No, it’s not a negative gene by Darwin standards. That’s now how evolution works.
It’s negative for reproductive success for the individual, but has clearly, obviously and demonstrably not impacted the species as a whole in any negative way. Our species is not really indanger of any decaying numbers from transgenderism being one of the expressions.
But Darwin standards are all about reproductive success for the individual. When did Darwin ever say the way evolution works is by selecting what's positive for the species as a whole? That interpretation of evolution appears to have been thought up later by people who were put off by the whole 19th-century "Nature red in tooth and claw" picture and wanted to restore 18th-century "Harmony of Nature" ideas.
Not quite: Darwin standards are about individuals passing along their traits successfully but also about traits being passed along being beneficial to the species as a whole.
In multiple cultures, historically individuals who are gay, trans, two spirited, etc. were venerated and were seen as valuable members of the tribe/group. One clearly beneficial way that having someone who is physically and mentally very fit but unlikely to reproduce is that such individuals provide additional support to offspring of others and the group/society ---and therefore, that niche of species as a whole. A man and a woman produce a child/children. Living is very labor intensive: hunting, gathering, farming, building homes, making clothing and vessels for preparing food, cooking, etc. are still labor/resource intensive but we have those tasks largely assigned to specialized persons within our tribe/society. But this was much, much less so as humanity evolved and among peoples who are more tribal and less 'modern' than all of us typing at each other on our computers. It is an obvious advantage to have non-reproducing individuals around to help with those tasks and to continue to care for/provide for/teach, etc. babies and children if/when one parent or the other was either busy hunting/farming/gathering/doing something labor intensive as all life tasks were, much more than today or if one or both biological parents was temporarily ill, temporarily disabled or died. Given life expectancies thousands of years ago, life expectancies were quite short, childbirth was even more dangerous than it is today. It indeed took a village and it was much better if some of the village was engaged in helping support other people's children or other people who needed to devote their resources to the care and feeding of offspring.
This is, I think, where much of the division lies.
There is a specific group within the society of our species that is
only concerned with the individual, and I think this is a reflection of the fact that society and the species at large
is actually physically comprised of individuals whose genetic mutations are unique, each individual serving as the limit of a whole and very specific "species", and effectively driving as a selection pressure towards genes that support the highest likelihood of retention of the whole genome, because this is best for the mutation
and the genome, a genome which can contain other copies of the mutation.
Individual brains are just way more mutable than individual genomes, and generally tend towards the ability to identify those who share brain traits with them so that individual humans can more directly "band together" in trait carrying groups and make war on trait groups they dislike for whatever reason.
This is in essence the source of racism and eugenics and of fascism.
In reality, we ought be attempting to preserve as many traits within the population as possible through the support of novel behaviors, and if something awful happens to humanity at some point in time, we will have a wide variety of behaviors and forms and be less vulnerable to events.
It is a natural fact that monocultures are vulnerable to sudden events, and when a species is at the apex of the food chain, that is what it ought do: seek to prevent what happens to apex species -- extinction in some sudden event -- through diversification.
To me that says we should seek out every thing on this earth capable personhood, and be as one with them.
The individual is important but it is also important the individual seek compatibility with the species rather than insist the species becomes compatible to their specific individuality.
I think this implies that the most the individual can ask of the species is to shed arbitrarily selected drivers of social incompatibility: restrictive enforcement of some social norm.
Oftentimes those who criticize the goal by attempting to reverse victim and offender. They simply lie (or repeat a thing they often enough know is dishonest) and proclaim this call for compatibility as just another social norm to be rejected, as another restrictive social enforcement, despite the fact that acceptance of behaviors stably compatible to each other is the thing that holds up the ability to have any such nice things.
It seems little more, if anything more at all, than a subtly disguised desire to bring reality towards a pure form of "survival of the fittest" and pure individual importance, when this results in killing rivals and rape and fascism being "adaptive", and to that I say "ew, no."
