Incredible

[Beebs52]

"anomalies." Are they male or female? It's a simple question. Answer it.

They're hermaphrodites. "an organism having sex organs or other sexual characteristics that are not clearly male or female, either abnormally or (in the case of some organisms) as the natural condition."

Nonono. Didn't you read flock and tgirl's posts? It's a simple question with only two possible answers. No shades of gray, no colon-less bears, not allowed.

They didn't dismiss anomalies, so there's that.

[tlynn78]

If it was"universally" accepted, wouldn't that mean everyone accepted it?

The exceptions are human beings. They deserve to be treated equally under the law. And you can cry all you want about intersex people not being men, but lots of them have an X and a Y chromosome. By your own definition, they are men. So once again, the very simple answer to your very simple question is yes.

And this illustrates why most of us don't bother to engage in real discussion with most of you. A biological male cannot, with current technology, conceive and/or give birth. That fact is not the lone determinater for being male, it's simply a fact. One of many that differentiate between male and female. Intersex individuals are not "biological males," they are anomalies. And yes, for the doc's tender feelers, that is true no matter what color they are.

"anomalies." Are they male or female? It's a simple question. Answer it.

I'll pretend you ask that in good faith:

Sometimes one, the other, or both; depends on the anomaly- i would imagine in some instances (assuming we're at the point of birth), the parent or parents must make a decision which "way" to begin raising their child. Some are born appearing female and raised female and dont learn otherwise until there's no menses and further testing reveals undescended testes instead of ovaries. The fact they may spend years believing they are female doesn't mean they are.

[mrkelley23]

And this illustrates why most of us don't bother to engage in real discussion with most of you. A biological male cannot, with current technology, conceive and/or give birth. That fact is not the lone determinater for being male, it's simply a fact. One of many that differentiate between male and female. Intersex individuals are not "biological males," they are anomalies. And yes, for the doc's tender feelers, that is true no matter what color they are.

"anomalies." Are they male or female? It's a simple question. Answer it.

I'll pretend you ask that in good faith:

Sometimes one, the other, or both; depends on the anomaly- i would imagine in some instances (assuming we're at the point of birth), the parent or parents must make a decision which "way" to begin raising their child. Some are born appearing female and raised female and dont learn otherwise until there's no menses and further testing reveals undescended testes instead of ovaries. The fact they may spend years believing they are female doesn't mean they are.

Thank you for the polite answer. I can see now how it might have sounded like bad faith. I'm also glad that you're conversant with the biology involved. But there's one exception you didn't mention: the person who doesn't find out about their status until they are pregnant. Once again, I'm not really interested in splitting hairs. But flock insisted on a yes or no answer, when the answer is always a little more nuanced than that.

[Beebs52]

"anomalies." Are they male or female? It's a simple question. Answer it.

I'll pretend you ask that in good faith:

Sometimes one, the other, or both; depends on the anomaly- i would imagine in some instances (assuming we're at the point of birth), the parent or parents must make a decision which "way" to begin raising their child. Some are born appearing female and raised female and dont learn otherwise until there's no menses and further testing reveals undescended testes instead of ovaries. The fact they may spend years believing they are female doesn't mean they are.

Thank you for the polite answer. I can see now how it might have sounded like bad faith. I'm also glad that you're conversant with the biology involved. But there's one exception you didn't mention: the person who doesn't find out about their status until they are pregnant. Once again, I'm not really interested in splitting hairs. But flock insisted on a yes or no answer, when the answer is always a little more nuanced than that.

Anomalies. Do you have a problem with that,

[mrkelley23]

I'll pretend you ask that in good faith:

Sometimes one, the other, or both; depends on the anomaly- i would imagine in some instances (assuming we're at the point of birth), the parent or parents must make a decision which "way" to begin raising their child. Some are born appearing female and raised female and dont learn otherwise until there's no menses and further testing reveals undescended testes instead of ovaries. The fact they may spend years believing they are female doesn't mean they are.

Thank you for the polite answer. I can see now how it might have sounded like bad faith. I'm also glad that you're conversant with the biology involved. But there's one exception you didn't mention: the person who doesn't find out about their status until they are pregnant. Once again, I'm not really interested in splitting hairs. But flock insisted on a yes or no answer, when the answer is always a little more nuanced than that.

