In an age of self-made identities and cultural redefinition, the basic question what is a man or a woman? has become a flashpoint of controversy. While Scripture speaks clearly about God's created order of male and female, modern ideologies have obscured these distinctions through subjective feelings, cultural theories, and medical interventions. This article examines the biblical view of man and woman through the lenses of theology, biology, psychology, and history, arguing that human sex is a divine design, scientifically grounded and historically affirmed.
The Bible does not merely assume the categories of male and female; it reveals them as God’s intentional creation. In Genesis 1:27, we read, “So God created mankind in His own image... male and female He created them.” These distinctions are not social roles added later, but embedded in creation before sin entered the world. Man is formed from the ground to lead, work, and guard (Genesis 2:15), while woman is created from his side to be his helper (Genesis 2:18), not his servant but his counterpart. Male and female, though equal in dignity, are distinct in function and form. This design reflects God's own image in complementary unity. The Bible throughout affirms this duality, never a spectrum or third option. Gender fluidity has no place in the created order.
Modern science supports the biblical view with overwhelming clarity. The male and female bodies are biologically distinct from conception. Every cell in a man’s body contains XY chromosomes, while every cell in a woman’s carries XX. These genetic markers drive divergent hormonal profiles: testosterone leads to increased muscle mass, voice deepening, and hair growth in males, while estrogen contributes to fat distribution, menstruation, and breast development in females. No amount of surgery or hormone therapy can override these foundational realities. Gender reassignment procedures may cosmetically mimic features of the opposite sex, but they cannot rewrite chromosomes or replicate fully functional reproductive systems. Biology confirms what the Bible declares: male and female are fixed categories, not interchangeable costumes.
Some argue that transgender identity stems from brain differences that a male may have a “female brain” and vice versa. But current neuroscience is far from definitive. Brain plasticity, the ability of the brain to adapt and reorganize, suggests that identity is influenced more by social environment and experience than hardwired biology. Studies show only minor statistical differences between male and female brains, and those differences are not determinative. Furthermore, the DSM-5 (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders) classifies gender dysphoria as a psychological disorder, indicating an internal conflict rather than an objective biological reality. Transitioning does not eliminate this conflict; studies have shown persistently high rates of suicide, depression, and regret even post-surgery. This points to a deeper issue not of biology gone wrong, but of a soul in distress.
History, too, sides with biological and biblical categories. From ancient civilizations to early modernity, man and woman were recognized as essential for family, governance, and worship. While certain pagan cults practiced transvestitism or eunuch rituals, these were not mainstream identities but symbolic or marginalized practices. The modern explosion of gender identities has no historical precedent; it emerged in the 20th century, accelerated by postmodern relativism and the digitization of identity. Now, with social media platforms offering dozens of gender options and schools teaching that children can choose their sex, society is moving further from its historical and biological roots. What was once considered disorder is now celebrated as identity.
The consequences of abandoning the male-female design are profound and painful. Transgender medicine promotes irreversible treatments, puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, double mastectomies, genital surgeries on increasingly younger patients. Many of these individuals become lifelong medical patients, dependent on synthetic hormones and prone to physical complications. Instead of resolution, many face deep regret and sterility. Affirmation-only models leave no room for therapy, skepticism, or ethical dissent. Meanwhile, schools and governments push children to question their bodies before they’ve even matured. Far from liberating, this ideology enslaves people to a false reality that neither science nor Scripture can support.
But there is hope. The same God who created mankind male and female also offers healing and redemption. As 1 Corinthians 6:11 declares, “And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified...” The gospel is not a message of condemnation but restoration. Those who struggle with gender confusion are not irredeemable. They are image-bearers in need of truth, love, and grace. By returning to the biblical, biological, and historical understanding of sex, we reclaim what it means to be human and ultimately, what it means to live in harmony with the Creator’s design.
Reference
Biblical Sources
The Holy Bible, English Standard Version. (2001). Crossway. (Original work published 2001)
Scientific and Medical Sources
American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.books.9780890425596
Bao, A. M., & Swaab, D. F. (2011). Sexual differentiation of the human brain: Relation to gender identity, sexual orientation and neuropsychiatric disorders. Frontiers in Neuroendocrinology, 32(2), 214–226. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yfrne.2011.02.007
Heneghan, C., Jefferson, T., & Goldacre, B. (2019). Evidence for gender-affirming medical interventions in children and adolescents is of low quality. BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine, 24(3), 111–113. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjebm-2018-111132
Laidlaw, M. K. (2018). Gender dysphoria and children: An endocrinologist’s evaluation of Iatrogenic puberty suppression and “affirmation.” The Linacre Quarterly, 85(4), 450–455. https://doi.org/10.1080/00243639.2018.1519614
Sax, L. (2002). How common is intersex? A response to Anne Fausto-Sterling. Journal of Sex Research, 39(3), 174–178. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224490209552139
World Health Organization. (2019). International classification of diseases for mortality and morbidity statistics (11th ed.). https://icd.who.int/en
Zhou, J. N., Hofman, M. A., Gooren, L. J., & Swaab, D. F. (1995). A sex difference in the human brain and its relation to transsexuality. Nature, 378, 68–70. https://doi.org/10.1038/378068a0
Psychological and Ethical Sources
McHugh, P. R. (2014). Transgender surgery isn’t the solution. The Wall Street Journal. https://www.wsj.com/articles/paul-mchugh-transgender-surgery-isnt-the-solution-1402615120
Mayer, L. S., & McHugh, P. R. (2016). Sexuality and gender: Findings from the biological, psychological, and social sciences. The New Atlantis, 50, 1–143. https://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/number-50-fall-2016
Cantor, J. M. (2019). Transgender and gender diverse children: Reviewing the evidence. Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, 46(4), 307–313. https://doi.org/10.1080/0092623X.2019.1698481
Historical and Cultural Sources
Burke, P. (2004). What is cultural history? Polity Press.
Evans, M. (2020). Gender: The key concepts. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315165074
Paglia, C. (1990). Sexual personae: Art and decadence from Nefertiti to Emily Dickinson. Yale University Press.
Whitehead, N. E., & Whitehead, B. K. (2010). My genes made me do it! Huntington House Publishers.
Jones, S. (2006). The archaeology of gender. Cambridge University Press.
Butler, J. (1990). Gender trouble: Feminism and the subversion of identity. Routledge.
Ethical and Theological Commentary
Yarhouse, M. A. (2015). Understanding gender dysphoria: Navigating transgender issues in a changing culture. InterVarsity Press.
Gagnon, R. A. J. (2001). The Bible and homosexual practice: Texts and hermeneutics. Abingdon Press.
Pierce, R. W., & Groothuis, R. M. (2005). Discovering biblical equality: Complementarity without hierarchy. IVP Academic.
Tags
Commentary