The modern world is filled with absurdities. Men pretend to be women, white people pretend to be black people, 40 year olds pretend to be 4 year olds. It seems you can identify as anything these days. Or at least, it would seem that way. In reality, the same people who insist you respect other people's personal identities will thoroughly reject yours if you dissent.
We could begin with the asinine term "cisgender". This is defined as someone identifying with the sex they were "assigned" at birth. The obvious problem with this term is that you aren't "assigned" a sex at birth. Biologically speaking, unless you fall into a tiny minority of genetic aberrations, you are either male or female. And this is fairly easily identifiable. You don't need to be a well-trained doctor to see whether a newborn has male or female anatomy. Thus, no one is assigned any gender at birth. Their gender is determined long before this, and a doctor merely identifies this fact.
Because the term "cisgender" is, frankly, stupid, I utterly refuse it. I was not "assigned" male at birth, and therefore I am not a "cisgender" male. I am just a male. I have male chromosomes, I have male anatomy, and that works with a female, and only a female. Nevertheless, in spite of rejecting the term "cisgender", I am ironically assigned the identity "cisgender" by people who believe in umpteen other genders.
But the insanity doesn't end there, because Leftists are now so passionate about their belief that one's self-identification is more real than biological facts, they're willing to throw out the very concept of sexual autonomy. You are now "transphobic" if you date according to your preferences... Say you're a "cisgendered" male. You get approached by a convincing "woman", but it turns out sweet young Francesca is actually Frank. To you, this is an immediate turn off. You, a straight male, want to date a real woman.
In a civilised society, that's entirely your business. Romance of any kind requires mutual consent, and when that consent is removed, that's called "rape", or at the very least sexual harassment. "Not so!", says the radical Left. You either date Francesca, or you're "transphobic".
Logic dictates that this is absurd. In fact, it's the fallacy of equivocation; the use of deceptive, misleading, or ambiguous language for purposes of manipulation. Most people would recognise transphobia as a genuine fear or hatred of transgender individuals. When you define it as mere disagreement with the transgender ideology, and especially when you define it so loosely as a lack of will to date a transgender, the word "transphobic" loses its meaning.
To really drive this point home, let's look at a similar way to identify the radical Left as racists. We could do that just by pointing out how desperate they are to kill off black babies, but we need not go that far. Let's instead consider the Biblical doctrine of origins.
As a Christian, I believe "From one man He has made every nationality to live over the whole earth and has determined their appointed times and the boundaries of where they live." (Acts 17:26). Because the entire human race is descended from a single human couple, I do not believe there is any major difference between a "white" man and a "black" man. In fact, I am fully aware that skin color is ultimately controlled by the same pigment, meaning really, we're not black and white, but varying shade of brown. There is no concept of "race".
So, let's just redefine racism a bit. No longer is it the belief that one people group is inherently superior to another. Now, it's simply the denial of the Biblical account of origins. If you so much as divide people into groups of "black" and "white", even for sake of clarity, you're a racist.
There are two possibilities here. The first is that it's ridiculous to redefine racism in such a convenient way. It is illogical to say you either believe the Bible, or you're a racist. The second is that actually, it's ok to be a racist. See, when you redefine a word, you don't make the other definition go away, you really just create a homonym. Like bear and bear. One is an animal, the other is a verb. So, you can be a "racist" in one sense and not in the other. One of them is at least tolerable in a civilised society, the other is a despicable opinion held only by bigots.
When it comes to virtually every accusation lodged against normal people by the radical Left, I take the first option. I am not a racist, I am not a transphobe, I'm obviously not a homophobe, I'm not a misogynist, I'm not a bigot.
What I am is a Christian, and that means I believe the Bible. I love God, I believe the Bible is His infallible word, and no amount of petty insults from people who are confused about which bathroom to use is going to change that. However, it also means I recognise that I am no better than such people. Scripture tells us that all have sinned, and actually, my sins are quite similar to theirs. I'm an ex-gay who used to claim to be female. And my rap sheet extends far beyond that.
Because of this, we actually all deserve death, both physical and spiritual. Yet, while God hates our sins, He does not hate us. Rather, He shows His love for us in that while we were sinners, Christ died for us. Jesus is completely and utterly innocent. He never knew sin, yet received the punishment due to it. Therefore, through faith, we can be saved. All salvation requires is to confess Jesus as Lord, and believe God raised Him from the dead.