Why is gender-nonconformity bad? Alternatively, why must one's gender align with their sex?

[sartre play]

I do see reasons for concern in regards to how things are handled with minors. But can not understand why anyone cares about adults sex life's or if they want to wear a dress.

 

[Hang on Sloopy]

I'll preface this by saying that I have never made a thread on any forum, nor have I explored the CDZ. I read the guidelines for this subsection, and I didn't encounter anything outlining any specific format which these debates must follow, so long as the exchange remains respectful. Thus, if I miss any rules with regards to the creation of this thread, please do tell me.

I will start this thread off with a claim or a series of interrelated claims, followed by definitions with regards to those claim(s), and then I will outline a simple argument justifying those claim(s) What I seek out of this thread is a firm counterargument to one or more of these claims, based in a traditional secular argument.

Claims

1. Gender is not defined by sex.
2. Gender-nonconformity is neither irrational nor a mental illness.
3. There is no secular reason not to accommodate the gender-nonconforming.

Definitions

1. Sex, defined as the chromosome configuration you are born with.
2. Gender, defined as the personality traits traditionally associated with one sex or the other (i.e., femininity, masculinity).
3. Gender-nonconforming, defined as someone that does not align with the gender associated with their sex.
4. Accommodation, defined as allowing these gender-nonconforming individuals to do anything others within their own gender are allowed to do, given their biology does not offer them a distinct advantage.
5. Secular, this really shouldn't need to be defined, but some people seem to think "secular" means "atheist." No, it doesn't. Secular means areligious. Religious people can and do make secular arguments, because every argument they make where they do not use religion or spirit as a crutch is a secular argument.

Arguments

1. Gender is not defined by sex. I'm sure we can agree that it is fundamentally undeniable that biological men and biological women have a set of statistically distinct traits, both physiological and psychological, and that to some extent, these traits are caused by biology. The extent to which they're caused by biology is irrelevant to our purposes here, but what is relevant is the word "statistical." In any group, including humans at-large, there is a statistical norm for any trait you'd like to pick out of the bunch (given that it may be measured numerically). However, that statistical norm is just that: statistical and a norm. Every group on this planet, including the two demographically-dominant sexes, regularly see traits that deviate significantly from the statistical norm.
   
   Case-in-point: height (see: fig. 1). As shown in this neat little chart, and as you probably already know, biological men are statistically taller than biological women. But a statistically significant chunk of men are shorter than a statistically significant chunk of women.
   
   Now, what does height have to do with gender? Gender is not synonymous with sex. Even if you are to claim that gender must align with someone's sex, the two are not the same. Gender is a set of traits that we traditionally associate with one sex or another, often pertaining to personality. As in, "men are assertive." Or, "women are neurotic." These two statements are provably true (See: fig. 2), just like sex-height claims, assuming that they are statistical statements, not absolute statements. Men are indeed more assertive. Women indeed are more neurotic. But the thing is, not all men are assertive. And not all women are neurotic. Just like with height, there is a great deal of overlap between the sexes, and there lay the issue of claiming that gender must align with one's sex.
   
   If a biological female's personality traits firmly fall inside the "masculine" box, and they believe the associations made with the term "male" and the pronouns "he/him" more accurately fit them, how is that wrong? I'd argue it isn't, because this individual's gender, their personality--every visible and relevant trait--goes against the gender they were assigned at birth. This is statistically evident through basic trait variance. Therefore, gender is not defined by sex.
2. Gender-nonconformity is neither irrational nor a mental illness. Assuming that the prior claim is true, it cannot be reasonably claimed that being gender-nonconforming is in itself irrational, given that there is no intrinsic part of gender-nonconformity that does not comport with reality. However, the topic of mental illness is completely different.
   
