The more I think about Samantha Fulnecky, the University of Oklahoma student who received a “0” out of 25 points on an assignment reflecting on the policing of gender norms among middle schoolers from psychology TA Mel Curth, a trans-identifying male, the more I’m impressed with her. Fulnecky’s essay wasn’t just undeserving of the grade it received; it was actually rather good, her writing typical of a college junior, and she deserved at least a passing grade. Indeed, the only problems I can identify in the paper are formatting and punctuation errors. The substance of the essay is creative, insightful, and provocative. Damning assessments of her work on social media (and this embarrassing letter by the Freedom From Religion Foundation) illustrate the problem of motivated reasoning on the progressive left.
To her credit, Fulnecky did something few students do: she revealed the epistemic foundation upon which her normative argument rests. She needed to do this not only for reasons I will discuss, but also because the TA imposed a morality on his students, one he was not making explicit. In Fulnecky’s case, it was clear enough, and she took it on.
Given social science as students once knew it (and I still do)—which could have been used to make the same argument without appealing to religious doctrine—Fulnecky’s insight comes thanks to a text resistant to the corruption of queer doctrine, namely the Bible. Whatever its problems, the Bible gets the matter of gender right (there are two, and they are fixed), and since it is one of the few texts today that recognizes the gender binary and the importance of feminine and masculine roles in reproducing society and the species, it serves as a valuable source. The claim that the Bible is not a scholarly source is nonsense: when making an argument from Christianity, the Bible is the primary source.
For a detailed analysis of the controversy, see my Christmas Eve essay, A Case Study in Viewpoint Discrimination and Poor Assignment Formulation. In today’s essay, I go deeper into Fulnecky’s argument to help critics and others appreciate what she accomplished. I will lay out her position and justification, then show how one can make the same argument using pre-queer anthropology and sociology.
I do this not only to defend Fulnecky’s contribution, but to show how postmodernists have taken a transcultural and historical process and pathologized it to advance queer doctrine. In doing so, queer activists have obscured a vast body of knowledge on the human life course that demonstrates why normal psychological adjustment during puberty requires certain structures. That the course at the University of Oklahoma is called “Lifespan Development” highlights a profound problem in higher education: Curth’s action, and that of the second grader (TA Megan Waldron, both supervised by Professor Lara Mayeux), reflect movement politics that have no place in science courses—not because they are political, but because they are science-denying, which Curth made clear in his criticisms of Fulnecky’s reflection.
Before beginning, I want to emphasize that the assignment was a response essay, also known as a reflection or reaction essay, submitted online, much like a discussion post in a learning management system (LMS) such as Canvas. Many of Fulnecky’s critics seem unaware of this, and it forms a major front in their hyperbolic attacks.
As readers of this platform know, I am a college teacher with over thirty years of experience, and I have asked students to write such essays both as classroom exercises and, with the advent of LMS, as drop-box submissions. Unless I specify that students cite sources, there is no need for them to do so. I am asking for their reaction or reflection, not a literature review or research paper. Those are different assignments with different requirements. Think about it this way: when an instructor asks students in a classroom discussion what they think about an argument or theory, he doesn’t necessarily expect citations. Presumably, many of Fulnecky’s critics have had this experience; their overreaction is disingenuous.
However, in the Fulnecky case, she did cite her source: the Bible. Not only did she cite the Bible, but she also cited the specific book of the Bible from which she drew her argument: Genesis. She explains very clearly why she is using this source, as it provides the epistemic foundation for her critique of the article she was assigned to read, which she would have had to have read to formulate her critique (contrary to claims on social media that misrepresent her remarks in an interview).
The article, published in a 2014 issue of the academic journal Social Development, was “Relations Among Gender Typicality, Peer Relations, and Mental Health During Early Adolescence,” penned by Jennifer Jewell (a graduate student at the time) and Christia Brown (presumably Jewell’s major professor at the University of Kentucky). I will get to Fulnecky’s challenge to the article’s hidden premise in a moment, but I want to reflect on the religious piece of her response to get beyond the false claim that she did not cite her source. In this passage, which I break into paragraphs, she explains why she is responding in the way that she does. I provide commentary along the way.
