2 lesbians adopt a baby boy.....6 years later, he starts sex change therapy....

You think parents that let a child die of a treatable illness or disease waiting for God's saving grace have the moral high ground over parents who are allowing their child to use hormone blockers? Do you really?

 

watch or own? I'm not being flippant.

btw, why are you bringing up UK rules (below)? It's not a UK issue.

Also, I was driving at 16.

are you opposed to it because of the sex part, or just young people taking any form medication as a whole?

Out of respect?

btw, like speeds, I'm wondering if you mean to say that allowing their own child to die due to their misguided belief that prayer would save their baby is worse then allowing a child who is confused to take medication to delay puberty (while going through therapy too).

Because one can easily be changed (hey, stop taking the suppressant) and the other can't be reversed.

 

I don't think they have the "moral high ground" and am frankly confused how this became a moral issue in your eyes. Read what I said.

For julius, I think it's "watch", but wiki's the best source I have right now, so take it fwiw:

I'm opposed to it for the same reason that the rest of the world is opposed to a child getting a tattoo or boob job, except that there are irrevocable consequences to postponing puberty until the age of consent. And since when is hormone blocking therapy "medication?" What, pray tell, is the "illness" that the medication is supposed to be treating?

And calling a boy a girl is out of respect for what? The child is legally a boy. The child cannot legally decide if he wants to be a girl, a smoker, a McDonald's worker, or someone who watches R-rated movies.

 

Should you sniff this glue?

 

Of course not. The laws of our country dictate that an underage minor doesn't either, and that the child's parents don't until they are 16 and the parents can consent to the child's wishes.

Not at all. The LAW is the law. I just point it out (and the inherent hypocracy) when others attempt to break it.

That's such bullshit. "Trans" people are those who have made the legal decision to identify that way, and can legally do whatever the heck they want to. According to the law, a minor cannot do so. So I'll turn it around and say that you, TSE, are not God...you don't get to illegally impose any of your value systems on minors, and you don't get to condone others doing so, for whatever caring or loving reason. If you think that a minor should be able to postpone puberty until 16--attempt to get the law changed.

Why would I be scared of a British child? Or his lesbian parents? What "process" is there to circumnavigate the courts?

I'll ask this, then. If the boy wanted to "identify" as a girl by having sex with a man, is he allowed to at age 11?

 

I know! Let's let progressive Fabian agenda blind us to the fact that there's a multitude of laws against this action, because it's not smoking or drinking or driving or voting...sexuality is involved!!

 

Why is it flippant? I'm genuinely trying to understand what the heck you're thinking. And I wouldn't have expected the "you're right, so I'll insult and leave" retreat from you.

 

You have consistently ignored this, so I don't even know why I bother, but I guess I'm stubborn sometimes.
Why won't you answer the questions? If a child wants to do something like vote, have consensual sex, smoke, watch pornography or join the military, the state says that they do not have the capacity to make that choice. But YOU are saying that when it comes to delaying puberty and changing gender--then they have the capacity? So what's the difference between consensual sex and changing gender to better identify? Why do you call "consensual sex with a minor" pedophilia and consider it an insult? My guess is because there's a long precedent of it being illegal. Whereas hormone therapy on a child whom the state deems not to have the capacity to make decisions for himself somehow meets with your approval. Why?

Once again, I seem one of the few people who care about protecting children from exploitation. No one is telling him that he can't dress up as a girl or ask people to call him Tammy (though without a legal name change, that's tougher). What is wrong and illegal here is a child under the age of consent able to make decisions that the state says cannot be made due to a lack of capacity, and parents that are allowing drugs to be taken to further the decision.

I have no idea how I remain a mod. My guess is because I apply logic, don't insult, and attempt to state my views clearly when I disagree with others.

 

I somehow missed that this was in Berkeley at first, but saw that it was from dailymail.uk. I was trying to compare apples to apples. But if it's the US, then yes, it's 16 to drive. The others, on quick perusal, are exactly the same in the US except for porn at 17.[/quote]