(FYI I randomized my vote, I just wanted to see results)

@Nightsquared Don't worry, I understand the cancel culture is strong.

Thoughts on the initial response at 42 entries: 3-3-7-6-13-10.

I originally got this idea from @jim's poll here https://manifold.markets/jim/trans-rights. Where at time of writing, 30/36 participants consider themselves "in favor of trans rights". If we do a little extrapolation, which isn't always reliable but is the best we've got, that comes out to everyone 11+ and most of 6-10 considering themselves in favor of trans rights. Likely, 0-6 comes out "against" more often than not and 7-20 comes out "for" more often than not.

This makes me very very happy. If the "pro-trans" crowd is so divided, and many of them deny trans children, trans sports, trans prisons, trans bathrooms, and most importantly, the quintessential transgender claim that "trans men are men and trans women are women", then I think the picture isn't nearly as dire for us Christians as some would like us to think. Do not mistake my words for "everything is fine" for any position which is not "0" is ultimately morally and spiritually bankrupt. Do mistake it for "there is hope yet, and transgender will be completely repudiated before 2050". Of course, I pray for the souls of the 10 deeply lost individuals who chose "20".

If we assume a quarter of the 16-19ers agree with the trans ontological claim, then only around 31% of very liberal manifold is totally ungettable. Everyone else's position, if taken consistently, breaks against the transformers. If we take 16-19 in its entirety to mean "logically entails anti-transgenderism, but woke/liberal enough that if pushed would sooner adopt the trans ontological claim than its antithesis" (which I believe is a conservative measure; some likely will break against trans in these coming months) then still, 45% of very liberal manifold (which would be around as blue as DC) will, if the argument is sufficiently made, accept the falsity of transgenderism.

15- is from my point, where there are enough not only breaks, but consistent breaks with the trans-narrative that anyone with those positions, even if they don't want to admit it, essentially deep down believes that transgenders are lying but you should "be nice anyways". As our society gets less soft and men learn that it's okay to be masculine again, people will learn that love must sometimes be delivered by the sword. Matthew 5:17.

Predictions and Further Predictions: I find my initial distribution predictions to be almost entirely correct -- just that I thought that more of the 6-10 column would be in 11-15. That makes me happy. From the above, I will make a shorter term prediction that does not take until 2050.

By the end of the Trump term, if real action is taken on the transgender problem, Manifold's 16+ rating rate for transgenderism will drop from 55% to 45% - likely most of those who reject the transgender ontological claim will see the light. Additionally, most of the people in the very unstable 6-15 category will drop to 0-5. This will correspond to most Democrats in the real world jumping ship on transgender issues. I expect Americans responding to "is it moral to change your gender" with NO by a 20+ point lead. And trans sports, trans prisons, trans bathrooms, and all the implications of "is it moral to change your gender", because Americans are hard with abstract phrasing but can see things with their eyes, will be in the dumpster -- contingent on this manifold sample being representative, and people starting to identify as "pro trans" at around a 7 or an 8. It is very possible that "trans rights" becomes a minority position even in the Democrat Party as we return to normality.

Once this market https://manifold.markets/RichardHanania/will-at-least-three-of-trumps-cabin resolves NO and I get my 45k mana (thanks liberals), I will make a market predicting the results of the next time I re-run this poll -- sometime in late 2025 or early 2026 likely. I expect the results to be relieving for Christians and Monarchists. And I expect to make some mana off of the 10 radical leftists who voted 20!

Христос воскрес!

@stardust

Everyone else's position, if taken consistently, breaks against the transformers

I find it really funny how you keep referring to transgender people as transformers, a word that to me conjures up alien robots transforming into vehicles

@TheAllMemeingEye Me too. All the liberals disliking probably read it, laughed, got guilty they laughed

@stardust For sports, the position that organizations should be able to choose whether to ban it or not is actually not the most extreme pro-trans. There are people who say that there should be a blanket law that ALLOWS transgender people to compete.

