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

Pro's argument is limited to the possibility that criminals in particular will utilize sex reassignment surgery to avoid prosecution. I have already addressed this far-fetched concern. First, I noted that sex surgery would have to be legally recorded and documented much like a name change. My opponent argues that people might avoid the rules. In that case, he is defeating his own argument. In noting that people break the law (he included the example of Prohbition), all this proves is that things will still happen even if they are illegal. By that logic, why criminalize sex surgery? People will still have it done anyway by working around the rules. Of course it's unlikely, which is why Pro's argument that people will avoid the rules of documentation is also unlikely and thus irrelevant. Most of the time, people obey reasonable laws either because they are just, or breaking them would result in penalty. Pro hasn't proven that it would be easy or likely for criminals to do this. Second, I pointed out that it's already possible for criminals to change their appearance through things like makeup and contacts. Pro agrees, but says sex surgery is more drastic and it's just another tool to avoid identidy. In that case, why not criminalize makeup all together? It's just another tool to conceal identity. Sure some people want it for cosmetic reasons. .. the same way a lot of people want sex reassignment surgery for cosmetic or even medicinal reasons. In other words, just because something could be abused definitely does not mean it ought to be illegal. Knives can be abused but are legal. Thus far, Pro hasn't given us any statistics or examples that prove it is likely criminals will have their sex changed to avoid prosecution. I have argued that it is unlikely on account of the severity of the operation, and more importantly the cost. People can risk having procedures done from unlicensed or unregulated practiotioners, but doing so is dangerous. By keeping sex changes illegal, Pro would be encouraging those desperate enough to find a doctor willing to perform the surgery on them in a way that might be unsafe and undocumented. Pro's suggestion of criminality is putting people who want or need the surgery (for their mental well being) at unnecessary risk. Pro's argument that people are oppressed in other parts of the world has absolutely nothing to do with the laws or rights of this country. Just because women, gays, etc. are oppressed in Uganda does not mean they are or should be oppressed here. Ergo, please extend all of my arguments regarding the right to personal autonomy and free expression. In this country we have the right to free speech and the right to look however we want. My opponent has dropped (and conceded) the vast majority of my arguments. I've pointed out that transexuals experience traumatic isolation and depression as a result of their disorder. Why prevent them from seeking a personal procedure if doing so causes no immediate harm or danger to anyone else? The only threat Pro came up with was far-fetched and unsupported. If a transexual in Chicago has sex reassignment surgery today, the majoroty of people in that city would have no idea or concern. If surgery is important (and a common desire) for so many transgendered people, and they would choose a risky and expensive procedure just to be happy, they should have that option. Pro has failed to provide a reasonable explanation as to why they should be made to suffer instead. EVEN IF a few criminals did change their sex (which I must reiterate is a ridiculous assumption), it's no reason to penalize non-criminal transexuals. Please extend all of my dropped arguments from throughout this debate.