“It is frustrating to me when I read articles like this and discussion posts from my classmates of so many people trying to conform to the same mundane opinion, so they do not step on people’s toes. I think that is a cowardly and insincere way to live,” Fulnecky writes. (As I have noted on this platform, lying for the sake of getting along is a type of bad faith, so I appreciate the ground she stakes out here.) “It is important to use the freedom of speech we have been given in this country, and I personally believe that eliminating gender in our society would be detrimental, as it pulls us farther from God’s original plan for humans.”
This is where Fulnceky loses most secularists, but I would ask them to consider Thomas Jefferson’s references to the “Creator,” “Laws of Nature,” and “Nature’s God.” It is God’s plan (Providence) that we should enjoy “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness,” since he/nature gave these to us as unalienable rights. Fulknecy’s free speech rights are among those, and she is right to note how important it is to use that right, which she is demonstrating in her reflection
“It is perfectly normal for kids to follow gender ‘stereotypes’ because that is how God made us,” Fulnecky continues. “The reason so many girls want to feel womanly and care for others in a motherly way is not because they feel pressured to fit into social norms. It is because God created and chose them to reflect His beauty and His compassion in that way.”
Replace “God” with “natural history,” and Fulnecky has here an observable and well-documented point. And the point is entirely relevant to her critique of the article. The reader should read Jewell and Brown’s article, but to summarize, their research question concerns peer pressure to conform to social norms, which, from the postmodernist view of such things, is not a normal or necessary process, but a bad thing, in that it is associated with psychological problems (showing this is Professor Brown’s life-work). However, again, if one substitutes natural history for God in every instance, Fulnecky’s argument falls in line with pre-queer social science.
It is at this point that Fulnecky explicitly cites her source (as if it were not already obvious): “In Genesis, God says that it is not good for man to be alone, so He created a helper for man (which is a woman). Many people assume the word ‘helper” in this context to be condescending and offensive to women. However, the original word in Hebrew is ‘ezer kenegdo’ and that directly translates to ‘helper equal to’. Additionally, God describes Himself in the Bible using ‘ezer kenegdo’, or ‘helper’, and He describes His Holy Spirit as our Helper as well. This shows the importance God places on the role of the helper (women’s roles). God does not view women as less significant than men. He created us with such intentionally and care and He made women in his image of being a helper, and in the image of His beauty. If leaning into that role means I am ‘following gender stereotypes’ then I am happy to be following a stereotype that aligns with the gifts and abilities God gave me as a woman.”
There are minor issues with Fulnecky’s essay that I would have noted if I were her instructor: American-style placement of commas and periods inside quotation marks, and a few others (the essay was double-spaced, contrary to what one may see on the Internet). What I would not have done is respond with the TA’s rant, which is available online. I would have expressed appreciation that the student provided the epistemic foundation for her critique of the assumptions embedded in the article. (I will soon publish an essay on the necessity of establishing an epistemic foundation for normative claims, specifically concerning Christian ethics.) I would also have introduced her to the vast anthropological and sociological literature supporting her argument and apologized for the situation that has made this literature remote to her. Behavioral and social sciences have been impoverished by postmodernism and queer praxis, especially the weaponization of empathy.
Jewell and Brown’s study examined whether meeting typical gender expectations is linked to popularity and whether failing to meet them is linked to teasing or rejection. It also investigated whether teasing mediates the association between low gender typicality and poorer mental health. Middle school students reported on their own gender expression, experiences with gender-based teasing, and mental health, including anxiety, body image, depression, and self-esteem. Results showed that popular students were more gender-typical than those who were teased or rejected. Boys who did not fit typical gender expectations reported worse mental health outcomes. In other words, the study confirms what many of us know from experience—a lot of psychology simply formalizes the obvious—only now we are asked to interpret these experiences as traumatic rather than formative.
