Hello, world.

I have been saying those words, in one form or another, since 2016. They have meant different things at different times. In 2016, they were a response to an immediate crisis — the attempt of someone in my community to define my family by their certainty about who my son was not, rather than by the evidence of who he was.

In the years since, they have meant something larger. The commitment to keep speaking. To keep bringing the evidence to the conversation. To refuse the silence that manufactured certainty demands of those who challenge it.

I am aware that there is something absurd about a middle-aged aerospace engineer writing a book about the epistemology of gender and the political theology of Christian nationalism. This is not the book I expected to write. It is the book that my life — specifically my son’s life — required of me.

My son did not know the word transgender. He had not been exposed to any ideology about gender. He was not performing anything for any audience. He was simply, with the directness that children bring to what matters most, telling me who he was. The certainty in his voice was not the false certainty I have been writing about throughout this series. It was the honest certainty of direct experience. The only kind of certainty that is genuinely trustworthy.

What I have learned in the years since that Easter morning is that my willingness to hear him — to let his evidence disrupt my assumptions, to revise my understanding in light of what he was telling me — was not a sacrifice of my intellectual integrity. It was an exercise of it. I did not know, before he was born, what I now know about gender. I know it now because I was willing to find out. Because I was willing to sit with the uncertainty of unfamiliar territory and trust that honest inquiry would eventually produce something more reliable than my prior assumptions.

This is what the scientific method is at its most human. Not the cold application of a procedure. The humble commitment to following evidence wherever it leads. Even when, especially when, it leads somewhere uncomfortable.

John Keats, in his famous letter about Negative Capability, described it as the capacity to remain in uncertainties, mysteries, doubts, without any irritable reaching after fact and reason. What Keats identified in the greatest artists, I am arguing we need in our citizens and our institutions. The willingness to live in honest uncertainty rather than take refuge in manufactured certainty. This is not weakness. It is the foundation of both intellectual honesty and genuine compassion. Because genuine compassion requires actually encountering the other person as they are, rather than as your categories predict them to be.

The promise of uncertainty is this. When we stop defending positions that were never earned by evidence, we become available to each other in ways we were not before. When we let go of the certainty that some people are less than fully human, we discover that we were wrong — and the discovery, however painful, makes us better. When we stop using supernatural claims to foreclose political questions, we are forced to engage with each other as citizens with equally legitimate standing, equally subject to evidence, equally capable of persuasion. That is democracy, in its most demanding form. It is also the only form of democracy that survives.

This is what a world addicted to certainty cannot quite imagine. That letting go of manufactured answers is not loss. It is liberation. The promise of uncertainty is, in that sense, the beginning of every other freedom. Including the freedom to be curious about each other again.

I am not a pessimist. The history I have traced in this series is genuinely dark. Centuries of oppression justified by false certainty, ongoing and accelerating even now. But the history contains something else.

Let me be honest about something I haven’t said directly enough. There is joy in this fight.

Not the grim satisfaction of being right. Not the brittle comfort of moral superiority. Actual joy. The particular joy that comes from doing something that matters with people who understand why it matters, in the middle of a moment that requires it.

I did not expect this. When my wife Sarah and I first stepped into public advocacy, what I expected was a kind of sustained dread, punctuated by the occasional exhausting victory. What I found was different. I found communities of people. Parents of trans kids. Trans adults who had survived their own childhoods. Teachers who had been quietly advocating in their classrooms for years. Clergy who had been living the prophetic tradition while their denominations caught up. Scientists who understood better than anyone what it costs to publish a finding that contradicts the powerful. Who were, against all odds, glad to be in the fight.

Not glad about its necessity. That part is genuinely terrible. Glad about the fight itself. About the company. About the evidence, accumulating daily, that the sleeping giants are waking up.

Sarah and I describe ourselves as sleeping giants. People who did not choose this. Who were living comfortable lives. Who were roused by the specific necessity of loving a child who needed the world to be different. We are not alone. Every legislative overreach has woken more of us up. Every book ban has put more parents in front of school boards who have never been in front of a school board. Every attempt to erase trans kids from public life has, with a consistency I find almost funny, produced more visibility.

I am certain, in a way I was not ten years ago, that America will become what it is capable of becoming. Not because the arc bends automatically. Because I have watched the bending happen, one school board, one conversation at a time. And I know what it looks like. And it looks, despite everything, like hope. It contains Harriet Tubman and Frederick Douglass. Rosa Parks and John Lewis. Rachel Carson and Carl Sagan. Every scientist who published a finding that contradicted the consensus and turned out to be right. Every parent who sat with their child’s truth instead of their own certainty. Every congregation that chose the social gospel over the prosperity gospel and paid for it.

