The transgender community needs to stop pushing the notion that it's healthy and desirable; it's not - it's a devastating hormonal/fertility disorder.

We can't even look into the extent to which the androgenisation of humanity is the consequence of the pollutants that we've introduced into the environment.

Now, comparing this to trans-humanist body mods - how many of those result in sterility?

The changes that trans-humans want are intended to extend the capabilities of the human; but a sex change leaves an individual in a physically compromised super-position of the body that they were born with, and the body that fits the mind.

Doesn't seem like a very strong argument that it doesn't fit into the cyberpunk ethos. Modifying your body for reasons you care about seems very cyberpunk, and exactly the sort of thing that other people would have moral qualms over, especially if they don't share your values. Certainly the technology could be improved for people who do care about fertility, but, well, newer, improved versions of body modification technology is also very cyberpunk.

Sure thing.

But I'm not espousing my values, but values vital to the continuation of life.

Values that have been around for thousands of millions of years.

Perhaps there's the potential for this to change, but it'll just be fertility in another form.

As for the danger, population collapse is often precipitous - and by the time you notice it, is very hard to roll back.

And it's not just our species impacted by the changes.

Oh also since we’re on a technicality forum. Trans hormones don’t necessarily cause permanent sterilization. Plenty of trans people have children

> Of the adult trans population, between 25% and 49% of individuals are believed to be parents (Dierckx, Motmans, Mortelmans, & T’sjoen, 2016)

> Trans parents may form their families in a range of ways, including through biological parenthood, step-parenthood, adoption, fostering, and assisted reproduction, with an increasing number of options available to trans people wishing to become parents.

> Trans hormones don’t necessarily cause permanent sterilization. Plenty of trans people have children

I was just pointing out that the evidence provided with the 25% number doesn't really speak to fertility, but rather all the possible ways of having children.

And if it did, it would probably be from something like pollution/climate change, not a tiny minority of trans people.

> Values that have been around for thousands of millions of years.

I could make the same arguments about modern therapeutics for asthma and short-sightedness being againsts millions of years of nature.

There are no self-grounding values. You cannot objectively justify why fertility is the overriding value here, rather than, say, fairness, liberty or anything else. So yes, you are absolutely espousing your values. If you want to make an argument, make it, don't pretend it's self-evident.

We have all benefited from the contributions made by members of past generations that didn’t reproduce, but their genes live on through their relatives that did reproduce. If all we care about is survival of the species, the best thing for all of us is that trans people get the help and support they need to leave the healthiest and most fulfilling lives possible, so that they can maximally contribute to society. I think that’s an overly reductive attitude, but that’s one way of thinking about it.

There is an inescapable choice in choosing the grounds from which to reason out to an ethical conclusion - there is no self-evident starting point, hence the riotous confusion of moral philosophy over the last two millennia.

Kidneys evolved, mutative replication remains the source of life.

If I'm exposed to poisons in the air or water, it's likely to happen to others as well - especially if it's at levels where it's not immediately noticed.

Many other causes of effective infertility are unlikely to impact entire groups of people across long periods of time.

if you died and then a millisecond after a chicxulub scale asteroid obliterated all mammalian life (again), who would be there to care about fucking fertility or propagation of the species??

the point is we don't have to be limited to biological mandates -- that's what transhumanism is about. moralizing it is just wasted and you clearly don't understand what it's about.

instead you decide to whinge about trans people being mentally ill. please

(Misremembering other people's arguments is a poor strategy in a technical forum.)

And regardless of what transhumanism as a whole is about, it will always be about continuation of sapience and its evolution through time.

Biological or otherwise.

what exactly is your word for unhealthy and undesirable? you are clearly referring to dysphoria. i don't know if you realized, but the DSM has changed in recent years.

classic intellectually dishonest HN concern troll

Well it seems you're the one trolling here.

If you deny the right to people to have opinions and judgments based on their beliefs about anything they wish, you're doing worse than you complain about.