0,1,2,3 are fine, but there should also be
4 - Transgender people should legally be allowed to compete in professional sports under their gender identity if they undergo a specific surgery/hormone treatment
5 - Transgender people should always be able to compete in professional sports under their gender identity

@ShadowyZephyr I find that 3 and 4 as I read them are too similar. In point 3, specifically. I'm referring to "non-discrimination" clauses that you cannot ban someone on the basis of being transgender. Perhaps hormone levels or whatnot, but that any ban must be done on some other metric.

If by 4 you're talking about all transgenders being allowed to compete as long as there is verification of some procedure (let's call it 4+). In that case, I would still leave it at 3 for the sake of fairness.

• For one, many of the liberals here would proclaim "nobody does this"! and bias in the poll

• They would somewhat be right. If they win, I suspect you would see 4+ and 5 become more normalized positions, but right now they're not, and I cannot think of one mainstream politician or major figure who goes to bat for either.

• Ultimately, rejecting 4+ and 5 are still consistent with transgender ideology and the transgender ontological claim, so they would serve a fairly useless role

I find that they ultimately fit non-binary ideology more strongly than transgender ideology

@stardust Your main problem is that you try to fit everything into this singular ontology, which not only doesn't make sense from a policy perspective (why would thinking puberty blockers should be restricted imply that a positive depiction of a trans person in movies should be equivalent to rape, incest, or necrophilia) but completely ignores any kind of linguistic descriptivist lens.

Even if people did all prescribe to your prescriptivist ontology about gender, it's a bad method for polling how much most people agree with "transgender ideology" - when you're polling you want to create the widest possible range of options, to distinguish people's stances.

@ShadowyZephyr There are only two possibilities. "Trans women are women and trans men are men" or the antithesis. All other options fall into absurdity.

If "trans women are women and trans men are men", then all the transgender arguments follow. If "trans women are men and trans men are women", then all the transgender arguments fail to obtain.

why would thinking puberty blockers should be restricted imply that a positive depiction of a trans person in movies should be equivalent to rape, incest, or necrophilia

You are misunderstanding, it is not that "puberty blockers should be restricted" -> "trans person in movies = rape, incest, or necrophilia". Both are from "transgenderism is a delusion".

it's a bad method for polling how much most people agree with "transgender ideology" - when you're polling you want to create the widest possible range of options, to distinguish people's stances.

Because fundamentally 4 and 5 are not claims onto "transgender ideology". There's also a reason I didn't include a "death penalty for transgenderism" option even though I think in some cases it's quite reasonable.

but completely ignores any kind of linguistic descriptivist lens.

(All of them are absurd when it comes to "men" and "women")

@stardust

All other options fall into absurdity

Hot take: the nuanced middle ground is the actual truth though, rather than the simplistic dichotomy

@TheAllMemeingEye "2+2 is 4" "2+2 is not-4" "Actually, it's something in the middle".

@TheAllMemeingEye There is such a thing as false nuance

@stardust that's a pretty poor analogy, single digit arithmetic is a vastly simpler system than gender identifies lol.

If you insist on keeping the same analogy, a better wording would be:

1. (Sort-of) False: 2+2=4

2. False: 2+2≠4

3. False: Actually, it's something in the middle

4. (More rigourously) True: It depends, 2+2=4 in standard modern mathematical notation and in layman understanding, but technically that could change if symbols are defined differently (e.g. future, historical, or foreign notations, conlangs etc), or if more fundamental underlying mechanisms of mathematics are considered, such that the expression is only a special case simplification (e.g. quarternion-type hyper-complex domains, non-euclidean domains, set notation, axiomatic freedom, level 4 tegmarkian multiverse etc.)

A better analogy, using systems of similar complexity and dynamics, would be:

1. False: Taiwan is part of China

2. False: Taiwan is not part of China

3. False: Actually, it's something in the middle

4. True: It depends, Taiwan is part of China if by China you mean the cultural region, or you mean the dejure territorial claims of the UN recognised nation calling itself China (the PRC), but Taiwan is not part of China if you mean the defacto territorial control of the actual sovereign state of the PRC

What would Brianna Wu be?

