Skip to content

Don’t Listen to Carl Trueman: This is how the Left views Transgenderism

Carl Trueman, in his book the Rise and Triumph of the Modern Self talks about a man who thinks he’s trapped in a woman’s body. His perspective on transgenderism is that it is an expression of radical individualism. I say, don’t Listen to Carl Trueman. Listen to what people who think they’re trans actually view themselves. They think gender is a social construct.

#carltrueman #transgenderism #riseandtriumph #mattwalsh

Support this podcast at —

Advertising Inquiries:

Privacy & Opt-Out:

1 thought on “Don’t Listen to Carl Trueman: This is how the Left views Transgenderism”

  1. Jon – have you considered that (in his main thesis, if not in his finer points) Trueman is not wrong, just late?

    There was a time when this happened on the societal level in the US: Romans 1:21 — For even though they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish heart was darkened.

    At that time, the rebellious philosophy trying to compete with Christianity was what Trueman covers, including expressive individualism. Not what God wants but what what I want (sovereignty). And it can’t stay inside, it must be expressed, otherwise I am not me (expressive individualism). The definition Trueman references is by Robert Bellah in Habits of the Heart to argue his point. “Expressive individualism holds that each person has a unique core of feeling and intuition that should unfold or be expressed if individuality is to be realized. This core, though unique, is not necessarily alien to other persons or to nature. Under certain conditions, the expressive individualist may find it possible through intuitive feeling to “merge” with other persons, with nature, or with the cosmos as a whole.”

    Then things progressed. Romans 1:24, 28 LSB — Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them… And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them over to an unfit mind, to do those things which are not proper… ”

    Now we’re at a different stage. Romans 1:32 — and although they know the righteous requirement of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them.

    And so, a new argument is put forth. One less philosophically robust (for what else can a futile mind come up with?) The argument is, “if I’m approved by others, my expression is valid” The ‘gender is a social construct’ philosophical doctrine is thus born. But could it arise without the doctrine of “I can be what I want to be” coming first? Without the rebellious desire to be something else in the first place (expressive individualism), what sense is there in arguing that that thing you want to be is mutable (social construct)?

    Also, believing a sinner describing his worldview philosophy is somewhat similar to believing the Pharisees when they said, “We are Abraham’s children” (John 8:33). I always take it with a grain of salt. They may say that ‘gender is a social construct’ but it could be all smoke and mirrors. It seems to me that most people are not true believers in this specific doctrine but simply use it as a philosophical cover for a simplistic ‘I hate God and wants to do whatever I want’ philosophy. Matthew 15:19 — “For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, sexual immoralities, thefts, false witness, slanders.”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *