Mostly literal. The first couple are low ball rhetorical - because the reason the reasoning is typically appearance based. Voices can change too. I understand the urge to nip that in the bud however we are talking about someone who is far too young to have any certainty on the matter. Suffice to say I know very well about this and have multiple examples but cannot expand on this further. I will say that while it is not often talked about (often because of the backlash) not all adolescents who believe they are the wrong gender end up deciding they aren’t. This too is the cause for a lot of tragic stories. With that in mind is my suggestion/assertions off base? Time is a concern, and is a relevant argument… but why risk early development over a few years against a lifetime where good health is an asset?
There’s a chance of a tragic story no matter what - if the kid goes through puberty with the wrong hormones, it’s going to negatively impact their health forever. These choices need to be weighed on an individual basis with doctor and parental involvement, not one choice for everyone until an arbitrary legal age.
is my suggestion/assertions off base?
Your initial comment is removed, what was that you compared it to again?
As a direct answer to your statement (your question warranted a separate thread):
I agree on case by case. Some will be clear cut but kids are malleable and uncertain. They have very little worldly experience to draw on and need to be protected… universally. My reaction to posts and positions such as this one is visceral. Too many people will bandwagon the ideal and ‘virtue’ of it and in doing so propose overly simplified ideas that aren’t a real (or complete) solution. It’s social media - I expect the response I got to a degree but it is pleasant when it yields a good discussion. It may benefit someone later to be able to observe those views and see that it is possible to discuss differences in opinions without a firefight.
Yeah, I saw that. Apparently rule 3… despite most of the interactions being civil. I petitioned its return as I think it adds context and is worth the discussion:
I made a spoiler text analog to a statement that we should allow underaged (implied age which we have been discussing) adolescents to have complete sexual freedom. Some people clearly stopped reading and took that to some impressive extremes. I had prefaced and followed the statement with an indication that we wouldn’t allow such a thing (and rightly so.) The statement’s intent was to illustrate that we cannot expect someone so young to make informed decisions about certain things.
I believe in a follow-up statement I expanded saying it was equally incorrect for someone else to make that decision for the child/adolescent. It’s too important.
I selected it for its fairly universal acceptance and (as I’ve mentioned) some similar gravity in allowing them to make those decisions so early.
I’m sorry, which of these questions are literal and which are rhetorical? If they are trans, then deciding before a cis puberty is less harmful.
Mostly literal. The first couple are low ball rhetorical - because the reason the reasoning is typically appearance based. Voices can change too. I understand the urge to nip that in the bud however we are talking about someone who is far too young to have any certainty on the matter. Suffice to say I know very well about this and have multiple examples but cannot expand on this further. I will say that while it is not often talked about (often because of the backlash) not all adolescents who believe they are the wrong gender end up deciding they aren’t. This too is the cause for a lot of tragic stories. With that in mind is my suggestion/assertions off base? Time is a concern, and is a relevant argument… but why risk early development over a few years against a lifetime where good health is an asset?
There’s a chance of a tragic story no matter what - if the kid goes through puberty with the wrong hormones, it’s going to negatively impact their health forever. These choices need to be weighed on an individual basis with doctor and parental involvement, not one choice for everyone until an arbitrary legal age.
Your initial comment is removed, what was that you compared it to again?
As a direct answer to your statement (your question warranted a separate thread):
I agree on case by case. Some will be clear cut but kids are malleable and uncertain. They have very little worldly experience to draw on and need to be protected… universally. My reaction to posts and positions such as this one is visceral. Too many people will bandwagon the ideal and ‘virtue’ of it and in doing so propose overly simplified ideas that aren’t a real (or complete) solution. It’s social media - I expect the response I got to a degree but it is pleasant when it yields a good discussion. It may benefit someone later to be able to observe those views and see that it is possible to discuss differences in opinions without a firefight.
Yeah, I saw that. Apparently rule 3… despite most of the interactions being civil. I petitioned its return as I think it adds context and is worth the discussion:
I made a spoiler text analog to a statement that we should allow underaged (implied age which we have been discussing) adolescents to have complete sexual freedom. Some people clearly stopped reading and took that to some impressive extremes. I had prefaced and followed the statement with an indication that we wouldn’t allow such a thing (and rightly so.) The statement’s intent was to illustrate that we cannot expect someone so young to make informed decisions about certain things.
I believe in a follow-up statement I expanded saying it was equally incorrect for someone else to make that decision for the child/adolescent. It’s too important.
I selected it for its fairly universal acceptance and (as I’ve mentioned) some similar gravity in allowing them to make those decisions so early.