Today, lesbian gay and bisexual people have a new global organization

[UltraBudgie]

What a fascinating subject, from an objective legal perspective. Do the rights of parents, raising underage children, always speak to the child's best interest, unquestionable by law or public mores? And does society's opinion matter?

The belief of gender ideologues, that their children are born "in the wrong bodies", and that potentially irreversible and mutilative surgery may rightly be performed on them to seek conformance to that belief—it is not characterized as a religious belief, but it certainly shares the some traits. Does it matter if it does? The "science" is certainly questionable. Does it matter if it is?

The public interest is the best interest of the child. Ah, but what is "best interest", and where does the state have the right to so decide? Parents certainly seem to have the court-acknowledged right to raise their children in all sorts of ideologies, according to their own judgment and paternal authority. And within that instilled value-system, the child may not be aware of their own better interest, nor should we expect them to be, nor should we expect to always be competent to so judge.

I've been reading Prince v. Massachusetts, which is does not directly involve what the right would call "gender-denying indoctrination" of children, but perhaps speaks to the balancing of the rights of parents, and the rights of children to not have their potential future sacrificed and made martyrs to their parent's beliefs:

Parents may be free to become martyrs themselves. But it does not follow they are free, in identical circumstances, to make martyrs of their children before they have reached the age of full and legal discretion when they can make that choice for themselves. Massachusetts has determined that an absolute prohibition, though one limited to streets and public places and to the incidental uses proscribed, is necessary to accomplish its legitimate objectives. Its power to attain them is broad enough to reach these peripheral instances in which the parent's supervision may reduce but cannot eliminate entirely the ill effects of the prohibited conduct. We think that with reference to the public proclaiming of religion, upon the streets and in other similar public places, the power of the state to control the conduct of children reaches beyond the scope of its authority over adults, as is true in the case of other freedoms, and the rightful boundary of its power has not been crossed in this case.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_v._Massachusetts

With regard to parent-approved child transgender surgery, what is the yardstick that measures "the power of the state to control the conduct of children" that "reaches beyond the scope of its authority over adults"?

I really do think it is time that the Supreme Court clarified this.

[ANNEE]

Pardon my exclusion of sarcasm.... everyone wants to assign a cause to their own choices... and it's never ever them.

That's a whole OT topic... where does personal responsibility begin and consequences end.  My irony was lost...

OK.  Just seemed like an odd post from you.

Not everything is a choice.  Some things just are.

I'm gonna sneak off to bed now.  Definitely a choice.

[AnAlternateOpinion]

The belief of gender ideologues, that their children are born "in the wrong bodies", and that potentially irreversible and mutilative surgery may rightly be performed on them to seek conformance to that belief—it is not characterized as a religious belief, but it certainly shares the some traits. Does it matter if it does? The "science" is certainly questionable. Does it matter if it is?

I have some problems with this statement so let’s take a look to see why.

As someone I think is deserving of respect that generally strives for a degree of objectivity and tries to be relatively fair and balanced, please allow me to unpack your comments a bit to suggest ways that maybe you’ve missed the mark with this one and maybe offer ways you can more effectively communicate your points on this subject in the future?

First of all, I acknowledge there are very few hotter topics right now than trans youth and people have strong feelings about this issue that up until a few years ago was barely even a ping on most people’s radar. It also needs to be acknowledged that anti-trans sentiment, rhetoric, dis/misinformation and dogwhistles are at an all time high thanks to the politicization of the matter and even if one seeks to process this subject from a position of neutrality or objectivity, without having any actual direct experience with any of this it is nearly impossible to escape bias from the overwhelming amount of negativity prevalent in some segments of the media and from the whole cottage industry of anti-trans activism.

Looking more closely at the first part of your comment, let’s pause here for a minute.

The belief of gender ideologues, that their children are born "in the wrong bodies"

This is simply a misinformed myth that there are swaths of “gender ideologues” rushing their kids off to the clinic for a gender swap because Jimmy likes Barbies and hopscotch or Sarah likes trucks and won’t wear dresses. In those rare cases where we do see something like this it is always amplified to the point of making it seem like there is an epidemic of liberal madness going on over this and oh, what a tragedy it is. (/s) Nevermind the fact that a multidisciplinary team of professionals would suss out this dynamic rather quickly and proceed with a cautious approach if at all beyond counseling for the whole family.

Now let’s look at the second part:

and that potentially irreversible and mutilative surgery may rightly be performed on them to seek conformance to that belief.

A derivative use of “mutilate” in any conversation about trans people couldn’t be any more of an anti-trans dogwhistle even if it tried that says a lot about where a person is coming from that usually stops me right there and puts me on the defensive. If you’re going to use that term perhaps scare quotes would be appropriate to indicate you are aware of how this language is used as a pejorative? I bring this up because negative trans and “gender critical” discourse has become so prevalent that most people don’t even realize they’re repeating transmisic messaging even if they don’t mean to.

Except in extraordinarily rare cases, genital surgery is not performed on persons under than 18 with the most common surgery related to the treatment of gender dysphoria for minors being male chest reconstruction for persons determined to be female at birth (trans boys) and this is usually done for medical reasons to prevent pain and spine and rib cage deformation from breast binding.

