The question, then, is: If they find the cause to be related to some genetic marker which they can map and identify and/or to some "shower" of androgens or other hormonal chemicals in utero which they can accurately time and measure, will the overall effect of this breakthrough be positive, validating our "condition" to institutions that have resisted acknowledgment? For the most part, would we finally get coverage for SRS and other procedures from medical insurance companies? Would we gain consideration for government legislation that no longer includes the religious (and "moral") argument against it?
Or, would the effect be largely negative? After all, with identified genetic markers and/or hormonal shower timeframes and chemicals, the potential to create a "cure" would then exist. If such a "cure" was found and could be implemented in utero or childhood to a trans* individual under parental direction, does this not have serious and frightening negative connotations, virtually eliminating our community by removing the right of control of the individual's body and feelings?
My friend argued the latter and felt the potential negative results should cause concern enough to consider whether the positives may be worth the risk the negatives present. I argued the former and that the positives could exist without the negatives. I further argued that what she was proposing was an extreme violation of human rights. I could not imagine that in this day of rights awareness and activism there would not be such an uproar as to prevent these catastrophic violations.
Of course, we both agree wholeheartedly that we do not have a disease that requires curing. We have a condition (with a newly discovered physical basis, in my scenario) that requires a certain individualized regimen of therapy, HRT, and/or surgery to allow us to exist as both trans* and the gender we wish to be. I don't believe either of us is right or wrong and we probably do agree with the other in many points. It was simply a debate to stir thought.
Does anybody have any thoughts or agreement with either of our positions? Is there information I'm unaware of that may invalidate the entire debate, or even "spin" the debate in general in another direction?