Gender Theory: Science or Ideology?

Debunking the “Scientific Basis” of Comprehensive Sexuality Education. Part 1


The countries of the former Eastern block are witnessing a significant increase in the number of self-proclaimed liberal democratic parties that aim to achieve progress comparable to the most developed Western countries. The overly ambitious objective of these parties is to instill so-called Euro-Atlantic values into the education systems of their countries so that the young people could shape their destinies in a free and democratic society. This article will review some of the most alarming issues currently affecting the children and students in the liberal western countries. We will examine whether this new education model that adamantly dismisses Christian values as obsolete and outdated is really as scientifically well-grounded as claimed. Additionally, we will explore the consequences of this model for society and future generations.

This new education model adamantly dismisses Christian values as obsolete and outdated

According to the LGBT community, the educational curricula currently used by most countries are predominantly based on gender segregation and impose burdensome heteronormative expectations and sexists roles upon men and women. That is why adoption of new school curricula is believed to be necessary to address problems related to sexual identity and homophobia. This could be achieved by introducing various textbooks and methodologies for children and young adults to enable them to challenge the “outdated” stereotypes with modern educational techniques.

The standards of sex education adopted by the World Health Organization in Europe indicate that in order to understand their gender identity, 0–4 year-old children ought to be instructed about masturbation and the pleasure they can experience when touching their bodies. Children aged 4 to 6 should be informed about early childhood masturbation, same sex relationships, diverse concepts of family, and taught to respect various norms of sexuality. As children reach the age 6–9, they need to be educated in various methods of conception, and taught about friendship and love between people of the same sex. When they are 9–12 years old, it is necessary to provide them with information about various gender identities, biological gender, and related concepts.1

However, the systemic research conducted in the countries that had implemented the so-called Comprehensive Sexuality Education teaching methodology revealed that this strategy was not effective for the public health. This conclusion was supported by more than a hundred contemporary research papers that had studied the curricula in various countries to assess the effectiveness of sex education. They prove that this strategy is not successful and that it has many negative consequences, such as increased sexual activity, a greater number of sexual partners, early pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases, etc.2

The Comprehensive Sexuality Education curricula are based on so-called “gender theory” developed by the philosophers of the LGBT movement and on the human sexuality research conducted by Alfred Kinsey in the Kinsey Institute at Indiana University. Let us examine what is happening in the Western world as a result of the implementation of these educational programs, which were intentionally designed to challenge Christian values and moral norms in shaping the younger generation!

The origin and scientific significance of gender theory

Since the outset of the Age of Enlightenment (late seventeenth century), the Western World has been influenced by atheistically-inclined humanism. Later (starting from mid twentieth century), it was also impacted by radical feminism. Essentially, for more than 300 years, Christian moral values have been subjected to deconstruction, resulting in an inability to differentiate between “good” and “evil” or to distinguish “healthy” and “normal” from “sick and perverted.” To avoid being accused of slander and exaggeration regarding the current happenings in the “brave new world” that we, the peoples of the former socialist bloc, have been dreaming about for so long, let us examine what these authors are saying in their publications, as this may reveal possible developments in these countries.

For more than 300 years, Christian moral values in the Western World have been subjected to deconstruction

In The Global Sexual Revolution, German sociologist Gabriele Kuby charts the evolution of extreme feminism as it morphs into so-called gender ideology, which while preserving “pink” traits, eventually degenerates into totalitarianism and dictatorship. Her description of the process is provided below.

“They (radical feminists) declared that they would achieve even greater equality for women. In reality, their struggle was against marriage, family, children, and women as mothers, all in pursuit of achieving the complete deregulation of sexuality… They fought to transform the society in order to liberate it from what they considered “abnormality” (i.e. Christian norms.—V.V.), deconstructing the contrast between sexual identity of men and women, and challenging ‘mandatory heterosexuality.’”

