>>12225012/pol/ comes here too often for actual academics to bother much with this kind of thread anymore.
So, is transgenderism real? Many self-defined transgenders fetishize it, which makes it difficult to study for any universally applicable outcomes, often coming up with studies that debunk particular cases, which then gets interpreted as "all transgenders think like this." Sexual anomalies come in several different forms, with transgenderism not being particularly unusual when people have also chosen to live life under other anomalous behaviors that they make into fundamental aspects of their identities. These behaviors include nearly any form of culture, so transgenderism is as "real" as culture is, especially now that it's become a subculture for some people. However, I doubt that this fully answers the question being raised, as it doesn't take on the individual.
Individually and with no context, a transgender can be defined as a person who is in favor of behavioral and bodily modification for themselves. Neither of these alone is any issue, with the behavioral anomaly of radical political positions not being considered a mental illness, while aesthetic body modifications like tattoos and plastic surgery are also not considered mental illness.
The line is drawn in how you interact with these people, not in what they are. The question of rights, saving them from themselves, trying to impose duties on how people interact with them, these may be precluded by the question of whether they're even real. However, the question of whether or not they're real is itself precluded by the question of whether any person who wants to participate in behavioral & bodily modification is real. Skinheads do both. Bikers do both. The rich & powerful do both. Are they real, or are they ill?
The question is meant to sidestep discussion. Personally, I think it should be handled like any other bodily & behavioral modification: do what you will, and accept the consequences.
