Does Calvinism commit the No True Scotsman fallacy?

The question at issue is whether somebody can believe in Christianity even though they have no experience of God's saving grace in their lives. Put another way, is Calvinism guilty of the No True Scotsman fallacy by saying they were never saved in the first place? Is that a position you'd only take because your theology requires it?

Suppose we broach the question sociologically. Is this a special case of a general phenomenon regarding the sociology of belief?

I think it's irrefutable that many beliefs held by many people are the product of social conditioning. Because we're social creatures, our beliefs tend to align with the beliefs of our peer group. People raised as Muslims, Baptists, Catholics, Hindus, Lutherans, Buddhists, Democrats, atheists, &c., are far more likely to be...Muslims, Baptists, Catholics, Hindus, Lutherans, Buddhists, Democrats, atheists, &c.

That general correlation applies to religious and nonreligious beliefs alike. That also explains why many people who go to college change their beliefs. When they change their peer group, they change their beliefs to align with their new peer group.

Given that demonstrable social dynamic, somebody can believe in Christianity due to social conditioning and not because they've had any experience of saving grace. That's a very thin belief, which is why they can lose it so easily.

If that's the source of their faith, and they lose their faith, then they were never saved in the first place. That's not unique to Reformed theology. That's not an ad hoc explanation to save appearances. Rather, that applies to the particular case of Reformed theology a very general, well-documented phenomenon regarding the sociology of belief-formation.

You could debate if all apostates fit that profile, but for now I'm addressing the question of whether, in principle, it is special pleading for Calvinism to say an apostate was never saved in the first place. I've presented a very broad counterexample to that allegation.