   I will start by saying there is a distinction between gender dysphoria and gender nonconformity. Gender-nonconformity is exactly how I defined it, but gender dysphoria is when the misalignment between your assigned gender and your perceived gender causes distress. Gender dysphoria is therefore a mental illness, not because gender-nonconformity is a mental illness, but rather because of the anxiety and depression that some face in light of this misalignment. The solution to mental illnesses, if possible, is to address the route cause, not to squash the symptoms; in this case, the route cause is that misalignment, so the solution is the rectification of that misalignment. Therefore, gender-nonconformity is neither irrational nor a mental illness.
3. Last but not least, there is no secular reason not to accommodate the gender-nonconforming. A "secular" reason, in my mind, is any reason guided by enlightenment rationality. Appeals to authority do not fall under "secular" reasoning, and quoting a religious text as a reason is an appeal to authority. While I am not denying the right of the individual to accept whomever they'd like into their lives, and to refer to others how they wish within the confines of their own property, my claim here is that non-accommodation of the gender-nonconforming has no rational basis.
   
   The reasoning here is simple. If one is to do something entirely rational, as follows in my second claim, and this rational action does not impose itself on the well-being of others, others can not rationally act in a discriminatory manner against them. The same applies to the assumption of an identity which does not associate itself with actions that are either irrational and/or impose themselves on the well-being of others. Gender-nonconformity is not irrational, as per the second argument, and it does not intrinsically harm the well-being of others, therefore there is no secular reason not to accommodate the gender-nonconforming.

Images

Figure 1: Relationship between height and biological sex
View attachment 551503

Figure 2: Relationship between big five personality and gender, compared between executives and non-executives
View attachment 551470

Notes (edited in after the fact, because this dumb fuck accidentally posted this early)

1. I will be using the big five personality measurements and the data regarding that as my back-up for any personality-related claims or arguments. Not only is it the most respected in the scientific community, it also has been thoroughly researched on many fronts, and that wealth of statistics is very useful for the purposes of an argument. Read more about it here.
   
   Yes, this is a Wikipedia page. If you request a more direct source, I will provide you one.

The only thing I know about gender happened when I was in 1st grade. I first glimpsed upon this beautiful blond haired blue eyed girl named Ann. My God was I in love. Smackgoggled in love.

I haven't thought about it many decades until I saw the emasculation of men some time ago, beginning in 1st grade

 

[sakinago]

Norms as such are laws. There's no law (outside the military at any rate) that a man should have a certain haircut. If one man shaves his scalp bald and another man has a ponytail — each man has to be the judge of that himself what makes him feel normal.

Women do have excessive menstrual flow at times, sometimes it is possible for a woman deemed to have been born male or born "as" a man can become pregnant, biologically, especially if the fact that she is a biological female was not immediately apparent at her birth. I'm sick of the neon open signs and cop-calling females in that district too, but some of you do need to be castigated, punished, and disciplined into accepting that other people's life situations do not always correspond to your version of "the truth" as you would like to inflict it as law without mercy or grace on them.

Some of those girls are just plain spoiled rotten, and a little social awkwardness or hesitation from time to time wouldn't hurt them a bit. Girls don't be so forward all the time and hold the boys back.

Bible Gateway passage: Matthew 19:12 - King James Version

For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.

www.biblegateway.com

You need to read the Christian Bible then. Or do you leave certain parts out for the Sunday sermon because they make you feel "uncomfortable." What does Jesus say? Eunuchs are not rapists or sex offenders by any means.

No no no no no, NO. YOU, as a non believer, do not have the right to use scripture, of which you don’t understand, to come and make your worldly, sulfur smelling point, completely devoid of many levels of context, while ignoring the hundreds of passages that command otherwise. It is offensive. You would not attempt anything of the sort with Muslims, or even black folk of your same culture. It is just as inappropriate here.

A eunuch was someone who didn’t have male sex organs. That’s the definition of a eunuch. It’s a very specific word, with a very specific meaning, in the Ancient Greek that it was written in. Thats the word they used. Most eunuchs came from slaves serving a woman master at the time. Some happening naturally as in actual hermaphroditism at birth. Some happening from accidents and war. They did not have sex change surgeries back then. Wouldn’t have them for a couple thousand years. Eunuchs were looked down upon at the time. This passage was Jesus clearly telling people to not look down upon them, which went 100% against the grain at that time.

DONT EVER TAKE SCRIPTURE OUT OF CONTEXT LIKE THAT AGAIN. YOUVE BEEN GIVEN FAIR WARNING.

 

[Circe]

Eunuchs is a good word for what males who want to be women make themselves into --- mutilating and hormoning. I realized that this is what that Bradley Manning traitor ASKED for people to do to him in the Army ---------- and I bet they were glad to do it, too.