According to Judith Buttler, a lesbian and the main ideologist of gender theory, “The term ‘biological gender’ is an ideal construct that is enforced over time. It is not a fact or a static state of a body; instead, it is a process in which regulating norms enforce the biological gender through constant repetition of certain norms.”3

Gabriele Kuby explains this statement as follows:

“Translation: There are no men or women. Gender is a fantasy, something that we believe in because we heard it many times. Social gender is not tied to biological gender, as the latter holds no significance and exists solely as a linguistic construct that people believe in because they hear it all the time. According to Judith Buttler, identity is something fluid and flexible without any male or female essence. Instead, there is only some sort of ‘performance and behavior that can be altered at any time…”

Butler is considered the greatest authority on “queer theory”. Just like “gender”, “queer” is the word that had been given a totally different meaning. The word “queer” is supposed to avoid reliance on such labels as “lesbian”, “gay”, “bi” or “transsexual”, which, while rejecting heterosexuality, imply its existence. Queer simply refers to anyone who is not straight. The contrast between heterosexuality and homosexuality must be eliminated for the sake of complete destruction of gender identity, because only then “the dominance of enforced heterosexuality” will be eradicated and people will be free to construct their identities as they desire.

“Eradication of freedom for the sake of freedom…

“These values, traditions and laws (inherited from Christianity.—V.V.) have been systematically dismantled over the last forty years. In the culture of prospering West, this process began with rebellious students. Today, this constitutes the agenda of the cultural revolution driven by the powerful elites of this planet. Since early 1970s, a powerful lobby aided by UN, EC and mass media has been fighting to change the system of values.

“The goal is absolute freedom, detached from any natural or moral boundaries, where man is considered to be a “bare” individual. For such absolute freedom, which seeks liberation even from the “dictatorship of nature”, any natural constraint is viewed as an obstacle that needs to be overcome.

Hence, this kind of freedom has no concepts of “good” and “evil” or any norms. The specific tools used in this fight include deconstruction of the binary sexuality, changing of social norms and beliefs, especially among the young people, and achieving complete legal equality between homosexual partnerships and marriage, going as far as engaging in social ostracism and criminalizing resistance…

This kind of freedom has no concepts of “good” and “evil”, or any norms.

“Today, anyone in the political, academic, media, or even ecclesiastical realms who brings forth reasons why the sexual act belongs exclusively within the marital relationship between a man and a woman, and should be open to conceiving children, puts himself at risk. Anyone who scientifically discusses the risks and consequences of non-heterosexual behavior, or flat-out opposes sexual deregulation, opens himself up to becoming a social pariah. He may be excluded from public discourse, stigmatized with obscenities, lose his professional position, be harassed in many ways by interest groups, or otherwise discriminated against.

Criminalization through anti-discrimination laws and new punishable offences such as “homophobia” and “hate speech” is already a reality in some countries and is being promoted globally.

“Do those who consider themselves firmly on the side of good—who today so courageously battle the state terror of a bygone century—have the will to oppose the increasing curtailment of freedom in our own time? The dividing line between standing for freedom and relinquishing freedom is a willingness to pay the price today for not swimming with the sharks.”4

Back in 1992, when the socialist system collapsed and the West unveiled its true face, professor Henry Bower said, “At present, the scientific, and to a greater extent, the popular science community is increasingly turning away from scientific methods in order to conform to the liberal ideology as the only decisive way of ‘scientifically’ interpreting the world around us.”5

The scientific community is increasingly turning away from scientific methods in order to conform to the liberal ideology.

The number of examples of this continues to grow! Viktor Lysov’s The Rhetoric of the LGBT Movement in Light of Scientific Facts alone references several hundred contemporary research papers where the authors are either influenced by subjective preferences or maintain political correctness with respect to the LGBT ideology. In one of the chapters, Viktor Lysov quotes the following wonderful though of Austin Ruse:

“The reputation of real science has been stolen by its evil twin, a fake science that’s really just an ideology and a narrative. That ideology is simply masquerading in the credibility that rightfully belongs to real science.”6.

Considering space limitations, let us review just one example to illustrate the severity of the situation. In late 2018, The New York Times published an article where three scientists, James Lindsay, Helen Pluckrose, and Peter Boghossian, demonstrated how ideology had overridden common sense in the realm of social sciences.

“Since August 2017, “ the article reported, “Lindsay, Boghossian and Pluckrose have submitted twenty articles in the format of conventional research papers to respectable peer-reviewed journals. The articles covered diverse topics, addressing various strategies to tackle social inequality, including feminism, masculinity, racial identification, sexual orientation, body positivity and more.”