3+2+2+1+3+1=12 I think... She self-IDs as a biological male so I'll give her 1 at the end.

Colin Wright?

2+2+1+0+1+0=6 I am guessing?

I don't like the emotionally loaded language, written by a certain theocrat who scores a zero, but I actually do think that it's nice that someone made a measure of feelings on trans issues that is not binary.

@nathanwei Again, although I am personally a Christian,

If there is any "emotionally loaded language" in the numbered portion for scoring which actually influences the result of the poll, please point it out. If your critique is salient I will fix it.

I did not bring up the LORD once in my comments in this thread about why transgenderism is ultimately bankrupt. It's illogical. It just logically fails. Now technically that goes back to God because you can't actually have a consistent logical framework without God, but everything I said is something that a secularist may argue with me about without invoking a religious discussion. If you blaspheme the LORD then of course I'll have to defend him, but my argument isn't hinged on my faith.

You are the Woke from 10 years ago.

@stardust Wokes really are people who believe that disparate outcomes are due to discrimination. That's the beating heart of wokeness. I reject that strongly, so I am not woke.

@nathanwei Oh nice definition there, from where I wonder. Woke is whoever and whatever goes above the current standards at the time to push a narrative which is anathema to the family.

You are Woke from 10 years ago.

Out of curiosity what is a woman?

@stardust Someone who looks and sounds like a woman. Someone you would guess was a biological female if you saw them, if you had to guess male or female.

@stardust I got 10/20 on your "test". In one post you say that the situation is not that dire because a lot of "pro-trans" are moderates like me who are not happy with the excesses of gender ideology. And then in another you call me the wokes of 10 years ago.

@nathanwei Interesting.

Woman: someone that looks and sounds like a woman.

Do you see the problem here? Oh wait, this is the same problem with "a woman is anyone who identifies as a woman". If a woman is someone that looks and sounds like a woman, then a woman is someone who looks and sounds like a someone that looks and sounds like a someone that looks and sounds like a ....

"Someone you would guess was a biological female if you saw them, if you had to guess male or female."

Okay, this one's a little less patently absurd. Tell me then, are Brittney Griner and Imane Khalif men then? If someone is a very compelling cross-dresser, is he sometimes a man and sometimes a woman? Nonsensical.

I got 10/20 on your "test". In one post you say that the situation is not that dire because a lot of "pro-trans" are moderates like me who are not happy with the excesses of gender ideology. And then in another you call me the wokes of 10 years ago.

I'm not sure if you read the full text of my message. Let me quote that section. "Do not mistake my words for "everything is fine" for any position which is not "0" is ultimately morally and spiritually bankrupt. Do mistake it for "there is hope yet, and transgender will be completely repudiated before 2050""

The reason why there is hope yet is not because you are "moderate", there is no "moderate" on the issue of degeneracy vs. what is right, much like there is no compromise of half-rape, half-murder, or half-slavery. It is because, as I reiterate in my post, every position which does not admit the trans ontological claim logically necessitates rejecting transgenderism in its entirety. You may not want to admit it right now, but I hope you will one day.

"15- is from my point, where there are enough not only breaks, but consistent breaks with the trans-narrative that anyone with those positions, even if they don't want to admit it, essentially deep down believes that transgenders are lying but you should "be nice anyways". As our society gets less soft and men learn that it's okay to be masculine again, people will learn that love must sometimes be delivered by the sword. Matthew 5:17."

@stardust Is a hot dog a sandwich? Most definitions are emergent from the real world, not the other way around. Read Scott’s piece: categories made for man not the other way around.

@nathanwei This has no relation to my response. I could just reject that man and woman are of a similar likeness to hot dog and that would be true, but even if I didn't.

You can define hot dog and sandwich however you want, and maybe a hot dog is a sandwich and maybe it's not a sandwich. I frankly don't care. You cannot define a sandwich as "something that looks like a sandwich". That's viciously circular and ultimately says nothing.

