OK, let's get the basics out of the way first. This is definitely a flawed episode. It is supposed to be an allegory, but it comes off as unsubtle, heavy-handed, and preachy. Even so, the allegory is not a bad one. In this way it has much in common with the original series episode about the half-black, half-white people.
From a plot perspective, the big problem is, as many have pointed out, that it makes no sense for Riker to be so quickly and completely consumed by this androgynous person. Someone else made a very good case showing how they are completely not his type. But even aside from that, even if we allow that he was, for whatever reason, attracted, it is still someone he has known for a very short time, and it makes no sense for him to risk his whole career over it, when usually he's not exactly Mr. Commitment. Hell, he never even married Deanna, the closest thing that could be called the love of his life! But I disagree with the notion that it was also out of character for Worf to join him. I can see Worf joining him. Let's face it, as much as Worf is loyal to Star Fleet and the Federation, you have to admit, he has a pretty dull life by Klingon standards. Here was a chance to go on an exciting, dangerous mission, *and* he could justify it by Klingon honor and values (standing by a friend)! Not so far-fetched that he would seize the opportunity.
But I think a number of people have missed the point in complaining that the episode somehow copped out. That it should have had a male play the love interest, or addressed homosexuality more directly. People, it's an *allegory*! It's NOT a story about homosexuality or transsexuality or any of that. It's a story with broad philosophical implications that can then *be applied* back to issues like homosexuality or transsexuality. Are you people *so* concrete-bound that you think it has to have *actual* homosexuality* in it to be of any value? Had they cast the love interest with a male actor, it would have made zero sense. First, this was supposed to be an androgynous character who none-the-less identified as a female. So why on *earth* would you cast such a person with a male? Second, it's hard enough, as it is, to believe that Riker would be so attracted to such an androgynous, even if slightly female, person. There's no WAY he would have been attracted to an androgynous slightly male person, unless one is prepared to suddenly, out of the blue, declare that, oh, by the way, Riker is and has always been bi. Now I'm not saying that a person like Riker couldn't be bi. But for four and a half years there had been absolutely no hint of anything remotely like this (and there never would be again for the rest of the series. Or movies). That would simply have been *bad writing*. You don't radically alter a central character for the sake of one week's episode.
But what I find remarkable is that nobody has discussed what I consider to be the most interesting aspect of the story: the ending. Through the whole thing, we are all comfortable, complacently entrenched in the opinion that government depicted is a horrible authoritarian tyranny. When they assert a benevolent intent, that their intervention really does make the targeted subjects happier, we scoff. But in the end, it seems there's something in what they claim: our protagonist-cum-victim seems to very sincerely be happy and grateful for their transformation. And this raises a really *interesting* philosophical question: does the end justify the means in such cases? Is it OK for the state to deny personal choice if it really will be to the citizen's benefit? Are there, or could there be cases where the state really does know what's best for you, better than you do yourself? Personally, I think the answer is 'no', but the story here makes you at least question and reflect. You can't simply dismiss it. I think it is unfortunate that the episode does not explore this issue more.
From a plot perspective, the big problem is, as many have pointed out, that it makes no sense for Riker to be so quickly and completely consumed by this androgynous person. Someone else made a very good case showing how they are completely not his type. But even aside from that, even if we allow that he was, for whatever reason, attracted, it is still someone he has known for a very short time, and it makes no sense for him to risk his whole career over it, when usually he's not exactly Mr. Commitment. Hell, he never even married Deanna, the closest thing that could be called the love of his life! But I disagree with the notion that it was also out of character for Worf to join him. I can see Worf joining him. Let's face it, as much as Worf is loyal to Star Fleet and the Federation, you have to admit, he has a pretty dull life by Klingon standards. Here was a chance to go on an exciting, dangerous mission, *and* he could justify it by Klingon honor and values (standing by a friend)! Not so far-fetched that he would seize the opportunity.
But I think a number of people have missed the point in complaining that the episode somehow copped out. That it should have had a male play the love interest, or addressed homosexuality more directly. People, it's an *allegory*! It's NOT a story about homosexuality or transsexuality or any of that. It's a story with broad philosophical implications that can then *be applied* back to issues like homosexuality or transsexuality. Are you people *so* concrete-bound that you think it has to have *actual* homosexuality* in it to be of any value? Had they cast the love interest with a male actor, it would have made zero sense. First, this was supposed to be an androgynous character who none-the-less identified as a female. So why on *earth* would you cast such a person with a male? Second, it's hard enough, as it is, to believe that Riker would be so attracted to such an androgynous, even if slightly female, person. There's no WAY he would have been attracted to an androgynous slightly male person, unless one is prepared to suddenly, out of the blue, declare that, oh, by the way, Riker is and has always been bi. Now I'm not saying that a person like Riker couldn't be bi. But for four and a half years there had been absolutely no hint of anything remotely like this (and there never would be again for the rest of the series. Or movies). That would simply have been *bad writing*. You don't radically alter a central character for the sake of one week's episode.
But what I find remarkable is that nobody has discussed what I consider to be the most interesting aspect of the story: the ending. Through the whole thing, we are all comfortable, complacently entrenched in the opinion that government depicted is a horrible authoritarian tyranny. When they assert a benevolent intent, that their intervention really does make the targeted subjects happier, we scoff. But in the end, it seems there's something in what they claim: our protagonist-cum-victim seems to very sincerely be happy and grateful for their transformation. And this raises a really *interesting* philosophical question: does the end justify the means in such cases? Is it OK for the state to deny personal choice if it really will be to the citizen's benefit? Are there, or could there be cases where the state really does know what's best for you, better than you do yourself? Personally, I think the answer is 'no', but the story here makes you at least question and reflect. You can't simply dismiss it. I think it is unfortunate that the episode does not explore this issue more.