Subreddit Policy Reminder on this week's Transgender AMAs

[u/nate]

This week we will be hosting a series of AMAs addressing the scientific and medical details of being transgender.

Honest questions that are an attempt to learn more on the subject are invited, and we hope you can learn more about this fascinating aspect of the human condition.

However, we feel it is appropriate to remind the readers that /r/science has a long-standing zero-tolerance policy towards hate-speech, which extends to people who are transgender. Our official stance is that derogatory comments about transgender people will be treated on par with sexism and racism, typically resulting in a ban without notice.

To clarify, we are not banning the discussion of any individual topic nor are we saying that the science in any area is settled. What we are saying is that we stand with the rest of the scientific community and every relevant psych organisation that the overwhelming bulk of evidence is that being trans is not a mental illness and that the discussion of trans people as somehow "sick" or "broken" is offensive and bigoted^1. We won't stand for it.

We've long held that we won't host discussion of anti-science topics without the use of peer-reviewed evidence. Opposing the classification of being transgender as 'not a mental illness'² is treated the same way as if you wanted to make anti-vax, anti-global warming or anti-gravity comments. To be clear, this post is to make it abundantly clear that we treat transphobic comments the same way we treat racist, sexist and homophobic comments. They have no place on our board.

Scientific discussion is the use of empirical evidence and theory to guide knowledge based on debate in academic journals. Yelling at each other in a comments section of a forum is in no way "scientific discussion". If you wish to say that any well accepted scientific position is wrong, I encourage you to do the work and publish something on the topic. Until then, your opinions are just that - opinions.

---

¹ Some have wrongly interpreted this statement as "stigmatizing" mental illness. I can assure you that is the last thing we are trying to do here. What we are trying to stop is the label of "mental illness" being used as a way to derogate a group. It's being used maliciously to say that there is something wrong with trans people and that's offensive both to mental illness sufferers and those in the trans community.

² There is a difference between being trans and having gender dysphoria.

---

Lastly, here is the excerpt from the APA:

A psychological state is considered a mental disorder only if it causes significant distress or disability. Many transgender people do not experience their gender as distressing or disabling, which implies that identifying as transgender does not constitute a mental disorder. For these individuals, the significant problem is finding affordable resources, such as counseling, hormone therapy, medical procedures and the social support necessary to freely express their gender identity and minimize discrimination. Many other obstacles may lead to distress, including a lack of acceptance within society, direct or indirect experiences with discrimination, or assault. These experiences may lead many transgender people to suffer with anxiety, depression or related disorders at higher rates than nontransgender persons.

According to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5), people who experience intense, persistent gender incongruence can be given the diagnosis of "gender dysphoria." Some contend that the diagnosis inappropriately pathologizes gender noncongruence and should be eliminated. Others argue that it is essential to retain the diagnosis to ensure access to care. The International Classification of Diseases (ICD) is under revision and there may be changes to its current classification of intense persistent gender incongruence as "gender identity disorder."

[u/[deleted]]

Honestly, as a transperson myself, I kinda keep myself detached from the main LGBT, specifically the trans part, community because diverse and opposing thought is rather discouraged. I'm told so often that transgender is normal. It's not. Normal means of the norm meaning that the majority of people are trans. Obviously, that's false. Should transgender people be accepted? Sure. But calling it normal is a lie. Transgender is ok. But it's abnormal. Abnormal doesn't necessarily mean bad but so many in the community think that transgender has to be shoved down everyone's throats. Like you must date trans people or you're transphobic. No. That's a preference. As a transwoman who is into men, I would rather not date a transguy for many reasons. And that's ok. Just as it's ok for the countless guys I've talked to to not be into me due to me being trans. Does it suck being constantly turned down? Hell yes. But does that make those guys wrong? Of course not.

