Hypothetical: if gender swap was possible, it shouldn't be legal.

Thanks for your response, Pro. I would agree that sex changes should be legally available to everyone (with potential limits like age restrictions and insurance standards), though I imagine only people who identify as transgender or transexual would seek those operations. In fact they are already legal and currently being improved for better safety and results. Pro claims that without sex changes, people can only alter their appearance in a minor way and thus do not pose a risk to society. This is false. Many cross-dressers and transgender people pose as the opposite sex without having surgery, and could easily pass as they intend. Some examples include but are not limited to Really a woman: http://www.teara.govt.nz...Really a woman: http://www.teara.govt.nz...Really a man: http://i1.ytimg.com...Really a man: http://slaq.am...I've selected only facial images because people can alter their body image without surgery, such as through stuffing their bra or restricting their breasts. People can also change their voice naturally through will, or by taking hormones that deepen their voice as well as affect their body hair and other anatomical distinctions. Pro dropped my argument from autonomy. I pointed out that one's body belongs to one's own person. To suggest that one does not have proprietary ownership of their own body, and that the majority should be able to dictate how one's body is displayed essentially makes people slaves. We don't say that people cannot get tattoos or piercings just because some people don't like them or agree with them. Even though tattoos, hair cuts, make up, etc. affect the way people look, they are legal. Americans have the right to free expression. I explained that people who receive sex changes can have these surgeries legally documented, much like people having their names changed have to get it recorded for reference and data keeping. This will protect against the possibility that criminals altar their sex to hide from the law. Pro claims "this would essentially double the amount of identifying documents a single individual would have to deal with." Note that Pro never explains how or why that is true. Having a record of something doesn't mean something has to come up in every single transaction. Pro continues, "This doesn't translate to the entire companies suddenly having to deal with 'twice' the staff, but preventing overpay/underpay and other matters that would risk missing/doubling objectives would require an intense amount of resources and management." I'm not sure what this means. What does overpay/underpay have to do with sex changes? We have no reason to believe the option for one to have a sex change suddenly translates to massive bureaucracy throughout society. Additionally, it must be noted how improbable the likelihood of potential abuse is. First, sex changes cost a lot of money [1] and a criminal would likely not be able to afford such a surgery on a whim. Second, surgeries create drastic and often permanent changes to the body that can be life altering [2]. One who is not transgender or transexual would likely not want to pursue such an expensive and dramatic procedure to avoid being caught for a crime. Aside from that, Pro does not offer any other realistic threats to society. Pro writes, "Trans-genders would probably flock at the opportunity, there isn't an argument here, but some groups might see this as another violation towards their beliefs." This argument doesn't make sense. If transgender people are currently suffering and experience traumatic isolation, depression and dysfunction on the basis of their disorder, why punish them further by restricting them from something that they want? Pro seemingly defeats his own argument here. If this is important (and common) to so many people, and they would choose a risky and expensive procedure just to be happy, they should have that option. Pro argues that it's possible for some feminists to suggest changing one's sex in order to achieve political or social status. That is a pretty outrageous suggestion with little to no reasonable support, but sure it's possible. In that case it might encourage society to rethink paradigms of gender dynamics to avoid such drastic measures. I'm not really sure many people care what extreme feminists or extreme religious zealots believe for that matter. If conservatives do not believe in sex changes, they do not have to get them. In conclusion, Pro states "Both groups could also claim that physical sex change may be forced by abusive parents who desire a child of the opposite sex, abusive friends who may dare or reject an individual into changing their sex, and abusive companies, authorities, and even strangers who are sexually interested. These all might in fact happen if physical sex change were possible." It is important to note that many things are possible, but only the probable ought to be considered. On that note, I've already agreed with certain regulations on sex change operations such as minimum age requirements. This is reasonable as society has imposed restrictions on things like driving and other contractual agreements based on one's age. Therefore this complication of forced sex change from one's parents is inapplicable. Moreover it is highly unlikely that one can or would get a sex change on a dare. Pro has to prove that this unlikely scenario ought to be considered. It's POSSIBLE that one chokes on a pretzel, but pretzels are still legal. It's possible that any surgery will kill you, but many (most) are legal. We have no explanation as to how abusive companies or strangers who are sexually interested could force sex changes. Back to you. [1] http://www.surgeryencyclopedia.com...[2] http://www.chet-plasticsurgery.com...