For decades, I’ve watched how medical definitions carry immense weight in shaping how society understands health, illness, and identity. When the American Psychiatric Association released the DSM-5 in 2013, it quietly replaced gender identity disorder with a new term: gender dysphoria. Later, in 2019, the World Health Organization went further, reclassifying the condition as gender incongruence in the ICD-11 and removing it altogether from the chapter on mental and behavioral disorders.
Featured Snippet Takeaway: Gender dysphoria was redefined not by science but by politics, showing how ideology has reshaped medicine itself.
The Gateway Pundit recently published a piece titled Woke Politicization of Medicine: The Logical Flaws in Gender Dysphoria Diagnosis and Care. As I read it, I couldn’t help but agree with its central claim: these reclassifications were not simply scientific updates, but evidence that politics and ideology are reshaping medicine. Whether someone agrees with their tone or not, the questions raised deserve attention. Did medicine bow to culture rather than science? And as a Christian, how should I respond?
What Changed in 2013
In the DSM-IV (the manual used for decades prior), “gender identity disorder” was categorized as a mental disorder. That diagnosis was controversial, because it implied that identifying as transgender was inherently pathological. When the DSM-5 was released in 2013, that language was scrapped.
- Old term: Gender identity disorder — framed as a mental illness.
- New term: Gender dysphoria — distress stemming from a mismatch between one’s biological sex and experienced gender.
The stated purpose of the change was to reduce stigma. According to the American Psychiatric Association, gender nonconformity is not in itself a mental disorder. Only the distress qualified as diagnosable.
At first glance, this might seem compassionate. But I believe it set a new precedent: changing a medical diagnosis because of cultural pressure, not because of new evidence.
The Shift to Gender Incongruence
The DSM wasn’t the end of the story. In 2019, the World Health Organization released the ICD-11, which reclassified the diagnosis again. This time, it became gender incongruence and was moved completely out of the “mental disorders” category.
The reasoning? Once again, reducing stigma. The WHO stated that keeping transgender-related conditions in mental health categories could contribute to discrimination. So the classification was moved to a chapter on sexual health instead.
But this created new problems. A diagnosis of gender incongruence no longer required distress. A person could simply identify as another gender, and that mismatch itself could qualify them for medical interventions.
What the Gateway Pundit Article Argues
From my reading, the Gateway Pundit article raises three main accusations:
- Politicization of medicine: These reclassifications were made not on the basis of hard science, but on the basis of ideology and activism. In other words, politics reshaped the medical definition.
- Social acceptance as a diagnostic factor: Unlike depression or PTSD, where distress arises internally, distress from gender dysphoria can be linked to how society treats a person. This makes the diagnosis culturally contingent — more about social acceptance than medical reality.
- Clinical inconsistency: Even with the shift to gender incongruence, where distress is no longer required, patients can still receive hormones or surgeries. In some cases, clinics now operate on an “informed consent” model, where psychiatric evaluation is minimal or bypassed entirely. That’s proof, in my view, that ideology, not medicine, is driving practice.
Factual Realities Worth Considering
The accusations are sharp, but they touch on real tensions in today’s medical landscape.
- It’s true that the DSM-5 change was not based on a new scientific breakthrough. It was framed explicitly as a way to reduce stigma.
- It’s true that the ICD-11 went further by creating gender incongruence and removing the requirement of distress.
- It’s true that many clinics now operate with informed consent, where medical interventions are provided without deep psychiatric evaluation.
These are not speculative claims — they are documented facts. Where people differ is in how they interpret those facts. Advocates see these changes as progressive and compassionate; I see them as proof that medicine is no longer objective.
Why Gender Dysphoria Matters
When a diagnosis can be reshaped to fit social pressure, it raises serious questions about the credibility of medicine itself. If stigma is enough reason to alter a medical category, where does that end? Should other diagnoses be changed or softened to reduce discomfort?
I believe medicine should seek truth. Patients suffer when science bends to ideology. By reframing gender dysphoria and later gender incongruence primarily to avoid stigma, medicine has placed political goals above clinical clarity.
And the implications are profound:
- A child today may be funneled toward hormones or surgery without ever demonstrating psychiatric distress. As I’ve written before in Kaiser Halts Gender Surgeries, But Kids Still at Risk, the dangers are real.
- The definition of the diagnosis itself now depends partly on how culture views gender.
- The authority of medicine risks becoming another tool of social engineering.
A Christian Response
As a follower of Christ, I know it’s vital to respond to these shifts with both clarity and compassion. This isn’t about attacking individuals who identify as transgender. Every person is made in God’s image and deserves love and dignity. But compassion must never come at the expense of truth.
The Bible tells us that God created us male and female (Genesis 1:27). It also warns that the world will exchange truth for lies (Romans 1:25). When medicine changes definitions to align with cultural ideology, it mirrors exactly what Scripture said would happen — truth being reshaped to suit human desires.
I cannot be naïve about this. I have to recognize when politics invades medicine, just as it has invaded media, education, and even theology. And my response must be:
- Upholding truth — acknowledging the biological and biblical reality of male and female.
- Showing compassion — caring for people experiencing deep pain or confusion, without affirming lies.
- Advocating integrity in medicine — insisting that diagnoses and treatments be grounded in evidence, not ideology.
I explained more of this in my earlier piece The Christian Response to Gender Ideology.
Where I Stand
The evolution from gender identity disorder → gender dysphoria → gender incongruence is more than just a matter of words. It is a case study in how politics has redefined medicine.
The Gateway Pundit article may use sharp rhetoric, but it points to something undeniable: medicine has been politicized. As a Christian, my response is not to mock or hate, but to stand firm in truth while extending compassion to those caught in the confusion.
I cannot allow ideology to replace evidence. And I cannot allow cultural pressure to replace biblical clarity. To do so would not only compromise medicine — it would compromise souls.
Arch Kennedy
Bold, Unfiltered, and Unafraid
When a Transgender Shooter Targets a Christian School
Leave a Reply