Fulnecky was suspicious of the authors’ motives, namely that they implied there was something wrong with reinforcing gender-typical norms, a stance aligned with gender identity doctrine. She argues there is nothing inherently wrong with reinforcing gender norms, which required her to explain appropriate gender roles, rooted in a biblical worldview. Intellectually responsible, she erected her explanation on an epistemic foundation. She did not merely say, “I don’t like this article” or “I don’t agree with this article,” as students often do, leaving it at that. She engaged with the article’s core premise and challenged it based on authority. As I noted in my Christmas Eve essay, what upset the TA was that she invoked the “wrong” authority.
There is nothing wrong with what Fulnecky did. In fact, that is what we want our students to do: interrogate the premises of claims made by scientists—or anyone else. If an instructor asks for a student’s opinion, he must tolerate that the opinion may be informed by Christian theology. Otherwise, he engages in viewpoint discrimination. The TA, clearly, had not considered the epistemic foundation of his own views. He believes what he believes due to ideology, not because he has constructed a foundation or observed one. He “knows” it is wrong for students to use the Bible as justification—but Fulnecky, who built her argument on a coherent epistemic foundation, is in the superior position.
To explain why peer reinforcement of gender typicality is not necessarily wrong, Fulnecky must explain why typical gender roles exist. The article assumes that reinforcing gender typicality is harmful. Fulnecky suggests that failing to reinforce these roles may be harmful. Why? According to her, God created two genders and assigned them roles, which society reinforces via norms and peer pressure. Peer pressure is standard across cultures and history. Unlike the article, which offers no epistemic foundation for its moral claims, Fulnecky makes hers explicit. This is what led the TA to discriminate against her: it was not a poor essay, but a viewpoint he did not like. His claim that her grade was unrelated to her religious belief is implausible; her religious belief is exactly what he failed her for.
While the Bible provides one epistemic foundation, there is another Fulnecky could have used: pre-queer anthropology and sociology, which explain the natural origins of traditional gender roles. Across cultures, societies have faced a recurring problem: how to manage boys’ transition into manhood. Anchored in puberty, this transition is not merely biological; it is a social transformation fraught with anxiety, uncertainty, and potential disorder. Anthropologists have long recognized this and developed concepts like liminality and rites of passage to explain how societies regulate this unstable period.
Arnold van Gennep’s Les Rites de Passage (1909) describes transitions through separation, liminality, and incorporation. Pubescent boys are separated from childhood roles, enter a liminal phase—no longer boys, not yet men—and eventually reenter society as recognized adults. Victor Turner’s concept of liminality, being “betwixt and between,” aptly describes this state (The Ritual Process: Structure and Anti-Structure, 1969). Liminal individuals exist outside ordinary categories; they are ambiguous, unstable, and socially dangerous if unmanaged. Biological puberty amplifies this instability: sexual maturity, strength, aggression, and psychological volatility create a mismatch between a boy’s bodily capacities and his recognized social status. Without ritual containment, this mismatch threatens both the individual and the community.
Societies almost universally ritualize this transition. Our society does not. At least not adequately. Most boys manage anyway, but many do not. The same is true for girls. The failure to provide appropriate rites of passage likely explains the rise in adolescent mental distress over recent decades. Even worse, behavioral and social scientists, along with educators and social workers, now claim these rituals are harmful—a key part of the project to queer children’s culture and education. Children are told they do not have to be what they are. Boys are told they can be girls, and that other boys acting like boys is wrong. Fulnecky recognized this in the article’s intent—and she was correct. Curth saw this too and punished her for defending transcultural and historical gender roles.
The remainder of this essay will show how peer pressure around gender conformity is normal and necessary for psychological development. This has long been a topic I have wanted to address, and this controversy provides the occasion. I cover it in criminology and juvenile delinquency courses because Western adolescents, particularly boys, are thrown into liminality without the guidance necessary to reach adulthood, and this has caused a lot of problems psychologically and societally.
