3 Fatal Flaws in the “Gender as Social Construct” Position

Society is at a crossroads—either God institutes biological sex by which a person’s gender is established (male and female, see Gen. 5:2), or gender is a social construct and thus open to be revised, rejected, or assigned.

Written by Adam Groza and Ben Arbour | Monday, June 4, 2018

Share27

27 Shares

Can you spot the problem? If gender is a social construct, then playing with dolls and preferring pink instead of blue doesn’t count as evidence of some individuals having a different gender identity than their biological sex. Assuming what the transgender community would have us believe about gender as a social construct, dolls and pinkness aren’t essential components of femininity, nor do G.I. Joe’s and blueness represent essential marks of masculinity. Pointing to meaningless and “oppressive” social constructs as evidence of one’s real gender is incoherent.

Typical Southern Baptists are barraged with the message that gender is a social construct, which means that gender is something subjective and not the result of nature, purpose, or design. They hear this message on television, in movies, in popular songs, in schools, and even in corporate training material. Southern Baptist churches need to educate their congregants to resist this argument and tear down these lies (2 Cor. 10:5).

Fatal Flaws

What are the fatal flaws to the idea that gender is a social construct, or, more specifically, what’s wrong with the way that transgenderism is promoted?

Start with how people tend to question their gender. The common story we’ve probably all heard goes something like this: “My child was born a biological male, and we named him Christopher, but from an early age, he only wanted to dress in pink and play with dolls. So we knew early on that our child was really a girl, and eventually, we allowed Chrissy to identify as female.”