[konjin]

We are literally thinking about the children here. We are asking: "Should we let children cut off their genitals?"

If we are going to let them do that we should at least let them put their genitals where they feel like before then.

The hypocrisy is the problem. You can't both have children be too immature to decide to have sex, yet be mature enough to make decisions about their sex which will impact them for the rest of their lives.

[tesseractive]

> "Should we let children cut off their genitals?"

It is currently against any kind of recommended practice to perform genital surgery on children. It is not approved nor is it practiced. This kind of intentionally hyperbolic language is the sort of thing that is the stuff of tabloid headlines, not reasoned discussion.

[tekknik]

Yet there are people condoning this in this very comment section.

[morelisp]

> Should we let children cut off their genitals?

This is disingenuous moral panic and a good example of the motte-and-bailey approach the UK press uses to discredit proper medical treatment of trans youth.

[konjin]

This is disingenuous and sidesteps the argument about capability of children.

It's really simple:

You are either OK with kids having control of their bodies up to and including invasive surgery and having sex with who they want or you are not.

Anything in between is either pedophiles trying to push the narrative on their side, or idiots not understanding what they are doing.

[spacemanmatt]

Conflating sexual identity with precocious sexuality is clown-car category duplicity. Sometimes the audience here even takes offence at being treated like that.

[DanBC]

You're basing your argument on a lie. Children do not get GCS nor cross-sex hormones.