Ideology has overridden common sense in the realm of social sciences.

Each of the articles posited a radically skeptical theory criticizing a certain “social construct” (e.g. gender roles). The articles were flamboyantly absurd and intentionally infused with humor to raise doubts about the seriousness of the research. From a scientific standpoint, the articles did not stand up to scrutiny, as the posited theories were not supported by the numbers provided, and the authors sometimes referenced non-existent or fictitious sources.

For example, one of the articles recommended that men be trained as dogs. The other suggested that white students listen to lectures while sitting in chains on the floor as a punishment for the fact that their ancestors were slave-owners.

The third article tooted extreme obesity as the free choice of a healthy person. The fourth article posited that masturbating while fantasying about a real woman is an act of sexual violence against the woman.

The article entitled Dog Park stated that the researchers have felt the genitals of nearly ten thousand dogs when they questioned the owners about the sexual orientation of their pets. In The Breast, the authors genuinely wondered what heterosexual men could find attractive in women. One of the articles about feminism, Our Struggle is My Struggle, was actually a slightly modified chapter from Hitler’s Mein Kampf.

At least seven of the twenty submitted articles were reviewed by leading scientists and accepted for publication. We say “at least seven” because seven more articles were under review when the scientists had to stop their experiment and reveal their identities.

James Lindsay recorded a video where he tried to justify their actions and explain their position.

“We believe that gender issues, racial identity and sexual orientation must definitely be researched,” he stated. “However, it is important to research them objectively, without preconceptions. The problem is in the way they are researched nowadays.”

“The existing culture mandates that only certain types of conclusions are deemed acceptable. For example, white skin color or masculinity are consistently associated with problems. As such, the fight against social inequality takes precedence over pursuing the objective truth,” he explained.

However, the authors of this experiment say that their reputation in the scientific community had been damaged in one way or another, and they have little hope for a positive outcome.

Boghossian is sure that the university will fire him or find another way to reprimand him. Pluckrose is concerned that she won’t be able to get her doctorate. Lindsay says that he will probably become “an academic pariah” who will not be allowed to either teach or publish serious scholarly works.

Nevertheless, all of them believe that the project was worth it.

The risk of biased research continuing to influence education, mass media, politics and culture is far more concerning to us than any repercussions that we might face”, said James Lindsay in his interview to WSJ.7

Given numerous instances exposing the ideological influence on science, particularly within the social sphere, can gender theory remain the foundation of the so-called Comprehensive Sexuality Education programs mandated in an increasing number of countries?”

This article will inform Christian parents about significant challenges that their children may encounter as a result of implementation of these programs.

Since this article cannot address all aspects of LGBT ideology, let us focus solely on the Comprehensive Sexuality Education. It directly influences the components that are crucial for the future of the Christian world: the mindset of the future generation and societal norms of behavior.

What is modern Comprehensive Sexuality Education?

Comprehensive Sexuality Education claims to be broader and more detailed than “traditional sex education”, because it teaches children and youths to achieve sexual pleasure any way they can. Its programs obsessively prioritized promiscuity, while intentionally concealing the severe emotional, psychological and physiological consequences of engaging in such risky sexual behavior. Comprehensive Sexuality Education is based on the “idea of rights”. Its ultimate goal is changing sex and gender-related norms in the society, so many people rightfully refer to it as “education for the right of abortion, promiscuity and LGBT identity.”8

The ultimate goal of Comprehensive Sexuality Education is changing sex and gender related norms in the society

One of the primary objectives of Comprehensive Sexuality Education is the freedom of choice regarding sex change and recognition of children as sexually autonomous individuals. Several points from the list of “the rights of children” that are used as a basis for the Comprehensive Sexuality Education programs are provided below.

“Children exhibit natural aspects of sexuality from birth, hence any restriction of their sexual expression or activity is a violation of their sexual rights.

“The right to experience sexual pleasure from an early age is a fundamental human right of a child; this right is also associated with other rights of a child.

“Children have the right to have an abortion and sexual intercourse without knowledge or consent of their parents.

