Chris Matthew has written on transgenderism in the past. I refer to his simple dilemma in regards to trying to argue for transgenderism coherently:
Some Definitions
– Gender essentialism: The theory that universally recognised conceptions of masculine and feminine characteristics are the necessary essence of manhood and womanhood.
– Social construction: The theory that society and culture solely create gender roles, and these roles are prescribed as ideal or appropriate behavior for a person of that specific sex.
The Diabolical Dilemma
Transgender advocates have impaled themselves on the horns of a dilemma: they must either accept the social construction theory or the gender essentialist theory, but both evince paralysing contradictions for their thesis.
a) If they accept the social construction theory, then there is nothing meaningful about identifying as the ‘other gender’ or, even, agender / gender-queer. If gender is simply an arbitrary set of cultural expressions with no normative correlation to fixed traits, you are not really claiming to be of any gender in terms of objective reality. Indeed, the very claim that one is genderless presupposes some essence of gender which a purportedly agender person lacks. Furthermore, for persons who identify along the gender binary as male or female, the notions of male and female presuppose some essence of masculinity as well as some alternative essence of femininity. If the social construction theory is accurate, the only reasonable response would be to abolish gender.
b) If they, however, accept the gender essentialist theory, it follows that any gendered self-identification (other than that which was assigned at birth) is, simply, an objectively false predication. Furthermore, self-identification as agender or gender-queer is not veridical. Subjects may verbally predicate any gendered property to themselves via self-declaration, but that does not logically entail that the subject is truly exemplifying said property.
Of course, there’s also the radical individualist theory (where gender is solely defined by self-identification). But this does not comport with an intuitive understanding of the metaphysics of properties ─ and is, therefore, patently absurd. Non-trivial property acquisition just does not occur by means of mere self-declaration.
Further Suggestion:
The Council 