[1] I agree! My point is that what goes on the birth certificate reflects what is already true, no decision is made as to whether the baby is male or female. This was 'predestined' if you like either a) by God or b) by evolution.
[2] Do they have the right to expect others to conform to this though? I have followed Anglican commentary on YT over what is happening in the C of E at present. On more than one occasion they have brought up specific cases of where Christians have recently lost their jobs over using 'wrong' pronouns, for example, despite an attempt at some accommadation to the transgender pupil by the teacher. And iirc in a C of E school to boot!
[3] Court cases are now putting the brakes on on this, as religious belief is a protected characteristic, but the whole thing is a mess. It ought not to be necessary to have to try to codify all this in legislation, but I suppose this is what happens when everyone claims their personal rights trump everyone else's.
[4] There is a Greek word, malakoi, that occurs in the NT and currently disputed by those who wish to alter the translation to accommodate homosexuality. It means soft men, effeminate, the 'female' half of a homosexual relationship. The point is that scholars of Greek (e.g. Robert Gagnon has done a lot of work on this) can go back into ancient Greek literature to ascertain usage and meaning, and 'feminine men' have been around a long time. In modern parlance transgender might well fit the bill. There was even a case of lesbian marriage! There is nothing new under the sun.
[5] As an aside I commented on one Anglican YT episode where a woman accused those not happy with 'gay blessings' of being 'self righteous' and 'bigots', the quoted Matt 7 : 1 Judge not, that you be not judged. When I pointed out the inconsistency of this, she was doing precisely what she thought others should not be doing, she replied 'you are those who only pick and choose which parts of scripture you take seriously'!
She has put the whole discussion out of the reach of thinking and reason. At one level this is amusing, but if someone can lose their job over this kind of mentality it is much more serious.
[1] It's less of a decision, it's more of a determination. The cause is unnecessary to know - we won't agree on that point, nor do we need to.
[2] It depends how much you value peace, harmony, and an inclusive community. Shunning is a form of bullying. You already have my thoughts on the religious aspect. If you tell me you have a faith, I'll respect it, up until the point that you say that your faith means that you can impose your beliefs such as the eradication of the rights of others - then I'll likely be annoyed and possibly rude (which is a legitimate way of challenging absolutists since resolution by discussion is pretty impossible).
The Israel/Palestine could not illustrate the point more - people on both sides of the argument are vocal in wishing the eradication of the other, and the signs are they are intent on it, precisely because of their absolutism and refusal to accommodate the other. Most of the rest of the world hopes to see a two state solution, while both sides refuse to consider this an option. Either one side will eventually eradicate the other or the UN will somehow have to act to prevent them.
Human rights are equal for all people, the majority do not can claim that their majority has the bigger claim on the basis of number - the greater happiness for the greater good does not apply.
The only solution is accommodation, and that is what UK law provides - not perfectly, but it does so well enough that reasonable people with commitment to peace will find a way through.
[3] There are court cases. The courts attempt some balancing of rights, but wherever you have absolutists on both sides taking each other to court and then not accepting a court ruling, there is never resolution. Though I will agree that courts do not always seem to get things right, it remains the civilised way to go about the process of balancing rights especially when statute is inadequate.
I don't accept the argument that if you don't accept the principle of gender identity or same sex attraction or whatever, that faith has the controlling interest over the lives of others. If a person with faith works as say as 'teacher' there is a duty of care towards their learners. The welfare of the children shall be paramount. If a trans child states their pronouns are she/her then the there is a duty on the teacher to conform. They are not losing their faith as a result; there is no need to vent their objection due to their faith, it is unnecessary yet damaging.
These arguments so frequently manifest in arguments about the nature of free speech. Free speech is necessary so that individuals, academics and journalists have the right to speak truth to power. Free speech is not the right to abuse people due to difference. Free speech (and other forms of expression) is a right but a qualified right rather than an absolute right. It is not without consequence.
[4] Seems to me that you are conflating gender identity and gender performance and sexual attraction all in one stew. That's a mistake, not least because the ancients did not have the rich vocabulary that we have today. Vygotsky made some useful points about the role of language in thinking, and therefore learning and self-modulation. Without access to those words that relate to invisible concepts, then communication is difficult.
[5] Sorry, this doesn't interest me enough to reply.
