In reading back over my past few posts I note how consistently they violate one of the most basic academic writing standards. It just isn’t done to write in the first person in any but the most exceptional cases. And the high school, never mind tertiary, student violator can only expect consignment to academic purgatory for such an offence. Such is the weight of this academic expectation that most writers, most of the time, would by sheer force of instinct never say ‘I’ or ‘me’. And generally I’m no exception. 

And yet my writing, especially of late, and still more especially on the subject of Christians and transgender, has been replete with first person pronouns and phrasing. Why so? It’s not that I’m directly, personally impacted by Christian or evangelical attitudes to non-binary gender or to members of the trans community. I’m a straight, married cisgender male. And my immediate family members likewise. So the subject isn’t personal in that sense. Yet it is in two other senses, both of which I’ve at least touched on previously. One is my concern that my own Christian tribe (evangelical) is if anything hardening rather softening toward transgender and trans people. The other is that quite a bit of what I’m observing or arguing on the subject differs in part from where I once was, and some not that long ago. In other words my own grasp, appreciation, thinking and doing, are evolving. And that’s nothing if not personal.

The trans ‘cult’?
In referring to Bp Mariann Budde’s almost legendary sermon, I noted briefly in my last piece a conservative Christian allusion to a "gender ideology [or cult]”¹. It was the factual and visceral nature of Christian references to this supposed phenomenon in commentary on the sermon and on Budde herself that most concerned and astounded me. She was, allegedly, validating and promoting a dangerous and prevalent gender ideology. It's not that the concept of a cult or ideology is at all new to me. I've encountered it many times, mainly among Christians, over the space of about 15 years. But I don't think I had fully grasped how entrenched and deeply held it has clearly become. 

Since the Budde sermon, I've noted it in numerous social media threads involving people I don't know. But it's become especially intense and even alarming with people I do know. For quite a number of my more conservative friends the “cult" has evidently long since passed from social theory to presumed fact. So significant numbers of evangelical Christians are in no doubt, it seems, of an orchestrated global movement, through which numbers of children are being actively indoctrinated by adults into a radical worldview of gender fluidity, their own gender itself in question, all rendering them ready targets for some form of gender transition they would not naturally have sought. The theory doesn't necessarily stop there either. As with other rightwing conspiracy theories, it's commonly also alleged that the same "movement" involves the sexualisation, grooming and abuse of children. And some or all of this is assumed reality behind innumerable Christian conversations.

Going on some of my recent social media experiences, so certain is conservative Christian belief in the “cult” that anyone questioning the cult's existence, such as by asking for evidence, earns a label such as "trans apologist". For instance in a single recent thread I was so labelled by two people, and 'unfriended' by a third. 

There's more I might recount in this vain, but what's much more important to consider is the implications of this phenomenon for Christian mission right now. As I've previously highlighted one of my core motivations in taking up this subject is that we the evangelical community today might not repeat with the trans community the shunning and othering we inflicted on lesbians and gays for at least a century. The matter has been on my heart, and in my blog, since well before 2025. And so the prejudice and ignorance revealed in many Christian responses to the Bp Budde sermon were not even part of what I had planned to comment on. Indeed my Part 1 was published before some of the online interactions I've mentioned here. 

A conspiracy theory by any other name
As I now reflect on the relative prevalence among Christians of the "gender cult" conspiracy theory (yes I'm calling it that, and without reservation), the task of reshaping evangelical responses to trans people becomes yet more daunting, with yet more layers to traverse. The "cult" conspiracy theory provides a ready escape from even believing that trans (or non-binary gender) people exist, should a person wish to carry it that far. Thanks to the "cult", there needn't be any people who experience persistent gender dysphoria and may choose to transition of their own volition. Instead many or all of them are victims of deception and abuse by others. And so the targets for engagement are the alleged cult practitioners, whose certain yet secret crimes have never been exposed and whom no one has yet met. It also means that those I'm allegedly an "apologist" for are not people who transition, but rather cult perpetrators of indoctrination and criminal abuse.

What about detransitioners?