Pardon me for not being able to think of a sandwich-like analogy for the second example, but it is very clear that your second definition doesn't work either. Again, I reiterate, if "a woman is someone you would assume to be a biological female at first glance", then Imane Khalif isn't one and a convincing crossdresser may switch genders on a whim.

I have refuted thoroughly both your proposed definitions of a woman, so please stop with this dodging and give me a real answer. Or, you did, but I don't think you want to admit it. Be honest with me. When you said "a woman is someone who looks like a woman", in your head, when you wrote that second "woman", you were thinking adult human female. You have to force yourself to use the woke (or I suppose: semi-woke) definition.

Look, I get it, the Truth is hard, and it can be hard when you're getting assailed from all four corners as a "bigot" "intolerant" "transphobe". But I will say what I think you know: regardless of peoples' opinions, there is a truth, and it is that a man can not become a woman and neither can a woman become a man. A convincing facsimile maybe, not the real thing.

Also, you can cut the "educate yourself" attitude man. If what you cited had any worth, you would be able to enunciate the point rather than saying "read this" "read that". I don't tell you to read the Fathers (although it would be of great benefit). I say that to tell you that you can cut the woke trans BS; it's indefensible, you know it's indefensible, I know you know it's indefensible (hence, you have given up on defending it), and hey, you don't need to give up on all your woke opinions to give up on this one.

I find this a little funny because the wording seems to be very biased and angry - there is no "agenda", it's just people wanting to be what they think is their true selves; it's not "depravity", it's at worst people thinking they're another gender and being wrong (being wrong is not something to be too angry over, of course) and at best people becoming who they want to be; you ignore any answer inbetween a "yes" and a "no" as a "meaningless half-answer", as if the world is purely black and white and nuance is a nonexistent idea; and you justify this whole thing with God's teachings, written down by people thousands of years ago who definitely couldn't have consciously or unconsciously slipped in their own biased and/or factually incorrect ideas, and most definitely couldn't have made the whole thing up, oh dear Lord no! Even then, didn't God say to love your neighbors and the people around you? What makes people who think they were another gender exempt from that love, whether they're right or wrong?

Unusually strong hatred in some of the wording aside, let's get back to the question. I answered:

4-3-2(? what specifically does chemical transition mean)-3-3-1.

Notably, the Ontology one not only ignores nuance by ignoring "half-answers", it also ignores nuance by assuming that gender and sex are the exact same, and using "man" or "woman" as if the male gender and the male sex are one and the same. Not necessarily. I found this particular video very interesting: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpGqFUStcxc

Please do take a look, even if you don't agree with all of it.

Although I'm not really hard-set on any of my choices above. I'm not trans, so it really isn't my business to think too hard about these issues. I generally go with the policy of "let them be what they want to be, as long as it makes them happy and doesn't hurt others." But the line is blurry, and black and white blend, so deciding what's the line between "making themselves happy" and "hurting others" is a difficult question.

Let’s All Get Past This Confusion About Trans People

There has been a lot of talk about trans people lately, with controversy surroundings comedians, sports, as well as the usual back and forth between liberals...

@Gameknight

I find this a little funny because the wording seems to be very biased and angry

Which part of it, on the numbered criteria of the poll, if you could mention? I didn't add any mentions of, say, forcing kids to trans even though that is definitely something that does happen because from the worldview of a pro-trans liberal they would vehemently deny it to be common.

Everything not related to accurate self-assessment, well, I get to call the degeneracy as I see it.

you ignore any answer inbetween a "yes" and a "no" as a "meaningless half-answer", as if the world is purely black and white and nuance is a nonexistent idea

Nope. There's this false nuance of believing everything is nuanced. Some things are nuanced. Some things are also very simple. The gender ideology movement is very simple. So I will explain it in simple terms.

I will assume you accept that all "cisgendered" men are men and all "cisgendered" women are women, or that it is a sufficient condition being "cisgendered" is a sufficient condition to be within the "gender" you identify as.

