Gnostic Nonsense and Fallacies of Faith

When Transphobes Play Historian: Debunking A Parish Councillor’s Unqualified Attack on Transgender People

Bad historical analogies have long been a favorite tool of those opposing civil rights, right up there with selective Bible quotes and ‘just asking questions.’ The latest entry in this dubious tradition comes from Genspect’s Daniel Howard James, who attempts to de-legitimize transgender identities by comparing them to ancient Gnostic beliefs. It’s a comparison that works perfectly, if you ignore most of history, all of modern medicine, and basic logical consistency. But hey, why let facts get in the way of a good moral panic?”

The Theological Stretch

James has written what appears to be a scholarly exploration of Gnostic beliefs and their supposed connection to modern transgender identity. Their article begins with an archaeological discovery in Nag Hammadi in 1945 and winds through early Christian theological debates before landing on their real target: suggesting transgender identity is essentially a religious belief system.

To put it plainly: this comparison is about as historically accurate as claiming the Romans fell because they used lead plumbing to make gender-affirming care.

Let’s break down why this comparison fails on multiple levels:

Conflating Identity with Religious Belief

The core premise of James’ article is that recognizing transgender identities requires a “supernatural claim” about “gendered souls” similar to Gnostic beliefs. This fundamentally mischaracterizes what gender identity actually is - not a religious or spiritual claim, but a deeply felt internal sense of one’s gender that is recognized by all major medical and psychological organizations. [1]

Contemporary understanding of gender identity does not require belief in souls or supernatural elements. Medical and psychological frameworks describe gender identity as a deeply felt internal sense of one’s gender based on complex biological, psychological, and social factors, not mystical revelation. When James writes that transgender identity requires “a supernatural claim,” they’re constructing a straw man that’s easier to dismiss. [2]

Modern understanding of gender identity is rooted in decades of psychological and neurobiological research, not mystical revelation. The American Psychological Association, the American Medical Association, and the World Health Organization all recognize gender diversity as part of human variation, not as religious doctrine. [3]

Cherry-Picking Historical Parallels

James cherry-picks elements from Gnostic texts about gender fluidity to create a false equivalence. While ancient Gnostics did have interesting concepts around gender that were more fluid than mainstream Christianity, drawing a direct line to modern transgender experiences is ahistorical and ignores crucial context. [4]

For example, when citing the Gnostic text “Thunder, Perfect Mind” with its statement “I am the whore, and the holy one. I am the wife and the virgin,” James neglects to explain that this text uses paradoxical language to describe divine transcendence beyond human categories, not to establish a theory of gender identity. [5]

Historical scholars recognize these texts as using gender imagery within mystical frameworks to discuss theological concepts of divine transcendence, not as proto-transgender theory. Scholars of Gnosticism emphasize that these diverse religious movements were primarily concerned with esoteric knowledge of divine reality, salvation from material imprisonment, and complex cosmological systems. [6]

Historians of religion would point out that gender variance has existed across nearly all human cultures throughout recorded history, from Native American Two-Spirit people to the Hijra of South Asia. These aren’t evidence of some universal “gender religion” but rather demonstrate that gender diversity is a natural part of human experience that different cultures have recognized and categorized in different ways. [7]

A Field Guide to James’ Argument

James’ article employs several logical fallacies that undermine its credibility as a serious historical or scientific analysis:

False Equivalence

James’ central argument rests on a false equivalence between religious belief systems and gender identity. Religious beliefs are primarily adopted through acceptance of doctrine, while gender identity emerges through personal experience of one’s sense of self. By equating these distinct phenomena, James creates a misleading comparison that ignores fundamental differences in how they function and are experienced. [8]

Cherry-Picking

Throughout the article, James selectively chooses historical examples that appear to support their argument while ignoring contradictory evidence. They highlight gender fluidity in Gnostic texts while ignoring:

1. The primarily theological (not identity-based) purpose of these texts
2. The vast medical and scientific literature on gender identity
3. Similar gender diversity in non-religious contexts across cultures [9]

This selective use of evidence creates a distorted picture designed to support a predetermined conclusion.

