It’s been one of the key points the right has made in this debate since the beginning. It all comes back to the question of legal consent.
A minor cannot lawfully drink alcohol.
A minor cannot enter into a binding contract.
A minor of a certain age cannot lawfully get a tattoo.
Below a certain age, a minor cannot lawfully give consent to medical procedures — an adult is required to do so.
What is the reason for all of these restrictions? Because below a certain age, the child is not considered mature enough to reason through the impact of decisions with potentially life-altering results or of weighing and taking on risks with adult consequences.
Kids are too impetuous and changeable to make many such decisions dispassionately.
Should it really surprise us that a judge applied that same principle to questions of irreversible changes to one’s sexual identity?
And before the woke crowd screams ‘transphobia’ — they might want to look at who was pushing for this change.
Children aged under 16 will need court approval in England and Wales to access puberty blockers after a landmark ruling on Tuesday amid a global debate about the age at which a child can choose to transition gender.
Three High Court judges said it was “highly unlikely” that a child of 13 or under was “competent to give consent” to puberty blockers, and it was “doubtful” that 14- and 15-year olds could “weigh the long-term risks and consequences”.
Following the ruling, the National Health Service (NHS) England updated its guidelines to state that a court order must be sought for any new referral for such medication.
But the Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust, which runs England’s only youth gender identity clinic, vowed to appeal, setting the stage for a Supreme Court showdown.
Keira Bell, 23, brought the action against the Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust after regretting taking puberty blockers at the age of 16 that she feared may have damaged her ability to have children.
Bell, who “detransitioned” in her early 20s and now lives as a woman, had argued for puberty blockers to only be prescribed for under-18s with a court order.
The judges said 16 and 17-year-olds were presumed to be able to consent to medical treatment, but doctors may want to seek court orders before prescribing them puberty blockers due to the “experimental” nature of the treatment.
Bell welcomed the decision.
“I’m delighted at the judgment of the court today, a judgment that will protect vulnerable people. I wish it had been made for me before I embarked on the devastating experiment of puberty blockers,” she told reporters outside the court.-Reuters
That raises a question.
If courts in the UK have realized that the same informed consent issues that prevent them from entering into, say, a formal contract also apply to young people with issues of sexual identity… will American courts come to the same conclusion?
And if not, why not?
Big Tech is clamping down on conservative media big time. Don’t let Big Tech pre-chew your news — subscribe to our ClashDaily Newsletter right here:
Join our MeWe group to get all the ClashDaily goodness.
If you’re still on Facebook, check out our ClashBriefing page.