Debating Christianity and Religion

In the interest of full disclosure, I’m a detransitioner and was involved in that lifestyle for 11 years. I left it behind out of respect for my philosophical and ethical commitments, and because of the harm the “community” has done to society. If you’re involved in that lifestyle, you can find a way out: if I can do it, so can you! -Haven

Secularists and “progressives” often pride themselves* on rationality, logic and skepticism. So why is that attitude absent when it comes to the subject of transgenderism?

Let’s be honest: there’s nothing rational about the transgender worldview. It posits that:

1. Biological sex does not exist (which is false)

2. “Sex is a spectrum” (which is false, there are two sexes and a handful of disorders of sex development)

3. “Gender-affirming care” changes sex/gender (it does not, it makes minor cosmetic changes at the most).

4. Children can know that they’re transgender and should be given “gender-affirming care” (this is completely false and deeply harmful).

5. “A woman is anyone who identifies as a woman” / “a man is anyone who identifies as a man” (tautologous and incoherent).

6. People can be “non-binary” (again, sex is binary [with some disorders of sex development], and over 50% of people identifying as “non-binary” have autism). “Non-binary” is most often a symptom of autistic disorder.

Debate questions: Is transgenderism logically defensible? Does it meet the standards of evidence skeptics usually insist on? Has it become a kind of “secular religion,” with false / unfalsifiable claims, assertions of righteousness and apologetics?

*ourselves; I’m an atheist.

Haven wrote: ↑Fri Oct 17, 2025 9:28 pmDebate questions: Is transgenderism logically defensible?

Do you consider sex and gender to be the same thing? You've asserted "harm ... to society," but your points only seem to address biological aspects. What kind of harm do you think transgenderism has caused society that needs a defense?

Haven wrote: ↑Fri Oct 17, 2025 9:28 pmDebate questions: Is transgenderism logically defensible? Does it meet the standards of evidence skeptics usually insist on? Has it become a kind of “secular religion,” with false / unfalsifiable claims, assertions of righteousness and apologetics?

Transgenderism is 100% logically defensible. You can absolutely believe that gender is entirely a social construct and I tend to lean that way myself. However, once you've taken that stance, you need these three concessions:

1. If genitals and secondary sex characteristics have nothing to do with gender, then you must acknowledge that removing or changing them to affirm gender is not necessary. It is also not beyond my notice that trans women are always EXTREMELY hot, and it seems to me that this surgery they get, which is legally mandated to be given to them on insurance, is not stopping at making them 1's or even 5's. They do not stop until that trans woman is a solid 10. Why? Do you need to be a 10 to be a woman? Is it hard to be a woman if no one will date you because you're ugly? If so, why aren't people born female and identifying as women, also given this surgery for free? Foul. Foul, I say.

2. If someone born female identifies as a trans woman, then you must acknowledge that she can be that. You cannot start "things are what they are, not what they identify as" at some arbitrary point, especially if you're still talking about gender. While most people pushing this specific question are doing so to prove a point, the point is 100% valid. You must now play the part of the skeptic, who is asked to acknowledge someone you might not find to be valid or truthful, because what's in their head counts more. If you would say no, if you would rush to the dictionary or closest authority, then gleefully tell that person they can't be that, aren't that, because words have meanings, then you validate every last grug-brained caveman who has said trans women are not women.

3. And yes, most importantly, this means that a cis woman should have all the rights and special protections of a trans woman. If your gender comes with more rights than hers, then it's categorically not the same as hers. You can say you're a woman and she isn't, put the words on whichever spaces you like - it absolutely doesn't matter - but those spaces do matter. They are categorical. What she is, is something that you are not, and you cannot avoid that unless your gender comes with exactly the same rights hers does, and not one iota more.

But once you've squared that circle and made those concessions, yes, trans women in women's sports, prisons, and bathrooms.

1. As for sports, I hate to break it to you, but sports are not fair. Biggest biological advantage wins. Everyone will train maximally. So biggest biological advantage wins. This is the nature of sports. If you don't like it, don't have sports, or do some kind of hyper-advanced matchmaking where everyone gets to play and gets the opponent that is closest to them in biological ability. This is not, however, what sports are about.

2. Why are we okay with rape occurring so often in male prisons? If someone is going to rape, if put in a female prison (this has happened before) are we going to suddenly be okay with it, if he does it to another male? It was never really fair that rape in male prisons was ignored, while a female doing the same crime had a practically zero chance of being raped. Frankly, if you don't want to be raped, don't do stuff to get sent to prison.

3. Bathrooms: If someone does something punish them. If they leer at you, I'm sorry that makes you uncomfortable, but it's not a crime and it shouldn't be one, either. Creeps exist. Ignore them, don't voluntarily mate with them, genetically starve them out. If they cross the line, they get punished.