What subscription to the “cult” theory further allows is a selective exercise of Christian grace, somewhat akin to the casuistically constrained "love" I addressed in part 1. A demographic that's come to receive much attention among subscribers to the cult theory is "detransitioners". These are people who've come to regret gender transition and wish to return to their original gender identity. A meme I saw recently made much of this phenomenon. Whilst rightly emphasising the need for pastoral grace and assurance of God's mercy to be shown such folk, embracing them in church fellowships, it went on to project a coming 'flood' of such people seeking solace from the pain of failed transitions, victims of their own sin against God's creative design. That perspective allows Christians to go on believing that gender transition is sin, that it causes only harm to those who undertake it, that "detransitioning" (or a desire for it) is, if not inevitable then to be expected, and that Christian love, grace and inclusion are for the ones who 'repent'. 

Now let's be clear. There should be no doubt that there are "detransitioners", or in other words that there are people who undergo gender transition - social, hormonal and/or surgical - and later regret doing so and seek to reverse the change. "Buyer's remorse", as it's sometimes called, is a phenomenon in many sectors of life, including for instance long established and common surgical treatments. Gender transition regret happens to real people, and they do deserve all the care, love and inclusion God's people can give them. However there is no evidence that such cases constitute a significant proportion² of all of those who experience gender dysphoria and pursue gender transition in some form. So Christians and churches would be very unwise to expect the proposed 'flood' of detransitioners. Far more grace and inclusion (perhaps in flood proportions?) should be anticipated for the very satisfied majority of trans people who, far from expressing regret, testify to an unprecedented (for them) peace, liberation and wholeness. Among them are not a few followers of Jesus who, reading the same Bible, do not believe they have sinned and do call Jesus "Lord". Church, this demographic is for mission, not for war; these are the ones especially to embrace and to love.

Trans considerations for sceptical Christians

I want to offer some thoughts in particular for evangelical or conservative Christians to whom my observations so far are not welcome or persuasive. Perhaps the “gender cult” remains for you an unavoidable explanation for what you're observing? Here are some matters I encourage you to reflect on:

• Do you have practical evidence of the cult's activities? For instance do you know or know of a child who is being, or has been, indoctrinated or manipulated into gender transition? Or one who has been groomed or abused by a person or group teaching a gender ideology? Or an adult who reports such experiences during their childhood? 
• And if not — having in mind the global extent of the alleged cult, and the length of time over which gender dysphoria, transgender treatments and trans people have featured in public consciousness, how realistically likely is it that the alleged cult's activities would have entirely evaded prosecution or detection to date?
• If you have no objective evidence of the “cult”, is it responsible and honest to refer to it as fact? (Consider biblical wisdom, e.g. Prov 18:17; Prov 25:18 )
• The inclusion of child abuse in the activities of the alleged cult might be a red flag, given its regular appearance in political conspiracy theories (e.g. QAnon, Pizzagate) 
• Try an internet search on criteria such as gender, trans, cult, ideology and conspiracy theory. Such a search will yield an extensive corpus of documentary material identifying the gender cult / ideology as a widely documented conspiracy theory with roots going back decades or more 
• Listen to the personal story and/or biblical reflection of at least one trans Christian 

On the last consideration, future writing plans include at least one such story. In the meantime I welcome feedback, questions and challenges. These could be posted on my Facebook timeline or through the Disqus comment spaces on my blog. Please be mindful that trans or non-binary gender people do exist, that they've always lived among us, that they reflect on their gender identity in a variety of ways, that most of them are not political activists, and that some of them are your brothers or sisters in Christ.

The church's latest social war I

The church's latest social war Il

----------------------------

¹ The two-word phrase appears in a range of forms. The first word is variously “gender”, “transgender” or “trans”; the second either “ideology” or “cult”. In this post I’ll use “gender cult” or simply “cult”.  

² It's still relatively early days for gender therapy, meaning a shortage of longitudinal data; and so for that and other reasons the rate of regret is well short of settled. However such research as is available suggests a very low rate of regret, possibly as low as 1 or 2 percent, and almost certainly a single-figure percentage.