Guilt by Association

James attempts to discredit transgender identity by associating it with historical controversies. For example, they write: “Who knows how many of the advocates for invasive medical and surgical procedures on gender non-conforming people are motivated by self-affirmed religious belief?” This rhetorical move implies transgender healthcare is suspicious by associating it with religious zealotry, without providing evidence for this claim. [10]

Red Herring

The article introduces unrelated topics like church abuse scandals, saying: “Referencing the late Derek Jarman’s film on Saint Sebastian in the cathedral was a bold move, given Jarman’s known views on the age of consent, and the failure of the Church of England to deal with the abuse of children by its members.”

This diverts attention from the actual topic (the validity of transgender identity) to unrelated controversies about the church and historical figures, a classic red herring fallacy. [11]

Appeal to Antiquity/Tradition

By framing transgender identity as a “heresy,” James invokes ancient religious debates to delegitimize modern medical understanding. This appeal to tradition ignores how knowledge progresses through scientific research and evidence-based practice. The fact that gender diversity was once discussed in religious terms doesn’t invalidate modern scientific understanding any more than ancient humoral theory[42] invalidates modern medicine. [12]

The Real Historical Parallel: Moral Panics

If we want to talk about historical parallels, let’s discuss one that’s far more relevant: moral panics about marginalized groups. Throughout history, dominant groups have characterized minorities as dangerous, deviant, or threatening to children. James’ article fits neatly into this tradition when they write:

“Despite the Right Reverend Budde’s dire warnings to President Trump, the greatest risk to children of all kinds is not official scepticism about gender identity; it is the erosion of safeguarding and the insistence that mere consent can substitute for moral boundaries.”

This rhetorical move - subtly linking transgender people to child abuse without evidence - has been used against numerous marginalized groups throughout history. It was used against gay and lesbian people in the 1970s-90s, against Jewish people throughout European history, and against racial minorities in various contexts. [13]

The Familiar Playbook: How We've Seen This Before

James' strategy of reframing an inherent characteristic as a "belief system" to justify its exclusion isn't new. It's part of a well-established playbook that's been deployed against various marginalized groups throughout history.

During the fight for marriage equality, opponents frequently characterized homosexuality not as an innate orientation but as a "lifestyle choice" or "belief system." This reframing allowed them to argue that same-sex marriage was asking for "special rights" rather than equal rights. Religious exemptions became the legal vehicle for continued discrimination—after all, you can't be forced to "participate in someone else's beliefs," the argument went. [39]

The parallels to segregation and Jim Crow laws are equally striking. Segregationists didn't just argue that racial separation was natural—they constructed elaborate pseudoscientific and religious justifications. When the Loving v. Virginia case challenging anti-miscegenation laws reached the Supreme Court, the state of Virginia literally argued that God "separated the races" and didn't intend for them to mix. Sound familiar? It's the same appeal to divine order that James attempts to invoke against transgender people. [40]

In each case, the strategy remains consistent:

1. Reframe an immutable characteristic as a belief, lifestyle, or choice
2. Position that choice as contrary to "natural law" or divine order
3. Argue that respecting this group infringes on others' religious freedom
4. Claim that scientific evidence supporting the marginalized group is ideologically motivated

This isn't just historical parallel—it's historical plagiarism. The arguments being deployed against transgender people today are recycled from previous failed attempts to deny civil rights to other groups. And just like those previous attempts, they rely on misrepresenting both science and history to create a veneer of intellectual legitimacy for what is, at its core, simple prejudice. [41]

From Gnostics to Nonsense: The Church Comparison

James suggests that “factions within the transgender community resemble church denominations,” citing a source called “Exulansic” without further explanation. This comparison is bizarre for anyone familiar with transgender communities, which are incredibly diverse and rarely organized around doctrinal differences the way religious denominations are.

