Persuading a TA to change her mind

Your sister's medical care wasn't "gender affirming", was it? It was a medical response to a physical condition. Turners syndrome wasn't in her head.

Oranges and apples.

I notice you haven't addressed this point @Occasionalnamechanger

Your assumption, like others is that hormone based gender identity treatment is justified and evidence based.

Fair. I was using it as an example of teens having the right to consent to elective treatment, but you obviously have the right to disagree. 😊

I am not convinced this is a very compelling argument

I'm not convinced your analogy is particularly relevant, either.

Your sister's medical care wasn't "gender affirming", was it? It was a medical response to a physical condition. Turners syndrome wasn't in her head.

Oranges and apples.

Earlier comments (sorry if yours wasn't one) seemed to suggest they couldn't and anyone under 18 receiving any kind of gender affirming care was analogous to an enslaved person having castration forced on them.

I am not convinced this is a very compelling argument, especially in the context of it being fairly well established that teens get to have opinions on their own medical treatment under lots of circumstances. They can consent.

What’s your point @Occasionalnamechanger ?

Nothing that you have said justifies blocking normal puberty or giving children wrong sex hormones or surgery as treatments for whatever “gender” issues they appear to have.

So, the medical situation I referred to in my post was Turners Syndrome. My sister had a bunch of pretty invasive surgery to find and remove her ovaries so she could start taking hormones/start puberty earlier. She could have not had the surgery until she was 18 and able to consent as an adult- it wouldn't have hurt her, but it would have meant she spent her teens looking like a pre pubescent child (which she obviously was desperate to nor do) plus she wanted the treatment to help her grow a little taller.

I don't think it was abusive of my parents to let her have that surgery at all. Sometimes your teens are a time to start taking control of your body and building your bodily autonomy.

Pregnant teenager - abortion or no abortion? Both options are a possible "solution" to an actual physical condition.

Trans is, until medical intervention, NOT a physical condition, but a mental one.

Now I realise we offer pharmaceutical help with mental health conditions, and I'm sure some of the recipients are, indeed, minors. Other risky medical interventions are offered to minors with conditions such as cancers. I'm also pretty certain that harm is indeed caused to some of these kids by the medical intervention. Chemo leaves kids infertile. The difference is that the physical illness condition is expected to be fatal without treatment.

Now I know, as I type this, that the same old statistics will be trotted out, the ones that have been debunked a gazillion times (self declared, tiny sample group, etc etc) and I'll be told that it's a matter of life and death here, too. But should a tiny survey of, what, 27 people, determine the treatment protocol for thousands, maybe more, after? Because that seems to be what has happened.

I'd class that as medical negligence, although I actually think it's deliberate so that's, what? Malpractice?

The pregnant 13 year old doesn't have the option to just "not get pregnant", which is equivalent to the position the 13 year old who wants hormones is in. The 13 year old who wants hormones has the option to "do nothing" and remain healthy.

Exactly.

Underage pregnancy is an incredibly dangerous condition that ruins lives yet no one seems concerned that naive mothers are allowed to consent to it.

Because it has zero to do with "trans". You're just (badly) attempting to use it as a gotcha.

It is a medical, potentially surgical intervention. It is serious. It has consequences.

Saying, "no, you can't be a boy" is very different.

Because having an abortion they don't want may cause lasting psychological damage.

Have you ever had an abortion? Do you imagine it to be consequence free?

But they have the option to no longer be pregnant quickly and readily accessible. So why should they be encouraged to destroy/kill themselves?

Do you agree that the medically sound thing to do is to terminate the pregnancy and allow the girl to continue growing into a healthy adult body?

They did have that option before they were pregnant but they no longer have that option once they are already pregnant.

Because they are already pregnant... Turning the clock back and not getting pregnant isn't an option.

I think you'll find most underage pregnant girls, unless a crime has been committed, did have the option to 'not get pregnant'

Either Guillick applies to all teenagers of all genders or it applies to none of them.

Underage pregnancy is an incredibly dangerous condition that ruins lives yet no one seems concerned that naive mothers are allowed to consent to it.

Because forcing a 13 year old girl to have an abortion will most likely cause her long term psychological harm.

If a 13 year old is already pregnant then she has no choice but to make a permanent decision affecting her reproductive health. She can't just "do nothing" because that is also a choice; a choice to remain pregnant and have a baby.

The pregnant 13 year old doesn't have the option to just "not get pregnant", which is equivalent to the position the 13 year old who wants hormones is in. The 13 year old who wants hormones has the option to "do nothing" and remain healthy.

Why are you flogging this dead horse @Riality? It's not the same thing.

Why shouldn't pregnant 13 year old be told no carrying a pregnancy to term will permanently damage your young healthy body and possibly kill you if not ruin your future?

You are too young to make permanent decisions about your sexual health and body so your legal guardians have the final say. And if they affirm you continuing the pregnancy they are guilty of child abuse.

A pregnant 13 year old is faced with a binary choice between two potentially harmful options.

A 13 year old who wants puberty blockers and a binder should just be told, no, you're a perfectly healthy girl.

What a weird analogy. Those things aren't even remotely similar.

Both are about medical consent. An abortion is undoubtedly the safer option, both for the mother's health and future prospects.

The question is can the average12-14 year old reasonably understand and consent to the risks?