Acceptance was a vital social step, but promotion crosses a line for me - and there are severe deleterious consequences are ignored and dismissed by the community.

I think in general the answer is to let kids be themselves and not to judge them for it; give them a say in their clothes and toys - and do not punish them for their selection.

though you are right, i am kinda a hedonist. do you mourn for me, or lament the condition I would bring upon civilization, right before chicxulub blows us up? haha.

don't worry, i have no power offline either.

Most of the controversy around trans issues that I've seen would not exist if this was the only dimension to it.

They push for it because that's the only viable option for them to appear as the opposite gender which helps them mentally.

Although it is funny you're in a way talking about how men are turning into femboy meme.

It'd be prohibitively expensive for most, but why not?

Also, you mentioned environmental factors, is that thinking based on a paper or similar?

As an act of tremendous will over self I genuinely respect it.

Especially those that require body modification, such as Jewish and Islam's adult circumcision.

The largest fraction of the anti-transgender movement is clearly the American conservative Christian right, who has completely chosen to ignore human rights in favour of Old Testament values.

(Source: I’m transgender, and I’m terrified what’s going on in the USA.)

When they get a bit older, at most they can extremely rarely (due to people pushing against it, even though it reduces suicide rates and saves lives!) get puberty blockers.

Those can then be stopped with minimal consequences if they decide that's not something they wanna do. What is actually cruel is FORCING kids to undergo their AGAB puberty against their will.

We know they are safe, we know they save lives. The vast majority of uses for puberty blockers are still cis children that have early puberty.

It's also weird mental gymnastics like this that people are pushing against. For anyone who is not familiar with the acronym, AGAB means "Assigned Gender At Birth", and is push back against the fact that we broadly lump all people into either the male / female camp when they are born. It can be useful when talking about gender norms, etc – which are discussions worth having. But when you start to move into the region of "biological sex is unimportant" it takes on an entirely different slant.

"AGAB puberty" is an oxymoronic statement. If the gender was merely "assigned" to them, then why is their body naturally going through puberty in a certain direction. It's not their AGAB, it's their biological sex. We are not saying "this is a boy" and then giving them testosterone when they hit 12 so that they match their "assigned" gender. Their body is the body of a boy which naturally produces (much) more testosterone (and other obvious hormonal and physical differences) than that of what we broadly call a girl.

Nobody is FORCING anything – that is just something our bodies do naturally because we are a sexually reproducing species of mammal so our DNA causes us to split broadly into male and female.

That's literally what happens, especially to inter people, though.

And sometimes even done for cis people if their natural hormone levels are too low, or rather their parents and doctors deem them too low (the child is never asked).

Yes, there are intersex people and they are a special case that need to be handled differently than the rest of the population. And just "assigning" a gender to those people like we've been doing for most of medical history is probably not the right move. But the vast majority of trans people are not even intersex so injecting that into a conversation about trans issues is just muddying the waters.

When we do intervene, yes, of course the child is never asked. As far as I'm aware there isn't any medication/intervention we give to children where we ask for their permission. Because they are children. One of the main reasons we distinguish between children and adults in our society is because we have decided that children do not have the mental maturity to make such decisions of large import, so we place that responsibility on parents/guardians/doctors/etc.

Children have a right to take part in their own medical decisions as early as 7 years old, and teens make the majority of the decisions themselves after 14yo.

If teens can get tattoos (16+), can drink alcohol (16+), can work part time jobs (14+), under conditions (12+) and can get jail time (14+), then they can just as well make at least part of their own medical decisions.

Delaying permanent changes to a point in time where they can decide for themselves is the perfect solution if teens want to make such a decision, as long as it's safe (which even the cass review admits has been proven safe for AMAB people)

Where is this right enshrined?

