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

I do have an opinion.

I don't see this as a life threatening situation. I don't see where you or I or most anyone else should have a say in this. If the kid is unhappy with his (or her) gender, why should someone not close to the situation have a say, and that say make this child's life miserable.

This is clearly a decision that should be made between the parents (no matter if they're gay or not), the child, and the doctors.

 

This.

 

Denny,

Agree that the sexuality of the parents has no relevance in this case.

But how can you say that

when the parents and child and doctors do not have the legal right to decide that he/she's ready to make a decision to work outside the home, drive a car, get married, have consensual sex with whomever he/she wants, smoke a cigarette, etc.?

 

Sorry Brian, but I think you're making a huge stretch here, linking decisions that rightfully belong to parent and the child and their doctors to unrelated laws.

Family law allows the parents to make health care decisions for the child. The exception is when that choice threatens the child's life. Not the case here.

Sebastian Express is 100% right on this one. This is not some simple thing without proper oversight and consultation. For an adult, the process takes years of counseling before the doctors are satisfied to do the procedure. Same for this child.

I'm satisfied to let the parents be parents, the doctors do their jobs, and the child have the ultimate say (since it's not a life saving operation).

A more interesting case would be if one of the parents did not want to allow the procedure. I think that parent would lose in court, but you never know.

 

What is the illness or injury that the child has that requires medical care here? If you say that "Gender Identity Disorder" is a mental illness (it IS in ICD-10 CM), then how can you state that the child is legally capable to make life-altering decisions (medical or otherwise), since the child is not free from mental illness?

And you're satisfied to "let the child have the ultimate say" in a life-altering hormone therapy (note: I'm not talking about what the child can legally do at age 16 or 18) when the child can't even legally say that the child wants to drink wine at dinner or have sex with his boy/girlfriend?

I admit ignorance of family medical law. So your response brings multiple questions to mind. If the child wanted breast augmentation, and the parents were on board, it can't happen until 18, correct? If the child and parents and doctors wanted LASIK surgery before 18, it is still illegal. Even organ donation (which would save someone else's life!) is strictly regulated to children who can give "informed assent" to parental permission and are deemed by advocates as free from parental pressure.

If Denny, TSE, all the others who think I'm a dick think that a 10 y/o can give informed assent to medically postponing puberty until 16 and then having a sex-change procedure, yet not be legally able to get a breast enhancement or LASIK ...then we'll just agree to disagree.

 

Like I wrote, it's a decision between the child, parents, and the doctors.

The child doesn't have some debilitating mental disorder that would make its judgment questionable. Even so, he or she is undergoing a pretty intense therapy with psychiatrists over a long time, to assure it's not some kind of whim.

I'm satisfied that the child is terribly unhappy in her situation. Why deny her the happiness she deserves and wants? It's not your (or my) responsibility so maybe we should butt out...

 

Also, LASIK is not approved for minors vs being illegal. They don't have enough data to know if it's safe.

As to other cosmetic surgery, that again would be between the doctors, parents, and patient. Every situation is different. Cosmetic surgery is done all the time, even on infants and newborns.

 

And like I wrote, why can this child's deserving happiness be met through puberty-delaying hormone therapy, but not the happiness of a child who wants LASIK surgery, or a child who wants breast enlargement?

All of the non-answers point to a hypocracy based upon this being an "alternative lifestyle." You don't seem to care about denying a child's happiness when it's a 15y/o having consensual sex with a teacher/pastor/boy scout leader, or a 16 y/o marrying his first cousin, but when it's got the tagwords of GLBT/Lesbian/outrage then it's just a matter of a child's happiness.

 

Yet there's enough data to state that an 8 year-old's gender identity disorder is best/most safely addressed through pre-pubescent hormone therapy?

Not true. A 16 year old girl cannot get breast enhancement, no matter how happy she thinks it will make her. Tommy/Tammy cannot get breast enhancement until then, with parental consent. Even in cases of breast reduction, where there's a medical issue involved in addition to any perceived or real social stigma, it can't be done until 16. Yet you want me to believe that an 11 y/o (8 when the therapy started!) can give informed consent to postpone puberty through hormone therapy and that the laws of our land state as much. I don't buy it.

 

Look, I wish the best for the child and his/her future life. If at 16 he wants to get a sex change (with parental permission), that's within the laws of our country. If he wants to dress up as a girl for the next 7 years and then decide not to go through with it, that's his choice. Right now, though (and including at age 8), it's not the child's choice--and our government says it's not.

 

LASIK isnt performed on minors because the doctors won't do it. They don't have the proper studies done to show it's a safe procedure.

Breast implants aren't done on minors because doctors won't perform them, generally. But there have been hundreds or thousands done. Like I wrote, every situation is different. In the case of breast cancer or severe burns, for example, a doctor might do it. For good reason. They won't generally do them because they want the girl to finish puberty first.

The rest of your post isn't relevant. Sex with a minor is illegal and a crime. There are lots of stories about public school and religious school teachers, of both sexes, getting busted for it.

 

This is the silliest post I've seen since barfo's last post.