Anomalies. Do you have a problem with that,

Nope, not at all. I'm the one who was trying to explain that there are anomalies. That's why the original question is not a simple yes/no

[flockofseagulls104]

You say that it is thoroughly documented that children are being encouraged to have life changing drug therapies and surgeries. Would you please share your source on that?

Really? You are that uninformed?

Here's one example.

I encourage you to start doing your own research, rather than to disagree, discount or disbelieve anything I post here. You might actully learn something that your chosen news sources are hiding from you.

[mrkelley23]

You say that it is thoroughly documented that children are being encouraged to have life changing drug therapies and surgeries. Would you please share your source on that?

Really? You are that uninformed?

Here's one example.

I encourage you to start doing your own research, rather than to disagree, discount or disbelieve anything I post here. You might actully learn something that your chosen news sources are hiding from you.

Discussing with you can be frustrating for me, and I'm sure the same is true for you. You started this thread by repeating Josh Hawley's "very simple" question, and then objected rather strenuously when I said there might be exceptions to that rule. Now you're citing rare exceptions to try to prove something is true. FWIW, I agree that states should have a law banning permanent gender surgeries for minors, as both your state and mine already have in place.

Also, since you asked, I do deplore the personal attacks that weyoun and SSS have made against you. It's the worst and weakest form of argumentation. Do you realize that when you say things like "you might actually learn something that your chosen news sources are hiding from you," you are essentially calling me stupid?

[flockofseagulls104]

You say that it is thoroughly documented that children are being encouraged to have life changing drug therapies and surgeries. Would you please share your source on that?

Really? You are that uninformed?

Here's one example.

I encourage you to start doing your own research, rather than to disagree, discount or disbelieve anything I post here. You might actully learn something that your chosen news sources are hiding from you.

Discussing with you can be frustrating for me, and I'm sure the same is true for you. You started this thread by repeating Josh Hawley's "very simple" question, and then objected rather strenuously when I said there might be exceptions to that rule. Now you're citing rare exceptions to try to prove something is true. FWIW, I agree that states should have a law banning permanent gender surgeries for minors, as both your state and mine already have in place.

Also, since you asked, I do deplore the personal attacks that weyoun and SSS have made against you. It's the worst and weakest form of argumentation. Do you realize that when you say things like "you might actually learn something that your chosen news sources are hiding from you," you are essentially calling me stupid?

mrkelley, there are exceptions to everything. My question was not asking for anyone to correct me. My question was straightforward in context. But no one on 'your team' could answer it without assuming that I was 'oppressing' somebody.

If it were not true that children were being subjected to coercion in 'gender' issues, why would there be states, like yours and mine, going through the trouble of making laws against it? Go and look at the 'hollywood families' that practically brag about their minor transgender children.

My problem with your post is you pretending to be shocked that this has happened and is happening. Chloe Cole is just one example of one person testifying about it. There are thousands of others that have regretted what has been done to them or what they did to themselves. The damage cannot be reversed. Why are you asking me to prove my statement? It is YOU who are calling ME stupid. The only difference between you and the alleged doctor and SSS is they do it openly and vulgarly. Go online and research it yourself, is what I'm saying.

[earendel]

If it were not true that children were being subjected to coercion in 'gender' issues, why would there be states, like yours and mine, going through the trouble of making laws against it? Go and look at the 'hollywood families' that practically brag about their minor transgender children

Reading the Wikipedia article about Chloe Cole I didn't find anything that said she was coerced, or that others were being coerced. Her testimony seemed to be intended to stop any minor from receiving gender-affirming care even if the minor and their parents wanted it. I find it hard to believe that a parent would coerce a child in such a way.

[flockofseagulls104]

If it were not true that children were being subjected to coercion in 'gender' issues, why would there be states, like yours and mine, going through the trouble of making laws against it? Go and look at the 'hollywood families' that practically brag about their minor transgender children

Reading the Wikipedia article about Chloe Cole I didn't find anything that said she was coerced, or that others were being coerced. Her testimony seemed to be intended to stop any minor from receiving gender-affirming care even if the minor and their parents wanted it. I find it hard to believe that a parent would coerce a child in such a way.

So, you really think pre pubescent children come to the conclusion themselves that they are transsexuals? You think it's just coincidental that so many Hollywood celebrities all of a sudden have transsexual children? That so many school systems have policies in place that hide gender care from parents? Don't believe me. Do your own research before you tell me I'm a stupid shithead.

