CLAIM:
Embrace your religious and spiritual beliefs while understanding that not everyone shares the same views, and that’s perfectly okay. It’s important to love and respect others for who they are in this world and in this moment, without trying to impose your beliefs on them. True progress comes from showing love, as hate and division will only hold us back from growing and achieving greatness together.

REBUTTAL:
A religious belief is a conviction of a particular religion. A spiritual belief is a conviction that is not necessarily tied to an organized religion but acknowledges some objective higher being or authority. A personal belief is an individual’s conviction shaped by experiences, reasoning, emotions, and perspective. A religious and spiritual conviction can sound like two flavors of a religious perspective. While it might surprise some people, the same can be said of personal belief. There may not be a reference to an organized religion or a higher authority, but the adherent of a personal belief establishes himself as the higher authority. It is just another religion!

According to the claim, people should be allowed to have their spiritual or religious beliefs so long as they keep them to themselves. However, the claimant implies that his belief is superior and should take precedence over religious and spiritual beliefs and, therefore, be imposed on others. The claimant argues that his subjective view of things should carry more authority than an objective view held by those who adhere to an organized religion or belief in a higher authority. In other words, it is the rejection of objective truth.

In this context, the claimant argues for gender neutrality, in which people can choose their gender for themselves, regardless of objective authorities or evidence. Instead of invoking objective truths like

“So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them” (Genesis 1:27) [an example of an organized religious viewpoint]

or

Male: Defined biologically as an individual who produces small, mobile gametes (sperm) and typically possesses XY chromosomes. Anatomical features include structures such as the penis, testes, and scrotum. Female: Defined biologically as an individual who produces large, immobile gametes (ova or eggs) and typically possesses XX chromosomes. Anatomical features include structures such as the vagina, uterus, and ovaries. [An example of the scientific viewpoint]

Both the authorities mentioned above are objective. They stand on their merit, like them or not.

Personal belief is just that—personal. It is subjective and can vary significantly from one person to the next. Because personal beliefs vary, they cannot be a guiding standard for more than one person. Who is to say that one personal belief is correct while another is wrong? Demanding that kind of recognition is how adherents to the veneration of personal belief become a religion unto themselves.

History students know that values tend to change over time and with changing cultures. Lacking an objective standard, permitted slavery in one generation becomes vehement opposition to slavery in another generation.

The claimant invokes the religious position that “progress” is central to society and that “progress” is accomplished by showing love. Yet, some people have a “personal belief” that society is declining and becoming dangerously narrow and self-destructive. And how are we supposed to understand “love”? Hitler justified his eugenics program out of love for the human race. Some pedophiles profess “love” for their victims. Abusers declare love for those they abuse. Who is to say their definition or doctrine of “love” is correct or not?

The Apostle Paul warned Timothy about the nature of competing doctrines he observed

Preach the word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage—with great patience and careful instruction. For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths. (2 Timothy 4:2–4)

To make a new teaching work, like gender identity being different than gender biology, one creates the idea, shares the idea, looks for supporters (to confirm them in what their itching ears want to hear), and soon creates a new religion claiming superiority over differing religions. To make the case, they claim that love and acceptance trump the truth. To do this, they create a tainted and corrupt view of love that is willing to ignore the truth. We are told

Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. (1 Corinthians 13:6)

Of the three, religious, spiritual, or personal belief, the latter is the weakest. It lacks objectivity and authority beyond just being an opinion. We may not like the truth that grounds a religious or spiritual perspective, but the truth never depends on its attractiveness. As Winston Churchill once said:

Truth is incontrovertible. Panic may resent it. Ignorance may deride it. Malice may distort it. But there it is.

Arguing to redefine gender requires much more than just a personal opinion and the aspiration of some undefined notion of greatness. A conviction must be rooted in an objective authority of truth to endure for the common good. Personal opinions change between people and even within the same person over time and with experience. Science is an evolving discipline as it uncovers new evidence, still dependent on higher authorities or principles to measure discoveries. Religion, especially the Christian faith, is the time-proven standard for truth. It challenges us, even when we don’t like its conclusions. Such is often the nature of truth.