> and teens make the majority of the decisions themselves after 14yo

Do you have a source for this claim? Where in particular is this the case? You say 14 but then most of the examples you give about choices with long-term consequences are at 16, since I wouldn't really include part-time jobs (not really a major life decision to bus tables or whatever) and jail time at 14 is the exception not the rule. We default to not putting 14 year olds in jail because again, we assume children are not entirely culpable for their actions at that age. Jail is reserved for particularly egregious infractions that we otherwise don't have a better social response for.

> Delaying permanent changes to a point in time where they can decide for themselves is the perfect solution

Right but isn't part of maturing going through puberty? If we block puberty, what is the point at which you can decide for yourself? Where do you draw the line?

It is a complex issue and perfectly OK to be on one side or the other - what's not OK is pretending that only one side is right and the other is evil and abandoning all nuance - that seems to be the trans activist way tho.

This is ironic of course, since you’ve ignored the nuance that the Keira Bell case was specifically regarding the ability of children under the age of 16 to consent to this treatment themselves. It does not question the lawfulness of the treatment or guidance itself, and it has been clearly established that parents or guardians can give consent. I have absolute sympathy with Keira Bell and the struggles she has gone through, but it seems clear we should want to avoid using the legal system to intervene in clinical decision making to the greatest extent possible.

For the record though, I disagree with you - I don’t think it’s a particularly complex issue. It has certainly been ratcheted into a hot-button culture-war topic by quite a lot of ignorance and deliberate muddying of the waters though, which can have the effect of making things seem more complex than they really are. You’ve just done this yourself—even if unintentionally—in your comment.

> It does not question the lawfulness of the treatment or guidance itself

Nobody is saying it does. The nuance is in fact what people are talking about. Many advocates for the trans community argue that under-16s should be able to choose such treatments for themselves without parental consent/oversight. The other side argues that trans issues should not be treated any differently than anything else, where generally children have limited say in medical interventions applied to them and that the responsibility is ultimately the parents'.

Almost no healthcare is harmless. Anyone can sue for almost anything, there's a low threshold to bring a case. Notably she didn't sue for a personal injury case because she knows she would have lost that - she was strongly advised by her doctor not to proceed, but she ignored that advice and went ahead anyway. She was over 16 at the time, and capacitous, and so she got the treatment that she asked for.

This is just a silly semantic game. Our bodies naturally do a lot of things that in some cases we’d prefer they not do. They love growing babies, or tumours, or falling apart in uncountable ways.

Withholding access to an available and desired medical treatment is broadly equivalent to forcing a patient to experience the effects of whatever the treatment is intending to prevent.

We are just far more likely to use the explicit term “forcing” in cases where that treatment is being withheld for ideological reasons - such as abortions or puberty inhibitors.

Well except Texas law makers

I’d encourage you to check your assumptions on that realisation buddy, because it ain’t really right.

The specific terms you are using there—“gaslighting”, “deny basic biology” etc.—suggest that you’re picking up some of those views from sources that are unlikely to be all that reliable or representative of reality, and way more likely to be a bad-faith representation of extreme or minority views. So don’t form your opinions based on them.

In reality it’s pretty simple and I don’t think it seems particularly controversial:

- People are born biologically male or female, with some exceptions and variations.

- Most people also have an internal gender identity of themselves as a man or a woman, which is a bit of a fuzzy concept but seems to be something innate along the lines of sexuality.

- Most of us fit pretty neatly into one of those two binary buckets in both axes and aren’t really aware of a gender identity; everything feels fine and we get on with our lives without noticing it.

- Some of us don’t feel that way and there’s an incongruity between our gender identity and physical bodies.

- That experience can vary a lot - some people feel themselves clearly and strongly as the opposite binary gender, and others less so. Some people are aware of not having that binary gender identity at all. Some people struggle with it, accept it easily, or feel differently about it at different times.

- People will choose to deal with that incongruity in different ways. Some people will seek surgery or other medical treatment to increase their comfort in their body; others might change their name or their outward appearance.

