This beggars belief - sex change for 12 Y.O.

[Aelia Jusa]

Originally Posted by Yorick I've been reading a bit more on the case, and it seems the mother and father are divorced, that the child is a pawn, and the mother has allegedly been feeding this. Some cousins accuse the mother of "brainwashing" the girl, systematically suggesting she'd be better of as a man. The treatment the court has allowed is hormone treatment. She cannot have surgery to remove her womb/genitals until she is 18. The hormone treatment is "reversible" but stops her hips and boobs growing naturally. This sounds more like an insecure kid being manipulated by a vengeful mother than anything else.

I have to say, this seems quite unlikely to me. Who are these cousins? On the mother's side or the father's side (genetically, I mean)? Could it be that the cousins are from the father's side and, due to an acrimonious divorce and the father expressing a negative opinion about the mother to his family, that the cousins have an overly negative perspective of her and their interpretation of her actions towards her daughter are biased? Why would the mother be vengeful towards her daughter that she's brainwashing her to have a sex-change due to her divorce? I can't go along with this.

To me, it seems much more likely that the daughter has been expressing transgender-type statements and the mother, possibly in an overzealous attempt to be supportive and nonjudgemental, is going along with her daughter rather than trying to convince the daughter that she's misguided and that her feelings are wrong. Meanwhile, the father, not neccessarily being judgemental or bigoted but most likely concerned about his daugher's welfare, doesn't agree with his daughter's feelings and is trying to convince her otherwise. In the context of an acrimonious divorce, this is being interpreted on both sides as being manipulative and unsupportive.

[JrKASperov]

Originally Posted by Illumina Drathiran'ar Yes, except this is the same strawman argument posed by Yorick. A 13 year old dating a 30 year old and the spread of STDs and STIs is not the same as a sex change operation- these things are innately foolish and wrong.

Why?

[Illumina Drathiran'ar]

Cute (though don't think I haven't noticed my similar, simple query has yet to be addressed in a sufficient manner). Do we really need to do this? Okay...

A 13 year old dating a 30 year old is a relationship with an innate imbalance of power and control, not to mention a relationship that violates state and federal laws. The spread of STDs and STIs can range from inconvenience to widespread debilitating illnesses and death. Remember AIDS? Right. That's also a violation of the law.

Are you putting sex change operations up there with domestic violence, sterility, and death? Or was this some sort of experiment with rhetoric?

[JrKASperov]

Originally Posted by Illumina Drathiran'ar A 13 year old dating a 30 year old is a relationship with an innate imbalance of power and control, not to mention a relationship that violates state and federal laws.

There is not an innate imbalance of power and control. There is a possibility for an imbalance of power and control. Is every relationship between the two ages doomed to fail? What if they really love each other? I think the real innate problem here is the risk involved, not some inherently wrong aspect, and that is what the law protects against.

The spread of STDs and STIs can range from inconvenience to widespread debilitating illnesses and death. Remember AIDS? Right. That's also a violation of the law.

You present it like it's being done on purpose. However, that's not the analogy being made. See below for what is being said.

Are you putting sex change operations up there with domestic violence, sterility, and death? Or was this some sort of experiment with rhetoric?

Of course I'm not putting sex change not next to domestic violence, sterility and death. Those three are not even remotely connected to the analogies being made. So you are attacking a strawman here.

I will word the analogy differently and more clearly:
Sex change operations are in the same category as letting your child have a relationship with a mature partner and having promiscuous sex (this is something different from purposefully spreading STD's, which is, again, not the analogy being made!), because all three have inherent risks for the child, who might know what he wants, but not what he needs.

Parents are there for the exact same reason laws are there. They are there to tell us not to do things which are bad for us. And this is because we do not always have in mind what is best for us. Children are even worse in this aspect, especially when they hit puberty.

Which brings me to this:

Originally Posted by TheDutkanator For me personally, I am SICK AND TIRED of people trying to tell me what I can and cannot do.

While you might be sick and tired of people trying to tell you what to do, most likely because you are quite smart and can decide for yourself, there are plenty of people who are not fully capable of choosing the right choices. A law isn't going to change the most fundamental choice, but it's there for guidance, and even one person guided towards the right path is worth it to me.

[Bungleau]

Ah, but there *is* an innate imbalance of power and control.

As the parent of an 11-year-old daughter (not quite 13, but close), she does not have anywhere near the frame of reference that I do (at 42) for life and living. It is pathetically easy to manipulate a person of that age to get what you want, if you're so inclined.

That has nothing to do with the fact that there's a 17-year age difference being discussed. 17 years between 43 and 60 is nothing. Between 25 and 42 isn't much. Between 13 and 30? Yep... big. I think it has to do with the ratio of how many years you've lived to how big the difference is. The fewer years you've lived, the more significant the difference becomes.

