Canadian Appeals Court Backs Trans Teen In Bid to Transition

[Carolyn Marie]

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/sep/06/trans-teenager-case-canada-father-halts-treatment

 

 

Carolyn Marie

Edited September 7, 2019 by Carolyn Marie
Spelled "Canadian" as Canadadian.

[VickySGV]

Let me haul out my soapbox again and climb up on it, 

 

This is about "ownership" of children in which they are not people but only flesh covered extensions of the parent's mind and body.  It is not about the child;s emotional health, only about instilled fantasies of parental rites (that spelling is correct) and the ego of the parent that they have been given god-like power over their child.  A dog urinating on the family furniture is not treated as harshly or with ownership intention as greatly as a child. 

Ok, I will climb down now..

[Jani]

I love this.  

“It’s a case about freedom of speech and the freedom to parent,” Carey Linde, the father’s lawyer, told the Guardian. He said his client is not opposed to the child’s transition from female to male – but argues that too little is known about the effects of hormone treatment for the decision to be made by a minor."  

 

Come on!  It is most certainly about his opposition to transition.  And yes there is too little known about hormone treatments in the general public, but not amongst the transgender community and the medical professionals that treat them.  

 

A big "Doh!" for the father.

 

 

[Josie Beth]

It’s the age old disparity between the parents, who want to live vicariously through their children even though their methods are unethical, and the adolescent who is asserting their own personhood and identity. That battle will never change until people let go of this idea that children are property. It’s intellectually dishonest to on the one hand condemn slavery and then on the other to practice it with one’s own children. 

 

Unfortunately this is the result of a century of careful social engineering. Society has been trained to encapsulate the adolescent and stunt their ability to come of age because the reason for this is to force these adolescents into debt slavery. Older societies were wiser because they recognized and celebrated the natural tendency of adolescents to assert themselves and grow up at age 12-13. It was a wake up call as well for teens to get mentally prepared for adulthood. It was often an intermediary time when adolescents could spread their wings but still had a safety net. However today that wisdom has been discarded for a logical fallacy. 

 

So parents have this artificial idea that their children are not capable of growing up until 18 and they should be shackled against their will until they reach that age. And when a teenager keeps getting more assertive, especially if they are passionate about what is right at wrong, and violating someone’s agency is wrong: often parents either throw their hands up and force the youth out unprepared, or they become even more totalitarian against their children. Either way they take it personally and seem to forget that once they were growing up as well. 

 

But the very root of the problem is the false idea that it is ok for anyone to violate another’s right to make their own decisions. Their arguments may have merit or validity with a 3 year old, but certainly not with someone who has gained enough life experience to survive a walk to the convenience store to get groceries for mom. It’s this idea that morality only applies when it suits the adult. That’s got to change.