Either "transgendered men" for instance are necessarily men or are not necessarily men. Truth tables, ok. I'm not saying are necessarily men or are necessarily women. I'm saying "necessarily men" or not-"necessarily men". Exclusive disjunction, don't get mad now. If they are necessarily men then you have to accept the ultimate transgender ontological claim that "trans men are men and trans women are women".

If they are not necessarily men, they cannot partake in manhood. Simply put, you could think of a "transgender man" Casey and a "cisgendered" woman Alice, and assign whatever bodily features or mental states Casey has onto Alice, and if at any point Casey becomes a man, it necessarily means Alice is both a man and a woman.

"But you've only shown that if I believe some trans men are men but not all that self ID is a necessary but not suffici-" WRONG. Suppose self-ID is a necessary condition to being a certain gender, but not sufficient. Then the transgenders that we would agree are not their "identified" gender are genderless. This is an absurd conclusion.

you justify this whole thing with God's teachings, written down by people thousands of years ago who definitely couldn't have consciously or unconsciously slipped in their own biased and/or factually incorrect ideas, and most definitely couldn't have made the whole thing up, oh dear Lord no!

For one, impossibility of the contrary. Your foundationalist system of reasoning is at its root incoherent, and as is any that does not admit the verity of Orthodoxy. You can google Jay Dyer if you want to find out more. But I'm not here to have that argument. The whole point of the ontological argument is, look at what I've written above. At no point did I bring up God.

Even then, didn't God say to love your neighbors and the people around you? What makes people who think they were another gender exempt from that love, whether they're right or wrong?

This is relevant. If someone you love is a drug addict, is love to continue letting this person rot in ruin? Or is it taking away the drugs and getting him/her the help he/she needs, even if it hurts. It is better for the souls of "transgenders" to turn away from their spiritual affliction and towards the light of the LORD.

what specifically does chemical transition mean

Cross-sex hormones.

it also ignores nuance by assuming that gender and sex are the exact same, and using "man" or "woman" as if the male gender and the male sex are one and the same.

Nope! We agree that "men" and "women" are very commonly used and mean certain things. The question is essentially what they should mean. Someone like me will answer that "trans men" are women and "trans women" are men because such a thing is determined by the LORD before one is born, before one is conceived, and that any resulting psychological states are near-meaningless in the wake of the LORD's judgement.

A liberal, such as the 8 poor souls who definitely selected "2" on the Ontology portion (and probably a nonzero number of the 16-19s), would likely not deny the existence of the male and female sex, but would render them subservient to their twisted idea of "gender identity," such that what is properly "man" or what is properly "woman" in the greatest sense is only defined by "gender identity" with no bearing on biological or spiritual realities. You see a reification of this with terms such as "cisgendered" "assigned [something] at birth" or "birthing person".

What I mean by this is that we can play whatever language games we want. I could say "for the sake of this market, a 'triangle' is something edible made of bread with a cheesy interior" and you could probably, with fair accuracy, pinpoint that whenever I say "triangle". But if you are asked "is that really a triangle", well, no. And it wouldn't be even if 99% of the world disagreed with you (on the concept, not just "we want to use a different word"). The Christian thesis is that what a man or woman is, in its nature, is given by God who does not err. The liberal thesis is that it is given by one's psychological state.

Professor Dave video

I'm afraid "throw soyence at it" won't solve anything. This is a philosophical issue, not a scientific issue. I'm sure I agree with Dave on most of the factual matters -- biological sex exists, there are certain people with a mental issue that makes them want to become/exhibit characteristics of the other sex, there are social aspects tied to sex that we may call "gender" which go above and beyond the necessary implications of sex (otherwise phrases such as "men should be masculine" would reduce to tautology), and there are some studies with shoddy methodology and low sample size that indicate that chemical or surgical "transition" may reduce suicide rates.

All of that is ultimately irrelevant to the factual basis of the matter.

If I really really want to be superman and it would make me feel a lot better if everyone treated me like Clark Kent... that does not make me Clark Kent. Society should not have to pretend that I am.

