Again, I said nothing about transsexuals who do not qualify for reassignment surgery. All the transsexuals I have known had qualified and were scheduled. GID is a real affliction with real suffering and is no more summoned than my diabetes.
My main point is that "trans" merges two unrelated peoples, one of whom has my support and other of whom has my contempt. I see transvestites as pathologically self-absorbed people who use cross-gender cosplay as a means to keep the subject on themselves.
As for GID if you want to increase my taxes to cover the costs of their treatment, I will gladly pay.
But in employing the language of cis and trans you are reinforcing the divisions. Where does "meta" fit in, by the way? I won't use those; humanity is not bifurcated into those whose gender behavior is in accordance with their chromosomes and those who are not. Don't we already have enough such divisions?
Left-handed people comprise a consistent 5% of the population and they don't even get their own pencil sharpeners.
But there is hardly anything new about marginalized groups aggressively identifying with and increasing their marginalization. See parades, pride; see ACT-UP; see the "reclamation" of "queer."
And ask yourself, seriously, what would satisfy the "trans" community? What milestone would allow them to consider the hurly-burly done?
Because I have very clear memories of gay people who regarded assimilation as the dirtiest word in the language and who sneered at married equality, and who now feel adrift since being gay isn't as shocking as it was thirty years ago.