I think the other side gets it wrong by assuming any change is just progress. To me, messing with something as basic as gender feels like we are trying to fix nature instead of live with it, and I am not sure that ends well.

[No submission - Time expired]

The other side's case seems to rest on the idea that since nature changes anyway, steering it is no big deal. But there's a difference between a river carving its own path over centuries and someone dynamiting the bank to speed it up. Nature's changes are slow, tested, and woven together; tinkering with gender is a sudden edit with no map of the consequences. My opponent might say we've always altered ourselves, but a tool that reshapes identity reaches deeper than any of that. We're not evolving here, we're improvising.