What you describe as “a lot of the pro arguments for some of these newer things like trans et al” is really about a pressure to modernise our handling of all the stuff above, along the lines of:

- Generally de-medicalise “gender identity disorder”, accepting the stuff above as a natural aspect of human identity and sexuality rather than a malady to be cured.

- Instead of forcing people through clinical pathways to transition allow them to explore their own identity and find their own path.

- Remove the social and cultural aspects of shame and abuse faced by people, that magnify all the above struggles. Stuff like being respectful of people’s identities and trying to be generally inclusive to people who might not fit into our own personal existing notions of gender and sexuality.

There are more specific issues that attract controversy - things like fair treatment in sport and appropriate support for children and young people. But “deny basic biology”? Not a thing.

I personally haven't seen any evidence that gender identity is innate in a way that doesn't relate to biological sex.

Regarding clothing, maybe its just wrong to emphasize gender in the first place? I think a lot of people are cool with kids doing whatever, its just weird when the people around them start really reaffirming the decisions made by someone we dont trust to have autonomy in most things.

Maybe transgendered people have some biological or psychological drive thats distinct and not related to the people around them, but if I were around this rhetoric as a kid I can very easily see how it could have wrecked me, considering how I dealt with the subject of gender from pre to late teens. Maybe itd be a worthy price, Im skeptical but trying to make sense of it

There's no negative effects, as long as you only delay it for a few years (e.g. 10-13) and not too long (you should have entered some puberty around 16, or things get complicated).

As soon as you'll stop, your natural puberty starts, with the same duration and effects it'd have normally.

Puberty blockers are actually an off-label use when used for trans people. Puberty blockers are originally used for cis kids who enter puberty too early, and this use is far far more common than the use for trans kids.

So if they're safe to use on cis kids to delay transition, they're definitely safe for the trans usage as well.

You yourself are arguing based on an extreme straw man here. Does that make you a neo-nazi as well?

Interestingly, I think you illustrate another important factor in anti-transgender resistance: a subsection of proponents are extremely quick on the trigger to accuse any disagreement of being bigoted, hateful, violent, and, as you have, fascist. This does nothing but drive increasingly negative perceptions towards transgenderism as a concept, both among those who were skeptical and among those who were initially neutral towards the concept.

I suggest that if you truly want to further your cause, you should find a way to interact with those who don’t agree with you that doesn’t involve accusing them of being a nazi.

But I call bullshit on your bullshit. It's easy as cake to brainwash kids. They look up to you in so many ways, especially after they outgrow the first year "vegetative" phase. Kids can be programmed to believe literally anything.

All that's done is pausing puberty until the children are old enough to legally consent to changes, if they do want them. If they do not, puberty can be resumed at any time without any harm (puberty blockers are used significantly more often on cis kids whose puberty started too early than on trans kids).

No child is taking any hormone medication or getting any surgery to transition. Actually, hormones and surgery are frequently given to cis kids who are close to the line to inter, to better align them with their AGAB. But in trans healthcare,this is not a thing.

Usually at 14 or 16 trans teenagers can choose to take hormones, but still, no surgeries below the age of 18 for trans children.

The only surgeries parents can do to children legally are circumcision in cis children and heavy genital modification in inter children to pretend they're not inter.

Are these just isolated cases performed by overzealous doctors? No, WPATH's current guidelines allow for mastectomies at age 16, and the latest Standards of Care draft[5] calls for reducing this to 15.

What about the safety and reversibility of puberty blockers? We don't know. See this letter[6] arising from the Cass Review outlining the evidence gap. The current approach to treating gender dysphoria is a slow-motion trainwreck medical scandal. I strongly recommend reading the Cass Review interim report[7] which outlines the numerous ways in which gender-dysphoric children are being failed by current treatment models.

[1] https://thevelvetchronicle.com/double-mastectomy-at-15-detra...

[2] https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2013/03/18/about-a-boy-2

[3] https://mercatornet.com/chloe-cole-gender-transition/80073/

[4] https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/scottish-doctors-approved...