If I really want to steal from my neighbor and it would make me feel a lot better if I did, society should not tolerate such behavior. It is wrong regardless of my desires.

@stardust

Nope! We agree that "men" and "women" are very commonly used and mean certain things. The question is essentially what they should mean.

Does it necessarily have to be one or the other? Just like how the word "vegetable" includes different foods depending on whether you speak in a culinary context or a scientific context, so can the words "man" and "woman" change whether you talk about gender identity or biological sex.

If someone you love is a drug addict, is love to continue letting this person rot in ruin? Or is it taking away the drugs and getting him/her the help he/she needs, even if it hurts.

Okay, that's a very valid point, assuming that transgenderism is a sickness (which it is not neccessarily a sickness, mind you). However, accusing transgender people as being part of an "agenda" is neither helpful nor accurate, and if you're really trying to convince people that transgenderism is fake, shoving a cross down their throat and saying "god made you this way so shut the f*ck up and accept it" is also not helpful. Again, this is all on the assumption that you ARE right and that transgenderism is fake/an illness/etc. Whether it is real or not is still up for debate, unless you can factually prove that a vast majority of transgender people are in on whatever conspiracy or agenda you assume them to be.

I'm afraid "throw soyence at it" won't solve anything. This is a philosophical issue, not a scientific issue

Ah, but it is indeed a scientific issue! You have turned it into a philosophy issue through your faith - I am aware of it as a scientific issue because that's exactly what it is: a discussion on whether transgenderism is some sort of hallucination/sickness, or whether it is a real and genuine phenomenon that deserves proper attention.

If I really really want to be superman and it would make me feel a lot better if everyone treated me like Clark Kent... that does not make me Clark Kent. Society should not have to pretend that I am.

If I really want to steal from my neighbor and it would make me feel a lot better if I did, society should not tolerate such behavior. It is wrong regardless of my desires.

These are two false equivalences. Treating you like you are Superman is something that would require a large effort on the part of everyone around you, and is indeed unnecessary. Calling you by what you want to be called does not require a large effort on the part of everyone around you. Name changes are allowed in almost every civilized nation, because we as a society have agreed that it is the polite thing to do to call people by the name they want to be called so long as the name is not extremely frivolous or tedious. Similarly, we as a society have agreed that it is not a big deal to call people by the pronouns they want to be called. That's it. That's all. Whether trans people get surgery or chemical transition is up to them, and needs not be paid for by the state - but at the bare minimum, we can take the minimal effort to call them by what they want to be called and treat them like a normal person.

Similarly, stealing from a neighbor is directly harmful - transgenderism is not. What has a transgender person done to hurt you? Nothing. Transgender people are not asking for society to bend to their whim and will - they are just asking for a little basic human decency.

@Gameknight

Does it necessarily have to be one or the other?

In the broadest context yes. A "vegetable" can be an assortment of tastes culinarily or an assortment of biological characteristics scientifically, but if you admit some type of moral being to "vegetable" then in the broadest sense it must mean one of the two. The scientific definition seems to have won out. With something as trivial as vegetables, you don't have to admit some sort of real ontological status to what a vegetable is, no one would really care. Men and women are different though.

And if you don't want to admit any real ontological status to what men and women are then again you have to be driven to the conclusion that "cisgendered" men and "cisgendered" women are not necessarily men or women which is absurd.

I'm not saying you have to have a precise definition of what a woman is. I'm saying that what a woman is is real. There is some set of characteristics in the world for which it holds true, and under any conceivable definition that doesn't crank the arbitrary to 9000 either 2 is true, or 0 is true. And thus all the conclusions that follow.

However, accusing transgender people as being part of an "agenda" is neither helpful nor accurate, and if you're really trying to convince people that transgenderism is fake, shoving a cross down their throat and saying "god made you this way so shut the f*ck up and accept it" is also not helpful.

For one, I didn't bring up the LORD until you did. I'm happy to make this argument without invoking Him, as the entire basis of the ontological argument was that I wanted to make something so I could argue with secularists who have their eyes blinded.