Furthermore, over 50% of trans youth are not able to receive any medical interventions at all for treatment of their condition regardless of how much they or their families desire it or it is indicated medically. And while I’m not a fan of the term “gender affirming care”, when a natal girl with overly large breasts or boy with gynecomastia has a surgical correction, how does this not also fall under gender affirming? I won’t even mention the girl that’s gifted a rhinoplasty as a sweet sixteen birthday present because thinking that also falls under the gender affirming category will likely get me roasted. It does seem a bit of a double standard to me though.

Carrying on with the rest and to discuss the point you were trying to make that didn’t escape me:

…to seek conformance to that belief—it is not characterized as a religious belief, but it certainly shares the some traits.

Outliers as I’ve mentioned aside, I think any parent of a child with a diagnosed condition is going to pursue procedures or therapies that are best for their child with a fervor that may indeed resemble a religious belief. The Mama Bear syndrome or advocacy is by no means limited to trans youth but in all reality, the sad fact of the matter is that most parents are not supportive when their kids turn out to be trans. A new study by the Pew Research Center indicates that only 3 in 10 transgender adults say their parents have been supportive of them. I suspect that number may be a little higher for trans youth but there is no massive wave of parents wanting to sex change their kids.

Finally…

The "science" is certainly questionable.

Again, the science has been thrown into doubt by the anti-trans lobby when it really isn’t and from my experience and from that of others, “science” doesn’t really change a person’s mind or deeply held opinion in these matters anyway.

Trans people have been transitioning medically for 100 years and trans youth have been quietly transitioning since the 60s and early 70s and with the help of puberty suppression for the last 25 years. This isn’t anything new as much as some would like you to believe it is.

I really do think it is time that the Supreme Court clarified this.

Wait, seriously? SCOTUS has become a partisan hack job in the pocket of DJT and the likes of radical religious conservative wackjobs.

As to the issue of parent’s rights, you would think the “party of small government” would mind their own goddamn business and let parents and doctors and the kids themselves decide what is best and stop trying to practice medicine from the bench.

[UltraBudgie]

Wait, seriously? SCOTUS has become a partisan hack job in the pocket of DJT and the likes of radical religious conservative wackjobs.

A quick note before my first cup of coffee to thank you for your reply, addressing nuance both unintentional, and subtle and intentional in my post. Regardless of the points you raise, some of which may evoke contention or response by me later, if not from others first, it is heartening to hear elevated and thoughtful discourse, especially with the shoddy examples that society at large gives us of such.

And to that, do you often read issued Court opinions? In my experience they are usually much more considered and informative than the laughable hot-takes the press gives in representation. The judicial professionalism may be lost on most journalists and politicians, but it is encouragingly not lost on lower Courts and first-hand argumentation in the judicial system. Don't let the spin getcha! As to partisanship, simply to balance your statement I'll refer to this post which indicates that it is a knife that cuts both ways: https://denyignorance.com/Thread-Trump-N...4#pid89304

Good morning!

[Maxmars]

I notice that people prefer to work towards understanding the morass of information as offered by the press.... rather than investigate what the actual decision says...

I think that might be a 'deliberated' strategy in activist journalism...
possible only because  they are 'joined' at the hip... creating news cycle amplification...

"Amplification" of appearance... by media intent.

Too many indicators point towards a collusion of process and intent.

Intent is important.

[Moon68]

If those damn abhorrent pedo wannabe groomers would stop indoctrinating kids, then the problem would be solved.

Fixed it for you

[ANNEE]

WOW!  Look at the in-depth intelligent discussion going on.

Reminds me of the old days.

Thank you.

[Maxmars]

WOW!  Look at the in-depth intelligent discussion going on.

Reminds me of the old days.

Thank you.

These are DI's days....

and we can make them whatever we want...

Everything that has come before is but a brick in the new foundation we build.

These are tenuous times for us...

Thank you as well...

[ANNEE]

What a fascinating subject, from an objective legal perspective. Do the rights of parents, raising underage children, always speak to the child's best interest, unquestionable by law or public mores? And does society's opinion matter?

The belief of gender ideologues, that their children are born "in the wrong bodies", and that potentially irreversible and mutilative surgery may rightly be performed on them to seek conformance to that belief—it is not characterized as a religious belief, but it certainly shares the some traits. Does it matter if it does? The "science" is certainly questionable. Does it matter if it is?

Would you feel the same about a child born with a physical deformity?  Would you support that that child have surgery to correct it in order to have a better life?

My belief is we are born who we are -- who our brains tell us we are.  I say raise a kid from the inside out.  Let that kid "tell" you who they are.  Accept them for who they are.  Little kids do not need to be indoctrinated from birth. I'm not saying let them be unruly brats -- that's down a different road.

Puberty Blockers -- should give you a clue in the name "Puberty".

[Moon68]

Would you feel the same about a child born with a physical deformity?  Would you support that that child have surgery to correct it in order to have a better life?

My belief is we are born who we are -- who our brains tell us we are.  I say raise a kid from the inside out.  Let that kid "tell" you who they are.  Accept them for who they are.  Little kids do not need to be indoctrinated from birth. I'm not saying let them be unruly brats -- that's down a different road.

Puberty Blockers -- should give you a clue in the name "Puberty".

What a fallacious argument. If little Johnny at 5 years old says he wants to be a pirate is the parent supposed to say, "Ok, let's get a leg cut off for a peg and pop out an eye"? No, that would be abuse. But if Johnny said he wants to be Susie then, by golly, we should cut off his dick and pump him full of hormones in levels that aren't meant for a growing boy. Still fucking abuse.