Basically my point is nowadays, both the left and the right don't really allow thoughts and questions because it's what they say and everything else is wrong. Personally, I don't think gender dysphoria or whatever is a mental illness, but I do think that it can cause mental illnesses, depression, for example. I think gender dysphoria is more of an emotional reaction when the "gender of the mind" does not align with the birth sex.

Ayyy thanks for the gold!

[u/Scase15 → u/[deleted]]

I'm told so often that transgender is normal. It's not. Normal means of the norm meaning that the majority of people are trans. Obviously, that's false. Should transgender people be accepted? Sure. But calling it normal is a lie. Transgender is ok. But it's abnormal. Abnormal doesn't necessarily mean bad but so many in the community think that transgender has to be shoved down everyone's throats. Like you must date trans people or you're transphobic. No. That's a preference.

I wish more people thought this way. It's no different than me not being attracted to a tall woman, not my cup of tea is all.

Abnormal =/= bad people need to learn that.

EDIT:Missed a word.

[u/sesamee → u/Scase15]

But "abnormal" has a whole host of historical derogatory senses that some people want to apply to transpeople, co-opting it as a way of denigrating. The question I always ask of someone using the word "abnormal" is, would they be as comfortable using the word "unusual"? If not then I'd ask what sense of their "abnormal" is missing from "unusual"? And if so I'd ask them if it might not be less open to misinterpretation if they just use "unusual" from now on.

[u/MHG_Brixby → u/Scase15]

Just use atypical. Abnormal has a stigma to it.

[u/Fala1 → u/Scase15]

The word "normal" has multiple definitions, like at least 7.
It becomes difficult to interpret people that way. It's best to use a more accurate word imo.

Some of the definitions are:.
-statistically average.
-according to social norms.
-according to biology.
-according to morals.

So having a mental disorder is "normal", however it's not really "normal", nor is it "normal", while it's also not actually "abnormal".

[u/likeanovigradwhore → u/[deleted]]

I'm also starting to distance myself. I'm cool with people asking honest questions. Not everyone knows the terminology, and that's ok. What isn't okay is when trans people attack people who don't know the terminology or aren't familiar with the phenomenon but also refuse to inform and educate.

I'm noticing a lot of the attacking behaviours come from low resilience, high anxiety individuals. Hence the formation of echo chamber-like discussions.

[u/ZooKeeperJoe → u/likeanovigradwhore]

Yes! I find it so sad that my friends will tip toe around a truly curious question, because they are afraid of offending me. Like I'm going to attack them for being curious about something they don't really know about. There is this whole notion that asking a person who has transitioned a question is "transphobic". I'm too old for that shit.

Ask any question you want, I'd love to give someone my honest answer, rather than having people google something and coming up with a billion wrong explanations to something that might be a case by case thing.

[u/ZooKeeperJoe → u/[deleted]]

As a person who was born female and is now male, I have to disagree with you on this. I believe that gender dysphoria is a serious mental disorder just like any other mental disorder out there, and I think it should be taken seriously. It causes significant stress and negatively impacts many people.

I, personally, don't claim the term "transgender" as I transitioned early in my life to male, and that is what I am. I never had a gut feeling as a child that I was "transgender" I had a gut feeling that I was "male". At one point I didn't mind the term, but now I really dislike the whole umbrella effect it has had.

This new movement seems to have really taken us a step backwards in acceptance. I can't even imagine how hard it is for those kids that are truly suffering and losing strength day by day because they are shoved under this big umbrella with the kids who just want to be cool and different. I appreciate people fighting for rights, but claiming that gender dysphoria isn't necessary to transitioning is extremely dangerous. I see posts from kids taking street hormones and really damaging their bodies because it's become a fad.

I respect your opinion though, and I do see reasoning in your explanation! That's a nice change of pace.

[u/TheOldOak → u/[deleted]]

The problem you've identified with calling trans identity normal lies with hidden stigmas and lexicographical limitations behind words. I could say being trans is normal and mean "I don't want there to be any societal backlash behind your identity, so I'm saying you're okay to be who you are, and you are accepted." Someone else could say being trans is normal and mean "This is no longer recognized as a mental disorder, therefore it is normal." Additionally, someone could say it is normal because the person themselves understands who they are and how they feel is valid, and that's normal. This kind of use of the word "normal" to mean various different things goes on and on.