As a parent, my job was *originally* to tell my kids what to do and what not to do. As they get older, it's increasingly changing from telling to training... training them to be able to make decisions on their own. When they hit 18 (and probably before then), they'll need to be making their own decisions in their lives... they don't need me making those decisions for them.

Laws are different. They exist to codify what's acceptable and spell out the punishments for not doing it. They don't plan on stepping out of the picture. Parents, if they're doing the job properly, are working themselves out of a job. They *shouldn't* be making their kids' significant decisions in the kids' 20s, 30s, and beyond. At some point, the kids need to live their own lives, and the parents are obligated to help them get there, painful though it may sometimes be.

[Yorick]

Originally Posted by TheDutkanator Ya, ok, I can see that, and I KNEW someone would say that. But we aren't talking about cotton candy here. We are talking about something serious. OBVIOUSLY you have NEVER listened to your child. Or maybe you don't have children? Maybe you are one of those tyrant dictator parents that controls every aspect of their child's life?

I'm talking about something serious too. I used an 'example". Something obvious so that you might see the truth in the simple, to then transfer to the complex.

"Obviously" you know nothing about me - an irrelevancy anyway. I have not made derogatory assumptions about you to make my point, I've used common sense. The common sense that societies use in legally making a parent responsible for childrens decisions as they CANNOT make certain decisions for themselves.

A childs brain is NOT FULLY FORMED. Even if a child wanted to, depending on it's age, it doesn't have the equipment to fully focus and consider certain concepts.

It doesn't have enough thinking experience using it's brain to fully work through issues and consider ramifications like an adult has.

Finally it doesn't have the experiencial understanding that comes with living through consequences of one's decisions like an adult has.

Your argument is not with me, but with your society that will not give a child the right to vote, to drive, to drink, to work, to have sex or to change it's sex until it reaches an age where it is able to make educated choices for itself.

You can rant and rave all you like about "freedom" and all other out-of-context bullcrap, but I didn't make the rules, I'm simply pointing them out.

When it comes down to the IMPORTANT issues, NOBODY has a better opinion than the child being effected. If 2 parents fight and argue for years and finally get a divorce, the child KNOWS which parent is better for them to go live with and if you asked that child, you would get the correct answer.

Absolutely false. The child may THINK they know better. Even many adults may THINK something is good for them which is actually self destructive.
See: "drug addiction", "co-dependent relationships", "workaholism" for examples.

Often times the mental problems we possess as adults are because we did not move past a certain phase in childhood. The ability to delay gratification is a prime example. It's vital skill that children have to learn, and yet so many adults never fully grasped it. A child may THINK it wants the parent that gives it everything it wants for example. What is better for them, may actually be the parent who has the strength of character to withstand the tears and tantrums to actually give the child what it needs, not what it thinks it needs.

See: "Obese children" for example.

Now, this definitely complicates the issue when the child's decision is being strongly influenced by people they care about. Certainly socialization teaches a child their behavioral norms and if that child were being "brainwashed" as someone put it (isn't that just a negative word for "socialization"?) then certainly that must be considered and thus, the child may "know what they want" but that could have been altered by the socialization. This is why we have laws about permanent operations prior to age of consent. Finally, I ask all of you this: How much does it really matter to YOU personally if someone else changes their gender? For me personally, I am SICK AND TIRED of people trying to tell me what I can and cannot do. Certainly I agree with not doing anything that could negatively impact others (stealing, assault/murder, etc) but I can't stand it when someone tells me I shouldn't be smoking pot because it is wrong. Please explain to me how MY smoking habits effect YOU personally? What gives any of you the right to tell someone else what they can and cannot do?

If we live in a society, we have to become aware that our choices do not just affect ourselves, but those around us. Similarly the choices of others affect us (this is why a good public Education should be a national priority).

I'm not an advocate of banning hemp. Smoking it is actually decriminalised in my country, and I'm actually pro-legalisation of all drugs. However I remain anti-drug and would prefer the money used to prohibit drugs be spent on educating people why drugs (including pot) can and will ruin your life.

The government is acting as a parent in prohibiting certain substances, and while I may not agree with the decision, I support the right of a society to make collective decisions about what they prohibit, and believe we should obey the law.

Put simply, while it's illegal, you shouldn't smoke it. You shouldn't smoke it because it's illegal.

If you're a child and it comes to substances (legal ones included) if you consume caffine, tobacco, alcohol, pot etc. before your brain is fully developed you can mess up your head.
When you parents won't let you have a drink etc. it's to make sure you brain grows properly so you can decide for yourself if you want to kill off brain cells or not.