But it looks like it did work. I mean, Trump won, thank the LORD. Across the world, people who are negative on "transgender issues" are winning, and mostly using this kind of rhetoric.

gain, this is all on the assumption that you ARE right and that transgenderism is fake/an illness/etc.

To be clear by "transgenderism is fake" I don't mean there is no such thing as transgenderism. Obviously there is, or we wouldn't be talking about it. I mean that transgenderism has no ontological basis in reality.

Ah, but it is indeed a scientific issue! You have turned it into a philosophy issue through your faith - I am aware of it as a scientific issue because that's exactly what it is: a discussion on whether transgenderism is some sort of hallucination/sickness, or whether it is a real and genuine phenomenon that deserves proper attention.

Nope. Still a philosophical issue. Let's make this very clear and take a simple example: murder. We all agree murder is unambiguously wrong, and can likely agree on what makes something murder. Where in science does it tell you murder is wrong? It can tell you how much pain that person was in or what kind of poison infested their veins or when they stopped drawing breath. It being wrong is on us.

Transgenderism: here lies the issue. What is the dividing line between "some sort of hallucination/sickness" or "proper attention". I agree it's a real phenomenon that deserves proper attention... the proper intention of using the full force of the law to suppress it as much as possible. There is no scientific fact of the matter that's particularly relevant here unless it's subservient evidence to some deeper ontological claim.

Either trans women are women and trans men are men, and so every claim of the transgender movement follows.
Or trans women are men and trans men are women, in which case every claim of the transgender movement does not. Because our society makes categorical distinctions on sex. That is to say, if a "cisgendered" woman ended up looking very masculine somehow, she would still end up using the ladies' room. A male "cisgendered" crossdresser (who is also engaged in sin, mind you) would not, no matter how convincing he may be.

These are two false equivalences. Treating you like you are Superman is something that would require a large effort on the part of everyone around you, and is indeed unnecessary. Calling you by what you want to be called does not require a large effort on the part of everyone around you. Name changes are allowed in almost every civilized nation, because we as a society have agreed that it is the polite thing to do to call people by the name they want to be called so long as the name is not extremely frivolous or tedious.

This is more proof that the issue is philosophical. You're drawing a line in the sand and saying "it doesn't require a lot of effort". According to whom? According to you. 50% of Americans would disagree. Likely more, if they were honest with you. And I'm okay with name changes, I think that men should generally have masculine names and vice versa but I will call Caitlyn Jenner Caitlyn Jenner. That is his legal name.

Similarly, we as a society have agreed that it is not a big deal to call people by the pronouns they want to be called. That's it. That's all.

Ah, we as a society. You know there was a society not too long ago that thought that the Holocaust was good right? Not an argument.

Whether trans people get surgery or chemical transition is up to them, and needs not be paid for by the state

Paid for by the state to some extent here and much more in other countries such as those in Western Europe. Will you come out against that, that those laws should be repealed?

Additionally, more reason why the ontology question matters. I'm glad that you have sanity on this issue, because it belies the answer you should seek, that "trans men are NOT men and trans women are NOT women." Generally, healthcare serving some medical end is paid for. It's actually wholly consistent that the state should pay so long as you accept the trans agenda. The fact that you intuitively understand that such a thing is cosmetic, not needed, and the state should not pay for it should lead you to the proper conclusion, even if your current position is inconsistent. Why should the state not pay for it? Because you are essentially paying for the cosmetic surgery of men and women with a spiritual affliction.

Similarly, stealing from a neighbor is directly harmful - transgenderism is not. What has a transgender person done to hurt you? Nothing. Transgender people are not asking for society to bend to their whim and will - they are just asking for a little basic human decency.

Transgenderism is in the process of completely eradicating the idea of gender in its entirety. From a Christian perspective, that's pretty big. Transgenders in media normalizes them to children, additionally. And as for human decency: If I'm 37 (making this number up) and I tell my boss that I identify as 57 and to please give me seniority raises... not a violation of human decency to point out the reality of the situation.