[5] https://www.wpath.org/media/cms/Documents/SOC%20v8/SOC8%20Ch...

[6] https://cass.independent-review.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/0...

[7] https://cass.independent-review.uk/publications/interim-repo...

> children

There’s a major difference between those terms. 16-year-olds are definitely not children anymore. They can get tattoos, piercings, get a driving license, drink alcohol, enter into contracts, and get jail time if they commit a crime.

And cis and inter children at that age can also commit to bodily changing surgeries, e.g. mastectomy for children with gynecomastia is common and legal.

The only legal form of body modification for children below that age are circumcision, which should absolutely not be legal, and surgeries for inter children, which shouldn’t be legal either.

How come you consider teenagers making decisions for themselves a risk, but parents letting doctors mutilate the genitals of newborn children is something you entirely ignore? That’s what we should worry about.

Then there’s the argument regarding puberty blockers, where you’re citing the cass review, which has to be seen in critical light in general. Puberty blockers, when used for cis children, have been well reviewed and approved in wide studies, with lots of evidence proving their safety. There is no evidence gap there – if they’re safe to delay puberty in cis children, they’re just as safe for the same purpose in trans children.

https://www.bbc.com/news/health-56601386.amp

Read Cass for more details.

I also 110% oppose circumcision.

This applies especially to british sources on this topic. The NHS and BBC have become heavily influenced by the Tories in recent years, so I’ll have to question your sources.

See also masks: we're pretty sure that masks work, but the evidence for masking is low quality.

Anti-trans campaigners also misrepresent the Cass review. The review has said that taivstock (currently the only provider of specialist care to trans children) isn't very good. (Trans children and their families also say that the tavistock is pretty awful). They then say that this proves the anti-trans argument that no gender affirming care should be provided to trans children. But what Cass has said is that care should be taken out of tavistock and new given to new centres across England who will initiate care and then GPs can be allowed to continue that care -- this is a big expansion of gender affirming care for children, and trans people welcome it. It's what people have been asking for for years.

Cass does have some weird anti-trans aspects, but it's certainly not the win that anti-trans campaigners are claiming. And this is a core feature of UK anti-trans campaigning: they're fundamentally dishonest about everything all the time. You should always read the sources they're citing, because they always misrepresent those sources.

No it doesn’t. The problems run far deeper. Read the interim report, pages 18-19[1]:

> 1.24. A lack of a conceptual agreement about the meaning of gender dysphoria hampers research, as well as NHS clinical service provision.

> 1.25. There has not been routine and consistent data collection within GIDS, which means it is not possible to accurately track the outcomes and pathways that children and young people take through the service.

> 1.26. Internationally as well as nationally, longer-term follow-up data on children and young people who have been seen by gender identity services is limited, including for those who have received physical interventions; who were transferred to adult services and/or accessed private services; or who desisted, experienced regret or detransitioned.

> 1.27. There has been research on the short-term mental health outcomes and physical side effects of puberty blockers for this cohort, but very limited research on the sexual, cognitive or broader developmental outcomes.

This is not about a lack of rigorously designed experiments. This is about very basic gaps in definitions, data collection, and followup. This is not a case of “we did some research and it’s basically fine but the science police won’t acknowledge the result because we didn’t fill the form out correctly”. We fundamentally do not have the evidence.

Additionally, the new UK regional centers are not an expansion of gender-affirming care, they are an expansion of care, period. The presumption of gender affirmation was explicitly criticized, and in the forthcoming service model there is a requirement to deal with the whole clinical presentation.

None of this has any bearing on being “pro-trans” or “anti-trans”. It is about uplifting treatment for gender dysphoria to the same standards of evidence-based medicine that we expect for any other clinical issue.

I agree, sources are frequently misrepresented.

[1] https://cass.independent-review.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/0...

Yes it does. You not knowing what GRADE is or how it works but insisting that you are well informed is a great example of the problem with these discussions. You dump a load of ill-informed mangled sources into a thread, and now I have to spend a few hours explaining how you're misrepresenting the sources.