[earendel]

If it were not true that children were being subjected to coercion in 'gender' issues, why would there be states, like yours and mine, going through the trouble of making laws against it? Go and look at the 'hollywood families' that practically brag about their minor transgender children

Reading the Wikipedia article about Chloe Cole I didn't find anything that said she was coerced, or that others were being coerced. Her testimony seemed to be intended to stop any minor from receiving gender-affirming care even if the minor and their parents wanted it. I find it hard to believe that a parent would coerce a child in such a way.

So, you really think pre pubescent children come to the conclusion themselves that they are transsexuals? You think it's just coincidental that so many Hollywood celebrities all of a sudden have transsexual children? That so many school systems have policies in place that hide gender care from parents? Don't believe me. Do your own research before you tell me I'm a stupid shithead.

As you know, I'm not into name-calling. I merely think that you are overstating the case. I don't believe they were coerced. What would be the purpose for doing so?

Let me give you a real-world example. A couple at our church has a biological male child who presents himself as female. He is only 10 years old. That decision wasn't one their parents made, the child made it. The parents have not yet started gender-affirming care, but it will be the child's choice, not theirs if and when it happens.

And since you're in the "I must have an answer" mood, let me ask you two questions.
1. Do you know any transgender people?

2. Why are you so concerned with transgender women and not with transgender men?

[BackInTex]

2. Why are you so concerned with transgender women and not with transgender men?

I'm hoping that is a rhetorical question. If you really don't know the answer, you are more out of touch with reality that I ever assumed.

[Weyoun]

2. Why are you so concerned with transgender women and not with transgender men?

I'm hoping that is a rhetorical question. If you really don't know the answer, you are more out of touch with reality that I ever assumed.

To help everyone out, I think the poster is trying to suggest that people who are transgender women commit sexual assault in bathrooms. But do we have at least one example of that?

[flockofseagulls104]

2. Why are you so concerned with transgender women and not with transgender men?

I'm hoping that is a rhetorical question. If you really don't know the answer, you are more out of touch with reality that I ever assumed.

To help everyone out, I think the poster is trying to suggest that people who are transgender women commit sexual assault in bathrooms. But do we have at least one example of that?

No. There are many. Don't believe that? How about this?
Not surprisingly, I didn't find this in a google search. I had to do it in another search engine.
It is so tiring that we are supposed to take your pronouncements at face value and not doubt them, but anything we even imply is automatically a lie at worst or extremely questionable and biased at best. Instead of asking for examples to prove your presumed hypotheses, why don't you RESEARCH IT YOURSELF?

[silverscreenselect]

To help everyone out, I think the poster is trying to suggest that people who are transgender women commit sexual assault in bathrooms. But do we have at least one example of that?

I can say one thing. Mrs. SSS and I once went to a play that was put on by a gay theater company in Atlanta. It was a fictional Ethel Merman Christmas special in which drag queens played Ethel and several other well-known actresses who pretended to be guests on Ethel's TV holiday special and sang well-known Christmas carols.

The theater was a small local theater (about 100 seats) and they had unisex bathrooms with urinals and individual stalls with closable doors. A lot of the people using the restroom during intermission were gay men who did their business at the urinals and left. Afterward, Mrs. SSS told me she felt uncomfortable taking care of business in the closed stall because of all the men around, even though she knew they didn't have the slightest interest in her.

So there is something to the notion that a woman would feel uncomfortable using a restroom with men standing around outside. But I think Mrs. SSS's discomfort may have had more to do with the novelty and surprise of the situation in which she found herself.

[flockofseagulls104]

Reading the Wikipedia article about Chloe Cole I didn't find anything that said she was coerced, or that others were being coerced. Her testimony seemed to be intended to stop any minor from receiving gender-affirming care even if the minor and their parents wanted it. I find it hard to believe that a parent would coerce a child in such a way.

So, you really think pre pubescent children come to the conclusion themselves that they are transsexuals? You think it's just coincidental that so many Hollywood celebrities all of a sudden have transsexual children? That so many school systems have policies in place that hide gender care from parents? Don't believe me. Do your own research before you tell me I'm a stupid shithead.

As you know, I'm not into name-calling. I merely think that you are overstating the case. I don't believe they were coerced. What would be the purpose for doing so?