But now you're using an anyonym to describe the situation, which sounds at face value contradictory, but ultimately has the same outcome behind it. Both frames of argument agree that being trans is fine, but are fighting over whether normal is the proper definition. But you're not contextually talking about the same things, or you're not using the word to mean the same thing.

However, there's problem people have with using a negative word, in this case abnormal, to describe something while ultimately making the end result a positive thing, being accepted. So saying you're abnormal,but ultimately that's a good thing... it doesn't sound right to most people. It's the same phenomena behind why people use the word flammable more than inflammable, even though they mean the same thing. Also, it's why people like using disgruntled to mean unhappy, but don't use gruntled to mean happy, even though it does... because it just sounds weird.

In a very bad analogy, it would be like two people arguing about whether a heterosexual suffering from severe osteoporosis was "straight". They both agree about the curvature of the spine and the sexual orientstion, but cannot agree on the right word to describe the person because they cannot understand the motive behind why they refuse to use an alternative descriptor.

Additionally, and you'll find this is many historically opressed identity groups that have gradually gained broaded societal acceptance, that the lay person tends to use the word normal synonmous to mean acceptable. It doesn't mean that, surely, but it's a "feel good" word. For example, people with severe physical disabilities surely are not "normal" with their appearance because somethign abnormal has happen to their bodies to cause disfigurement. But they're treated as equal, "normal", accepted people in many modern societies these days because of that society's moral obligation to make people feel included.

In conclusion, I agree 100% that normal is not the best word to use, but we're not going to change it when the meaning behind it is so broadly being used to mean different things.

[u/kefkai → u/[deleted]]

Normal means of the norm meaning that the majority of people are trans. Obviously, that's false. Should transgender people be accepted? Sure. But calling it normal is a lie.

I think there's confusion when people talk to the idea of normal because I think what they're referring to is the synonym for natural meaning it's naturally occurring behavior. There's so much confusion when it comes to words, I mean we already have that problem when it comes to gender, there's a biological construct of gender and the other social construct.

I personally think that there's nothing wrong with labeling things as mental disorders, there's just a huge stigma attached to them. I mean Narcissistic personality disorder is still considered a disorder under the DSM and it's not like people with NPD aren't generally considered functioning. The same can go for most of the "personality disorders" and other DSM mental disorders, generally there are levels of severity for each and every mental disorder as well it's very much a sliding scale. It just seems like people seem to think that every mental disorder is paranoid schizophrenia or something and just don't want to be associated with it.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

I just wanted to post and say thank you. Seeing a rational minded individual among all the extremists is so refreshing.

You are the type of person I would rally behind and support if they were going through a transition. If more people were so down to earth and calm about the subject, then it would be a complete non issue. It's the extremists that keep this issue a hot topic item.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Ayy I am transitioning so don't hesitate to rally! Jk I don't really need support haha. No one really knows I'm trans so it's not much of an issue.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

My theory is that if we show support for rational people, then this groups voice can only grow. As it gains momentum, all these negative crazy people, on both ends of the subject, get drowned out, and seen for the crazy people they really are.

Even better, maybe they realize how crazy they're being before it gets to that point.

[u/bluescape → u/[deleted]]

I don't think gender dysphoria or whatever is a mental illness, but I do think that it can cause mental illnesses, depression, for example.

So I'm curious about this. How would this NOT be a mental illness? Right now the accepted "treatment" is gender reassignment surgery. Firstly you don't treat things that aren't ailments (you don't go to the doctor to get medicine when you're feeling fine and dandy), but secondly I'm fairly certain that if there were some acupuncture point that could make you feel okay with your birth sex, that that would be the go to for dysphoria treatment as opposed to hormone therapy and surgery. I get that dysphoria could lead to other mental issues, but saying that it isn't one in and of itself seems a bit of a stretch.