[Yorick]

Originally Posted by Aelia Jusa I have to say, this seems quite unlikely to me. Who are these cousins? On the mother's side or the father's side (genetically, I mean)? Could it be that the cousins are from the father's side and, due to an acrimonious divorce and the father expressing a negative opinion about the mother to his family, that the cousins have an overly negative perspective of her and their interpretation of her actions towards her daughter are biased? Why would the mother be vengeful towards her daughter that she's brainwashing her to have a sex-change due to her divorce? I can't go along with this. To me, it seems much more likely that the daughter has been expressing transgender-type statements and the mother, possibly in an overzealous attempt to be supportive and nonjudgemental, is going along with her daughter rather than trying to convince the daughter that she's misguided and that her feelings are wrong. Meanwhile, the father, not neccessarily being judgemental or bigoted but most likely concerned about his daugher's welfare, doesn't agree with his daughter's feelings and is trying to convince her otherwise. In the context of an acrimonious divorce, this is being interpreted on both sides as being manipulative and unsupportive.

How is this any more ridiculous? You're being quite selective in your refusal to accept as much information as possible.

1. I can see you've never divorced a vindictive woman... there are way more crazy stories about what woman have done to get back at a father.

2. People use children as pawns in a divorce. It's an awful fact.

3. The father's opinions co-align with the majority of people interested in the case, and is the more "balanced" view. His motivations are clear and empathisable: concern for daughters health, accepting her mental issues, wanting her to grow up naturally.

4. The mother's behaviour is extremely unusual (hence the newsworthiness of the actual article.. if it wasn't weird we wouldn't have heard about it) which is why we must look deeper for motivations. The motivation of a man-hating feminazi teaching her child self-loathing is a simple and believable situation.

5. As a child, the daughter is obviously still being influenced by parents. Clearly she is most influenced by the same-sex parent in this case. Tom-boys, penis-envy and girls wanting to be boys are as old and natural as the human race. But if she waited until she birthed a child in the womb she wants removed, she may realise how the situation reverses, and why men attempt to build monuments and "children" in whatever compensatory fashion they can.

6. The initial article was sensationalistic, and didn't clearly state that the surgery must wait until she's 18.

[Yorick]

Originally Posted by Illumina Drathiran'ar Yes, except this is the same strawman argument posed by Yorick.

What strawman argument?

[Bungleau]

I'm certain there's more to the story. I agree with Yorick; divorce is generally ugly all the way around, and kids can easily end up in a rotten state because of it. My parents divorced when I was three; it took until I was at least eighteen before I figured out that "no, *you* tell her/him that" was an acceptible response to some requests. My parents weren't malicious or intentionally mean about it (AFAICT), but it was often easier to put me (and my brother) in the middle than for the two of them to have conversations. When I took the easy way out of the picture, they dealt with it between themselves and kept me out of it.

That said, I side with Aelia as well. Other family members (cousins, etc.) will tend to support their "team", their blood relative. It's still common for some of them to recognize their own blood relative as the culprit, but *unless they have evidence that proves that to themselves*, they will generally support their blood relative.

If I divorced my wife, would her parents side with her, or with me? All things being equal, they will side with her. And mine with me. It's a natural effect... they've known her longer.

I've also done a little more looking, and it's not as clear-cut as it appears. According to a cousin who lived with the girl and her family for 2-1/2 years says that the girl has been "brainwashed" by her mother, who repeatedly told the girl that the mother wished she'd been a boy, and that the girl only started expressing the desire to be a boy since the parents' break-up.

A common side-effect from divorces is children feeling that they were responsible. The reality (from my perspective) is that the parents are the ones who are responsible (or irresponsible, as the case may be). It would be *very* easy to manipulate a 12-year-old into saying (quite convincingly) that if she doesn't get to be a boy, she'll kill herself... all the while thinking that *this* will finally get mom and dad back together.

The father lives out of state, was unable to have a lawyer present at these hearings, and his own hired psychiatrist was denied access to the girl.

There have apparently also been text messages from the mother to the father, gloating about the ruling. I'm not sure if these have been brought up yet to counter an apparent text message from the father, that he wants his girl, not a girl who thinks she's a boy (or something like that).

Ya know, if *EVER* I get into something where I'm going to get my way in spite of things, I will *NEVER* gloat or use text messages or other tracable means to go "nanny nanny boo boo" over my foe's failed efforts...

Bottom line... I think there's a whole lot more to this, and while there's been a lot done that tries to ensure that the daughter's best interests are kept in mind, there's a whole lot more left to go.

[Illumina Drathiran'ar]

Originally Posted by Yorick What strawman argument?

The thing with the cotton candy.

Edit- And I might as well ask, because I've been wondering... Does anyone here actually know, in person, any number of transpeople?