“We should also have the freedom to engage in new norms of gender identity for a new millennium. The justification for these new norms are in a way also informed by the biological imperative: the desire for life. We should only legislate on gender rights, gender identity, and sexual rights when it serves to reduce harm, expand our quality of life, and increase the stability of society.”
I fail to see how cultural norms that have served the human race well for at least 10,000 years should suddenly be replaced just because the date now starts will a 2: what scientific justification is there for that assertion? I agree with your second sentence though: We should not legislate on gender rights, gender identity, and sexual rights since such social engineering experimentation could harm humanity, have unknown consequences, and destabilise society for 0.05% of people who have defective gender programming, and want their abnormality to be the new norm. That’s a bit like operating on healthy people to make them deaf so they can join the signing culture, because they “identify” as hearing impaired! There have been cases where deaf people refused free cochlear implants because they didn’t want to join the majority hearing culture…I kid you not.
You should at least consider the possibility that a man who wants to be a woman doesn’t need surgery, he needs mental help. Surgery at best converts the healthy man into a eunuch with non-functioning secondary female characteristics, who may be happy in this mutilated state, but should not expect society to condone it, and definitely should not expect taxpayers to fund the mutilation. He should consider becoming transvestite or gay: at least those choices are reversible.
From an evolutionary perspective, any member of the species who neuters himself has committed reproductive suicide: this runs completely against all our biological drives, and is almost a biological definition of insanity.
Having said all that, I support freedom of choice, and if the man waits till sexual maturity (in case he grows out of wanting to be a girl once Testosterone kicks in) before undergoing gender reassignment surgery at his own expense, and thereafter wants to dress as a woman, then good luck to him. I think it is a terrible life-decision to make, but as long as he doesn’t intrude on the rights of anyone else, who cares? He won’t need to “legislate on gender rights” to use the woman’s toilet if his alterations and disguise are in the least bit effective, he’ll just do so. Unlike men’s urinals women’s toilets are private, and dressed as a woman, he won’t be welcome in the men’s toilet anyway. Anyone who presents as a woman is treated as a woman already: that is already our gender norm.
This sort of reduces your whole argument to gobbledegook: who knows what you even mean by “a female-bodied transman”?