Boys should be allowed to transition if they want to

I'm just going to make this flat out statement.

All the affairs of boys, children for that matter should be allowed to do anything that they do authorized by their parents/legal guardians within the law; within applicable religious matters.

That's just an all around encompassing statement when it comes to children. This is why we have consent laws and entitlements not yet given to children due to parental discretion.

The law labels a child as a minor up until a specific age and enables the proper legal guardian to use discretion in financial matters, medical matters , recreational matters i.e. films, motion pictures (movies), all sorts of affairs involving children where the weight of decisions lean on the parent.

Anything that the child should do is ultimately based on the authority of another. There's nothing that they should or should not do but be obedient. Children do not have any authority to act on their own from their wants dictating what should/should not be done. Anything a child should do is exactly what they're told, instructed, guided to do.

A child has no business, has no concern about what they should do on their own. They never have to think about what should be decided outside of the default and because of it which would be what the parent tells them to do. Just replace the word "should" with "told". 

The child does what they should do. NO

The child does what they are told.

That's it .

I believe we're in a culture now that is trying to diminishing the parent authoritative structure.

I suppose that's where this topic is stemming from. The child tells the parent where it's at.

There's really no argument or point you can come up with in defense or in support of the topic statement.

A boy , a child, should do what is according to the parent. That can't be superceded or invalidated. The child is immature to use a common expression," the child doesn't know any better". To try to introduce this matter with sex and gender identity, remember the consent laws.

Now whatever the parents decides within the law , law of the land and or religiously for that child is one thing. But going by the topic, "a boy should be allowed.....", well under what jurisdiction, what authority?

Well if not by his own, he shouldn't be allowed to do anything just because he wants

Quote where I stated this please.

Correct. Don't dispute that. Parents have authority nevertheless under law.

Well this is not up for debate. That's why I just used the word "authority ". Under law it is the parent that has that over the child. So the child should do what the parent authorized, not what they want.

Parents have TOTAL authority under law over there children. A minor cannot sign or sign alone for a medical procedure without the consent of a parent. Did you not know this ? That's why this is really not up for debate.

The problem is your topic is not consistent with reality. Do you know that parents/legal guardians have total authority by law over their children?

If you do know that , what does having total, notice total, total authority mean?

We can remember that along with the instructions that are set forth by legal guardians. It appears as if you don't know that everything that has to do with a child is approved of by a legal guardian because they're in the care of that guardian. The children are not like grown adults that don't have to get permission or approval. So children first and foremost do things allowable by the guardian. That is the structure. The child has a need , well the responsibility of the guardian is to provide the needs. The child doesn't ultimately decide the needs. The guardian knows better than the child that determines the needs to be met ultimately for the best. As far as wants that again has to be ok'd by the guardian and then everything falls in.

See an adult should do whatever it is according to their wants. A child is not , is not equal to an adult in this manner. We don't have to get into the term "property", it's got nothing to do with that .

There really is no debate. A child can't do anything, not one thing they can do without the approval of authority. 

Let me ask this question and I want to see which one you'll choose as it is structured by reality of the law and the world. You can only choose one as is verbatim. You can't mix up the words adding to it or taking away.

Boys should be allowed to transition if they want to?

-OR

Boys should be allowed to transition if they are allowed to by a legal guardian?

That's all the topic title reads. Do you wish to retract it then?

Furthermore you say "never only". A child's wants is not  or never a part of the justification. It may be one of the reasons. But the only justification is that which is reached from the sound mind of an adult over the child's life watching over the child. See remember the adults bring up, raise up the children guiding and teaching them to rationalize. The adults don't look to the children . The children have to be trained by them and in the process mature upon a certain age where the law states "ok, guardianship is no longer mandated at this time". The children are grown, they're on their own at that point.

Is this all in the final discretion of the parent/legal guardian? Remember the Father, the Mother is to know what's best. The child's best welfare and interest would include all the elements you just listed

"Your entire case is built upon "if parents oppose, child should not be allowed to transition even if child wants to."

Which is the reality. I want to stick with that. Parents are over children. Not the other way around. It's seems like you have this delusion that it's supposed to be nearly equal between the two just because a child is a human being. Is this how liberal society has gotten?

"Transitioning helps the child who wants it. Parents should not have authority to prevent child from transitioning when child wants to."

Who has authority over who under the law, the child or their legal guardian that's in total authority and responsibility?

When you say "Parents should not have authority", are you taking authority over the parents?

Have you ever heard a parent say you don't have a right to tell them how to raise their child?

"Child is not a toy. Child has wishes. Parents should sometimes respect those wishes."

