1. What - exactly - is actually settled?
Four unsettled issues/questions (among many) immediately come to mind (that puts the "settled science" trope in doubt).
- That gender dysphoria exists?
- That we fully understand why gender dysphoria exists (or what it really means; as in, root problem or symptom of something else)?
- That sexual (organ) reassignment surgery corrects (or even substantially alleviates) the reason behind the request?
- That anyone fully understands the dynamic behind the request for sexual reassignment surgery?
Would be curious to explore these questions. And others....
2. Moving on, this "because you won't pay for whatever I want means you're intolerant" has already worn waaaaaaaay too thin. I agree with Vrai; if it's that important, crowd fund it. Government tax dollars are supposed to work for the benefit of the Greater Good, not pay for private projects. If you have ever complained about politicians' pork barrel spending you should immediately see the problem of publicly funding things like this. And no, you don't get to get away with, "But, but, but, this is different...."
3. And "climate change." Ugh. By definition, "climate change" means "weather." So please do a better job of presenting what you mean. In this case, I expect you mean, "human-caused, negative climate change." But again, we have a problem of "definition of terms." What do you mean by "negative"? Who decides whether the change is, in fact, negative. Even if any of this drivel is true, there is significant debate as to whether it's harmful as a global phenomenon (as in, while there may be some losers, large populations would actually stand to gain from "it"). So it's not "settled" from either a science or public policy perspective. But, as we know, you're not brandishing the "climate change club" for any other reason than a political one; to gain power over me to do your bidding.
--- End of line (MCP)