The arc of the moral universe does bend toward justice. But it bends because of the people who refuse to give in to injustice.

This is the scientific rebellion. It takes place in every classroom where a teacher tells the truth about history. Every hospital where a physician provides evidence-based care in the face of political threat. Every church that opens its doors to the people the other churches have condemned. Every family that chooses love over doctrine. Every citizen who votes when the comfortable choice is to stay home.

The choice before us is not between faith and reason, between religion and science, between tradition and change. The choice is between honest uncertainty and manufactured certainty. Between a democracy where everyone’s humanity is acknowledged and a theocracy where only the faith of those in power counts. Between a future calibrated by evidence and one dictated by fear.

I want to speak directly, right now, to the people who are not yet engaged. The people aware of what’s happening, who may even agree with the general direction of this argument, but who have not yet found a way to turn their awareness into action.

I understand the position. I was in it. Before my son told me who he was — before I was called, by love and by necessity, into a fight I had not sought — I was broadly aware of the political challenges of our time. I voted. I followed the news. I had opinions. But I did not act on them at any level that would have mattered to anyone but me.

What I have learned, in the decade since, is that awareness without action is, in a very specific and limited sense, complicity. Not the active complicity of the person who cheers on the suppression. The passive complicity of the person who could have made a difference and chose comfort. King’s Letter from Birmingham Jail is, in its deepest substance, about exactly this. The white moderate who prefers the absence of tension to the presence of justice. Who agrees with the goal but objects to the urgency. Who will get around to it eventually but is very busy right now.

I am not asking anyone to sacrifice beyond what the moment actually calls for. A few hours at a school board meeting. Rising up and speaking out against injustice. Voting in a local election most people don’t know is happening. Supporting those whose voices have been silenced. These are not heroic acts. They are the minimum that democratic citizenship requires in a moment when the minimum is not being met.

My son is seventeen. The children behind him — the transgender children growing up right now in states that have criminalized their care, who are navigating schools where their existence is denied by law, who are living in communities where manufactured certainty has been given the force of government — are watching what the adults in their lives do. They are watching whether the people with power to change things will use it, or will wait until it is more convenient.

Paul Tillich wrote about what he called the courage to be. The courage required to affirm one’s existence in the face of the anxiety of non-being. He was writing in the aftermath of World War II, about the existential situation of a generation that had watched the manufactured certainties of fascism and nationalism produce catastrophe. What Tillich found, on the other side of the catastrophe, was not a new certainty to replace the old ones. It was the possibility of living authentically in the uncertainty. Committing fully to the present moment, to the people in it, to the evidence available, without the false comfort of a manufactured resolution.

That courage is available. To the teacher who keeps the book on the shelf. The doctor who keeps practicing medicine. The parent who chooses love over doctrine. The voter who shows up even when the machinery of suppression is working against them.

It is, in the end, the most democratic thing we can offer each other. The commitment to take each other seriously enough to be honest about what we know and don’t know. And to govern ourselves accordingly.

Our children deserve a future in which the institutions that govern their lives are required to justify their authority with evidence. My son deserves a future in which his identity — the identity he has known since he was old enough to know anything about himself — is not a political football. Not a culture-war proxy. Not a sign of cultural pathology requiring legislative correction. He deserves a future in which the people responsible for the institutions of his community have read the clinical literature, have understood what the evidence says, and have acted accordingly.

I think constantly about the kids who have been denied a future. The transgender youth whose families rejected them. Who are sleeping in shelters or on friends’ couches. Who are navigating a world that has told them, at the most fundamental level, that they do not belong in it. The transgender youth whose states passed laws restricting their medical care. Who are watching the clinicians who supported them be driven out by law. The transgender youth who have taken their own lives rather than keep navigating a world organized around the certainty that they should not exist.

They deserved better. They deserved the future the evidence makes possible. They did not receive it, because the political will to give it to them was absent. Because manufactured certainty about who they were was more politically useful than honest engagement with who they actually were.

This is the cost of false certainty. It is not abstract. It is specific. It has names and ages and photographs that their families carry and that the rest of us, if we are honest, should carry too.

I am not asking for grief. Grief is not sufficient. I am asking for the kind of engagement — political, institutional, personal, sustained — that prevents the next name from being added to the count.

That engagement is what Scientific Rebellion is.

I may be just a dad, an engineer. But I am also a rebel. My son, and all those who have been told they are less than, have inspired me and shown me the way. But this world needs more rebels.

Are you ready?

This is Peter Tchoryk. Welcome, to the rebellion.

Sign up on this site to receive updates on the soon-to-be-published book, “Hello, World, I’m the Dad of a Trans Kid: The Case for Curiosity in a World Addicted to Certainty.” If podcasts are your thing, please check out the podcast series of the same name.