[trieste92]

> "Allowed" is a telling choice of words though! You're advocating for a state-enforced limit on what people are allowed to choose for themselves.

To children. What people are allowed to do to children

> Which is why the permission of their parents acts as a limit on what they're able to agree to, in this case as in all others.

If a parent comes forward and says "I consent to my child getting sterilized", should that be the only criterion necessary? You said "all" here, so you think that the case I provided is also covered?

> The anti-trans moral panic is the tip of the spear of fascism in north america

https://www.euronews.com/next/2023/02/16/as-spain-advances-t...

Would you describe Sweden as a fascist country? For (generally) prohibiting giving hormonal therapies to children?

[giraffe_lady]

> If a parent comes forward and says "I consent to my child getting sterilized"

Is that happening? We're not trying to formulate a generalizable moral framework here, we're responding to a concrete set of conditions experienced by actual living people.

We're inserting ourself into a specialized medical practice, against the wishes of both its practitioners and the people receiving the treatment, who say it helps them. Why are we doing that? Why are you so invested with what choices people make for themselves, again, with the consideration of their doctors and families?

> Would you describe Sweden as a fascist country?

Yeah kinda actually. Unlike most people with internet opinions of scandinavia I have actually lived there with a non-white spouse and they are racist as fuck. I wasn't surprised at all to hear they decided to euthanize old folks during covid and I wouldn't be surprised if they take a hard right swerve in the next decade either.

[lelanthran]

> wishes of both its practitioners and the people receiving the treatment, who say it helps them.

Not "people", "children", and we frequently disregard the wishes of children when it comes to their health and wellbeing regardless of how they feel about it.

We (adults) do this because society has already collectively decided that children are not mature enough to make the best decisions regarding their health and wellbeing.

When we decide that the children's (in this case pre-pubescent children), consent is irrelevant to them going to school, or having sex, or taking nude selfies, or getting a boob-job because they are not mature enough to provide meaningful consent, then you can be pretty fucking sure that we, collectively, as a society, aren't going to suddenly decide that pre-pubescent children are making an informed decision about things like chemical and/or literal castration.

Seriously, you really think that a group that is considered too undeveloped to consent to a boob-job is still developed enough to consent to sterilisation?

[trieste92]

> against the wishes of both its practitioners

Because our wishes conflict with their economic motives

> the people receiving the treatment, who say it helps them

Again, children who aren't able to consent

> Why are you so invested with what choices people make for themselves, again, with the consideration of their doctors and families?

The same reason why I think the distribution of opiates should be tightly regulated. Because I see something that's inherently wrong, and I see corporations benefitting from it