So I do believe for example that a parent should be held guilty of an offence if that parent facilitates physical damage to the child by means of some kind of unnecessary surgery or medical treatment.
I am not sure how far I think that should reach so that is a grey area, but physical damage is not a grey area at all.
Exactly. I think Brendon was thinking more about going to school and clothes and the like, but chemical intervention is dangerous; if given on schedule at female puberty to a male, you are going to castrate him chemically, cause him to develop female secondary sex characteristics, and on top of it all female hormones are carcinogenic when taken for extended periods of time.
IOW, the parent needs to be DAMN SURE that their kid is unambiguously transgendered. And very few kids are that unambiguous.
Personally I also believe that pandering to a child who becomes obsessed with being the opposite sex is also at the very least deeply irresponsible; especially when all of the evidence show that the majority of those kids who are now being diagnosed as having gender identity disorder, for the most part, grow out of it completely by the time they reach their mid twenties.
Well, sure. There is this “tipping point” at the preteen years where the parent has to make a call; because it’s going to a lot easier on the kid, if truly transgendered, to avoid having his voice change and have his beard start. I can see where that might be a tough call for a parent; hence my statement about “unambiguous.”
Not every transgendered kid is Jazz Jennings.