Now, he (with the legislature) steps up again to ward off the tender mutilations proposed by trans-activists, and once again, to keep children from being damaged in horrible ways that cannot be reversed.
What's the problem with that?
Let's unpack that a little bit...
Let's say there is a legitimate need for the mangling proposed in a minor - I have a friend who that happened to... Albeit that his accident occurred a wee bit later, and he was no longer a minor... But the need was plain in that no other option remained.
So let's say, for the sake of the argument, that there are times when the legitimate exercise of a parental right, or right of a guardian, exists in a benevolent, or at least necessary way... Perhaps it could be said this law goes too far for those reasons - however few and far between they are.
Still such examples are exceedingly few - Most of these cases are to ease a mental dysphoria, having nothing to do with a dire need, with the exception that, children taken prior to puberty are easier to feminize. Without that single benefit, there can be no harm in waiting until the child reaches an age of autonomy, able to make decisions for himself.
And in fact, on the whole, the statistics suggest the decision will never be made, because in most cases, by far the majority, the childhood dysphoria disappears with time.
Still, if the very rare case exists (admitted for the argument), it could be said that curtailing the parental right is a bridge too far - And I am willing to entertain the point, if not quite ceding it. But even for those few, it still does nothing to the law - those few cases, either proven in court, or given succor by amendment, can seek their justice.
By far and away, according to statistics, this curtailment of parental right will in the end be rendered null by the passage of time in most cases, with no injury to anyone.
