>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?