So put em together and it sounded to me like you were saying that biology is teleological. And I was saying there’s nothing necessarily “bad” about not being reproductive, and that using what “science says” to enforce social norms has along and very ugly history.

When we were debating that biological argument, I used the term ‘deviation’ in a purely technical and descriptive manner; there was no moral or normative intent behind it.
No, there is nothing inherently bad about not being reproductive, but if you, as a scientist, look at the population and see that there is a number of individuals who, due to a presumed inborn condition, choose to resort to body modifications in order to match brain feelings, it makes you think that, biologically, this is not the norm, that it is not a simple variation in the population, like eye colour or height. It’s more profound and it affects many basic dimensions, psychological and physical. Now, of course, every gender population is more or less typical and there is a distribution of that in the entire population. But on the sides that becomes really problematic, especially for the people involved. They have to do all sorts of things that don’t come naturally just to be able to lead a balanced life.
I’m still waiting to see documented evidence that there is no significant difference between the kids who underwent Zucker’s therapy and the kids who evolved naturally in one direction or another. If therapy really makes no difference besides making children go through unnecessary hardship, even harm, then there is no good reason for parents to consider that. But I have some doubts that this is the case. The fact that there are many individuals, like you, who voice their concerns, is a proof that it surely does not work for all. I’d also like to hear from people who did Zucker’s therapy and grew out of GID because of that. Also people who did not do therapy and grew out of it naturally. Let’s have the entire picture laid out and then we can discuss from all points of view.