[VirusNewbie]

If a seventeen year old bio female comes to a 40 year old doctor and is prescribed chemicals that alter her genitalia for life, it is “gate keeping” to prosecute or regulate said doctor.

However, if a seventeen year old decides to have sex with a 40 year old, we would find it morally reprehensible and all agree that she could not consent to use her body that way.

I don’t know how to rectify these two commonly held beliefs.

[faeriechangling]

>I don’t know how to rectify these two commonly held beliefs.

In the former case the doctors conflicts of interest don't seem so strong, in the latter case the doctors conflict of interest is overwhelmingly self-evident, so there is much higher risk of the doctor consciously working against his patients interests when the patient is still a minor in a major power differential.

One causes sterilisation, one causes pregnancy, western society is specifically very very against 17 year olds being pregnant and are anti-natalist and sex-negative more broadly.

[n8henrie]

The second case does not refer to a doctor. Was there an edit?

[faeriechangling]

Nah I misread

[rizzaxc]

there is no doctor in the second case. the wokemind is just a big ball of hypocrisy

[puffoflogic]

Isn't it obvious? Legalize MAPs.

[cvalka]

The age of consent is 16 in most states. WTF are you talking about?