CLAIM:
The freedom to explore one’s identity—whether transgender or not—is a fundamental right that fosters personal growth and self-discovery. Allowing individuals the space to determine who they are, what they value, and who they want to become is not only empowering but also essential for a just and equitable society. The rigid societal rules and restrictive religious frameworks that seek to confine people to narrow definitions of gender are outdated and oppressive. If male and female behaviors were truly innate, society wouldn’t feel the need to enforce them so strictly or police them so relentlessly. True progress lies in embracing diversity and dismantling these artificial boundaries, granting everyone the autonomy to live authentically.

REBUTTAL:
In my experience, significant social or political change is often reduced to slogans, memes, and bumper sticker statements cleverly written to inspire without much thought to accuracy. The most obvious example I can think of is this line from the Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

This famous line has it all:

• Invokes truth without defining its objective source.
• Claims this truth is “self-evident,” implying only a fool misses it and suppresses challenges.
• Stakes a claim to the “Creator” as an appeal to a higher (ultimate) authority.
• Invokes a logical truth that if sourced in the “Creator,” a right would be unalienable.
• Identifies three incredible blessings that would appeal to all people, without defining what those blessings mean.

The trouble is that if the “Creator” is the ultimate authority, then he is the source of truth, and the Bible is the word of the Creator. In the Bible, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are blessings, not entitlements. But it made for a powerful rally cry, and I am happy for the country we have. The lesson, however, is that powerful rally cries are not always accurate.

In this claim for freedom to explore one’s identity, the claimant begins by calling it a “fundamental right.” Says who?

History is dotted with people who identifies as thieves, murderer’s, rapists, sadists, child molesters, and so forth. If the freedom to explore one’s identity is fundamental, then on what basis do we restrict those people from pursuing their identity? Invoking a “fundamental right” sounds great, but it lacks context and definition. On what basis is “[a]llowing individuals the space to determine who they are, what they value, and who they want to become is not only empowering but also essential for a just and equitable society,” if you cannot allow all individuals, including the most wicked, perverted, and sadistic the same fundamental right?

Failing on this point destroys the rest of the claim. That becomes obvious by the inconsistency of the argument. On the one hand, the claimant invokes a “fundamental right” and then later states, “The rigid societal rules and restrictive religious frameworks that seek to confine people to narrow definitions of gender are outdated and oppressive.”

Think about it. The claimant truly does not object to “rigid societal rules” or “restrictive religious frameworks” so long as they agree with his estimation of what is a “fundamental right.”

This is often the case with autonomy arguments. Letting everybody do their own thing sounds very appealing. It is a great campaign issue and populist message, but fails any validity test. The problem with people doing their own thing is that sometimes the “thing” they want to do is a problem. Ask any executive of a homeowners’ association. A handful of people in a subdivision rarely can agree to let neighbors do their own thing in the colors they pick for their buildings or what they keep in their driveways.

In building a case, the claimant attacks with these words: “If male and female behaviors were truly innate, society wouldn’t feel the need to enforce them so strictly or police them so relentlessly.”

That is not a coherent position to take in light of his previous point that “Allowing individuals the space to determine who they are, what they value, and who they want to become is not only empowering but also essential for a just and equitable society.” Is he arguing to eliminate all laws?

We are told that human beings’ innate nature is toward evil (Genesis 8:21). This reality is so apparent that cultures have maintained rules to hem in objectionable or evil behavior. Is it so surprising that even on issues like gender, people want to go in the wrong direction?

Finally, the claimant makes an accurate statement but with a false presumption. He says, “True progress lies in embracing diversity and dismantling these artificial boundaries, granting everyone the autonomy to live authentically.” He never identifies what progress is, and in what direction it is going. Who defines progress? Who even says this kind of progress is a good thing?

Let me suggest a different authenticity. Paul says it well:

“For I know that good itself does not dwell in me, that is, in my sinful nature. For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. For I do not do the good I want to do, but the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing.” (Romans 7:18–19, NIV)

Authenticity, to be authentic, must derive from somewhere outside of ourselves. Otherwise, it is only an opinion, as valuable as your best decision and as terrible as your worst decision.

Accepting the harsh reality of our natural evil inclination is a big step in understanding how easy it is to be self-serving in our ideas. Whether we are making business, career, school, or lifestyle decisions, authenticity demands a higher authority. If it is only a matter of personal opinion, then every perverted notion, such as slavery or pedophilia, is venerated as normal, just different. So far, even in our innate evil inclination, most people can see a problem with that.

The late Pastor Timothy Keller put it this way

To be loved but not known is comforting but superficial. To be known and not loved is our greatest fear. But to be fully known and truly loved is, well, a lot like being loved by God. It is what we need more than anything. It liberates us from pretense, humbles us out of our self-righteousness, and fortifies us for any difficulty life can throw at us.

Navigating the challenges of an evil inclination begins with accepting that reality and then seeing in Jesus Christ a solution to what would otherwise be a shattered relationship with the Creator, who is the Author of life and truth.

The problem with the claim is that it reflects a search for authenticity that the world or our own imagination cannot fulfill. Authenticity is rooted in our relationship with God as our Creator, Redeemer, and the objective source of truth.