KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime said:
I understand your position, personally I believe that HRT's benefits outweigh the risks. There are lots of medical benefits for starting earlier, one is of course being on fewer anti-androgen, plus the added benefits it can have with mental health as well. Still it's something that requires therapy on the mental health side, doctors to sign off it, parental approval... In a perfect world it should be an option, but not before puberty, because starting too early can cause damage to a person's development.
Any surgical procedures have inherent risks, so they always need to be carefully and cautiously considered, you have to be absolutely certain the benefits out weigh the risks. Also it can be dangerous to make physical and cosmetic changes to a person while they're still developing, it's why I detest child beauty pageant participant getting cosmetic surgery. Their bodies are changing and rapidly, at the minimum they'll need more surgery to keep up with growth and surgical procedures are dangerous. There are potential moral issues for me on the whole subject. I still think it should be taken on a case by case basis.
On a final note, children and teens don't have the ability to consent to a contract before adulthood, there is an important reason for this. Children, adolescents, and teens are not responsible enough to make such life changing decisions. What they want, versus what is actually good for them can be worlds apart. Options should be present, but professionals and parents need to be involved to help identify what the best choice actually is.
If only we lived in a world where this was a general possibility, rather than in one where people, more often than not, completely loose their minds over transgenderism being inherently wrong.
You wouldn't start before puberty anyways. And you certainly wouldn't consider it after afew years of HRT to begin with.
There's a difference between orchiectomy to reduce the effects of anti-androgen regimen or improving the mental health of having a depression-inducing aspect of themselves removed, and cosmetic surgery. I'm not saying all surgeries, just some surgeries make sense. FFS stuff, etc ... pretty sure that can wait until they have a more or less developed body in terms of muscle and bone. Removing of testes after a year or two on HRT? Well, reduction of drugs needing to be purchased, and less taxing on the body in general and better mental health. Seems like a win-win to me.
The thing is, I don't agree parents should have 100% control of their kids. Innoculations? Hygiene standards, health standards and basic standards of liberty. No decent doctor, educator, or social worker is going to tell you 'Authoritarian policing of children is better than
authoritative guidance." Keywords, authoritative and guidance. It is not a fit parent who lords over their children's self-construction.
In the same way that a child should not be pushed by parents about rushing into a surgical theatre, neither should children be kept imprisoned by their families. I can understand financial reasons, I can't understand 'religious' or 'beliefs' used to dictate to their children the nature of their self identity. Particularly when it gets to the point of causing injury and illness. Any parent that says they are going to traumatise their children to 'abuse the out of them' should be seen as automatically unfit to pursue their duty of care as a parent to begin with.
Parents are there to raise their children. Not own them. Any society that places ownership of one's children above a duty of care of one's children is paralyzing any means for social workers to help rescue children from grievous injury from scumbag parents who should never have been considered fit to raise a child to begin with. If you're not allowed to starve your children, or otherwise act in a manner that can cause detrimental side effects or death, then why exactly does; "Well, <insert religious/social hatreds here>" justify further cases of neglect or direct abuse?
In my eyes, if you're a parent who actively denies the available means to find help your child, if only to uhold your beliefs over their wellbeing? You should no longer be a parent. End of story.
Oh, and 16 should be the cut off when parents can dictate over their children's health. Anything beyond that is merely gate-keeping, and most surgeons require a year or two on hormones to be even eligible. Besides, at that age your parents no longer can access your private medical records anyways (If I remember correctly, in NSW) ....
Teens may make poor decisions, but if they have attended multiple counselling sessions, and approved by an endocrinologist, doctor and therapist, why exactly is it an issue anymore? If I can entrust a 16 year old with a driver's licence, HRT after all those hoops seems like a marginal concern. I also have far less faith in
parents making this decision. Maybe mine were just especially bad (and they were), but I'll place my faith in the kid, therapist, endocrinologist, and doctor
they (the patient) elect to see. Far too many 'doctors' still running around saying; "GID."