Transgender people aren’t united by shared beliefs or dogma, but by the shared experience of having a gender identity that differs from their assigned sex at birth. Within that broad umbrella, there exists tremendous diversity of opinion, experience, expression, and perspective - just as there is among cisgender people. [14]

James points to events like Pride celebrations, inclusive church policies, and artistic interpretations of religious imagery as evidence of a “gender religion.” This ignores that visibility, inclusion, and artistic expression are not inherently religious practices. Using this logic, one could argue that any social movement that creates community and shared symbols constitutes a “religion”, rendering the term meaningless. [15]

What James Conveniently Ignores - Science

Neurobiological Research

James’ article notably omits the substantial body of scientific research on gender identity. Studies have identified neurobiological correlates of gender identity that suggest it has biological components rather than being purely ideological. For example, research has found brain structural differences associated with gender identity independent of assigned sex at birth. [16]

A 2018 study published in Scientific Reports examined brain scans from transgender and cisgender individuals, finding that certain brain regions in transgender people more closely resembled those of their experienced gender rather than their assigned sex. [17]

This is not to suggest some simplistic notion of ‘brain sex’ or claim that neurobiology alone determines gender identity. Rather, these findings represent one piece of evidence in the complex biopsychosocial framework through which we understand gender. The evidence consistently indicates that gender identity has strong biological components, typically solidifies early in development, and remains remarkably stable over time.

The scientific consensus directly contradicts the notion that gender identity is malleable or can be deliberately changed through external influences. This is precisely why medical organizations oppose conversion therapy—because extensive research shows it doesn’t work and causes significant harm. Gender identity appears to be an intrinsic aspect of who we are, not something that can be manipulated or chosen.

What the neurobiological research definitively demonstrates is that gender identity has biological correlates that cannot be dismissed as mere ideology or ‘religious belief’ as James attempts to do. By framing transgender identity as essentially religious, James ignores or dismisses the substantial scientific evidence that points to gender identity as a natural variation in human development—evidence that has nothing to do with faith, belief systems, or religious doctrine.

Outcomes of Gender-Affirming Care

James characterizes gender-affirming care as “invasive” and implies it lacks supporting evidence. However, research consistently shows positive outcomes from appropriate gender-affirming care:

• A comprehensive review in the Cornell University What We Know Project analyzed 55 studies on gender-affirming care, finding that 93% reported positive outcomes with decreased gender dysphoria and improved psychological functioning. [18]
• The American Academy of Pediatrics, American Medical Association, and American Psychological Association all support gender-affirming care based on decades of research showing its effectiveness. [19]

Scientific Process vs. Religious Belief

Perhaps most importantly, scientific understanding of gender identity follows fundamentally different epistemological processes than religious belief:

• Scientific knowledge is built through hypothesis testing, peer review, replication, and revision based on evidence
• Religious knowledge typically derives from revelation, tradition, and authority
• Medical understanding of gender identity has evolved through clinical observation, controlled studies, and ongoing research, not through mystical revelation [20]

Gender Diversity Has Always Existed

The irony is that if James wants to look at history, there’s plenty of evidence of gender diversity throughout human civilization. From the gala priests of ancient Mesopotamia to the fa’afafine of Samoa, human societies have long recognized and often respected gender diversity. [21]

James focuses narrowly on Gnostic texts while ignoring the wealth of historical evidence for gender diversity across cultures:

• The hijra of South Asia have existed for thousands of years as a recognized third gender category with social and sometimes spiritual roles
• Two-Spirit people in many Native American cultures held respected social positions that recognized gender diversity
• Fa’afafine in Samoa, sekrata in Madagascar, and waria in Indonesia all represent culturally specific frameworks for gender diversity outside binary Western frameworks [22]

These examples demonstrate that gender diversity is not a modern invention but a recurring aspect of human experience across cultures and throughout history.

These historical examples aren’t evidence of some universal “gender religion” but rather demonstrate that gender diversity is part of human experience across time and culture. The modern understanding of transgender identity is simply our culture’s way of recognizing and categorizing something that has always been part of human experience. [23]

James’ framing of transgender identity as “heresy” ironically echoes actual historical persecution of gender-nonconforming people by religious authorities. Throughout history, religious institutions have often been the primary enforcers of rigid gender norms, not their challengers. [24]

From medieval European laws against cross-dressing to colonial suppression of indigenous gender systems, the historical record shows religious orthodoxy typically suppressing rather than supporting gender diversity, making James’ comparison not just inaccurate but historically backwards. [25]

Manufacturing Plausible Deniability

So why make this strained comparison between ancient Gnosticism and modern transgender identity? The answer is sadly simple: it’s easier to dismiss transgender people if you can frame their identities as religious beliefs rather than lived realities.

