Crispbutty, I don't think we are as far apart as you seem to think.
You are arguing that most trans people see things differently from me. I can see that a lot are, but wonder why. And from posts from other transsexuals on here and others who have PMd me I know there are others who think this.
Is it a generational thing that todays focus on gender identity versus body dysmorphia causes the shift? Could be, It does seem that most who share my take on this are older and most who don't are younger. So that could be a pattern.
The more obvious pattern is the numbers. There is clearly a very consistent group of people who for decades have been going to seek medical help to alter their bodies to match what they feel they should be. That was in the (at most) couple of hundreds in the 1970s (90 UK ops in the year I had my surgery at the one main hospital at most double that taking private clinics and trips abroad into account).
And this is at remarkably similar levels four decades later. 143 operations in 2009. 865 in the decade 2000 - 2009.
These are mostly the ones getting GRCs even though surgery is not required and never has been. Because for them it is the culmination of a medical journey even without surgery.
The GRC figures over the past few years have consistently been in the 200s and 300s.
What you see here is no trace at all of a sudden increase or change in pattern. There is a very clear consistency.
The number of people who have a GRC today is almost exactly what parliament was told would be the approximate number 14 years ago. And why they passed it into law.
Because of modest numbers. Because of gatekeeping. Because of medical assessment even when no surgery occurred, as it most often did.
This has all the signs of a small consistent phenomenon of whatever origin that has risen slightly more or less in line with population increase but as an overall percentage of the population is remarkably stable and was predictable up front to parliament by doctors.
Whatever else transsexualism is you cannot suggest from this data that it has been radically influenced by changes in society or the widespread debate. It is what it is and what it always seemingly has been and is not being shifted up or down by any arguments about gender identity or the push for self ID.
What has clearly changed are the numbers who see the concept of changing gender very differently, often more loosely, and even with no interest or desire to change their body much of at all.
It is from here that the 5000 has suddenly become half a million wanting to be legally recognised. It is from here that the insistence not to need to be assessed or for any safeguards to be retained. It is not from transsexuals, who are still out there going the same route we always have by the looks of things.
Now whether these are two different things or two different degrees of the same thing or two different commitment levels to what they wish to do to gain legal status - does not really matter.
There is a difference, plain as day. And it is that difference of commitment level and willingness to compromise and care for how this transition impacts on the rest of society that is really the issue for most women on here.
Even if these were all one conflated 'trans' thingy, as I expect you think, and as it might even be (though I am not convinced I must admit) what matters is just one thing.
Women rightly want some protection. Some evidence of mental stability. Some sign of commitment. Some indication of willingness to compromise and recognise safe spaces. Something that says - we know we are asking a lot here, but we are perfectly happy to prove our responsibility towards you and our commitment.
I don't think this is about surgery at all. I am certainly not arguing surgery must be a necessity. It has not been for 14 years anyway.
So clearly that is not why the 595,000 who want a GRC don't have one. Because they could go get one without surgery today.
Something else is going on here and that looks to be the 'this is not a medical matter' argument.
Now let's say that were even true. For all I know it is. The point is that women suspect, I think with good reason, that sometimes it IS a medical or psychiatric concern that is manifesting as being transgender. Not all the time. Probably not even most of the time. But potentially some of the time.
And one time is too much of a risk. For them, and, in my view, the trans person who might benefit from other ways of dealing with that. Either instead of transitioning. Or before they do transition to make that process easier for all.
So why is there an apparent need to remove this entirely? Even if it is just a precaution and you are given the all clear.
It is like saying if I want to go on a trek down the Amazon, well I am really healthy and it costs £100 to get injections. I will take the chance. My choice.
Until you go, get some infectious disease you could have been inoculated against and spread that to others when you get back.
Sometimes if you want something badly enough and others express their concerns as to how it might effect them it seems not unreasonable to be willing to do something you might personally think is a bit of a palaver to reassure those you should care about.
If you do, you get what you want, they get reassurance, and all it costs you is a bit of time, a trip to the doctors and a few quid.
If you don't, then it is easy to see why many people might regard you as being selfish, or afraid.
Yet, there is
If transsexuals and the broasder