Court hears children cannot consent to puberty blockers

submitted by artetolife from theguardian.com

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Omina_Sentenziosa 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Back to the topic of whether kids at 12 or 13 are too young to be "having sex," I think that depends on what we mean by "having sex." I agree kids at that age shouldn't be shagging with peers or even engaging in acts like blow jobs, cunnilingus; it's probably too young even for hand jobs or fingering each other. But there's quite a few sexual activities that lots of kids at 12 and especially at 13 will be engaging in with peers that don't involve contact with bare genitals, penetration or even touching the genitals with the hands: necking, above-waist petting, frottage, for example.

I was talking about the shagging/blow jobs/cunnilingus trifecta here.

(It doesn't really matter whether adults think it's wise for 12 or 13 year-olds to be doing these things, some certainly are doin' 'em anyways. And at 13, a lot of kids especially nowadays feel pressure to be doing more, as Catherine Hardwicke's excellent film "Thirteen" showed.)

That adults don' t agree it' s not relevant here: I am well aware that teenagers and even younger kids do things despite what adults believe it' s best. The point, however, is that this would create a legal precedence. If they claim that children are mature enough to get transition because they are mature enough to have sex, then it means that the entire argument about age of consent would be completely useless. This isn' t simply a parent who doesn' t like that their kid is groping their boyfriend/girlfriend, this is a legal argument. The fact that they are just going "oh well, they do it so might as well take advantage of it" without even thinking about the repercussions (or maybe liking those repercussions) is what I am worried about.

Also, I think we need to keep in mind that most young people start engaging in sexual activities with peers in a gradual and graduated, step-by-step way, rather than starting off "playing with each other's genitals" or "going to home base" all at once. Or at least that's how it used to be when I grew up and when I raised kids; now in the era of constantly available internet porn, which kids are being exposed to at younger and younger ages, it might be different.

That' s the problem: I am younger than you (in my mid 30s), and in the '90s when I was that age, I knew no-one who was doing anything in the sexual category. The first couple among kids my age I have seen was when I was already in high school around 15. I started dating at 17. But yeah, I too grew up where things were gradual, so starting up with some kissing and then escalating after a certain time (usually enough that the kids in question were older) is different compared to the stuff kids do nowadays I am afraid. I wouldn' t be surprised if kids in middle school are already having complete intercourses. And the fact that it' s acknowledged for a hearing as a good thing that should be respected is horrifying to me.

[–]MarkTwainiac 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I agree with you that the core issue here is the legal precedence. But the other equally important issues, ones I found very worrying, are: a) the imprecision of the attorney's language - what did she mean by "having sex"?, and b) the revelation that the Tavistock uses loose age categories that allow them to lump together of all kids age 12 and 13 together as if they're all in the exact same phase of development. At the very least, the Tavi should be classifying and analyzing these kids not just by their chronological ages, but by what Tanner stage they're in.

It's so interesting to me that no one in your HS was coupled up until age 15, and you didn't start dating till 17. I wonder if the differences in our experiences might be related to where we each grew up? Country and state/province, and milieu.

Although I didn't go "all the way" until I was well over 16, I started dating at 13. Which was pretty normal for het girls in the late 60s in the suburban NYC area I grew up in. My own kids, who are about a half decade+ younger than you, started dating later than I did, but in their school and peer groups in hipsterville NYC some kids were coupling at 12/13. (And one of my eldest's male classmates groped me in the crotch and said something vulgar to me when the boy was six!) My own kids didn't really date early on, but they started having serious love interests and full-on PIV sex about the same time I did - during their junior year of HS (circa 2005-2010).

But I'm not trying to make what I or my kids did seem to be the norm for either my or their generation. There's always been huge variation- which is why I objected to the way the Tavi lawyer was characterizing things.

Also, I'm well aware that American girls who went to Roman Catholic convent schools in the 50s, 60s and 70s like I did were often "fast" coz no matter how behaved, we were probably doomed to hell (as Billy Joel made clear in his song "Only The Good Die Young"). Many of my close friends, especially my lesbian friends, that I met in college and later in life didn't date or experiment at all in HS; they only began to figure out their sexuality after they'd left their childhood homes - and some were well into their 20s before they dated. Also, my own principal college BF didn't have PIV sex until we fell in love when he was 19 pushing 20.

[–]Omina_Sentenziosa 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I agree with you that the core issue here is the legal precedence. But the other equally important issues, ones I found very worrying, are: a) the imprecision of the attorney's language - what did she mean by "having sex"?, and b) the revelation that the Tavistock uses loose age categories that allow them to lump together of all kids age 12 and 13 together as if they're all in the exact same phase of development. At the very least, the Tavi should be classifying and analyzing these kids not just by their chronological ages, but by what Tanner stage they're in.

Oh, yes, me too.

But I'm not trying to make what I or my kids did seem to be the norm for either my or their generation. There's always been huge variation- which is why I objected to the way the Tavi lawyer was characterizing things.

It's so interesting to me that no one in your HS was coupled up until age 15, and you didn't start dating till 17. I wonder if the differences in our experiences might be related to where we each grew up? Country and state/province, and milieu.

Oh, I wasn' t really trying to paint my experience as the standard, I was just trying to say that for me it' s weird to see kids that age in relationships because not only I haven' t lived it, I haven' t even seen it. Of course I am aware that there are kids who do it, but for me it' s just weird to think of kids that age as sexual beings. As you said, there is a world of difference between kissing/hugging/caressing and PIV/oral sex/anal sex. I think that the latter is something that shouldn' t happen regardless of the level of development the kids are in, so while I understand the argument you are making that they should take it into consideration, I think that whatever level a child reaches it is still way too soon to engage in PIV/anal sex/oral sex.

To be fair, I think that me starting dating at 17 had more to do with my personal preferences than what was "normal" if you pass the term. I have never been particularly interested in romance and sex, I am kind of a loner. For me relationships are more like a job, so I need to really like someone for me to consider it something worthy of doing. I was like that when I was a kid as well. It takes really a lot of effort for me.

I grew up in northern Italy, in a pretty liberal region, by the way.