[JumpCrisscross]

> traditional gender roles are assumed to be some inescapable part of one's identity, that can only be altered by comparatively extreme means such as medical treatment

I wouldn’t consider anyone who thinks you can only change your gender with surgery a liberal.

[zozbot234]

Non-surgical treatment is still treatment, and often viewed as some sort of gateway step towards such things as surgery. Even something as insubstantial as "social transition" is still thoroughly medicalized as a matter of basic worldview.

[JumpCrisscross]

> Even something as insubstantial as "social transition" is still inherently medicalized as a matter of basic worldview

This redefines medicine to include literally all human activity, from sartorial preferences to how one crosses their legs. So sure, if we render this term meaningless we can apply it.

[zozbot234]

It's not us redefining "sartorial preferences or how one crosses their legs" as such matters, but those who push the whole worldview of "gender identity" as something relevant to these things and otherwise unchangeable. Toy aisles in retail stores are supposed to be non-gendered, but kids are being told in school that if they like "gender discordant" toys this means that their "inborn gender" is not the one they think it is and they must seek proper "reassignment".

[JumpCrisscross]

> kids are being told in school that if they like "gender discordant" toys this means that their "inborn gender" is not the one they think it is and they must seek proper "reassignment"

Source?

For what it’s worth, I’d call that hard leftist. Not liberal. In the same way I’d call someone insisting on traditional gender labels right wing, not merely conservative. (The latter applying that labelling preference to one’s own children, only.)

And returning to the proximate point, none of that is medicine.