David Matza’s theory of drift illustrates this: juvenile delinquency arises from adolescents’ liminal position between childhood dependence and adult responsibility. Young people—especially boys—accept dominant moral norms yet lack stable institutional pathways into adulthood. Delinquent acts respond to structural ambiguity, not deviance. Scholarship on anomie, subcultures, and rites of passage reinforces this, showing that erosion of clear roles, mentorship, and legitimate status attainment intensifies liminality. Without structured transitions, adolescents improvise, asserting autonomy, masculinity, and belonging through delinquency.
Replace delinquency with gender identity disorder, and the problem becomes clear: institutions corrupted by gender identity doctrine embrace the issue rather than solve it. Indeed, progressive activists are responsible for creating these conditions. Queering disrupts normative rules, punishes peers who reinforce gender-appropriate roles, and exposes children to Pride Progress paraphernalia and sexualized content. Social-emotional learning identifies those most susceptible, while empathy punishes questioning of peers’ gender conformity.
To the postmodern mind, historical gender socialization appears as “bullying,” the result of “social constructions” around “patriarchal relations.” However, in traditional societies, male initiation ceremonies guide adolescents through instruction, isolation, trials, symbolic suffering, and endurance tests. These rituals externalize anxiety, transform fear into shared experience, and provide meaningful narratives for transition. Hardship becomes proof of worthiness, not arbitrary suffering.
Crucially, these rites are reinforced both vertically and horizontally. Peer pressure within age cohorts ensures conformity to masculine expectations through mockery, shaming, teasing, and ritualized aggression. Sociologically, this regulates status; anthropologically, it produces culturally legible men. Peer pressure is functional, not pathological. Masculinity requires achievement, continuous affirmation, and demonstration. Normal societies develop systems to confirm gender conformity; pathological societies emasculate men and risk cultural collapse.
“I do not think men and women are pressured to be more masculine or feminine,” she writes. “I strongly disagree with the idea from the article that encouraging acceptance of diverse gender expressions could improve students’ confidence.” This is indeed the implication from Jewell and Brown’s argument (which proves she read the article). “Society pushing the lie that there are multiple genders and everyone should be whatever they want to be is demonic and severely harms American youth.” I know, the demonic line bothers secularists, but I have learned to find a synonym that doesn’t sound theological. She has the right to use the words that convey her thoughts.
“I do not want kids to be teased or bullied in school,” she continues. “However, pushing the lie that everyone has their own truth and everyone can do whatever they want and be whoever they want is not biblical whatsoever.” This is true. The Bible establishes a universal truth, and it’s not the paradoxical truth postmodernists espouse: that the only universal truth is that there is no truth. “The Bible says that our lives are not our own but that our lives and bodies belong to the Lord for His glory. I live my life based on this truth and firmly believe that there would be less [sic] gender issues and insecurities in children if they were raised knowing that they do not belong to themselves, but they belong to the Lord.” I am an atheist, but I recognize that hundreds of millions of my fellow humans believe this, and the consequences of those beliefs in action have immeasurably improved their lives.
Cutting through the religious language, which she has a right to in light of freedom of conscience, Fulnecky’s point is that peer reinforcement of gender roles is beneficial and that gender atypicality is, under normal conditions, exceptional. She’s right. This is not what a man who wants to be seen as a woman can accept. Every day he faces the gaze of those whose sensibilities are not scrambled by gender identity doctrine. He desperately wants to redefine the expectation of normal society as exclusive and oppressive. The reality is that denying boys peer reinforcement of gender roles harms their transition to manhood. What has been normal peer encouragement for millennia is now pathologized by progressive ideology. Boys are robbed of ritualized transition and societal expectation. The Bible affirms this. With behavioral and social sciences corrupted, students like Fulnecky no longer have access to academic literature sufficient for forming epistemic foundations for normative statements. But they do have the Bible. Fulnecky used hers, and she was punished for it.
freedom and reason 