Let me give you a real-world example. A couple at our church has a biological male child who presents himself as female. He is only 10 years old. That decision wasn't one their parents made, the child made it. The parents have not yet started gender-affirming care, but it will be the child's choice, not theirs if and when it happens.

And since you're in the "I must have an answer" mood, let me ask you two questions.
1. Do you know any transgender people?

2. Why are you so concerned with transgender women and not with transgender men?

1. I have had transgender co-workers. But I do not have any transgender close friends that I know of. Please tell me what the relevance of that question is.
2. That is a false observation. What have I ever said that gave you that impression?

[earendel]

Let me give you a real-world example. A couple at our church has a biological male child who presents himself as female. He is only 10 years old. That decision wasn't one their parents made, the child made it. The parents have not yet started gender-affirming care, but it will be the child's choice, not theirs if and when it happens.

And since you're in the "I must have an answer" mood, let me ask you two questions.
1. Do you know any transgender people?

2. Why are you so concerned with transgender women and not with transgender men?

1. I have had transgender co-workers. But I do not have any transgender close friends that I know of. Please tell me what the relevance of that question is.

Because if you knew any, not as co-workers but as friends, you might not speak in such dogmatic terms.

2. That is a false observation. What have I ever said that gave you that impression?

You started this thread with testimony from a doctor who couldn't define what a woman was, and finished with the question "Can a man get pregnant?" In other forums it's been about transgender women competing with biological women in sports, and fears of bathroom sexual assaults by transgender women. Irrespective of the validity of these situations, there has been total silence about transgender men.

And returning to the subject of coercion, I have to ask, why in the world would parents coerce a child into gender-affirming care? Are they hoping to produce a world-class athlete who will bring home millions of dollars?

[flockofseagulls104]

Let me give you a real-world example. A couple at our church has a biological male child who presents himself as female. He is only 10 years old. That decision wasn't one their parents made, the child made it. The parents have not yet started gender-affirming care, but it will be the child's choice, not theirs if and when it happens.

And since you're in the "I must have an answer" mood, let me ask you two questions.
1. Do you know any transgender people?

2. Why are you so concerned with transgender women and not with transgender men?

1. I have had transgender co-workers. But I do not have any transgender close friends that I know of. Please tell me what the relevance of that question is.

Because if you knew any, not as co-workers but as friends, you might not speak in such dogmatic terms.

2. That is a false observation. What have I ever said that gave you that impression?

You started this thread with testimony from a doctor who couldn't define what a woman was, and finished with the question "Can a man get pregnant?" In other forums it's been about transgender women competing with biological women in sports, and fears of bathroom sexual assaults by transgender women. Irrespective of the validity of these situations, there has been total silence about transgender men.

And returning to the subject of coercion, I have to ask, why in the world would parents coerce a child into gender-affirming care? Are they hoping to produce a world-class athlete who will bring home millions of dollars?

In what way, ear, am I being dogmatic? I have stated my belief that adult transgenders have the right to do what they want. But they don't get to invade my personal space or take away my or anyone else's rights. What is dogmatic about that? Should any 'protected' group take away rights from other people?

By definition and biological fact, women are in some ways more vulnerable than men. It is a fact that they are being marginalized as a group in favor of transgenders. Their right to privacy and their right to compete against their equals is taken away by men who are 'identifying' as women. In that area, as proof of the difference between the sexes, there are very few transmen that have been successful in sports. (I did the research myself). Chris Mosier is one, of very few (according to grok) in a very off the track sport. And their motivation to compete in sports is more grounded, because it is very unlikely, in most sports, that they will be champions, unlike transwomen, who have a biological advantage over bio women.

Most men feel, rightly or wrongly, that they can defend themselves against a trans-man. Most women, I presume, would not feel the same confidence if they were confronted by a transwoman. And there's the sexual part of it as well. There are men who want to identify as women for the sexual power and accessability aspect of it. Just a fact, ear, that the left may not want to acknowledge.

Well, in the case of some people, it seems to be fashionable. It also seems to be a rage in the education system, though there's signs that it's calming down.

[earendel]

In what way, ear, am I being dogmatic? I have stated my belief that adult transgenders have the right to do what they want. But they don't get to invade my personal space or take away my or anyone else's rights. What is dogmatic about that? Should any 'protected' group take away rights from other people?

