Agree with your point absolutely. Having worked in health services myself, this comes up all the time.
Should a chair bound woman in her 90s, who's family have all died and who has decided that she wants to fade away, be treated for depression and given intravenous feeding because she might have another few years of life?
With respect though, this is a somewhat separate issue.
The term moral was used by the NASA man in terms of moral leadership by scientists.
The arguments in favour of surgical treatment for gender dysphoria are clear. In the majority of cases it works. A statistical determination of course. The opposition case, as presented, seems to be entirely judgemental.
I suggest it isn't the place of scientists to make these judgements.
We all have to make judgements.
But the difference is these scientists, with what can only be described as an impressive record, scientifically, claiming that their scientific background qualifies them for moral leadership.
The principal of democracy is that we each can manage our own lives, individualism, and participate in the overall management of our society. These are two separate issues though.
The intrusion of societal management should only intrude upon individual management where the aspirations of the individual might intrude upon the rest of society.
In western society, for example, we don't, generally, permit people to walk around naked. In itself, public nudity isn't going to affect anyone else. But social attitudes, albeit, perceptually, interpreted nudity, as a provocative act rather than an individual decision on personal appearance. So, a western society will generally prohibit this.
In western society, we generally, have no restriction on homosexuality. You and I, being of a similar age and coming from the same area of the world, will recall a time when homosexuality was not tolerated. My own time, living in homosexual relationships were actually criminal offences!
But society has changed its attitudes. There was, admittedly, a latter day contribution, from scientist types, who delivered a conveniently times and somewhat specious pronouncement about homosexuality being innate. But societies attitudes had already shifted. Largely from the contribution from the arts.
Moral leadership must be fluid. It must be capable of adaptation and flexibility to reflect the changing attitudes of the time.
Science is not fluid. It is absolute. Where is does alter, is in the face of new evidence. It matter not that the majority believe the world to be flat, science clearly demonstrated that it is round. (Shadow on the moon).
But morality is the source of societal management. It must reflect the attitudes of the majority. Quite simply because, if the people don't support law, the law doesn't exist. (Swift).