The majority of societal norms regarding sexuality and gender, especially those rooted in religious beliefs, are repressive and unhealthy, so they must be changed.

“To develop healthy sexuality, children have the right to experiment with various sexual identities and orientations, and engage in related behaviors.”

According to the internationally recognized rights to health and education, children have the right to receive complete and uncensured sexual information without parental consent.

According to the leading international experts J. Reisman and M. Grossman, the roots of the sexual rights movement that gave rise to the Comprehensive Sexuality Education can be traced to the fraudulent research conducted by Dr. Alfred Kinsey. His publications became global bestsellers, and most psychologists firmly believe that they were the catalyst and foundation of the sexual revolution of the 1960s that is continuing up to the present day.9

In 1947, A. Kinsey founded the Kinsey Institute at Indiana University, where he planned to conduct scientific research on “sex, gender and reproduction”. Alfred Kinsey’s objective was to prove that children have sexuality from birth and that promiscuity is common across all age groups, which is proof that such individuals are normal and healthy.

Nowadays, it is widely acknowledged that this human sexuality research was extensively falsified and intentionally misleading, as it was partially based on interviews with incarcerated inmates and involved experiments with prostitutes and pedophiles. Kinsey, however, insists that the findings are applicable to the entire spectrum of society.

Human sexuality research was extensively falsified

The Kinsey Institute’s most controversial work, Sexual Behavior in the Human Male, has been publicized since 1948 and remains easily accessible to the public. It documents “sexual reactions” of children of various ages (from infants to teenagers) that were recorded and arranged in chronological order by their adult rapists. These pedophiles experimented with hundreds of children, making them experience what the researchers refer to as “orgasms”, but what in fact was screaming, convulsing, crying and resisting their sexual “partner”!

The modern-day comprehensive education programs for younger generation that teach that children have the right to sexual knowledge and pleasure are based on these pseudo-scientific experiments and speculations. The conclusions published in the so-called Kinsey’s Report are still used to promote promiscuity, cheating, abortions, pedophilia, incest and homosexuality. These conclusions are also widely used to liberalize laws against sexual abuse, commute punishment of sex criminals, legalize same-sex marriage and so on.10

Valentin Velchev
Translation by Talyb Samedov


1 Standards for Sexuality Education in Europe, pp. 38-50. //

2 This data comes from the report of the American Institute for Research and Evaluation known for its extensive work in evaluating the outcomes of sex education programs spanning the last 25 years.: Stan E. Weed, Ph.D. & Irene H. Ericksen, M.S., April, 2019, Re-Examining the Evidence for Comprehensive Sexuality Education in Schools: A Global Research Review, The Institute for Research &Evaluation //

3 Батлър, Джудит. Безпокойствата около родовия пол. Феминизмът и подриването на идентичността. С., Критика и хуманизъм, С., 2003

4 Global sexual revolution //

5 Scientific Literacy and the Myth of the Scientific Method //

6 The Rhetoric of the LGBT Movement in Light of Scientific Facts //

7 ВВС: “We had a lot of fun”. Scholars wrote fake research papers that were successfully published in journals. //

8 What is Comprehensive Sexuality Education? //

9 The Comprehensive Sexuality Education Agenda: Core Philosophies, Origins, and Goals //

10 Fraudulent Kinsey Sex Research //

sherlock_holmes2/12/2024 12:58 pm
Once, Saint Anthony the Great said : “A time is coming when men will go mad, and when they see someone who is not mad, they will attack him, saying, 'You are mad; you are not like us.” I think gender theory,among many others is part of this madness. The scope,maybe to instill confusion in peoples mind (making it irrational ) ,to take away the innocence of the children, to separate them from Jesus Christ our God and close the Heaven for them. Most of the children,if they die,they go to Heaven...The Holy Fathers said that the world will end when the number of saved people equals that of fallen angels . For sure the demons know how many they are, want to get the hell on earth and keep it like that as long as possible by slowing down or stopping people to go Home .
Here you can leave your comment on the present article, not exceeding 4000 characters. All comments will be read by the editors of OrthoChristian.Com.
Enter through FaceBook
Your name:
Your e-mail:
Enter the digits, seen on picture:

Characters remaining: 4000

to our mailing list

* indicates required