Your "problem" is a fictitious one. Surgical consent for minors is irrelevant when it comes to transgender healthcare, because nobody is performing trans-related surgeries on minors. That aside, from a legal and medical standpoint, consent works the same way as it does for any surgeries, with legal authority of the parents/guardians, or physician as appropriate. Once again though, since they aren't operating on children in this area, your "problem" is both non-existent, and totally irrelevant.
Surgery causes changes to the body.
Why should they be treated differently? Is it because chemical intervention is perceived as "reversible". Is the perception verifiable?
Edit: Consent is absolutely relevant, because it's the crux of the Governor's announcement in Texas.
Once again (I believe this is the fourth time you're having to be told this), NOBODY is performing trans-related surgeries on children.
Puberty blockers aren't issued without medical supervision or parental consent either, but keep making false arguments.
Well, apart from the 56 cases mentioned here: https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-tran...
The commenter was disingenuously implying that surgeries were being performed on children without consent, which is absolutely not true.
Additionally, a claim of numbers on an insurance system doesn't necessarily mean they've all happened -- and again, it misses the point entirely that even if a negligible amount of minors have tried to claim for surgery, it wouldn't be happening without consent, and wouldn't be happening without stringent psychological and empirical analysis and observation beforehand. It also doesn't say how many of those surgeries were corrective in the event of intersex children experiencing dysphoria, which is an entirely separate matter -- so the statistic is moot without further information.
Going "for whatever reasons" is entirely dismissive and totally reductive -- the reasons are extremely relevant. Case in point, how do you know those weren't primarily intersex children having operations to correct operations forced upon them (without their consent) after birth? How do you know the 17 year old wasn't getting surgery shortly before their 18th birthday, having had therapy and hormone blockers for years prior?
Reasons matter. Nitpicking then dismissing context and relevance is just pointless whataboutism.
Unlike @engineer_22 above, I don't edit or delete.
His push was surgeries happening on kids without consent, including lacklustre attempts to paste law without context or comprehension, which fails to give him any credit.
The fact that you resort to personal attacks and puerile "you edit then I'll edit" nonsense shows how disingenuous you're being.
Detransitioners are in the extreme minority, and there are no known cases of detransitioners who had surgery as a minor, regardless of consent.
Stop creating boogeymen to try and further your baseless argument.
Sadly that is also not true:
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/restoring-america/communi...
Stepping back from this minutiae and back to the main article, your main issue is that you are pushing a position of far greater certainty and moral clarity than the facts warrant, and this is the general issue with trans activism. There is a huge middle-ground majority that would be so willing to support T as an adjunct to LGB - people you could rally so easily if you just dialled back from some of the more extreme demands. The dogmatic and polarized discourse that pushes out the sympathetic-but-insufficiently-compliant, smearing them as transphobes, is driving them into the arms of the right-wing genuine transphobes. This is also creating a chilling effect on research into gender dysphoria and its chemical and surgical treatments, all of which remain woefully understudied and poorly evidenced. Dysphoric individuals are of course the ones who are most harmed by this. As they say, do better.
Did not.
I wasn't aware of that. Can you provide a citation?
"When a person stops taking puberty blockers, their body will resume puberty exactly as it would have had they never taken the medication, says Jennifer Osipoff, MD, a pediatric endocrinologist at Stony Brook Children’s Hospital in New York." [1]
"There are no known irreversible effects of puberty blockers. If you decide to stop taking them, your body will go through puberty just the way it would have if you had not taken puberty blockers at all." [2]
"Puberty's physical changes can cause intense distress for many gender-nonconforming adolescents. When taken regularly, GnRH analogues suppress the body's release of sex hormones, including testosterone and estrogen, during puberty.
[...]
Use of GnRH analogues pauses puberty, providing time to determine if a child's gender identity is long lasting. It also gives children and their families time to think about or plan for the psychological, medical, developmental, social and legal issues ahead.
If an adolescent child decides to stop taking GnRH analogues, puberty will resume and the normal progression of the physical and emotional changes of puberty will continue." [3]
"Only reversible treatments to delay puberty are recommended for younger adolescents after they have entered puberty, according to our Clinical Practice Guideline and joint policy perspective issued with the Pediatric Endocrine Society." [4]
[1] https://www.healthline.com/health/are-puberty-blockers-rever... [2] http://www.phsa.ca/transcarebc/child-youth/affirmation-trans... [3] https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/gender-dyspho... [4] https://www.endocrine.org/news-and-advocacy/news-room/2022/e...