By definition and biological fact, women are in some ways more vulnerable than men. It is a fact that they are being marginalized as a group in favor of transgenders. Their right to privacy and their right to compete against their equals is taken away by men who are 'identifying' as women. In that area, as proof of the difference between the sexes, there are very few transmen that have been successful in sports. (I did the research myself). Chris Mosier is one, of very few (according to grok) in a very off the track sport. And their motivation to compete in sports is more grounded, because it is very unlikely, in most sports, that they will be champions, unlike transwomen, who have a biological advantage over bio women.

Most men feel, rightly or wrongly, that they can defend themselves against a trans-man. Most women, I presume, would not feel the same confidence if they were confronted by a transwoman. And there's the sexual part of it as well. There are men who want to identify as women for the sexual power and accessability aspect of it. Just a fact, ear, that the left may not want to acknowledge.

Well, in the case of some people, it seems to be fashionable. It also seems to be a rage in the education system, though there's signs that it's calming down.

Now this is more like it. Had you started this thread with these well-reasoned statements, the conversation might have gone differently. You have stated your position clearly, and I appreciate it.

[flockofseagulls104]

In what way, ear, am I being dogmatic? I have stated my belief that adult transgenders have the right to do what they want. But they don't get to invade my personal space or take away my or anyone else's rights. What is dogmatic about that? Should any 'protected' group take away rights from other people?

By definition and biological fact, women are in some ways more vulnerable than men. It is a fact that they are being marginalized as a group in favor of transgenders. Their right to privacy and their right to compete against their equals is taken away by men who are 'identifying' as women. In that area, as proof of the difference between the sexes, there are very few transmen that have been successful in sports. (I did the research myself). Chris Mosier is one, of very few (according to grok) in a very off the track sport. And their motivation to compete in sports is more grounded, because it is very unlikely, in most sports, that they will be champions, unlike transwomen, who have a biological advantage over bio women.

Most men feel, rightly or wrongly, that they can defend themselves against a trans-man. Most women, I presume, would not feel the same confidence if they were confronted by a transwoman. And there's the sexual part of it as well. There are men who want to identify as women for the sexual power and accessability aspect of it. Just a fact, ear, that the left may not want to acknowledge.

Well, in the case of some people, it seems to be fashionable. It also seems to be a rage in the education system, though there's signs that it's calming down.

Now this is more like it. Had you started this thread with these well-reasoned statements, the conversation might have gone differently. You have stated your position clearly, and I appreciate it.

Nice of you to say. Have I affected your perspective? Here's another example:
https://nypost.com/2026/01/31/us-news/d ... astectomy/

[earendel]

Now this is more like it. Had you started this thread with these well-reasoned statements, the conversation might have gone differently. You have stated your position clearly, and I appreciate it.

Nice of you to say. Have I affected your perspective? Here's another example:
https://nypost.com/2026/01/31/us-news/d ... astectomy/

No. What those two doctors did was certainly malpractice, but that doesn't change my view regarding transgender individuals. Yes, there should be guardrails, and parents should be consulted (note that in this instance it was NOT the parent who insisted on gender-affirming treatment). But for every one person like Fox, there are ample numbers of others who successfully transition.

[flockofseagulls104]

Now this is more like it. Had you started this thread with these well-reasoned statements, the conversation might have gone differently. You have stated your position clearly, and I appreciate it.

Nice of you to say. Have I affected your perspective? Here's another example:
https://nypost.com/2026/01/31/us-news/d ... astectomy/

No. What those two doctors did was certainly malpractice, but that doesn't change my view regarding transgender individuals. Yes, there should be guardrails, and parents should be consulted (note that in this instance it was NOT the parent who insisted on gender-affirming treatment). But for every one person like Fox, there are ample numbers of others who successfully transition.

Excuse me? You seem to have had no earthly idea that minor children were being mutilated in the name of transgenderism, and I gave you real life examples of how they were AND CONTINUE TO BE. And now that you seem to acknowledge that fact, you tell me that there are 'ample' numbers who successfully 'transition' that justify it. Please tell me, what is the exact number that constitutes 'ample' to outweigh one person whose life is completely and unalterably ruined by those who are 'transitioning' minor children? Is it 5 'successful transitions' of children under 18 years old for one ruined life? 10?, 50? 100? Please tell me. I'd really like to know.

ear, I REALLY want to count you as a reasoned person. Please get more facts and try and come down on the right, moral side of this. I cannot think of even one reason that would convince me that doing ANYTHING to a child under 18 to artificially and superficially change their sex that would permanently and irreversibly change them is justified under any circumstance.

