[palata]

I don't think it should be 16 rather than 18. I think it's just more complicated than one of us (or Trump) naively setting an age.

And I think that you putting it as "I want to protect the kids, Trump wants to protect the kids, the democrats don't want to protect the kids" is dishonest.

But it feels like it's all too complicated for you to apprehend. Let me end this with: "you're right, 6 < 18, you're smart".

[cynicalpeace]

> I think it's just more complicated than one of us (or Trump) naively setting an age.

So you think kids at any age should be allowed to transition?

Why do you not simply state your position on it? Is it because it's reprehensible?

[palata]

> Why do you not simply state your position on it?

I keep doing it, but you don't understand it.

My position is that it is complex. It depends entirely on the situation. I don't care about putting a number in a law, I care about helping those kids. Sometimes it means allowing them to transition, sometimes not. Not based on the age, but based on the individual and their context. There is no easy way to decide, and mistakes will happen no matter what.

Saying "it should be forbidden before 18, but I could negotiate 16" is absolutely naive, not to say completely stupid. To me, on the one hand it shows that you are sensitive to this problem (which is a good thing). But on the other hand it shows that you completely fail to reason constructively about it.

[cynicalpeace]

So the answer is yes, you think kids should be able to transition at any age, if the "context" is correct.

There are actual 6 year olds being transitioned in California right now and that's OK as long as the "context" is right?

It's not complicated at all. It's state sanctioned child abuse. It should be stopped.

We will look back at this time as a dark period of human history.

[palata]

> So the answer is yes, you think kids should be able to transition at any age, if the "context" is correct.

At this point I genuinely wonder if you do it on purpose or if you genuinely don't understand.

It may be (or it may not be, I don't know) that transitioning at 6 is always a bad idea: the age is part of the context. "Part of" meaning that the context is made of other things.

> It's state sanctioned child abuse. It should be stopped.

I understand that you believe it, you keep repeating it. The fact is that if you can't understand the nuance between "It should not be forbidden before 18" and "It should be allowed for everyone below 18", then surely you don't have a clue about the context that would make it okay to transition someone.

People who genuinely believe they are the smartest because they can formulate their strong and uninformed opinions is admittedly a big problem these days.

[cynicalpeace]

> It may be (or it may not be, I don't know) that transitioning at 6 is always a bad idea

The answer is yes, it is always a bad idea. Your fake nuance is just a veil for complete lack of respect for children. There is absolutely no reason you should transition a 6 year old kid. There is no context that exists for that kind of irreversible damage at such a young age.

They can't even consent to it, just like they can't consent to a whole host of other things.

[palata]

Actually I started reading more about it, and it is most definitely not always a bad idea. You just don't seem to know how to read (or think, for that matter) properly.

> There is no context that exists for that kind of irreversible damage at such a young age.

At 6, it's not irreversible. Even according that the article you linked yourself, surgery almost never happens before 18, the exceptions being sometimes 17 or 16 (not 6).

Some things are done a 6 (or earlier), called "social transitioning" first, and this is not irreversible at all.