“If you are concerned with the safety of children, Svetlana, then you should support the right of transgender children to be safe from forced conversion therapy that can be emotionally and physically abusive.”
I do: I think that imposing unnecessary medical treatment on a child, is child abuse and should be treated as such no matter who is doing it. That is exactly what I said quite clearly and your constant misrepresenting of my points is very childish. Your constant retreat from answering rebuttals to each and every point you yourself brought up, makes it as clear as day that you haven’t put any kind of logical analysis into any of this.
But even the fact that you talk about “transgender children” is an insight into your complete refusal to allow your world-view to be infected by cold hard facts or reality in any way. You want the law to protect “transgender” children? Why? What is a “transgender” child? How do you define it when you cannot even define what a “transgender” adult is? How is the law supposed to define it? Do we have a different law written every time someone decides to “identify” as something else?
So no: I do not think the law should protect “transgender” children (whatever they are.) I think the law should protect all children without distinction. I think all laws should protect people not identities. The law, to be just, must be blind to identities. It must not regognise different categories of people based on how they identify themselves. That is pretty much the essence of the concept of human rights. People have fought and struggled for centuries to demand equality of treatment for everybody under the law. Everybody now has equal rights across the developed world. The law cannot and should not do more than that.
Should we also have special laws to protect black people or Jews or gays specifically? What would that law say about black people or gays or Jews? It would seperate them out from the rest of the population and it would say — these people are some other category of citizen. They are not normal citizens and the law applies differently to them. That is rolling back the clock on human rights, not advancing it.
If someone really wants to mutilate their bodies when they are adults then that is up to them, but a child cannot make that decision. I also believe that any form of cosmetic (rather than re-constructive) surgery even for adults, is a deep ethical quagmire for the medical profession, although I think as usual, the state should stay out of that.