> What if the kid is telling you they'll suicide at the age of 8? The problem with your logic is that there is no line.
Who says there is no line? All I said was that I disagreed with your line being 18 of age. I do understand your concern, really. I am just saying that maybe, just maybe, it is more complicated than what you think from your position where you are apparently not confronted to it. You call it "protecting kids", but what you want is to enforce whatever makes you feel good from your detached position (which in this case is "wait until 18"). What if a 16 years old told you that you are abusive by preventing them from doing it? Would you say "shut up, you're not 18 you don't know if I'm abusing you or not"? I'm sure you believe that "it's better than nothing, if we don't know let's put the line at 18". But that's all it is: a belief. And what I believe is that it is actually hard to know what's best.
> Transitioning a kid doesn't solve the suicide problem. Many of them go on to commit suicide at even higher rates than other groups of people.
Again, what you say here has a logic problem. Do you have actual numbers that say "it's overall better for those kids when we don't transition them than when we do"? What you say here is "well it does not prevent all problems, so it sucks", but you ignore that your solution (waiting until 18) would not solve all problems either.
That's my whole point: you don't know (I don't know either), and it is a hard problem. You are just projecting your uninformed ideas to justify why you voted for Trump. I don't care what Trump or the democrats claim: what I would want for those kids is actual studies to try to understand what's best for them (and it probably exists). And really, everybody wants to protect kids. Because you disagree with what others do does not mean at all that they try to hurt kids.
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".
> 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.
> 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.
> 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.
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.
Also, it's basically abusive- telling parents that if they don't transition their kids, they will be responsible for their deaths.
Transitioning a kid doesn't solve the suicide problem. Many of them go on to commit suicide at even higher rates than other groups of people.