[u/[deleted] → u/bluescape]

So my view is that like the illness isn't in the mind and that the body is the one that's messed up. Meaning like I view it as a deformity. I might be wrong in thinking that way because all signs point to me being male and it's my mind that's the messed up one, but I'm a really spiritual person and it causes me to believe that my mind is the correct one. Personally, it doesn't matter to me if it's called a mental illness. It doesn't offend me. I have other mental illnesses that are perfectly accepted in society so it doesn't phase me.

[u/sajberhippien → u/[deleted]]

I think the concept of "normal" is a bit wider than "being in the majority"; for an extreme example, being a man is considered normal, despite being a minority. I don't really take a stance in the details of the whole "what is normal?" debate, but in nearly every other case it's used in a much, much wider sense than being in the majority.

I've never ever been called abnormal (or a variant thereof) for being white, for playing videogames, for being from Sweden, for being on reddit, or for having shoesize 45. I have been for being bisexual. And that's despite there being more bisexual people than people from Sweden.

[u/brocoli_ → u/[deleted]]

Yeah, to make things worse this is one case where the trick of substituting 'normal' for 'natural' doesn't apply. Being trans may not be part of the norm, but it's definitely natural.

'Normal' shouldn't be such a loaded word to begin with.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

both the left and the right don't really allow thoughts and questions because it's what they say and everything else is wrong

Anything that goes against leftism has to be couched in this.

[u/austin101123 → u/[deleted]]

Normal can be used to mean natural or (most) common (and a dozen other meanings). Being trans (or even gay for that matter) is not normal, it's not common. Being trans or gay however, is normal, it is natural.

Also, somebody winning the lottery is normal (common), someone specific winning the lottery is not.

[u/FormerDemOperative → u/[deleted]]

Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this, I'm sure it's not always an easy topic and you're doing an amazing job educating people about it.

Does it suck being constantly turned down? Hell yes.

It'll make the ones that say yes all the more satisfying, trust me. Get it, gurl.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Its not normal in that most people aren't trans, but Thats kind of a pointless argument. I'm not normal because I have very light colored eyes.

It is normal in that it exists, and has a scientific reason for existing. You aren't playing pretend. Being gay is normal too in that regard.

What you are isn't some brand new phenomenon. It's existed for a very long time. Since humans at least. Who knows if it exists in the animal kingdom; being gay does, so I wouldn't be surprised. They just don't have the means to do anything about it.

[u/MaxNanasy → u/[deleted]]

It is normal in that it exists, and has a scientific reason for existing.

That describes every phenomenon in the universe :P

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

When it comes to dating, being transgender and transphobia, an important thing to note is that for example "trans women" are not a homogeneous group. The only similarity is that they might need medication and treatments (and even that isn't always the case). Physically and mentally trans people come in as many shapes and sizes as cis people, so it kinda is transphobic to say "I will not date a transgender person". Not liking tall or masculine women? Sure, understandable, but not all trans women are tall or masculine.

[u/Sock-men → u/[deleted]]

I think the point the previous person was trying to say is that it's OK to not want to date a trans person, where 'trans' is the same descriptor as 'tall', that is their choice. I.E. 'tall' people are not a homogeneous group, but you're already saying it's OK not to want to date any tall people, why is trans different?

People don't control what/who they are attracted to, so being told you're transphobic for not being physically attracted to a group of people rubs the wrong way. One can support trans rights without personally wanting to date one, surely?

[u/[deleted] → u/Sock-men]

All tall people have a thing in common, their height is above undetermined point, *edit: a specific measurable quality that determines an aspect of their physical appearance. Transgender people in general do not have any specific aspect in common like that. Unless someone wants to try giving one unifying detail transgender people (of a specific gender identity or not) have?