Toy, property, you can continue to come up with all these labels. Then you continue to say "parents should" do this and that, but you have no authority over any parent. So trying to make a point about what they should do is futile.

I don't know if you're attempting to misrepresent my points or misrepresent what authority is. The law grants what's called legal guardianship. Under the law , the legal guardian has complete authority over their dependents that they have total responsibility over for protection and welfare. That's it. Now will a guardian elect or allow any kind of transitioning with their child, IT'S UP TO THEM.

I don't know if this will register with you now or in the future. It is the discretion and decision made by the parent or what the parent ALLOWS the child to decide. That is the role of a parent. It's the parents responsibility of all the affairs of a child.

Again, again, again, a minor requires signature from a parent on a medical procedure. They require parental/legal representation.

I don't know what is difficult about understanding the parent over the child. I guess this society has really went off the deep end in just about everything. A child can tell a parent how it's going to go like the child knows better than the parent.

Stuff like this definitely opens the gate up on child consent permitting child and adult sexual relationships.

"It means slavery."

Ok let's go with your biased expression.

The company I work at has total authority with compensating for my work. They're authorized to do that. Now to translate it with the company has slavery to compensate or to try to make it fit better, they're enslaved to pay out or I guess I'm enslaved to get paid.

It doesn't translate too well. The term slavery is ambivalent, colloquially people use it differently particularly in a context of obligation, shackled and imprisoned. So I do suggest when you use the terms "total authority", be clear because of the bewildering contexts.

A parent is allowed to instruct , decide things for and over the child. You can call that enslavement. Then I would ask what are the terms of the enslavement?

The terms simply are instructing, deciding things for and over the child as the responsibility of the parent, not the child but the responsibility of the parent for the well being and rearing of that child progressing to be a law abiding citizen. The same law allowing the parents to do that.

"Transitioning improves the well-being of children who want to transition. It makes them happy. Guardians have no right to destroy child's happiness. "

My friend, the reality is the parent/guardian knows best. The child can't just simply do what they want. Sorry , reality check.

Show me the law that takes this right away from a guardian/parent. I mean they're the ones that have to sign on any medical visit, dental visit, medical care. I mean the child has to be listed as a dependent on an adult's insurance policy.

You can use any label you want. Property, slavery, toy, any of these labels. Instead of being indirect, just come out and say parents are not to have authority over children, children are to be equal. Children can even be over the parents.

So are we not having a basis for what should be?

Your basis is just the children themselves. Mines is by law, the parents and guardians.

Nothing is "just should be" for the sake of.

You chose the former. So your position, you don't believe in parental authority . Do you believe in some? Yes or no.

If just believe in some, do you believe the child and adult are equals? Yes or no .

It's the reality which is the truth I'm demonstrating to you. A child should do what the parent allows them to. You have to digest this. A child doesn't have any rights that supercede the authority of a legal guardian under the law. The child doesn't have their own private business, doesn't own anything that the parent has provided for because the parent is the provider. I think if you understand that the child is not an adult that has their own choices to make , their own responsibilities, use their own experienced judgement and conduct their lives, you can wrap your head around all I've been saying to you on this topic.

This is what a parent is for. So this has to do or is relevant to ALL choices, decisions that relate to the child's life which would include this transitioning stuff. This is the parent's role. You can call it any name you like. This is the parent raising the child. Not the other way around where they go and decide for themselves unless allowed by the parent. I just think you're rejecting this reality.

You know we're talking about lawful best interest cases. Here you go with the "there are cases". You take the word "authority" and conflate it with abuse, all this negative stuff. 

I can do the same to fit my position and say in the cases of best interest of the child under parental authority period.

I distinguish with saying "under the law", "under the law", "under the law", "under the law". This way I'm not conflating everything with the term "authority ".

"Claiming that parents know best is not just fantasy, but also an appeal to authority, since we are debating what should be done, not who gets to decide what should be done."

First off , you say "claiming ". Are you saying parents don't know best? How are they going to take care of their children ?

What should be done can't get done if it isn't decided on. It has to be decided on to be done. If you say a child should do this or that, if the child is not deciding they should do something and not deciding "what", then the "what" doesn't exist.

When you make the following statement:

"Boys should be allowed to transition if they want to"............do you not know a decision is being made right there?

You say we're not debating who gets to decide what but someone is already deciding right there. Otherwise we wouldn't have any such statement or position about what should be done. Somebody has already decided that. You have to decide to declare what should be. You have to decide what should be to declare what should be. You have to decide the "should be", the "should" part to get to the "declare " part.

If the child should do what they want, is the parent or child deciding it?

Better yet , ARE YOU DECIDING? Is it the parent, child or you?

You made this topic statement now