"It is a rebellion against biology, which is the hallmark of reactionary thought. A trans person then would be a person who is in direct conflict with the way God intended, and/or, nature ordained. An outright defiance of “birthright”. "

Well yes, this is a good summary of the reactionary position. But there’s another layer to the conflict that I think you haven’t addressed in your excellent piece here.

Support for trans people is not limited to the progressive argument you outlined. In fact, trans people and anthropologists have been pointing out for decades that the trans experience is natural biologically and culturally, extending back as far as we can see in the human experience.

The argument goes that there’s something about people who identify as trans that is natural to their biology. People who make that argument point to at least a couple millennia of trans identified people in South Asia, for example, and in many other cultures, including indigenous American cultures.

They say that since this experience is so widespread across cultures, to the point that it seems almost inevitable, that the natural law argument isn’t just reactionary, it’s actually factually wrong.