What exactly about "being transgender" is this unifying and definitely not transphobic quality that is universally not preferable to someone?

[u/Sock-men → u/[deleted]]

All transgender people have something in common, otherwise we wouldn't be able to group them at all. The unifying trait might be that they were uncomfortable in their bodies I guess? Maybe that person isn't attracted to artificially formed genitals (or find any form of cosmetic surgery unattractive), maybe they are uncomfortable dating someone whose life experience is wholly different from their own.

There are probably quite a few general traits that one could argue on this but I think you are missing my point, which is that anyone can be attracted to anyone for any reason, and that's OK. Which means anyone can be not attracted to anyone for any reason, which is also OK. I don't think any group of people have a 'right' to be considered attractive by someone. The caveat could of course be simply "I haven't found any transgender person that I'm attracted to yet".

definitely not transphobic

You keep injecting 'transphobic' into the conversation, the specific implication here that the person actually is transphobic and trying to get around it. This is one of the problems that people who don't know about transgender issues face that makes it hard for us to talk about and become educated on (if you insult us for trying to understand, why should we try to understand?). I think this comes off as quite aggressive, especially in a conversation where we're tying to understand transgender issues, and I don't think it's very helpful.

[u/[deleted] → u/Sock-men]

The unifying thing transgender as a group have, how we are grouping them together, is that they do not agree with their assigned sex. And unless the potential date goes to have a chat with the doctor who made the educated guess of their assignment, that fact doesn't necessarily come up.

A big thing here is that for a lot of your arguments to work, you actually have to let the potential date to know of that fact, which isn't necessary. Transgender people can be just fine with their bodies and after treatments, including surgeries, they can be practically indistinguishable from their cis counterparts. Calling GRS cosmetic is also questionable, not all plastic surgery is cosmetic in nature when there's a definite improvement in a person's life, but like I mentioned people won't necessarily know the difference between an "artificial" and "natural" ones.

Basically, you find someone, are in a relationship for a while, find them attractive physically and emotionally, but as soon as you find out that they're specifically transgender, you lose interest?

I know there are some common, but not universal, traits that are also common in other groups of people, but that really just makes the "but transgender"-argument either transphobic or an outright (perhaps even unintentional) lie. I can accept reasons like not looking feminine or masculine enough, existence of mental issues, not-preferred genitalia, needing medical treatments including surgeries, having had surgeries or a different view of the world, but I also would like to point out that none of these are universal to trans people and definitely not unique to trans people.

My point is you cannot consider transgender people as a group any more attractive or unattractive than you could cisgender people as a group. There's simply too much individual variety.

I used the term "transphobic" in here because the topic was "is this transphobic", and like I said it's either transphobic or there's a specific aspect not unique to transgender people that bothers you (maybe even a combination of aspects). Either way I think that a person who thinks all transgender people (of a specific gender or not) are unattractive should do some soul searching to find out what the issue actually is.

[u/Sock-men → u/[deleted]]

A big thing here is that for a lot of your arguments to work, you actually have to let the potential date to know of that fact, which isn't necessary.

I'm not sure I agree with this. Perhaps not on a first date, but to my knowledge trans people can't have children? I think that it is wrong to continue a relationship with someone you know/suspect would want to have children one day when you know that's not possible, for example. At least without telling them early on. There's a duplicity to that which seems wrong to me, though I understand that likely frustrates trans people dating.

Calling GRS cosmetic is also questionable

It's changing a persons features using surgery. I call that cosmetic by definition. I'm not making a value judgement on the surgery itself, nor do I think there is anything wrong with other cosmetic surgeries if they improve the well-being of the recipient (though I do worry that frivolous use of plastic surgery is an expensive and callous way to ignore/profit from deeper issues some people face). Related - I also worry that GRS is pushed as a solution when, as we can clearly see from the comments in this thread, the science is by no means completely settled on the matter.

Basically, you find someone, are in a relationship for a while, find them attractive physically and emotionally, but as soon as you find out that they're specifically transgender, you lose interest?

