United States Citizens should not be allowed to undergo gender-transformation surgery

IntroductionGender transformation therapies, like many other civil-rights-related issues, have come under political controversy over whether they should be allowed. Practically everybody has his own opinion on the subject. In this debate, I shall demonstrate that, yes, these therapies ought to be allowed; in order to do so, I will prove that the benefits of allowing them outweighs the costs and risks.I will do so with two arguments: that the aforementioned therapies are psychologically beneficial to patients, and that even if these therapies were harmful, banning them would do more harm than good. RebuttalsBefore I begin my own arguments, however, I would like to address some of my opponent’s points. There were two main points in his argument: that transgenderism does not exist, and that the “victims” of medical interventions used to change people’s bodies to fit their minds are harmed by the therapies they receive. Pro stated that one is born as a man or a woman, and that no surgical interventions can change that. However, medical research states that one can sometimes be born with a brain that doesn’t completely match one’s body. For instance, a biological male who identifies as a female might have a brain that resembles a female brain in some ways. [1] This can cause transgender people to feel like they are controlling the wrong body. [2] As such, the notion that transgenderism itself is a fraud seems not to be based on actual fact.Pro has also stated that gender transformation therapies increase suicides and damaging psychological tendencies, and cited LiveScience, a science news journal. However, that source appears to completely contradict Pro’s claims. The source quoted medical professor Gail Knudsen, who stated that gender transformation therapies actually cause a "significant decrease in substance abuse problems and depression” among transgender individuals, and the journal attributes suicides not to the therapy, but rather to discrimination and social stigma. [2] This was an egregious misrepresentation of the source by Pro.Constructive caseBenefits to patientsCarrying out medical procedures that help people improve their lives more than they harm them is one of the major purposes of the medical and pharmaceutical industry. It is necessary that these procedures are not blocked by authorities, as doing so would stop doctors from doing their jobs. As such, if I demonstrated that the therapy was effective in making patients feel better about themselves without too much harm, I would demonstrate that the therapy ought to be permitted. Through a study from Sweden, we can see that gender reassignment procedures improve the lives of those receiving them; the majority of participants in the study functioned better than before they received treatment. [3] The APA endorses the therapy for gender-dysphoric people. [4] For transgender people, the treatment can make their bodies feel more like their own; it allows them to change their bodies to fit their brains. This demonstrates that the therapy ought to be allowed; doing otherwise would hinder doctors and psychiatrists from helping their clients. Even if it were harmful, we still ought to allow themMany, if not all, legally permitted medical procedures have their harms. The general procedure in the medical community for potentially risky medical procedures is informed consent, in which patients are informed about the risks of procedures that they would take and then decide to consent to doing them. Convention dictates that even if gender reassignment therapy were risky, it should still be allowed on a case-by-case basis with informed consent, with the patient and the doctor discussing about whether the therapy is a proper choice. Otherwise, consistency would dictate that practically every medical procedure needs to be banned: every procedure, from chemotherapy to brain surgeries, has its risks. Let’s assume that gender reassignment therapy is harmful. In the status quo, patients seeking the therapy are able to go to regulated practitioners and receive it in a system that is under governmental scrutiny; this significantly reduces any risks that may be incurred from it. Patients usually receive psychological counselling to ensure that the procedure is right for them. Under pro’s proposal, the therapy would be banned, but there would still be demand for it; patients may choose to receive the therapy overseas or in shady back-alleys, without any governmental scrutiny over safety, entailing all kinds of risks. Worse yet, a patient may decide to take the therapy when he has no actual gender dysphoria, and this would not be stopped by psychological counselling, as without safety regulations, there would be none. ConclusionIn this debate, I have demonstrated that gender reassignment therapies are a benefit to patients, and that banning them would entail a whole host of risks. I have also adequately addressed all of my opponent’s points, one of which, as I have revealed, was based on a misrepresentation of a source. As such, I urge you to vote for me, as although both sides have presented well-thought out arguments, I have clearly on the high ground in terms of accuracy and logic. Thank you. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org...[2]http://www.livescience.com...[3]http://link.springer.com...[4]http://link.springer.com...