I broadly agree with everything you say here with two minor issues"

Purple Knight wrote: ↑Wed May 20, 2026 3:58 amIt is also not beyond my notice that trans women are always EXTREMELY hot, and it seems to me that this surgery they get, which is legally mandated to be given to them on insurance, is not stopping at making them 1's or even 5's. They do not stop until that trans woman is a solid 10.

What surgery are you talking about? As far as I know, the only surgery that's legally considered "gender-affirming" involves swapping innies and outies. Breast augmentation might be included, too, I guess. Is that what you're talking about?

Purple Knight wrote: ↑Wed May 20, 2026 3:58 amIf so, why aren't people born female and identifying as women, also given this surgery for free? Foul. Foul, I say.

With the caveat that I'm still not sure exactly what surgery you mean, I don't have a problem in principle with certain cosmetic surgeries being considered a form of gender-affirming care. Current regulations compelling employers to provide civilized insurance are a positive step, including certain lifestyle choices. If there's a legitimate disparity that's in any way gender-based, I'm all about correcting that. While we wait for your clarification, though, I'll tentatively say that whatever you have in mind just sounds like an excuse that isn't a real problem in a practical sense.

Purple Knight wrote: ↑Wed May 20, 2026 3:58 amYou cannot start "things are what they are, not what they identify as" at some arbitrary point, especially if you're still talking about gender.

I wholeheartedly agree with this.

Purple Knight wrote: ↑Wed May 20, 2026 3:58 amFrankly, if you don't want to be raped, don't do stuff to get sent to prison.

This attitude bothers me a lot. I have no problem in principle with removing criminals from society, but the corollary to that is that it becomes society's responsibility to ensure that those people still have a decent quality of life. "You did this to yourself" (or, "don't do stuff to get sent to prison"), ends up being another form of blaming the victim. Putting people in prison for certain antisocial behavior is fine (again, in principle), but allowing prisons to be terrible, let alone expecting it, is not.

Difflugia wrote: ↑Wed May 20, 2026 9:39 am I broadly agree with everything you say here with two minor issues"

Purple Knight wrote: ↑Wed May 20, 2026 3:58 amIt is also not beyond my notice that trans women are always EXTREMELY hot, and it seems to me that this surgery they get, which is legally mandated to be given to them on insurance, is not stopping at making them 1's or even 5's. They do not stop until that trans woman is a solid 10.

What surgery are you talking about? As far as I know, the only surgery that's legally considered "gender-affirming" involves swapping innies and outies. Breast augmentation might be included, too, I guess. Is that what you're talking about?

I know for a fact that they get breast augmentation and beard removal, while biological women identifying as women don't get either, even if they need both. That's enough to make my point. However I don't think they stop there. Just look at trans women. 90% of them look better than 90% of regular women. It looks like they at least get facial sculpting to augment their cheekbones and give them that hollow-cheeked Vogue look. They also look like they get help to make their lips fuller and eyelashes naturally longer without makeup. I'm not 100% sure about anything but the breast augmentation and beard removal, but it really looks like they get a LOT of help.

Knowing that the medical industrial complex works this way, I very much expect anything where they can spread out the costs and just bill the insurance, to be massively overprovided. So again I'm not 100% certain of anything but those two items (which are enough that it's unfair) but I would absolutely bet money that they get more. And the cruelest part is that the biological women who are being knocked down the scale and maybe even locked out of ever getting a mate because of it, are actually paying for this cosmetic redistribution every time they pay into their insurance. They are robbing the poor to make others rich.

Difflugia wrote: ↑Wed May 20, 2026 9:39 am

Purple Knight wrote: ↑Wed May 20, 2026 3:58 amFrankly, if you don't want to be raped, don't do stuff to get sent to prison.

This attitude bothers me a lot. I have no problem in principle with removing criminals from society, but the corollary to that is that it becomes society's responsibility to ensure that those people still have a decent quality of life. "You did this to yourself" (or, "don't do stuff to get sent to prison"), ends up being another form of blaming the victim. Putting people in prison for certain antisocial behavior is fine (again, in principle), but allowing prisons to be terrible, let alone expecting it, is not.

If you put me in charge of prisons, I'd put up a bunch of cameras, and anyone who raped or beat someone half to death would be taken out of Prison1 and permanently put in Prison2, no longer allowed in Prison1 even if they get arrested 10 years later. But this isn't a gender thing.

It's fine to want prisoners to have a higher quality of life, and to some extent it can be done if we just sift again, but there's just no getting around the fact that prison is horrible because it's full of prisoners: People who, largely, or at least much more than the general population, do not care about the rights of others at a basic level.

If you can't change their behaviour after maximal trying,
you can either:
1. Let them walk free, in which case they will hurt the innocent, or
2. Let them hurt each other

They're people who hurt. They'll find a way to do it. That's why they're in prison.