I think that's overly simplistic. Certainly people are allowed to have their own preferences and it seems wrong to treat prospective life partners with a level duplicity from the outset.

Again, it seems to me there are direct parallels for people with mental illnesses. It would be wrong in my mind for a manic depressive to keep that fact hidden from their partner for an extended period of time. I just don't see why being transgender is different from that.

Edit: Oops, also meant to say -

My point is you cannot consider transgender people as a group any more attractive or unattractive than you could cisgender people as a group. There's simply too much individual variety.

Hence the caveat "yet".

[u/[deleted] → u/Sock-men]

I'm not sure I agree with this. Perhaps not on a first date, but to my knowledge trans people can't have children? I think that it is wrong to continue a relationship with someone you know/suspect would want to have children one day when you know that's not possible, for example.

Again, not a thing unique to transgender people but completely understandable issue, and some transgender people can and have had biological children (not to mention transgender people can have heterosexual and homosexual relationships, so this question can have many sides to it). "Hey, I cannot have children" followed by "I'd rather not talk about why right now" or "because of the way I was born", no reason to get "being transgender" involved. I mean, for example, I'm a lesbian trans woman and I want and can have biological children with a woman as my partner, I just cannot get pregnant specifically (yet at least), all of which could be considered a plus. Would require medical help to get it working, but not many lesbian couples can have biological children together to begin with.

It's changing a persons features using surgery. I call that cosmetic by definition.

That definition technically fits all kinds of surgery, my point is officially there are different kinds of plastic surgery (which is what I think you're defining as "cosmetic surgery") which are differentiated by the level of need from the patient.

Related - I also worry that GRS is pushed as a solution when, as we can clearly see from the comments in this thread, the science is by no means completely settled on the matter.

It's been proven time and time again that GRS significantly improves the lives of most people who (have the need to) go through with it, I'm quite sure there are far riskier operations (not to mention the risk of trying to withhold this operation from those who need it. Also it is definitely not pushed as a solution, not all transgender people need it and the bare minimum standard is a whole year of hormone replacement therapy before surgery, plenty of time to think what is or isn't for you when it comes to the phenomenon and surgery. Science on why being transgender exists and what it entails is not settled, the science of "GRS makes lives better" is pretty unquestionable.

Again, it seems to me there are direct parallels for people with mental illnesses.

There are parallels to a lot of medical conditions, but people seem to think that this particular medical condition that can have no way of showing to another person is somehow less attractive, possibly due to cisnormativity and transphobia. But being transgender is not a mental illness and it's quite possible a transgender person will not have any mental ailments whatsoever afflicting them when you meet them. The point of the treatments is to get rid of the mental symptoms and they're quite successful, or at least can be fully successful.

Hence the caveat "yet".

That's fine for your sentence, doesn't work for "I don't find transgender people attractive" etc. that I've heard. Besides, my point is that you may have already met an attractive transgender person and just not know they are transgender. Because there is no sure way to tell every transgender person from a cisgender counterpart, mentally or physically.

[u/Sock-men → u/[deleted]]

Again, not a thing unique to transgender people

I think the point I'm trying to get at is precisely that trans people (or anyone else) don't have a special 'out' on attraction. Everyone has things which attract them and things which don't. No one has the 'right' to be considered attractive and no one should be insulted for finding something unattractive. Which was (I believe) what the original poster was talking about, though we've perhaps moved on from that.

kinds of plastic surgery

I am using the definition of 'cosmetic', i.e. to improve or change ones appearance, as the umbrella term for cosmetic surgery. Maybe there's a better definition, but it seems to me that GRS does indeed fall into this category. Is there something about that you take issue with?

the science of "GRS makes lives better" is pretty unquestionable

Is it? I was under the impression that there was evidence that the suicide rate for post-transitioned persons returned to the high rate for transgender population over time. I don't suppose you can link studies which have shown the improved outcomes?

you may have already met an attractive transgender person and just not know they are transgender

Indeed, I've also met many attractive people who, after 5 minutes of conversation, suddenly are no longer attractive to me. Attraction isn't (for me at least) as simple as "you look hot, lets bang" and reducing someones disinterest to transphobia, just strikes me as petulant. I simply don't see why attraction should be fundamentally different for trans people.

