Hacker News Reader

Comment by GeekyBear | Hacker News Reader

> Sex-reassignment surgery (or whatever we are calling it these days) requires parental consent in California if the person seeking it is a minor.

So why shouldn't you be allowed to get married with parental consent in the same state?

I'm OK with a state deciding it either way, but I'm looking for a little consistency.

View on HN

Because if they’re marrying someone older that person legally becomes their guardian and there is a massive power imbalance. Marriages with minors often involve abuse because it’s difficult for the minor to leave a legal bond to their guardian.

Gender-reassignment surgery is more self-contained as it only involves one person.

On the flip side, you can get the marriage annulled in 1 day or divorced in a year.

Surgery is a little bit harder to rollback. There is still a power imbalance if you don't assume the parent is acting with best intentions.

>I'm OK with a state deciding it either way, but I'm looking for a little consistency.

If that's your true intent, what specific problem do you have with this surgery? If it's not with this specific surgery, what other types of surgery do you think we should ban for minors "for a little consistency"?

You can always divorce someone or otherwise dissolve the marriage.

It's hard to reattach body parts once they've been removed.

One is permanently life-altering, while the other amounts to paperwork.

Did you respond to the right comment? Because this isn't relevant to what I said. I wasn't being rhetorical. I was asking specifically where people think the line should be. Which surgeries should be allowed for minors and which shouldn't? Should we permit cheiloplasty? How about rhinoplasty?

I was responding to someone "looking for a little consistency", so I'm asking some questions in that same spirit.

These are all good questions and also supporting OPs claims of consistency.

For a minor:

Is Marriage a want or a need, same with cosmetic surgery, or gender changes.

>So why shouldn't you be allowed to get married with parental consent in the same state?

>I'm OK with a state deciding it either way, but I'm looking for a little consistency.

I'm not Californian, but in most democracies things default to "legal" until there's explicitly a law passed against it, or if a broad concept is already illegal then edge cases default to "illegal" until a specific exemption law is passed. In general, parental consent is required for all medical procedures performed on a minor, so I would hazard a guess that:

a) sex reassignment surgery on a minor falls under the broader category of "medical procedures you have to get parental consent for"

b) somebody was sufficiently bothered by the previous state of affairs with regards to minors getting married and the potential for harm[0] that they passed a law against it, but no such explicit ban has been passed for minors seeking sex reassignment surgery (yet?).

To me that seems wholly consistent with basic common sense, plus laws are notorious for lagging behind the times.

>I'm OK with a state deciding it either way, but I'm looking for a little consistency.

Why is consistency (parental consent vs not) in this matter this so important to you?

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49917494

Reply on news.ycombinator.com