> Additionally, the new UK regional centers are not an expansion of gender-affirming care, they are an expansion of care, period. The presumption of gender affirmation was explicitly criticized, and in the forthcoming service model there is a requirement to deal with the whole clinical presentation.

I've read the service specification for the new centres. (Have you?) It's an expansion of gender affirming care, and there's no way to spin it otherwise. There will be more clinics treating more children in a more timely way. More children will have access to puberty blockers. What's that if it's not an expansion of service?

> None of this has any bearing on being “pro-trans” or “anti-trans”.

All the information you've posted to this thread so far is sourced to anti-trans organisations. At least be honest about it. You are anti-trans, you post anti-trans disinformation from anti-trans links.

1) Care at tavistock is bad

Yes, everyone agrees, that's why people are pleased that Cass recommends the NHS continues its long established plan to remove care from Tavi.

2) There's no evidence

There's plenty of evidence. It doesn't come from tavi, but that's because they provide so little care it's not possible to use their patients as experimental subjects. We have lots of evidence from other countries and other patient cohorts

3) Cass says...

Mostly you're misunderstanding what Cass says, or you're relying on the single source that agrees with you and ignoring international scientific and medical opinion.

4) The new centres are providing less gender affirming care than tavi

The vast majority of children attending tavi got no care at all because they were on a waiting list and then aged out of children's services. But even if they got treatment at tavi the vast majority got no meds at all but psycho-social advice. The new centres will be doing this too, but with more children and with smaller waiting lists and the shared care agreements with GPs will be clearer.

e.g., the Cass Review explicitly says "The rationale for use of puberty blockers at Tanner Stage 2 of development was based on data that demonstrated that children, particularly birth-registered boys who had early gender incongruence, were unlikely to desist once they reached early puberty" and only recommends reviewing puberty blockers for AFAB people.

Yet your comments and british politics instead call for ending the use of puberty blockers for everyone, including AMAB people (and the recent tavistock case actually accomplished that).

Most of the other issues the report finds are entirely local to the UK, due to the way healthcare systems differ heavily between countries, and can't be applied elsewhere.

I'll be entirely honest, the british system is an absolute mess and needs to be entirely rebuilt (and any british trans person is going to agree), but just stopping all care entirely for years until a new system exists is the worst possible option, and one that's going to cost countless lives.

We don't have randomised controlled trials, but if you don't know why we don't have those maybe you should refrain from commenting until you understand the topic a bit more.

Detransitioners are a tragic case, but they amount of detransitioners compared to all trans people is smaller than the amount of trans people compared to the rest of the population.

If taking detransitioners into account is the primary priority of trans healthcare for you, then trans people should be an equal or larger priority in overall healthcare as well.

> Not to mention the underage surgeries some of them receive.

That's something that's questionable, but it's not that simple either. Cis people doing surgery against gynecomastia is the majority of underage surgeries of this type.

> to outright block their puberty

It's just paused. It continues as if nothing had happened the moment you stop, with no risk to the patient. Even the Cass Review argues that blockers are entirely safe for AMAB trans people. It also argues that AMAB trans people have such a small percentage of detransitioners that it's basically disregardable.

If the Cass Review, a paper that was commissioned to find a way to reject healthcare for trans people, argues it's safe, you can trust it is safe.

I've read the Interim Report, it asserts neither of these points.

"this rationale does not necessarily apply to later-presenting young people, including the predominant referral group of birth-registered girls"

The group referred to here is defined by being later-presenting. Female is only a subset of this.

Also, Cass is just describing the rationale, not endorsing it. This is implied by the paragraph immediately following, where she discusses the paucity of data regarding potential negative effects of puberty blockers on brain maturation:

"A further concern is that adolescent sex hormone surges may trigger the opening of a critical period for experience-dependent rewiring of neural circuits underlying executive function (i.e. maturation of the part of the brain concerned with planning, decision making and judgement). If this is the case, brain maturation may be temporarily or permanently disrupted by puberty blockers, which could have significant impact on the ability to make complex risk-laden decisions, as well as possible longer-term neuropsychological consequences. To date, there has been very limited research on the short-, medium- or longer-term impact of puberty-blockers on neurocognitive development."