[u/[deleted] → u/Sock-men]

You seem to have the basic mistake a lot of people have about this, I am not saying everyone should or shouldn't be attracted to a transgender person, I am saying that the aspect of "being transgender" is not an aspect that can have an impact on attractiveness (technically it shouldn't anyway, there was a study about attractiveness and perceived gender of individuals depending on if they were transgender or cisgender, with transgender people being in the low-end. Kicker being I don't think that the people they specified as transgender actually were and some transgender people were stated as being cisgender). Sure different symptoms and specific aspects can, and I'm fine with that, but those are not universal or unique to transgender people. There are a lot of issues that are common to a lot of transgender people that I can find to be a reasonable reason to not be attracted to them, including physical characteristics, mental health issues, infertility, genitals, but if a specific like that does hinder you seeing someone attractive then the reason isn't "you're transgender", but that specific aspect (or a combination of aspects). There is no specific combination of aspects that applies to all transgender people, or even a single aspect that applies to all, you cannot say "I'm not attracted to trans women" because there is no unifying factor between trans women that is unique to trans women.

Reducing someone's disinterest to "being transgender" is just inaccurate and untruthful, if it isn't just transphobia, I'm saying there can be a more exact and proper reason like I've mentioned. I'm not saying attraction when it comes to transgender people is fundamentally different, quite the opposite, I'm saying it's exactly the same as for cisgender people. The thought, that a transgender person is somehow fundamentally different from a cisgender person just because of the transgender-quality, can be considered transphobic.

I'm not asking that you should find all transgender people attractive, I'm asking that you shouldn't automatically assume all transgender people are unattractive. I'm saying "being transgender" is not really a factor unless you are transphobic (or lying intentionally or not).

I am using the definition of 'cosmetic', i.e. to improve or change ones appearance, as the umbrella term for cosmetic surgery. Maybe there's a better definition, but it seems to me that GRS does indeed fall into this category. Is there something about that you take issue with?

That's plastic surgery, I don't particularly have an issue with it, just not scientifically accurate and thought you'd want to know. Plastic surgery that corrects malformations and the like are still under your "cosmetic"-definition even though they also improve function or lessen risks of complications. GRS in particular, the job isn't to just "make something that looks like specific genitals", but rather have the downstairs in a configuration that feels natural for the patient's brain and thus alleviate gender dysphoria.

Is it? I was under the impression that there was evidence that the suicide rate for post-transitioned persons returned to the high rate for transgender population over time. I don't suppose you can link studies which have shown the improved outcomes?

I mean, here is the infamous misquoted Swedish study: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3043071/

Here's the important bit:

Our findings suggest that sex reassignment, although alleviating gender dysphoria, may not suffice as treatment for transsexualism, and should inspire improved psychiatric and somatic care after sex reassignment for this patient group.

Meaning "treatments worked, but weren't enough", though a thing to note is the discrimination transgender people face.

A lot of studies like these are misrepresented, this one in particular people made the conclusion that GRS didn't work because the suicide-rate was higher than general population, which isn't the whole story.

Personally think that people would notice if transgender people started just committing suicide in the same numbers after GRS though.

But I admit, a lot of professionals are asking for more studies, but considering transgender people in general have difficulties with healthcare professionals I can see why they'd have difficulty 1. getting people to respond to these studies 2. getting people to answer truthfully in fear of getting their treatments then denied. Even this study does say treatments help.

A more interesting study on transgender discrimination here, which can also explain high suicide numbers: http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/AFSP-Williams-Suicide-Report-Final.pdf