Here's another perspective on some common myths that are quickly and easily debunked: https://www.fatherly.com/health/myths-puberty-blockers-trans...
Next time try not making baseless claims and assumptions in the first place, then expecting other people to do your research for you.
I didn't make any claims. Please revisit the argument later after you've cooled off. It was nice chatting, but I think you took me the wrong way.
P.S. I'm sorry I called you Skippy. I can see now that it probably got you worked up.
If you want to talk about non-consensual treatment you could mention surgery provided to intersex children, but that doesn't fit the narrative.
Indeed, sadly, parents deciding to force a binary choice on intersex children isn't great, but there is some more progressive work where families are raising their children without being on either side of the binary -- but the medical profession does tend to push for one way or the other when intersex children are born.
TEX.FAM.CODE ANN.§32.003(2012).CONSENT TO TREATMENT BY CHILD(a) A child may consent to medical, dental, psychological, and surgical treatment for the child by a licensed physician or dentist if the child:(1) is on active duty with the armed services of the United States of America; 114(2) is: (A) 16 years of age or older and resides separate and apart from the child's parents, managing conservator, or guardian, with or without the consent of the parents, managing conservator, or guardian and regardless of the duration of the residence; and (B) managing the child's own financial affairs, regardless of the source of the income; (3) consents to the diagnosis and treatment of an infectious, contagious, or communicable disease that is required by law or a rule to be reported by the licensed physician or dentist to a local health officer or the Texas Department of Health, including all diseases within the scope of Section 81.041, Health and Safety Code; (4) is unmarried and pregnant and consents to hospital, medical, or surgical treatment, other than abortion, related to the pregnancy; (5) consents to examination and treatment for drug or chemical addiction, drug or chemical dependency, or any other condition directly related to drug or chemical use; (6) is unmarried, is the parent of a child, and has actual custody of his or her child and consents to medical, dental, psychological,or surgical treatment for the child; or (7) is serving a term of confinement in a facility operated by or under contract with the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, unless the treatment would constitute a prohibited practice under Section 164.052(a)(19), Occupations Code. (b) Consent by a child to medical, dental, psychological, and surgical treatment under this section is not subject to disaffirmance because of minority.(c) Consent of the parents, managing conservator, or guardian of a child is not necessary in order to authorize hospital, medical, surgical, or dental care under this section.(d) A licensed physician, dentist, or psychologist may, with or without the consent of a child who is a patient, advise the parents, managing conservator, or guardian of the child of the treatment given to or needed by the child.(e) A physician, dentist, psychologist, hospital, or medical facility is not liable for the examination and treatment of a child under this section except for the provider's or the facility's own acts of negligence. 115(f) A physician, dentist, psychologist, hospital, or medical facility may rely on the written statement of the child containing the grounds on which the child has capacity to consent to the child's medical treatment.
https://ndaa.org/wp-content/uploads/Minor-Consent-to-Medical...
Maybe this is extreme, but I think you need it to be more explicit before you understand: A child can say to an adult, "yes you can have sex with me", but that is not consent because a child cannot consent.
Edit: I dont want to talk about intersex children. That's a red herring.
They're given a binary gender identity at birth, based on genital configuration. If their genitals aren't "standard" innie-or-outie, they are often encouraged to pick an option, and have surgical intervention and potential followup care to raise the child in the parents' "chosen" binary gender, purely because of what's in their pants.
Quelle surprise, this often becomes an issue when puberty comes around, and intersex kids find however they've been altered / raised to be, doesn't necessarily match up with themselves. It's VERY relevant.
The fact that you don't want to talk about them -- or seemingly trans men or non-binary trans people, since you're only focussing on trans women -- shows you're not being reasonable or intelligent about this.
Like all relationships, a discussion has boundaries. If the parties do not agree on the boundaries, the relationship cannot continue.
Unsure which "boundaries" you're talking about when it's a public forum and you're still making personal attacks and jibes where you can... if you're going to be dishonest, at least don't be hypocritical at the same time.
Why not, though? What makes that a red herring?
Because intersex children are not the subject of the discussion. Please see parent comment for context.
> Edit: I dont want to talk about intersex children. That's a red herring.
No, it really isn't. You're talking about children not being able to consent, and about rates of regret of transition, and about forcing children onto a medical and surgical pathway of transition. We see all of these in intersex people. You don't want to talk about intersex people because they disprove the points you're making and they highlight the fact that anti-trans campaigners are, simply, against the existence of trans people.