Yes, but the top level comment is countering it using an incorrect application of the theory of evolution. If top-level-comment really meant "needs," then it would not be a counter to the original post. If by "needs" they meant more colloquially "would be an improvement," then it may counter the original comment, but it's not actually a valid argument.
He thinks children shouldn't be allowed to transition even with parent/guardian permission.
By the way, are you aware that transition is most effective when done before or during puberty, which for most people means well before 18? It saves a lot of money overall on surgeries and such, as I understand. Hunter Schafer transitioned as a teenager, and you if you look up photos of her you can see that it worked very well for her.
I'm not claiming that this change in how eyes work would be an improvement. I'm claiming that the following does not hold generally: "Doesn't have adaptation X ⇒ adaptation X would not improve fitness."
The problem is that the landscape of where the global maxima are changes faster than evolution can keep up. If the environment were entirely static, then yes, mathematically speaking any random optimizer would eventually reach a global maximum. However, it could take, say, 1050 years or more to jump from a local maximum to a distant, higher maximum.
Okay true, but I still feel the comment was misleading. If it were phrased as "If vertebrae don't have it, it means it wouldn't improve their fitness" it would be wrong. I'll admit that the comment as worded is true, but it does depend on a very literal interpretation of what "needs" means. Why even post that? In my opinion, that makes it low-quality content, so worth a downvote.
it's a normalized distribution. The y-axis is unitless.