
[BOR]
0: Safe
1: Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive.
2: Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed.
3: Be civil, No violations of [TOS](https://mastodon.world/about).
4: No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments.
5: Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
6: No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban.

[EOR]
[BOC]
In essence you are saying that someone as young as 12-14 should have complete autonomy of their sexuality.  *I need to be very clear here*- everyone seems to breeze by this reality.  If it's okay to make a lasting change to your sexual presentation at that age we need to by proxy remove any limits placed on sexuality period.  The reason is simple: if you are old enough to choose that then you are old enough to have sexual autonomy.

You can't cherry pick - one sexual comfort cannot be placed above another.  The reason I picked such a strong and universally reprehensible example is because "Of course that is ridiculous! They just don't know better- we need to protect them." We affirm one while slighting the other.  Are they old enough to pick partners and do what they please as they please... or are they not?

Their desires don't have to change but it's our job to give them time to grow into a decision or an identity even - before they make a lasting choice.  Being young means making mistakes and trying things.  Surgery and chemical therapy are lasting and in some cases permanent.  This flies in the face of that reality.
[EOC]
