Quoth you from the piece:

Which I think is great, this is an awesome philosophical and ethical question to ponder over and I want to hear what more trans people think — hopefully without getting offended by each others responses. *crosses fingers*

So clearly you were, at some point, interested in talking ethics, contrary to you “laying out the facts.” Ethics fall squarely in the realm of hard social constructionism — there is no ethics tree from which to pluck the answer, meaning its domain is strictly speculative rather than factual.

So this isn’t “moral annoyance,” invisible sky daddy help you, but it is continued bafflement that you simultaneously claim, repeatedly, to deal in facts when you are obviously speculating, which requires the abandonment of facts.

I questioned the premise that it was an ethically valid goal to change one’s “sense of self.” You skated right past the premise multiple times in your original piece:

However that ‘relatively’ is pretty important, because it won’t be exactly “normal”. By this I mean the average experience, before anyone hounds me in the comments about it. Transition isn’t perfect, you don’t become 100% biological female or male, you don’t sprout ovaries or testes, your voice won’t unbreak and you won’t ungrow tits. Oh and of course, in some cases, there’s sterilisation. There’s a lot of problems with medical transition which I think are great grounds on which to try and seek something better.

When it boils down to it, really the argument is that we should accept that what we have isn’t ideal.

You never elabourated on this point, you simply asserted it (and then asserted it again, multiple times, in this thread). But it falls into the naturalistic fallacy — you’re falling through Hume’s gap here. You are taking an “is” — “trans folk don’t live ‘normal’ lives” — and immediately turning it into an “ought” — “ I think that in an ideal world curing dysphoria outright, from the moment you noticed it, even if it put your sense of self at risk, your whole ‘identity’, even then, is a pretty solid option.”

You need a third step, one that wasn’t provided in your OP, and the absence of which severely damages your reasoning. You need an “if,” and you need to actually defend it. If I want to preserve the existing social order, then I ought to pursue options to make gender dysphoria disappear. This is your implicit formulation.

Which leads me to the question you’ve neglected: Why ought I want to preserve the prevailing social order? Hence the original question: “ ‘Ideal’ according to whom?”

If you want to claim you’re having a “philosophical question on ethics,” this is the question you need to answer.

Or you can hurl more abuse. Your call.