> and only recommends reviewing puberty blockers for AFAB people

Cass does not make this recommendation.

As an adult, I am on androgen replacement therapy but I am also very careful with it, regularly checking my labs to make sure I don't torch my liver in the process. I can make informed decisions about it because I've read the research and understand the risks. A child or even a teenager doesn't understand the risks of taking hormones. Not fully anyway, as the brain doesn't fully develop until 25 or so.

Have you ever been on twitter? It will take you a couple of minutes to find people who think that's unnatural, sinful, should be forbidden, they're mentally ill, they're sexual predators by default. I know there are some more moderate ideas, but people completely against do exist.

Moreover, everyone knows twitter is not exactly the place with the healthiest representative sample of mankind...

What it means is “actively seeking to eliminate trans people, including by the simple expedient of killing them by means such as prohibiting care that is proven to greatly reduce suicidality in, especially, young trans people.”

And lots of people—indeed, entire state governments in the US—are “against trans people”.

Put it such extreme and dishonest way, reducing sugar in food it an attempt to eliminate obese people... No , the attribute is not the object.

> indeed, entire state governments in the US—are “against trans people”.

So you deny the rights of a community of people to decide what they deem legal or illegal ? All this for the personal benefit of a (literal) couple of people ?

Should they also be carried in Ferraris to their treatment place?

That’s irrelevant. Whether a community has a right to pass laws based on the fact that they are against trans people is not the issue. Whether people are. manifestly against trans people is the issue (and they very clearly are.)

I hate to invoke Godwin, but just because a society decides to outlaw belonging to a certain minority doesn't make it right. The NSDAP's Anti-Jew laws were also passed in parliament, but still those laws were very obviously wrong.

By that logic if said community is for incest, pedophilia and extremely violent and barbarian punishment, the country has to allow it?

I don't know how you can say that unironically when places like my current state (Texas) have been doing everything in their power to be against trans people. These lifestyle arguments remind me a lot of the exact same stuff people said about anyone gay, that they thought it caused irreparable harm and spread disease.

And you're mixing up action with identity, a straight person can identify as straight while not act on that identity, the whole "its not a choice" is the counter argument to society at the time demanding that LGBT people "straighten up".

It's not some LGBTs foundational argument.

If there was a simple pill that cured gender dysphoria, a pretty reasonable number of people would take it.

Would those people still be angry at transgender people if they went in the bathrooms (and other sex segregated spaces) they used to go into and didn't complain about being called using their original names, sex and pronouns? I expect the most they'd get in that case is nose wrinkling in disgust.

The bathroom laws forbid them from going into the male bathroom (because they're AFAB), bit if they go into the female bathroom while looking like a bodybuilder, they'll also have the cops called on them.

Bathrooms were never sex segregated, and that's not the point of these laws either: the goal of these laws is to make it so uncomfortable to be visibly trans, that it becomes impossible.

That's why this usually goes hand in hand with bans on even teaching about the existence of LGBT people in schools, the goal is eradication.

There is a difference between messing with your body and augmenting it. Transhumanists generally believe in augmenting the human body with cybernetic parts, not changing the body's internal chemistry.

But about, as the parent pointed, improvement. Even in a transhumanist society, someone with eyes on its feet or a mechanical arm without any usefulness would be regarded as stupid or mentally ill.

Not all modifications are good &/or transhumanists.

On second thought, what I should have said was "transhumanists focus on improving the human body". Transitioning may improve your mental health (debatably) but it does not improve your physiological capabilities, and in case of MTF transition arguably worsens your body (bone density, muscle mass, fat distribution and so on)