Hacker News Reader

Comment by aristophenes | Hacker News Reader

This is a touchy subject, but I feel the need to state the obvious, that 12 year old children think and do a lot of foolish things because they are figuring out themselves and the world. We need to trust parents to help them and protect them, that is our job. We know them better than anyone, we have experience, we even share DNA with them.

I know there are exceptions, but the default state should be to trust parents with their own children. Nobody is perfect and mistakes will be made. That’s life, we try to do our best. And no committee, politician, doctor, even therapist is going to be able to ensure they won’t make mistakes that are worse. And I love my kids much more than they ever could.

View on HN

I disagree. Parents make irrational decisions because of emotion and stress. Children should absolutely not be transitioning anything until they’re 18. The risks are too great, and the parents are too easily manipulated by society.

I think even 18 year old are too young. When I was 18 I would do all the stupid things. I would not trust this person at all. I think something around 25 or so is a good age. Not just this subject but in general.

If a person is old enough to die for their country (i.e. enlist as a soldier), they’re old enough to make their own decisions about their sexuality.

18 year olds are dumb and easily manipulated, which is precisely why they are recruited to join the army.

Someone's ability to join the army and be used as cannon fodder is hardly proof of their ability to think intelligently for themselves.

I don't understand the point you're trying to make and it doesn't appear to have any relevance to this court case.

In England if you're 16 or older you can consent to get any medical treatment. If you're 18 and older you can decline any medical treatment if you're competent to do so. If you're 16 or 17 you cannot decline life-saving medical treatment, the courts will decide.

If you're under 16 your healthcare team will test to see if you're Gillick Competent. If you are Gillick Competent you can consent to any medical treatment. Doctors will always try to get the parents involved, and will always try to get agreement of the parents, but sometimes that's not possible and in those cases they can use the child's consent.

However, for treatment with puberty blockers there was a different protocol: the child, and the parents, and two different healthcare teams had to all agree that PBs were the right thing and that the child had capacity to make this choice.

This court case is saying that this is not sufficient, and that even if the parents and children and treatment teams all agree the courts still need to rule.

Your common sense sentiment is now becoming increasingly rarely expressed, because there is a pretty militant sub-culture that wants to impose their views on society without debate.

This thread was even flagged, no doubt by members of this group who consider any attempt to have an open discussion on the issue as a threat to their agenda.

I'd guess it's only your love for your children that compelled you to express your views on this issue in the face of potential hostility.

I'll add that this trans-rights radicalism is borne out of a justified fear of discrimination against a group that faces tremendous hardship in society: people who self-identify as a gender they were not born as.

But I have no doubt that the damage done by trying to suppress open discussion, both directly by not allowing people to intelligently discuss critically important trans-related issues like children undergoing gender transition hormone therapy, and indirectly in degradating the customs and institutions that guarantee free speech, will vastly outweigh the good it does.

I agree with the sentiment that mistakes get made, which is exactly why puberty blockers are an ideal treatment option at that age: to give kids time to figure themselves out and make an informed decision when they're old enough. Puberty blockers are reversible; puberty itself isn't.

(I am trans, and also a parent.)

No, they have permanent effects. This is exactly why the court ruled this way. And in a touchy and sensitive topic like this I think it is reasonable to assume the courts looked at as many facts as possible to make their decision.

No, they do not have permanent effects.

You seem to misunderstand this court case. It did not say that PBs can cause infertility. It said that people who take PBs often go on to take hormones, and the hormones cause infertility.

In the UK you cannot get hormones if you're under 18.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com