Is There a Link Between Protestantism & Transexuals?

As a member of the Churches of Christ, and thus an inheritor of many Protestant ideas, it pains me to write this, but I can't see how the following logic is false.

Protestantism led to the transsexual revolution by theologically justifying rebellion against collective authority and enshrining the will of the individual conscience as the only ultimate guide to righteous living. 

The difference between Protestantism and Eastern Christianity's refusal to follow the Pope lay in the justifications used for Protestantism's rejection of Rome's spiritual authority. Whereas the Eastern Christian denominations rebelled against Rome because they simply didn't agree with the Roman bishop's claim to being special and superior, the Protestants rebelled against Rome because they didn't believe that authority and hierarchy could trump individual conscience. Protestantism introduced the idea that an individual's own conscience should be heeded over and above the entire church. When Martin Luther proclaimed "here I stand, I can do no other", he was asserting his individual right to oppose the entire church and teach his own doctrine. 

How does this lead to transsexualism? Protestantism was the first step towards the idea that humans have individual rights that should not be thwarted by the collective. If a man is obligated by his own individual conscience to believe certain things, then it's a crime to persecute him for what he believes and professes. Therefore, we are obligated by God to allow Luther to stand his ground against the entire church so that we don't force him to violate his conscience. 

This mentality gives the individual a certain power divorced from all collective understandings of truth. Even if all of church history affirms a particular doctrine, a single person who believes with full conviction that it's false should not be made to retract their belief and violate their conscience. To force them to retract would render them guilty before God. We must, therefore, provide them with freedom of conscience. 

Post-Reformation history is the working out of this problem and its implications. The church hierarchy was only the first to lose its claim over our lives. It soon become clear that if individuals were the rightful interpreters of God's will then the authority of kings should be no greater than the authority of individuals. If Protestantism made "every man his own pope" in the realm of religion, then why should man not be his own king in the far less important realm of secular politics? This became a passionately held belief after kings tried to violate freedom of conscience by reinforcing church authority and leading Europe into the horrendously bloody wars of religion.

But how are we going to live in a society in which every man is his own pope and king? First, we created a list of rights so that the government, which is now nothing more than a necessary evil, can be prevented from impeding too much on the sovereignty of the individual. "Human rights" were expounded to put the government in its rightful place (underneath the individual). How do we create governments now that popes and kings have lost all legitimacy? Individuals will now vote people in and out of office. We need to make sure that power is divided so that no new pope or king or dictator is able to force us to violate our consciences. Religious war is evil because it is fought in order to force people to accept creeds they don't believe in. 

While Protestantism certainly has advantages, especially when applied to economics, it eventually led to the point where anything anyone believed can now be professed openly and change society. If someone becomes an atheist, for example, how can good Christians force them to reject atheism when doing so would violate their conscience? Thus, more people become atheists. When more people stop following the Bible, then their consciences are shaped more and more by disparate forces originating from random sources. The idea of male authority was deconstructed as another form of tyranny equivalent to popes and kings. Racial and caste hierarchies were easily interpreted in the same way. Any kind of enforced morality is now increasingly seen as a violation of individual freedom to choose one's own moral system.

Now, even gender and sexual identity are seen as forms of control foisted on us against our individual wills. We did not choose our sex at birth, it was forced upon us by society. Does society call us "male" and "female" because of biology? Well then, we must recognize that biology itself is a form of pope or king trying to force us to conform to something we don't agree with. If we believe that we're the opposite gender, then we should listen to our conscience instead of the authority of nature; any other course would violate our obligations to ourselves. Thus Protestantism leads to transsexuals.

Now, there's another question about whether the link between Protestantism and transsexual ideology is necessary. Was it inevitable that Protestantism was going to create the transsexual movement? It might seem that way, but I think there are prerequisite questions about the origins of Protestantism itself. It's be argued that Protestantism was the result of socio-economic proto-capitalist forces. Did Protestantism succeed in rupturing Christendom because it rode wider trends towards liberation that were rooted in economic growth and connectivity that did not profit from the hierarchical control systems that defined the 1400s? This line of thinking brings us to the edge of Nick Land and his accelerationist philosophy. I simply don't know enough about that historical era to answer this question thoroughly, but I think it's an important question when evaluating the legitimacy of the Protestant Reformation and the subsequent history of Christianity.

*Interestingly, Alexander Dugin traces these same trends back to Catholic nominalism, but he too connects them with Protestantism.