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

A well-functioning society will never deny theraputic care to those who need it; otherwise, patients can be left in pain, sometimes both physiologically and psychologically. My opponent’s proposal to ban gender reassignment surgery is going to do just that; under his proposal, transgender people will no longer be able to acquire the necessary medical care for them to become more productive and to live better lives. As such, I am proud to, as con, argue against the motion that the United States should disallow gender-transformation surgery. Today I will bring forth another constructive point: that there are, in some cases, no suitable alternatives to surgery, justifying its use. Before that, however, I shall address some of my opponent’s points, and reconstruct my own case. Rebuttals My opponent’s first argument was that counselling was a more effective and safer alternative to gender transformation surgery, as it responds to the “ serious mental condition” of transgenderism that “must be treated”. However, counselling cannot be used alone in lieu of gender transformation procedures for “treating” transgenderism, as it has been shown that it’s pretty much impossible to “treat” the “disorder” through psychotherapy. [1] Since changing one’s mind to fit one’s body has proven ineffective, medical authorities instead support changing one’s body to fit one’s mind. Attempting to “erase” transgenderism from a person can even be damaging to self esteem, as it tells him that he is "ill". As Pro has not provided an adequate alternative to gender transformation surgery, he has also provided no adequate reason to ban it. My opponent has also made the utterly irrelevant point that the sex of an individual cannot be changed through surgery, as that does not make the surgery any more harmful. He has also stated that doctors cannot switch male and female hormones—again completely wrong. Sexual reassignment therapy often involves both hormonal replacement and surgery. [2] My opponent’s second argument was difficult to summarise as a single argument, so I am going to quote it completely below: Also, the person cannot become biologically the other sex, so what is the point? Even if it is therapeutical, I have proven that there are better forms of therapy and coping mechanisms. Pro has argued that if somebody cannot physically become the other sex, and there are other forms of therapy, there is no point to having surgery. His argument relies on the idea that counselling is an adequate substitution for surgery, when it alone cannot magically “cure” anyone of his transgenderism. My argument above proves him wrong. Genital restructuring will not change identity much. People can change almost every document to their chosen identity, which includes gender-identity, without having to have any medical alterations. Some people want genital restructure because they thought it would make them more of a women or male, however “identity is who we think we are, how we interact with other people, and what they think of us as a result of this interaction. Most of the time during social interaction, you will not involve what's between your legs." [1] Transgender people can and usually do live normal lives without this type of surgery, and have lasting relationships because of it, and their quality of life is usually better than people who underwent this type of surgery. Gender changing surgery was never intended to change one’s identity in the first place, so Pro’s argument seems to be a red herring. Reconstruction Responding to my first point, pro argued that gender transformation surgery was too unsafe to be allowed. He cited a Swedish study which concluded that surgery may cause an increase in suicides. However, he conveniently ignored the fact that the study did not compare transgender individuals without surgery to those who did receive surgery; instead, the study compared transgender individuals with surgery to non-transgender people, and therefore did not have a really adequate control group. [3] ….In other words, the results should not be interpreted such as sex reassignment per seincreases morbidity and mortality. Things might have been even worse without sex reassignment. As an analogy, similar studies have found increased somatic morbidity, suicide rate, and overall mortality for patients treated for bipolar disorder and schizophrenia. This is important information, but it does not follow that mood stabilizing treatment or antipsychotic treatment is the culprit…. The study did not actually prove that surgery made transgender people more likely to commit suicide, and it didn’t even prove a correlation, as it compared incomparable groups. It could be that all transgender people, not just those who have gotten a sex change surgery, have high suicide rates. Its flawed comparisons demonstrate neither a correlation nor a causation. By reading more than just the summary, we can see that the only reasonable conclusion one can draw from the study is that surgery will not magically fix someone’s brain, but can still make one’s life better when used in conjunction with other forms of therapy. It only suggests that the surgery can be used as a tool despite the risks inherent in any big medical treatment. By ignoring anything past the abstract of the study, my opponent again egregiously misrepresented a source. Responding to my second point, pro said this: On the contrary, I am arguing that the only therapy to be banned is the actual surgery, and not other forms of therapy. I am actually arguing that counseling is a much better alternative than a surgery. It is stated in the topic headline that I am arguing against SURGERY, not other forms of therapy. Also, why would people go to “shady back-alleys” for a surgery that you claim they know the risks for? I know I would not go to a back ally, and pay a person to cut my genetalia off and trust him not to do anything else with my body. I don’t care how desperate you are, people nowadays have a little common sense. As said before, counselling is not an adequate replacement for surgery on its own. My shady back alleys point was an exaggeration used to demonstrate that people will still seek the treatment if they seriously wanted to, perhaps from underground clinics. This has already happened with conversion therapy, a variant of which my opponent seems to endorse; despite generally being illegal and unethical, parents still sometimes send their LGBT children away to illegal practitionersso that they could be “cured”. Pro has also practically conceded that even if the surgery were to take place in back alleys, people would still pay for it, as “people nowadays have little common sense.” Constructive case Why Surgery is sometimes justified Every medical intervention can have its risks. As such, doctors prescribe them only in specific circumstances. Here, I shall prove that surgery is indeed sometimes justified. In some cases, a transgender person can become so uncomfortable with his bodily organs that it interferes with his life. A transgender man described his breasts as feeling akin to “alien jellyfish” sucking on his chest.[4] Transgender people sometimes can become so disgusted with their genitals that they do everything they can to stop seeing them. [5] No matter how much counselling is given to somebody, his breasts will still feel like alien jellyfish. As such, in this situation, surgery is definitely justified. Suicides that do occur can be curbed by using counselling in addition to, rather than in place of surgery. Therefore, I have shown that surgery’s benefits sometimes outweigh its risks, and that therefore it should be allowed. Conclusion While both sides raised persuasive points, I believe that I have proven my case the best. I have demonstrated that there is not a real reason to believe in an increase in suicides caused by the surgery, and that the surgery sometimes aids more than it harms. As such, I have fully met my burden to prove that it ought to be allowed. Sources in comments