When they become eunuchs as children, males get very tall. Abnormally tall. You can really see it in photos in Peking during the Boxer War. Never look up pictures of Chinese eunuchs on Bing --- you have been warned. But I guess that's what these male prostitutes really want.

 

[justinacolmena]

Most eunuchs came from slaves serving a woman master at the time. Some happening naturally as in actual hermaphroditism at birth

Hooters girls don't deserve slaves dude. And you shotgun fathers got to get off the property before something even worse happens buddy.

 

[YoursTruly]

" Fads " don't last 4,500 years.

Why don't they? People have been wearing hats for no other reason than to look nice for a long long time. People have been listening to music for a long long time. So, yeah, a fad can last that long.

I am sorry you are upset or feel you can't accept this part of humanity.

So now you're a drama queen? You crossdress, don't you?

They are part of the tapestry of life, whether you like it or not, whether you can accept it or not, doesn't really matter. They're not going anywhere, they're here to stay, just like the rest of us.

You're missing the point. Or changing the subject. This is about those who are forcing the BS on others and adversely affecting the lives of others.

 

[danielpalos]

Why is it soo difficult to find nice girls who are willing to be friends and help us practice?

 

[Captain Caveman]

I'll preface this by saying that I have never made a thread on any forum, nor have I explored the CDZ. I read the guidelines for this subsection, and I didn't encounter anything outlining any specific format which these debates must follow, so long as the exchange remains respectful. Thus, if I miss any rules with regards to the creation of this thread, please do tell me.

I will start this thread off with a claim or a series of interrelated claims, followed by definitions with regards to those claim(s), and then I will outline a simple argument justifying those claim(s) What I seek out of this thread is a firm counterargument to one or more of these claims, based in a traditional secular argument.

Claims

1. Gender is not defined by sex.
2. Gender-nonconformity is neither irrational nor a mental illness.
3. There is no secular reason not to accommodate the gender-nonconforming.

Definitions

1. Sex, defined as the chromosome configuration you are born with.
2. Gender, defined as the personality traits traditionally associated with one sex or the other (i.e., femininity, masculinity).
3. Gender-nonconforming, defined as someone that does not align with the gender associated with their sex.
4. Accommodation, defined as allowing these gender-nonconforming individuals to do anything others within their own gender are allowed to do, given their biology does not offer them a distinct advantage.
5. Secular, this really shouldn't need to be defined, but some people seem to think "secular" means "atheist." No, it doesn't. Secular means areligious. Religious people can and do make secular arguments, because every argument they make where they do not use religion or spirit as a crutch is a secular argument.

Arguments

1. Gender is not defined by sex. I'm sure we can agree that it is fundamentally undeniable that biological men and biological women have a set of statistically distinct traits, both physiological and psychological, and that to some extent, these traits are caused by biology. The extent to which they're caused by biology is irrelevant to our purposes here, but what is relevant is the word "statistical." In any group, including humans at-large, there is a statistical norm for any trait you'd like to pick out of the bunch (given that it may be measured numerically). However, that statistical norm is just that: statistical and a norm. Every group on this planet, including the two demographically-dominant sexes, regularly see traits that deviate significantly from the statistical norm.
   
   Case-in-point: height (see: fig. 1). As shown in this neat little chart, and as you probably already know, biological men are statistically taller than biological women. But a statistically significant chunk of men are shorter than a statistically significant chunk of women.
   
   Now, what does height have to do with gender? Gender is not synonymous with sex. Even if you are to claim that gender must align with someone's sex, the two are not the same. Gender is a set of traits that we traditionally associate with one sex or another, often pertaining to personality. As in, "men are assertive." Or, "women are neurotic." These two statements are provably true (See: fig. 2), just like sex-height claims, assuming that they are statistical statements, not absolute statements. Men are indeed more assertive. Women indeed are more neurotic. But the thing is, not all men are assertive. And not all women are neurotic. Just like with height, there is a great deal of overlap between the sexes, and there lay the issue of claiming that gender must align with one's sex.
   
