can be denied in the name of subjective feelings.
Gender ideology tells confused children: “Your body is wrong. We can fix it with drugs and surgery.”
The gospel tells hurting people: “God made you. He sees you. You are not a mistake. Come find peace and identity in Christ.”
In a culture ruled by feelings and false compassion, true compassion speaks truth—even when it’s unpopular.
A Gracious Response for Conversations
When engaging others—especially those who are confused, hurting, or influenced by media slogans—Christians should balance firm truth with patient love.
You might say something like:
I’ve looked into the science, and what I’ve found is that many of the most-cited studies have either been misrepresented or disproven. The tragic Reimer case is a perfect example. It didn’t prove that gender is fluid—it showed the deep harm caused by denying biological reality. More and more countries are waking up to this. I don’t hate anyone—I just believe we shouldn’t lie to people about what they are.
You don’t have to win every argument. But you do have to represent the truth.
Trusted Voices Worth Hearing: Grossman and Reisman
In a conversation dominated by ideological slogans and silenced dissent, it is important to recognize and commend voices who speak truth boldly—often at great personal cost. Two such voices stand out: Dr. Miriam Grossman and Dr. Judith Reisman.
Dr. Miriam Grossman: The Psychiatrist Who Sounded the Alarm
Dr. Miriam Grossman is a board-certified child and adolescent psychiatrist who has spent decades working in university health centers. She is best known for her books Unprotected and Lost in Trans Nation: A Child Psychiatrist’s Guide Out of the Madness, in which she exposes how progressive sexual ideology has infiltrated mental health care, education, and pediatric medicine.
Though she is not a Christian, Grossman is an ally in the fight for truth. Her arguments are grounded in biology, neuroscience, and clinical experience. She warns parents about the dangers of gender ideology, especially the way it bypasses proper psychological evaluation and exploits vulnerable children with simplistic slogans like “Born in the wrong body.”
Grossman’s strength lies in her clarity and compassion. She refuses to demonize those who struggle with gender dysphoria, but she equally refuses to sacrifice truth on the altar of affirmation. In Lost in Trans Nation, she provides a parent-friendly roadmap to push back against the narrative and advocate for children’s long-term well-being.
A note of caution: Dr. Grossman is secular and may support adult gender transition under certain circumstances. At times, she may speak of authentic identity in psychological terms that a Christian would want to filter through a biblical anthropology. That said, she is staunchly opposed to transitioning minors and sharply critical of the culture’s rush to affirm rather than explore.
Dr. Judith Reisman: Exposing Kinsey’s Legacy
The late Dr. Judith Reisman (1935–2021) was a Jewish-born scholar, researcher, and moral reformer who spent decades exposing the fraudulent and criminal underpinnings of Alfred Kinsey’s research. Her books—including Kinsey: Crimes and Consequences and Sexual Sabotage—document how Kinsey’s ideology infected education, law, media, and psychiatry.
Reisman’s work is not merely academic; it is prophetic. She revealed how Kinsey:
- Used data from criminal child abusers,
- Promoted sexual relativism under the guise of science,
- Enabled pedophile-sympathizing organizations like NAMBLA,
- And shaped the so-called “sexual rights” movement that eventually evolved into gender ideology.
Though not writing from a distinctively Christian worldview, Reisman shared many biblical values—particularly her reverence for childhood innocence, moral order, and natural law. Her insights remain a goldmine for any Christian seeking to understand how we arrived at this moment in Western sexual ethics.
Reisman was often dismissed by elites as alarmist, but history has proven her warnings accurate. She endured mockery, professional exclusion, and social scorn because she told the truth. She was a bold example of moral courage in a time of cowardice.
Why Christians Can Benefit from Their Work
Neither Grossman nor Reisman writes theology. They are not gospel preachers. But their work aligns with a biblical worldview in crucial ways:
- They affirm biological reality over subjective ideology.
- They protect children rather than affirm confusion.
- They warn against institutions that exploit psychological vulnerability for political gain.
As Proverbs 18:17 reminds us, “The one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him.” These women have done the work of examining false claims and bringing light to dark corners.
Christians can—and should—draw on their insights, even while filtering their conclusions through the lens of Scripture.
Final Thoughts: Light in a Dark World
Gender ideology thrives in confusion. It cannot survive long in the light of honest science, sound theology, and sincere compassion. That’s why its defenders resort to the claim of “suppressed science.” It is an attempt to silence critics not by reason, but by shame.
But as Christians, we are called to speak truth even when it costs us. Jesus said, “The truth will set you free” (John 8:32). That includes the truth about who we are as male and female—and what happens when that truth is rejected.
Let us speak clearly, love deeply, and never retreat from the duty to defend what is right, even in the face of cultural resistance.
S.D.G.,
Robert Sparkman
rob@christiannewsjunkie.com
RELATED CONTENT
Concerning the Related Content section, I encourage everyone to evaluate the content carefully.
If I have listed the content, I think it is worthwhile viewing to educate yourself on the topic, but it may contain coarse language or some opinions I don’t agree with.
Feel free to offer your comments below. Respectful comments without expletives and personal attacks will be posted and I will respond to them.
Comments are closed after sixty days due to spamming issues from internet bots.
You can always send me an email at rob@christiannewsjunkie.com if you want to comment on something afterwards, though.
It should be noted that on some matters, I am expressing my convictions or opinions on the matter. My convictions and opinions are strongly influenced by a conservative, Christian (biblical) worldview.
At times, like any other human being, my remarks will reflect my own intuition and bias. I am subject to error, although I speak from a clean concience, knowing that I will ultimately be held accountable for my words.
If you have evidence that I am wrong about a material statement of fact, provide the evidence and I will gladly review it and make revisions if merited. Obviously, there are some assertions that are matters of opinion that I will not change, but I always strive to be truthful.
I will continue to add videos and other items to the Related Content section as opportunities present themselves.
I recommend these Youtube channels and commentators for good content on politics and news from a Christian and/or conservative worldview: Albert Mohler, Allie Beth Stuckey, Bill O’Reilly, CBN News, Hugh Hewitt, John Anderson Media (Australia), Nick Freitas, Ruthless Podcast (language warning), Scott Jennings, The Hot Zone with Chuck Holton, Vince Dao, and Verdict with Ted Cruz.
Albert Mohler’s channel on Youtube has a daily episode called The Briefing with Albert Mohler that I highly recommend. Allie Beth Stuckey’s channel is top-notch, too.
For livestreaming of political protests and riots by conservative commentators, check out Nate Friedman, Cam Higby, James Klug, and Nick Shirley. I don’t agree with the perspectives of all these commentators and the language of protesters is often obscene. Most news outlets will not cover these illegal assemblies, though, because it doesn’t promote their narrative.
Depictions of Jesus Christ are used in some illustrations. I realize that some including conservative Presbyterians consider this to be idolatry. I respectfully disagree with their position on this matter as the commandment forbids worshiping such depictions, and I do not worship these illustrations.