By framing gender identity as a type of religious belief, critics can argue it shouldn’t be respected in secular contexts like schools or healthcare. It’s a rhetorical move designed to undermine transgender rights by recategorizing identity as ideology. [26]

• It becomes something one can simply choose not to “believe in”
• It can be excluded from secular spaces like public schools and healthcare systems
• Medical care for transgender people can be reframed as “religious accommodation” rather than necessary healthcare
• Discrimination protections can be weakened, as religious beliefs don’t receive the same legal protections as immutable characteristics

But gender identity isn’t an ideology or belief system - it’s an aspect of human diversity supported by substantial research and recognized by major medical and psychological organizations worldwide. [27]

This rhetorical sleight-of-hand attempts to move transgender rights from the realm of human rights and medical necessity into the domain of personal belief—a political strategy with very real consequences for transgender people’s access to healthcare, education, employment, and basic dignity. By misappropriating ancient texts to build this false equivalence, James isn’t just committing historical malpractice; he’s providing intellectual cover for policies that cause demonstrable harm to an already vulnerable population.

Who Is Daniel Howard James, Anyway?

So who exactly is this author claiming expertise on ancient religious texts, gender identity, and medical care? Daniel Howard James presents as a historical and religious scholar in their Genspect writing, but their actual credentials tell a different story. [28]

James has lived in Freshwater on the Isle of Wight for 21 years and was elected as a Green Party parish councillor in 2017, currently serving as vice-chair of Freshwater Parish Council. They narrowly missed being elected as County Councillor in 2017, receiving 43% of the vote. [29] He is married and has a son.

Their local political work has focused on community issues including retaining a primary school, improving beach safety, and preserving historical structures like a World War II lookout tower. Worthwhile civic engagement, certainly, but nothing that qualifies them to make sweeping claims about gender identity, religious history, or medical care. [30]

James’s claim to authorship appears to rest primarily on a single technical book titled “Crafting Digital Media” published in 2009, focused on open source applications for digital media production. [31] They also have a background in technology, associated with 64 Studio[43], a company specializing in digital audio workstations and open-source software. [32]

What’s notably missing from James’ background are any credentials in:

• Religious studies or ancient history
• Gender studies or transgender healthcare
• Psychology or medicine
• Academic research or peer-reviewed publications in relevant fields

In other words, James has no demonstrated expertise in any of the subjects central to their article’s claims. This doesn’t automatically invalidate their arguments; however, it does raise questions about why Genspect presents James as an authoritative voice on these complex topics.[33] One can extend this question to James as well, and it raises a fair moral question and serves as an indicator of his moral turpitude.

Curioser and curioser, an examination of James’ social media presence reveals an interesting pivot. From 2012 to approximately 2020, their Twitter feed was exclusively focused on open source technology, publishing platforms, and software development. Then on their blog and youtube channel, they suddenly pivoted to culture war content, with multiple posts about “gender-affirming care,” puberty blockers, and questioning the sex spectrum, and other anti-transgender themes. [38]

This dramatic shift from tech professional to anti-transgender commentator, without any apparent transition or qualification in the relevant fields, raises questions about intellectual consistency and motivation. What spurred this seemingly sudden departure of one focus to this?

The apparent contradiction between James’ affiliation with the UK Green Party (which has consistently supported transgender rights)[37] and their anti-transgender writing for Genspect also raises questions about intellectual and ethical consistency.[34]

History and Science Deserve Better

Look, here's the thing. When you start comparing people's identities to ancient religious sects, you'd better have more than a parish council seat and a tech book from 2009 on your resume. [35]

What we're seeing here isn't scholarship—it's intellectual laundering. Take some legitimate historical terms, run them through the spin cycle with some bad faith assumptions, and suddenly you've got this crisp, clean narrative that transgender identity is just another belief system. It's the academic equivalent of putting a monocle on a conspiracy theory and calling it Professor Truthington. [36]

Here's the reality check: comparing gender identity to Gnosticism makes about as much sense as comparing vegetarianism to Zoroastrianism because they both involve making choices. Sure, you can find a few surface-level similarities if you squint hard enough and ignore literally everything else that matters.

