Conversationally it's probably more about morality. However, for those like myself that have looked into the matter, it becomes a much needed discussion about standards of care. The AMA holds regular meetings to determine standards of care. Fortunately for us, they post these to YouTube. I looked and found the most recent meeting where they adopted standards of care for youth and gender dysphoria. It was a brief section about 1/3 to 1/2 way through the meeting. I'll recant and summarize what I observed from the dozen+ people in this meeting:

Lead speaker: Ok, next is medical transition for youth and adults. I'll admit I just don't know much on this topic so I'm reaching out for someone else to take the lead and discuss it.

pause...

Second speaker: Well, I also don't know that much as it's not my field, but I've looked over the proposal and what I can't find are long term studies on the effects. I think because of that we simply don't know...

Third speaker: Hi this is <?> and while this is also not my field I'm an ally and I can tell you what's been presented to us (the AMA governing body) from the APA is what they ave determined as effaceable procedure.

pause...

Lead speaker: So...I suppose we can take a vote to accept the guidelines sent to us from the APA.

pause...

Then they voted to accept it with no more discussion. I'm shortended the exchange, but it is not much more than what I am presenting to you.

Stop and think about that. We use the terms "standards of care" and understand that to mean there is some authoritative, intelligent, well founded judgement from what you and I assume are experts over these topics. That's not what happened by this review board in the AMA. There was no medical discussion, no weighing of prescriptive protocols, no measure of caution, or even of any medical literature regarding the topic. The American Medical Association simply accepted whatever the American Psychological Association told them was the correct medical protocols. What an abject failure.

I also recently watched a clip, a complaint about how women should not be a special case in medicine. This had to do with menopause and the complaint was that women are (to use a colloquial term) gate-kept from hormonal treatments (in this video, testosterone specifically) where as men not only have an established diagnosis of hypogonadism but that through only a 6 month trial, testosterone was approved by the FDA for treatment, but only for men. The complaint was somewhat of a feminist one, an argument for equity. If men could so easily get testosterone for treatment then why can't women, in terms of ""equity". What surprised me was the approval was only based on a 6 month trial. What of the long term exposure? What are the risks? Why approve something with so little data and medical basis? While I empathize with the video's speaker, I saw what I think is a much more problematic issue. When it comes to medicine, there appears to be less scientific truth underlying these decisions.

So, back to your point:

> what other people do with their genitals

While you may perceive some personal or moral assertion, and I acknowledge that is often true, I submit it is also true that others genitals deserve a lot more medical scrutiny than "we don't know, but someone else said this was better". Because, other people's genitals could potentially be my children's genitals and as a parent, or a grandparent, or other family member, who cares more deeply, I expect there is a factual and provably medically necessary response. If that cannot be proven, then there is no rational basis to move forward with medical treatment. The only treatment that makes sense is psychological, given the other supporting data on this topic.

Against the censorship of adult content by payment processors