   If a biological female's personality traits firmly fall inside the "masculine" box, and they believe the associations made with the term "male" and the pronouns "he/him" more accurately fit them, how is that wrong? I'd argue it isn't, because this individual's gender, their personality--every visible and relevant trait--goes against the gender they were assigned at birth. This is statistically evident through basic trait variance. Therefore, gender is not defined by sex.
2. Gender-nonconformity is neither irrational nor a mental illness. Assuming that the prior claim is true, it cannot be reasonably claimed that being gender-nonconforming is in itself irrational, given that there is no intrinsic part of gender-nonconformity that does not comport with reality. However, the topic of mental illness is completely different.
   
   I will start by saying there is a distinction between gender dysphoria and gender nonconformity. Gender-nonconformity is exactly how I defined it, but gender dysphoria is when the misalignment between your assigned gender and your perceived gender causes distress. Gender dysphoria is therefore a mental illness, not because gender-nonconformity is a mental illness, but rather because of the anxiety and depression that some face in light of this misalignment. The solution to mental illnesses, if possible, is to address the route cause, not to squash the symptoms; in this case, the route cause is that misalignment, so the solution is the rectification of that misalignment. Therefore, gender-nonconformity is neither irrational nor a mental illness.
3. Last but not least, there is no secular reason not to accommodate the gender-nonconforming. A "secular" reason, in my mind, is any reason guided by enlightenment rationality. Appeals to authority do not fall under "secular" reasoning, and quoting a religious text as a reason is an appeal to authority. While I am not denying the right of the individual to accept whomever they'd like into their lives, and to refer to others how they wish within the confines of their own property, my claim here is that non-accommodation of the gender-nonconforming has no rational basis.
   
   The reasoning here is simple. If one is to do something entirely rational, as follows in my second claim, and this rational action does not impose itself on the well-being of others, others can not rationally act in a discriminatory manner against them. The same applies to the assumption of an identity which does not associate itself with actions that are either irrational and/or impose themselves on the well-being of others. Gender-nonconformity is not irrational, as per the second argument, and it does not intrinsically harm the well-being of others, therefore there is no secular reason not to accommodate the gender-nonconforming.

Images

Figure 1: Relationship between height and biological sex
View attachment 551503

Figure 2: Relationship between big five personality and gender, compared between executives and non-executives
View attachment 551470

Notes (edited in after the fact, because this dumb fuck accidentally posted this early)

1. I will be using the big five personality measurements and the data regarding that as my back-up for any personality-related claims or arguments. Not only is it the most respected in the scientific community, it also has been thoroughly researched on many fronts, and that wealth of statistics is very useful for the purposes of an argument. Read more about it here.
   
   Yes, this is a Wikipedia page. If you request a more direct source, I will provide you one.

The male and female sex is obvious, thus 99.9% of the time, you are born one or the other.

Gender is just a play on words, so by all means someone can claim they're this, that or whatever, but facts and nature ignores that game.

If anyone struggles with this concept, then they just need to end up lost in the wilderness, their skeleton located in a handful of years time, and science will examine their bone structure and tell the world that they found a male or female.

And finally, I was brought up not to lie. So being told to call a bloke a woman, or a woman is a bloke, sorry, but take a hike.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

" Fads " don't last 4,500 years. I am sorry you are upset or feel you can't accept this part of humanity. They are part of the tapestry of life, whether you like it or not, whether you can accept it or not, doesn't really matter. They're not going anywhere, they're here to stay, just like the rest of us.

You seem awfully confused when it comes to your understanding of the meaning of various English words. First, you use the term "normal" to refer to something that is extremely rare. The mere fact that an expressed trait exists throughout history does not make it "normal", especially when it has always been rare among any population. You lack the understanding necessary to differentiate between acceptance and normalcy.

Secondly, you lack the understanding of the meaning of the term "fad". A fad is a sudden preoccupation expressed in a society for something previously of little interest or else new. throughout the entirety of my own life (I am now 66), the preoccupation with transexualism was as rare as its occurrence. Precious few people gave it much consideration because of its rarity, and they certainly weren't demanding men who think they believe they are women be able to beat up actual women in a wrestling match. It is only because of the intense scrutiny given the issue by a media hell-bent on shaping society rather than reporting news that it has become such a hot topic. That is the very definition of a fad.