But the most important question isn't whether this comparison holds water—it doesn't—but why someone would go to such lengths to make it in the first place. If gender identity becomes "just another religion," then suddenly:

"I don't believe in transgender people" becomes a perfectly acceptable position.
"We don't teach that faith in our schools" becomes a reasonable argument.
"My insurance shouldn't cover your religious practices" sounds like a fair point.

See what happened there? With one historical sleight-of-hand, basic human dignity gets demoted to optional belief system. It's not a scholarly argument—it's a political tool designed to strip rights while maintaining plausible deniability.

And the most bewildering part of this whole situation? James is a Green Party official—a party with explicit policies supporting transgender rights. That's like being a PETA member who moonlights as a bullfighting promoter. I'm not saying political contradictions don't exist, but this one's giving cognitive dissonance a hernia.

The strangest part is that if James had spent even half the time reviewing modern research that they spent cherry-picking ancient texts, they might have learned something genuinely valuable about gender identity. But that wasn't the goal, was it? The goal was to create a framework where other people's identities can be dismissed as mere beliefs.

In the end, James and Genspect aren't publishing history, they're publishing permission slips for prejudice disguised as scholarship.

References

[1] American Psychological Association. (2022). APA resolution on gender identity. https://www.apa.org/about/policy/resolution-gender-identity.pdf

[2] Heyes, C. J. (2003). Feminist solidarity after queer theory: The case of transgender. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 28(4), 1093-1120.

[3] World Health Organization. (2022). WHO/Europe brief – transgender health in the context of ICD-11. https://www.who.int/europe/news/item/12-01-2022-who-europe-brief-transgender-health-in-the-context-of-icd-11

[4] King, K. L. (2003). What is Gnosticism? Harvard University Press.

[5] Meyer, M. (Ed.). (2007). The Nag Hammadi scriptures. HarperOne.

[6] Williams, M. A. (1996). Rethinking “Gnosticism”: An argument for dismantling a dubious category. Princeton University Press.

[7] Nanda, S. (2014). Gender diversity: Crosscultural variations (2nd ed.). Waveland Press.

[8] Bettcher, T. M. (2014). Trapped in the wrong theory: Rethinking trans oppression and resistance. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 39(2), 383-406.

[9] Herdt, G. (Ed.). (1996). Third sex, third gender: Beyond sexual dimorphism in culture and history. Zone Books.

[10] Bennett, B. (2021). Logical fallacies in attacks on transgender rights: A taxonomy. In A. Stone et al. (Eds.), The Palgrave handbook of gender and sexuality in critical political theory. Palgrave Macmillan.

[11] ibid.

[12] Rubin, G. (1984). Thinking sex: Notes for a radical theory of the politics of sexuality. In C. S. Vance (Ed.), Pleasure and danger: Exploring female sexuality (pp. 267-319). Routledge & Kegan Paul.

[13] ibid.

[14] Stryker, S. (2017). Transgender history: The roots of today’s revolution (2nd ed.). Seal Press.

[15] Sedgwick, M. (2020). Key thinkers in the sociology of religion. Routledge.

[16] Hare, L., Bernard, P., Sánchez, F. J., Baird, P. N., Vilain, E., Kennedy, T., & Harley, V. R. (2009). Androgen receptor repeat length polymorphism associated with male-to-female transsexualism. Biological Psychiatry, 65(1), 93-96.

[17] Guillamon, A., Junque, C., & Gómez-Gil, E. (2016). A review of the status of brain structure research in transsexualism. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 45(7), 1615-1648.

[18] What We Know Project, Cornell University. (2018). What does the scholarly research say about the effect of gender transition on transgender well-being? https://whatweknow.inequality.cornell.edu/topics/lgbt-equality/what-does-the-scholarly-research-say-about-the-well-being-of-transgender-people/

[19] Coleman, E., Radix, A. E., Bouman, W. P., Brown, G. R., de Vries, A. L. C., Deutsch, M. B., Ettner, R., Fraser, L., Goodman, M., Green, J., Hancock, A. B., Johnson, T. W., Karasic, D. H., Knudson, G. A., Leibowitz, S. F., Meyer-Bahlburg, H. F. L., Monstrey, S. J., Motmans, J., Nahata, L., … Arcelus, J. (2022). Standards of care for the health of transgender and gender diverse people, version 8. International Journal of Transgender Health, 23(sup1), S1-S259.

