The Economist like many media outlets has recently fallen into the trope of framing a story of trans humanity (nay, humanity itself) as something that needs an alternative viewpoint so it can be debated. The tweet linking to a story regarding a Japanese courts decision to uphold the requirement for surgical sterilisation before allowing their gender identity to be legally recognised.
That such a procedure is required is probably surprising for the many who are non-trans or regularly follow LGBT outlets, although the number of European countries requiring similar treatments has fallen in the past decade, 7 jurisdictions is still 7 too many.
The tweet has since been deleted but not before being screenshotted by many readers.
There is no alternative viewpoint, the answer is no. It should also apply to other invasive procedures not just sterilisation. Whether the individual concerned has, can't for whatever reason or chooses not to.
