Gender Affirming Surgery for Minors: A Misplaced Controversy

The False Narrative around Gender Affirming Surgery for Minors

The recent debate surrounding gender affirming surgery for minors has become a highly politicized and polarizing issue. The premise that children, who are legally unable to vote or provide informed consent, should decide on such a complex and irreversible medical procedure raises serious ethical and moral concerns. It is crucial to address the facts and the misconceptions surrounding this topic.

One of the fundamental misconceptions is that children are receiving gender affirming surgery in North America. It is a lie perpetuated by those with transphobic views, who often fail to verify the facts. According to the Government of Canada and the World Professional Association for Transgender Health's (WPATH) Standards of Care, underage individuals must be 18 years old to receive gender affirming surgery. No child has received this treatment, and there is no advocacy for children to make such decisions on their own.

Decisions Involving Children

It is important to distinguish between which decisions minors can make on their own and those requiring parental and medical consent. For instance, a child can choose what hairstyle, clothes, name, and pronouns they wish to use; and these choices can be changed at any time. However, the decision to administer puberty blockers, which can have significant long-term effects, still requires parental approval and a doctor's prescription. No one is advocating for over-the-counter puberty blockers.

The Age-Old Debate: Why the Focus on the Age of Consent?

Conservatives often link discussions on gender affirming care for minors to the age of consent, a topic that is highly sensitive and controversial. They may also bring up other age-related topics such as voting, military service, or even entering the workforce. The recurring theme in these debates is the age of consent. However, the age difference between entering the workforce and gaining the right to consent to gender affirming surgery is not often discussed.

Is It an Attempt to Strike a Moral Bargain?

The constant association of gender identity with sexual activity is concerning and could be seen as an attempt to strike a compromise. It seems as though conservatives may be suggesting that if gender affirming care for minors becomes legal, they might also push for lowering the age of consent. It is essential to address this association and clarify the difference between supporting a minor's name and pronoun changes and allowing minors to have sexual relations with adults.

The Importance of Support and Protection for Minors

Supporting minors who wish to change their names and pronouns is crucial to protect them from self-harm and potential violence. This involves providing a safe and respectful environment for them to express their identity. On the other hand, advocating for the sexualization of minors for personal gratification is unethical and harmful.

Conclusion

It is important to address the reality of gender affirming surgery for minors and the misconceptions surrounding it. There is no evidence of children receiving such treatments, and the focus on the age of consent is misplaced. The debate should be based on tangible facts and the best interests of children, rather than stigma and unfounded fears. The support and protection of minors should be the ultimate goal, not the commodification of their bodies for adult gratification.