Once again, the issue here is not one of "good" or "bad" qualities innate to transexualism, but of the merits of political policy and personal behavior created as a result. Men calling themselves women rape women in public bathrooms because of this fad. Men who think they are women take away the dreams and ambitions of actual women in sports because of this fad. Children are being encouraged to think of themselves as the opposite gender and then given hormones because of this fad. These things cause harm, and those trumpeting their imaginary virtue for entirely vain reasons by supporting this fad are contributing to this harm, even as they have been deluded by the fad into thinking themselves so very virtuous.

 

[justinacolmena]

The male and female sex is obvious, thus 99.9% of the time, you are born one or the other.

True. Fewer than 1 in 10,000 people are transgender.

Gender is just a play on words, so by all means someone can claim they're this, that or whatever, but facts and nature ignores that game.

People are always flirting and playing sex as a game.

Men calling themselves women rape women in public bathrooms because of this fad

I don't think so. Not for a minute. There's a male cop with his gun drawn sitting on the toilet in the women's room. Come to think of it, if you're not peeking under the partition of the toilet stall, how would you even know if there's another man in the women's room you are using.

 

[iceberg]

What about hermaphrodites?

they are both 1 and 2 by physical nature.

who you are mentally may or may not he who you are physically. if your body can't fly on its own, your mind can't make it happen.

 

[Coyote]

I'm asking you a very simple question....why were there no trans people in America before the Left concocted their no boundaries, no decency, no morality, anything goes, free for all bullshit?

Actually there were.

Well before left/right politics.

Some Native Americans Recognized Not Two, Not Three... But Five Genders

A fact ignored by many Americans to this day.

www.buzzworthy.com

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

It is as relevant as booger-eating (mucophagy).
Counter-natural proclivities that innately elicit reactions of nausea and are partaken of by roughly the same percentage of the population (4%).

 

[Baron Von Murderpaws]

I can understand gender non-conformity to a point...........where children have not yet gotten to the point in their lives where they understand what male, female, and sex are. They aren't self-aware yet, they don't comprehend the political bullshit, lies, and propaganda that they are bombarded with every day.

I've even know some adults that have been struggling with this into their 30's........but for them, it's more deciding on whether they agree with aligning with the mandated prefaces of the standards for what society perceives as "male and female" roles. Hmmm.......does that make sense?

Most kids are so fucked up, because they have no concept of biology, division of the sexes, masculin vs feminine, and such. They are bombarded with sex and bullshit by the media, Hollywood, music lyrics, and magazines. All the while their parents are silent. Schools are completely useless now, as they are nothing more than breeding grounds for making political fodder for future politicians' propagandas.

As many of my teachers in school stated back when................"Be who are, be who you want to be, do what you want to do........but NEVER at someone elses expense. When you cross that line, then you've become the monster that people hate".

 

[Circe]

And finally, I was brought up not to lie. So being told to call a bloke a woman, or a woman is a bloke, sorry, but take a hike.

That's it ---- that's how I feel. People insist I use strange pronouns or pretend they are a woman when they are a man, I am not going to cooperate with any of that.

Or any other lies the Woke types try to foist off on me. I no longer allow people to "correct" me (if I ever did, come to think of it) in the words I use. It's not happening, not another minute.

 

[Baron Von Murderpaws]

I'm asking you a very simple question....why were there no trans people in America before the Left concocted their no boundaries, no decency, no morality, anything goes, free for all bullshit?

As far as America is concerned...........there actually were. It wasn't a "free for all" or "anything goes" though. They were usually met with violence and death, which is why there is very little information......but there are many stories out there dealing with some trans people that attempted to live in society and even marry, only to end up in prison or 6 feet under.

There were trans people in Japanese culture, as far back as their history goes.
Same for the Greeks and Romans. Although, during those times, it was dependent on WHO was on the throne at the time, regarding who got away with what.


There's a difference between a man feeling like he's a woman in a mans body, and vice versa.......than someone who has been mind-raped by the media and Hollywood into thinking they are something they are not, or coerced and brainwashed into thinking they are something they aren't.

The first has to deal with hormones.
The second has to deal with mental problems resulting from being coerced, brainwashed, and mind-raped.

