Being Transgender is not a Sin

First, I will rebut my opponent's arguments, and then I will defend my own. Now, my opponent begins by placing emphasis on establishing a congenital basis for transgenderism, however as I have shown, the majority of transgender cases are in fact non-congenital. First of all, I have shown that Gender Dysphoria can arise from CAH, which makes CAH the cause of Gender Dysphoria, rather than a biological cause. Secondly, I have also shown that 70-80% of all transgender cases disappear spontaneously with children, and thus the vast majority of transgender cases, are in fact, non-congenital, and even in fact end up dissipating. In fact, me opponent, in the beginning of his rebuttals, even seems to cite three sources that confirm that the vast majority of the time, Gender Dysphoria spontaneously disappears through the childhood and puberty of a person. It seems that my opponent wants to claim that these cases are actually just homosexuality, not transgenderism, but all sources seem to contradict him by affirming this is actual transgenderism. However, it is fair to say that there seems to be indicating that a small minority of the time, about 2.5%-20% of cases according to one of my opponents own sources seem to indicate that sometimes, this case might in fact be congenital, however this does not show it is Biblically acceptable. My opponent might try to disagree by citing Psalms 139:13 to show that in such a case, God would have made us transgender, but this of course is ridiculous for two reasons. One, some people seem to equally have a biological basis for pedophilia or even homosexuality, but these are Biblical abominations no matter how you look at it. Secondly, according to Romans 1:24, God gives some seriously abominable people to sin, and in 2 Thessalonians 2:11, we are even told God places a strong delusion on some sinners as their righteous punishment. Being congenital does not show it as permissible in the slightest according to Christian doctrine. Now, for his rebuttals to the verses from the Bible I posted. In respect to Deuteronomy 22:5, he appeals to intersex people. However, this "intersex" gender is not natural, God did not create it. The Bible says God created us man and women [Genesis 1:27], intersex is a genetic deficiency and cannot be possibly used to defend people with Gender Dysphoria from cross-dressing. My opponent claims that Deuteronomy 22:5 is not universal, however this is a ridiculous statement as the Bible does not limit it to any people. In the New Testament, Jesus said "So then, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do likewise will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven" [Matthew 5:19], this makes it evident that Christianity absolutely forbids limitation or removal of these teachings. As for 1 Corinthians 6:9, my opponent claims that the Greek term 'malakoi', which means effeminate, does not actually mean effeminate here if you take into account the fact that it is beside arsenokites, which references same-sex activity, and thus the entire thing only references homosexuality. However, this is false, if it simply wanted to deny homosexuality, it would not include 'malakoi', such as other verses in the Bible where homosexuality is forbidden but 'malakoi' does not appear like Romans 1:27. Many translations include "effeminate", including the INT, NAS, and notably the KJV. It is clear that effeminacy is involved, as no such grammatical rule in the Greek would filter out malakoi in this passage, it is very clear. Now first, my opponent tries to show that blindness is a sin in Judaism by referencing John 9:3, however John 9:3 is not part of Judaic belief, and there is no Old Testament indication to show blindness is of sin in Judaism. Rather, if you look at the verse earlier, some Jews invoke that the man is blind because as part of God's punishment towards his parents for sinning. But once again, this is some random Rabbi in John 9:2, Judaism has no teaching indicating blindness is a sin if it is not in the Old Testament or Talmud. Secondly, he says "blindness is not in the original creation". Well, duh, but blindness is compatible with the original creation, as if either Adam or Eve were blind, or even both, they would still have been able to obey God's command, reproduce, and "be fruitful and multiply". However, if either Adam or Eve were transgender, and undergone Sex Reassignment Surgery or something like that, it would be impossible for them to "be fruitful and multiply", it would not even be a possibility, God would have to annihilate them for failing to meet His orders. Remember, an illness on its own does not condemn you (like per say, a genetic deficiency that keeps you from reproducing), however if Adam or Eve by their own decision underwent a process (Sex Reassignment), then you have now condemned yourself by going through with your sin rather than fighting it. Indeed, transgenderism is incompatible with God's Design Plan, and it is thus immoral. In response to Deuteronomy 23:1, my opponent says these are eunuchs, and eunuchs are validated in Matthew 19:12. However, Biblically, a eunuch is someone who removes their testicles to get rid of sexuality [3], and to pacify themselves from sexual immorality, and this is the only way in which it is permitted, however removing your testicles in order to change your sex has a much, much different intent than exterminating your sexual immorality, and thus is not protected by Jesus. Thus, they remain condemned by Deuteronomy 23:1. Now, my opponent tries to post Biblical verses to show that transgenderism is permissible by the Bible. First, he quotes 1 Corinthians 10:23, however, he completely rips it out of its context, let's see what it says combined with the next verse as well, verse 24; 1 Corinthians 10:23-24; ""I have the right to do anything," you say"but not everything is beneficial. "I have the right to do anything""but not everything is constructive. No one should seek their own good, but the good of others." [1] Clearly, the passage says NOT to seek your own good or health, rather the good of others. Paul tells us that he , at much time had nothing to eat in repercussions for spreading teachings and truth of Christianity [2]. Would it not have been better for him to give up on spreading it all his life, maybe take a few months of, maybe avoid these dangerous conflicts in order so that he may be in good health? Of course not, his health, his anxiety is not of relevance, it is the others that were in his mind, and such a person with Gender Dysphoria must not give in, and must make themselves a righteous example of one who fought against the sins, so that others may follow. Then, my opponent posts 3 John 1:2, but if you simply examine the verse, it clearly shows that what is taught here is that OTHERS are to pray for you, so that God may deliver good health from you, and perhaps free you from your transgenderism. Again, if you just look at 1 Corinthians 10:23-24, you are NOT to seek your own benefit, you seek to help othes and others will seek to help you. People who SUFFER from Gender Dysphoria do not sin, but if you ACKNOWLEDGE your illness, and even attempt to change the body that God personally made for you [Psalms 139:13], then this is indeed a sin according to Christianity. Once again, Christianity teaches GOD has created us in our mothers wombs, and Sex Reassignment Surgery is devising and destroying what God created. Clearly, the Bible makes it evident that transgenderism is not moral under Christian theology, and thus the Con position is accurate. 1. https://www.biblegateway.com... 2. http://biblehub.com... 3. http://www.gotquestions.org...