[20] Kuhar, R. (2015). Anti-gender campaigns in Europe: Mobilizing against equality. Rowman & Littlefield.

[21] Feinberg, L. (1996). Transgender warriors: Making history from Joan of Arc to Dennis Rodman. Beacon Press.

[22] Nanda, S. (2014). Gender diversity: Crosscultural variations (2nd ed.). Waveland Press.

[23] Stone, S. (1992). The empire strikes back: A posttranssexual manifesto. Camera Obscura, 10(2), 150-176.

[24] DeConick, A. D. (2013). Holy misogyny: Why the sex and gender conflicts in the early church still matter. Bloomsbury Academic.

[25] Lugones, M. (2007). Heterosexualism and the colonial/modern gender system. Hypatia, 22(1), 186-219.

[26] Stone, S. (1992). The empire strikes back: A posttranssexual manifesto. Camera Obscura, 10(2), 150-176.

[27] American Medical Association. (2023). Health care for transgender and gender diverse individuals. https://www.ama-assn.org/delivering-care/population-care/health-care-transgender-and-gender-diverse-individuals

[28] Daniel Howard James. (2024). Genspect author bio. Genspect.org.

[29] Isle of Wight Vote. (2021). Daniel James (Green). https://isleofwight.vote/candidates/freshwater-north-yarmouth/daniel-james-green/

[30] ibid.

[31] James, D. (2009). Crafting digital media: Audacity, Blender, Drupal, GIMP, Scribus, and other open source tools. Apress. https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-1-4302-1888-3

[32] 64 Studio. (2024). About us.

https://64studio.com/

[33] Ashley, F. (2022). Interrogating the relationship between the cis-hetero-patriarchy and plausibility structures for transphobic claims. Sociological Review, 70(4), 870-887.

[34] LGBT+ Greens. (2023). Green Party transgender rights policy. Green Party of England and Wales.

[35] Coleman, E., Radix, A. E., Bouman, W. P., Brown, G. R., de Vries, A. L. C., Deutsch, M. B., Ettner, R., Fraser, L., Goodman, M., Green, J., Hancock, A. B., Johnson, T. W., Karasic, D. H., Knudson, G. A., Leibowitz, S. F., Meyer-Bahlburg, H. F. L., Monstrey, S. J., Motmans, J., Nahata, L., … Arcelus, J. (2022). Standards of care for the health of transgender and gender diverse people, version 8. International Journal of Transgender Health, 23(sup1), S1-S259.

[36] Stryker, S., & Whittle, S. (Eds.). (2006). The transgender studies reader. Routledge.

[37] Green Party. 2024. Responsibilities & Rights. greenparty.org.uk. https://web.archive.org/web/20240601202903/https://policy.greenparty.org.uk/policy/rights-and-responsibilities/

[38] James, D. [@daniel_h_james]. (2012-2025). Twitter feed. https://twitter.com/daniel_h_james | https://liberality.net/ | https://www.youtube.com/@liberality

[39] Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644 (2015) Supreme Court decision documents, which contain the religious exemption arguments; and perhaps Corvino, J., Anderson, R. T., & Girgis, S. (2017). "Debating Religious Liberty and Discrimination" which examines religious exemption arguments.

[40] Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967) court documents where Virginia literally made the religious argument; and Pascoe, P. (2009). "What Comes Naturally: Miscegenation Law and the Making of Race in America."

[41] Haider-Markel, D. P., & Joslyn, M. R. (2008). "Beliefs About the Origins of Homosexuality and Support for Gay Rights: An Empirical Test of Attribution Theory" which examines how framing characteristics as choices vs. immutable affects policy positions. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1093/poq/nfn015

[42] Wikipedia contributors. (2025, March 17). Humorism. In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 10:05, May 22, 2025, from https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Humorism&oldid=1280983589

[43] https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/officers/zUptzAR0XxDbJNHnX5sphYga_VA/appointments and https://64studio.com/