It's not really THEIR fault, it's the fault of those around them. Instead of getting them some counseling and mental therapy to address their issues and concerns, they are just continually bombarded by the gluttonous powerhungry fuktards that only want to use and abuse people to get what they want, because they have mommy and daddy issues, or someone told them "no" at some point in their lives. So they bring down as many unknowing kids as possible.

You can also thank the Dementocraps for this. They shut down almost all of the psychiatric organizations and hospitals in this country back in the 80's. So there is literally no help for the millions upon millions of people who are confused and puzzled by all this "sex" bullshit they are constantly being bombarded with on a daily basis. They have no one to answer their questions or help them understand whats going on in their bodies or their minds......much less help them figure out if it's a biological problem or a mental one.


Instead of judging people like this, I try to help them, if they want help or someone to unbiasedly answer their questions. For the few I have listened to and offered some advice, they have ended up getting professional help. And thats all I can ask of them, is to talk to someone who can help them figure out if it's mental or biological, and take it from there.

 

[sakinago]

Hooters girls don't deserve slaves dude. And you shotgun fathers got to get off the property before something even worse happens buddy.

What the hell are you even saying? This is the best of the spirit of the age has, and they start talking about hooters girls shouldn’t own slaves...okay...I couldn’t think of a better red herring if I tried, so I’ll give you point for coming off the top rope with randomness.

 

[Captain Caveman]

I can understand gender non-conformity to a point...........where children have not yet gotten to the point in their lives where they understand what male, female, and sex are. They aren't self-aware yet, they don't comprehend the political bullshit, lies, and propaganda that they are bombarded with every day.

I've even know some adults that have been struggling with this into their 30's........but for them, it's more deciding on whether they agree with aligning with the mandated prefaces of the standards for what society perceives as "male and female" roles. Hmmm.......does that make sense?

Most kids are so fucked up, because they have no concept of biology, division of the sexes, masculin vs feminine, and such. They are bombarded with sex and bullshit by the media, Hollywood, music lyrics, and magazines. All the while their parents are silent. Schools are completely useless now, as they are nothing more than breeding grounds for making political fodder for future politicians' propagandas.

As many of my teachers in school stated back when................"Be who are, be who you want to be, do what you want to do........but NEVER at someone elses expense. When you cross that line, then you've become the monster that people hate".

"They are bombarded with sex and bullshit by the media, Hollywood, music lyrics, and magazines."

It's called child abuse and governments and the gender cranks allow it.

 

[justinacolmena]

What the hell are you even saying? This is the best of the spirit of the age has, and they start talking about hooters girls shouldn’t own slaves...okay...I couldn’t think of a better red herring if I tried, so I’ll give you point for coming off the top rope with randomness.

You're trying to preach religion and socially appropriate sex roles straight out of the restroom at the back of the Hooters chain restaurant.

 

[justoffal]

I'll preface this by saying that I have never made a thread on any forum, nor have I explored the CDZ. I read the guidelines for this subsection, and I didn't encounter anything outlining any specific format which these debates must follow, so long as the exchange remains respectful. Thus, if I miss any rules with regards to the creation of this thread, please do tell me.

I will start this thread off with a claim or a series of interrelated claims, followed by definitions with regards to those claim(s), and then I will outline a simple argument justifying those claim(s) What I seek out of this thread is a firm counterargument to one or more of these claims, based in a traditional secular argument.

Claims

1. Gender is not defined by sex.
2. Gender-nonconformity is neither irrational nor a mental illness.
3. There is no secular reason not to accommodate the gender-nonconforming.

Definitions

1. Sex, defined as the chromosome configuration you are born with.
2. Gender, defined as the personality traits traditionally associated with one sex or the other (i.e., femininity, masculinity).
3. Gender-nonconforming, defined as someone that does not align with the gender associated with their sex.
4. Accommodation, defined as allowing these gender-nonconforming individuals to do anything others within their own gender are allowed to do, given their biology does not offer them a distinct advantage.
5. Secular, this really shouldn't need to be defined, but some people seem to think "secular" means "atheist." No, it doesn't. Secular means areligious. Religious people can and do make secular arguments, because every argument they make where they do not use religion or spirit as a crutch is a secular argument.

