I think this is tautologous though, unless I am misunderstanding you. You allow state intervention (I’m using the most value-neutral term I can think of) in cases where there is illegal activity. But I thought you were also opposed to over-regulation of parenthood?
I don’t consider the protection of children from illegal activity to be “over-regulation of parenthood”.
This seems inconsistent to me.
I don’t see it as inconsistent, but when it comes to our legal system, inconsistency is a common feature. In fact, I’d say if you’re not comfortable with ambiguity, you probably ought to steer clear of the legal profession altogether.
One of my favorite inconsistencies is that faced by the pregnant woman. When I was pregnant with my daughter, I got into a semi-serious car wreck in my sixth month. Rush hour on the interstate, traffic moving at about 80% of the speed limit but close quarters, and some idiot trying to make it to work on time by weaving in and out of traffic.
Long story short, the jerk clipped my front end when moving into my lane just ahead of me, and my car did at least a 360. Traffic jam, ambulance, police, quite a party. Me off to the hospital, where they did upteen tests on me and the baby and everything was fine.
Now, if I had survived that accident and the baby didn’t, the jerk would have been charged with vehicular homicide. Homicide. BUT, if I had decided I wasn’t in the mood to have that baby, I probably could have found an abortion clinic in some state to end it for me. And that, of course, is not a crime.
Physical torture and unwarranted emotional abuse and manipulation are both clear-cut examples of that, though. Why not just let them grow out of it, instead of performing creepy and scientifically disreputable medical experimentation on them, like they were lab animals?
Because some of them don’t grow out of it?
Look, this transgender issue is far more complicated than a lot of people think. The desire to be a member of the opposite sex is probably often caused by externialities; but in some cases, something not quite right happened during gestation, making it an inherent issue.
Shit, let them freak out. Birth defects happen all the time. Why can’t this be one of them?
Some doctors have speculated that in the “unambiguous” cases such as Jazz Jennings, that perhaps some drug (thought to be harmless or otherwise) the mother took at some formative moment of the pregnancy, or even some sort of adrenaline surge at a critical moment caused some sort of chemical change in the fetus’ brain.
Point is, if you ask a doctor what organ or gland in the body dictates gender identification, you’re going to get a shrug of the shoulders. They don’t know. Because it’s way complicated. Sometimes it’s a sexual fetish. Sometimes it’s a bizarre reaction to stress.
But other times, it could be real developmental issue. And if it is, it needs to be medically addressed to the extent we are able to do so.