My humble apologies!
I had an opportunity to increase my computer skills, and I took it. That's how I got distracted from this series of posts. Without further ado...
PART II: Refuting assertions based on the verses above.
My apologetic will necessarily be basic, as I do not have the resources to understand the culture of ancient Israel, beyond a few things that I own and whatever I can locate on the Web. So...anyone with more/better resources can consider themselves invited to chime in with further elaboration on these verses.
GROUP 1: Inarguable (but often inadequate for the case which is trying to be made.)
In this category, I would put the listings for II.A.; II.B.; II.F.5.a.; II.G.1.; and II.K. I allow that these verses say more-or-less what is asserted for them. (For example, I agree that "Humanity, created male and female" is a reasonable conclusion to draw from Gen 1:26.) If the case being made were confined to these verses alone, there would be no case.
GROUP 2: HUH?
These references just leave me wondering what on earth the person who made the website I took much of this from was thinking. Seriously. What on earth does the phrase "Gender distinctions evolved" mean, and what does it have to do with Rom 1:20-22, which is about apostasy and idolatry? Items in this category are: II.D.; II.D.1.a.; II.D.1.b.; II.D.1.c.; II.E.; II.F.2. (although I think the intended verse is for Lev 18:22; but still that verse says nothing about anything "promoting homosexuality."); II.F.3.; II.F.4.; II.F.5 (another special case; the Bible doesn't treat the human heart as all bad--see Prv 20:27; Eccl 9:9-10 and Jn 1:9); and II.G.2.
GROUP 3: IT DOESN'T SAY THAT!
Sometimes, the website I used seems to simply assume that the Bible reads as he/she wishes, without actually bothering to pay attention to what is, or isn't, on the page. In this category would be II.C.; II.F.1.; and II.J. Also to be considered in this light is II.D.1., (for the most part, anyway; the reference to 1 Cor 11:14 at least seems to discuss gender differences. But even here, it should be noted that "nature" as used by Paul, means "custom," and does not refer to the philosophical concept of "natural law." Another on-the-fence listing is for II.B.1. Gen 4:1 does come close to saying that "gender is assigned at birth," but it never actually gets there.
GROUP 4: ARE YOU TRYING TO UNDERMINE YOURSELF?
Only two listings are in this group: II.H.; and II.I. 1 Sam 16:7 does indeed speak of God looking at the heart, but that could easily be understood in a way that is trans-positive, rather than trans-negative. The reference to Jer 1:5 seems to so argue even more strongly. After all, if God forms the personality and identity before birth, then the existence of transgendered folks would logically be the will of God.
I didn't get around to part I (the central arguments) in this post. I will get around to that in the next post. No, really...I will. Promise. I haven't forgotten about this, and I have every intention of finishing what I've started.