[earendel]

Excuse me? You seem to have had no earthly idea that minor children were being mutilated in the name of transgenderism, and I gave you real life examples of how they were AND CONTINUE TO BE. And now that you seem to acknowledge that fact, you tell me that there are 'ample' numbers who successfully 'transition' that justify it. Please tell me, what is the exact number that constitutes 'ample' to outweigh one person whose life is completely and unalterably ruined by those who are 'transitioning' minor children? Is it 5 'successful transitions' of children under 18 years old for one ruined life? 10?, 50? 100? Please tell me. I'd really like to know.

I will not deny that there are those who "encourage" (the word from your original post) children to receive gender-affirming treatment. That is wrong, and there should be guardrails to prevent it. But should such be denied unequivocally? No. It would be like saying that because one heart transplant results in a patient's death, all heart transplants should be prohibited.

ear, I REALLY want to count you as a reasoned person. Please get more facts and try and come down on the right, moral side of this. I cannot think of even one reason that would convince me that doing ANYTHING to a child under 18 to artificially and superficially change their sex that would permanently and irreversibly change them is justified under any circumstance.

And therein lies the problem. You see this is a moral issue, and so do I. But we disagree on what the "moral" is.

[BackInTex]

Excuse me? You seem to have had no earthly idea that minor children were being mutilated in the name of transgenderism, and I gave you real life examples of how they were AND CONTINUE TO BE. And now that you seem to acknowledge that fact, you tell me that there are 'ample' numbers who successfully 'transition' that justify it. Please tell me, what is the exact number that constitutes 'ample' to outweigh one person whose life is completely and unalterably ruined by those who are 'transitioning' minor children? Is it 5 'successful transitions' of children under 18 years old for one ruined life? 10?, 50? 100? Please tell me. I'd really like to know.

I will not deny that there are those who "encourage" (the word from your original post) children to receive gender-affirming treatment. That is wrong, and there should be guardrails to prevent it. But should such be denied unequivocally? No. It would be like saying that because one heart transplant results in a patient's death, all heart transplants should be prohibited.

ear, I REALLY want to count you as a reasoned person. Please get more facts and try and come down on the right, moral side of this. I cannot think of even one reason that would convince me that doing ANYTHING to a child under 18 to artificially and superficially change their sex that would permanently and irreversibly change them is justified under any circumstance.

And therein lies the problem. You see this is a moral issue, and so do I. But we disagree on what the "moral" is.

In your opinion, it is morally O.K. for a 6 year-old to go get tatooed? If he or she wants, and with parents consent? What if only one consents?

[earendel]

Excuse me? You seem to have had no earthly idea that minor children were being mutilated in the name of transgenderism, and I gave you real life examples of how they were AND CONTINUE TO BE. And now that you seem to acknowledge that fact, you tell me that there are 'ample' numbers who successfully 'transition' that justify it. Please tell me, what is the exact number that constitutes 'ample' to outweigh one person whose life is completely and unalterably ruined by those who are 'transitioning' minor children? Is it 5 'successful transitions' of children under 18 years old for one ruined life? 10?, 50? 100? Please tell me. I'd really like to know.

I will not deny that there are those who "encourage" (the word from your original post) children to receive gender-affirming treatment. That is wrong, and there should be guardrails to prevent it. But should such be denied unequivocally? No. It would be like saying that because one heart transplant results in a patient's death, all heart transplants should be prohibited.

ear, I REALLY want to count you as a reasoned person. Please get more facts and try and come down on the right, moral side of this. I cannot think of even one reason that would convince me that doing ANYTHING to a child under 18 to artificially and superficially change their sex that would permanently and irreversibly change them is justified under any circumstance.

And therein lies the problem. You see this is a moral issue, and so do I. But we disagree on what the "moral" is.

In your opinion, it is morally O.K. for a 6 year-old to go get tatooed? If he or she wants, and with parents consent? What if only one consents?

I don't think anyone should get a tattoo, but it's not a moral issue for me. Plus, there's a big difference between a tattoo and gender-affirming treatment. To answer your questions - if the child wants it and the parents agree, then it's up to them to make the decision. If only one parent agrees, then I would recommend discussing the issue with a therapist before making a final decision.