Arguments

1. Gender is not defined by sex. I'm sure we can agree that it is fundamentally undeniable that biological men and biological women have a set of statistically distinct traits, both physiological and psychological, and that to some extent, these traits are caused by biology. The extent to which they're caused by biology is irrelevant to our purposes here, but what is relevant is the word "statistical." In any group, including humans at-large, there is a statistical norm for any trait you'd like to pick out of the bunch (given that it may be measured numerically). However, that statistical norm is just that: statistical and a norm. Every group on this planet, including the two demographically-dominant sexes, regularly see traits that deviate significantly from the statistical norm.
   
   Case-in-point: height (see: fig. 1). As shown in this neat little chart, and as you probably already know, biological men are statistically taller than biological women. But a statistically significant chunk of men are shorter than a statistically significant chunk of women.
   
   Now, what does height have to do with gender? Gender is not synonymous with sex. Even if you are to claim that gender must align with someone's sex, the two are not the same. Gender is a set of traits that we traditionally associate with one sex or another, often pertaining to personality. As in, "men are assertive." Or, "women are neurotic." These two statements are provably true (See: fig. 2), just like sex-height claims, assuming that they are statistical statements, not absolute statements. Men are indeed more assertive. Women indeed are more neurotic. But the thing is, not all men are assertive. And not all women are neurotic. Just like with height, there is a great deal of overlap between the sexes, and there lay the issue of claiming that gender must align with one's sex.
   
   If a biological female's personality traits firmly fall inside the "masculine" box, and they believe the associations made with the term "male" and the pronouns "he/him" more accurately fit them, how is that wrong? I'd argue it isn't, because this individual's gender, their personality--every visible and relevant trait--goes against the gender they were assigned at birth. This is statistically evident through basic trait variance. Therefore, gender is not defined by sex.
2. Gender-nonconformity is neither irrational nor a mental illness. Assuming that the prior claim is true, it cannot be reasonably claimed that being gender-nonconforming is in itself irrational, given that there is no intrinsic part of gender-nonconformity that does not comport with reality. However, the topic of mental illness is completely different.
   
   I will start by saying there is a distinction between gender dysphoria and gender nonconformity. Gender-nonconformity is exactly how I defined it, but gender dysphoria is when the misalignment between your assigned gender and your perceived gender causes distress. Gender dysphoria is therefore a mental illness, not because gender-nonconformity is a mental illness, but rather because of the anxiety and depression that some face in light of this misalignment. The solution to mental illnesses, if possible, is to address the route cause, not to squash the symptoms; in this case, the route cause is that misalignment, so the solution is the rectification of that misalignment. Therefore, gender-nonconformity is neither irrational nor a mental illness.
3. Last but not least, there is no secular reason not to accommodate the gender-nonconforming. A "secular" reason, in my mind, is any reason guided by enlightenment rationality. Appeals to authority do not fall under "secular" reasoning, and quoting a religious text as a reason is an appeal to authority. While I am not denying the right of the individual to accept whomever they'd like into their lives, and to refer to others how they wish within the confines of their own property, my claim here is that non-accommodation of the gender-nonconforming has no rational basis.
   
   The reasoning here is simple. If one is to do something entirely rational, as follows in my second claim, and this rational action does not impose itself on the well-being of others, others can not rationally act in a discriminatory manner against them. The same applies to the assumption of an identity which does not associate itself with actions that are either irrational and/or impose themselves on the well-being of others. Gender-nonconformity is not irrational, as per the second argument, and it does not intrinsically harm the well-being of others, therefore there is no secular reason not to accommodate the gender-nonconforming.

Images

Figure 1: Relationship between height and biological sex
View attachment 551503

Figure 2: Relationship between big five personality and gender, compared between executives and non-executives
View attachment 551470

Notes (edited in after the fact, because this dumb fuck accidentally posted this early)

1. I will be using the big five personality measurements and the data regarding that as my back-up for any personality-related claims or arguments. Not only is it the most respected in the scientific community, it also has been thoroughly researched on many fronts, and that wealth of statistics is very useful for the purposes of an argument. Read more about it here.
   
   Yes, this is a Wikipedia page. If you request a more direct source, I will provide you one.

I'll stay simple. If someone wants me to call a giraffe a hippopotamus I tell the to fucxxk themselves. Nuff said.

Jo