Image 01 Image 03

Prof Argues Parents Should Lose ‘Veto Power’ Over Children’s Gender Transitions

Prof Argues Parents Should Lose ‘Veto Power’ Over Children’s Gender Transitions

“taking LGBT patient testimony seriously also means that parents should lose veto power over most transition-related paediatric care”

Even the far left professor and cultural critic Camille Paglia has said that she believes indulging children in this is a form of child abuse.

Campus Reform reports:

ASU prof: Parents should lose ‘veto power’ over ‘most transition-related pediatric care’

An academic paper argues that parents should lose “veto power” over their children’s gender transition proceedings.

Maura Priest — a philosophy professor at Arizona State University — wrote a response in the Journal of Medical Ethics to another paper from Melbourne Law School researcher Lauren Notini, which argues that ongoing puberty suppression “is consistent with the proper goals of medicine to promote well-being, and therefore could ethically be offered to non-binary adults in principle.” Priest agrees with the authors’ conclusion, but claims that medical opinion should not override LGBT testimony when it comes to making decisions around the gender transition process.

“If the medical community is to take LGBT testimony seriously (as they should) then it is no longer the job of physicians to do their own weighing of the costs and benefits of transition-related care,” Priest wrote. “Assuming the patient is informed and competent, then only the patient can make this assessment, because only the patient has access to the true weight of transition-related benefits.”

Furthermore, Priest argued that “taking LGBT patient testimony seriously also means that parents should lose veto power over most transition-related paediatric care.”

Notini’s article stated that a hypothetical patient — in this case, an eighteen-year-old female named Phoenix who identifies as “gender non-binary” — should still be approved for hormone treatment despite the risk of lowering her bone density. In particular, Phoenix would have a “very low absolute risk of fracture.”


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


The Friendly Grizzly | July 17, 2021 at 12:30 pm

I would say what needs doing to this professor but my comment would be pulled.

    JusticeDelivered in reply to The Friendly Grizzly. | July 24, 2021 at 3:47 pm


    Regarding “Assuming the patient is informed and competent”

    I would add that no pubescent is really “informed and competent” and that a profit motivated industry is pushing this stuff on children far younger than 18, as in 11-12 year old’s.

henrybowman | July 17, 2021 at 6:31 pm

I don’t see any issue here that hasn’t been debated to death in Christian Science cases for more than half a century. “Unwise” medical decisions that there is no question that a functional adult has a right to make for himself, versus the same decision being made for a ward or dependent. It’s nothing more than a basic conflict of rights, and there is never a good solution. And typically they are decided in a partisan fashion that has nothing to do with what the actual rights of a child should be. Pardon me for thinking that leftist should be able to detect some logical inconsistency in a set of rules that prescribes that the same being having the right to independently demand medically and psychologically debilitating treatments at the age of nine had not so much as a basic right to her own life while she was in the oven.

    henrybowman in reply to henrybowman. | July 17, 2021 at 6:35 pm

    Correction: Actually, there is one semi-novel issue here, and it is the “bake the cake” issue. While a patient has a right to demand an unwise treatment, an individual physician still has the right to decide what “do no harm” means to him and refuse to be the one to perform it. This Priest woman seems to be saying that doctors should be under some legal or ethical compulsion to do what the patient asks. That, I certainly don’t agree with.

Richard Aubrey | July 17, 2021 at 10:46 pm

Not too many years ago, Slenderman convinced a couple of twelve year olds to murder a friend. They gave it a shot.
If the nutcase social media can convince kids of that…..

come to my house and tell me that….heheh.

The uberleftist whackademic can say whatever she wants, but that kind of ivory tower Amish exhaust meets reality:

First, I can’t think of any state which allows minors to enter into any contract legally except under very specific circumstances (e.g. emancipation order). I am not an attorney here, but informed consent does form a contract for waiver of liability and other important terms.

Secondly, no malpractice insurance carrier will continue covering any physician or other medical practitioner who engages in therapies for which no properly and legally executed informed consent has not been granted.

Finally, the state licensing boards across the health professions will pull the licenses of any health care professional who goes against practice standards—and that means starting any major therapies like transgender hormone and/or surgical treatment.

Yes, there are zealots who will try anything for a buck, but when the boards come after them—they change their tune.

    henrybowman in reply to drsamherman. | July 19, 2021 at 2:30 am

    “First, I can’t think of any state which allows minors to enter into any contract legally except under very specific circumstances (e.g. emancipation order).”

    You are aware, I hope, that it is already law in California that if a child’s guardians are foster parents, the foster parents have zero say for or against any gender-bending procedures the child (age 12 and up) may demand, and those procedures will be paid for by the taxpayer.

    The problem with America today is that when you believe you finally understand how bad things have gotten, someone can easily show you that it’s worse.

      drsamherman in reply to henrybowman. | July 19, 2021 at 4:05 pm

      I believe that is covered under “specific circumstances”, and once you add in “California”, that state is one big exercise in crazy.

Children, especially girls, are extremely vulnerable to fads and peer pressure. They often get strange ideas in their heads, especially regarding their sexuality. Mandating “affirmation” of their ideas is insane.

When my daughter was a pre-teen, she thought she was fat at 97 pounds. Dieting was the fad that was going around in her group of dancers. I told her she was actually quite slim. When she mentioned it to her doctor, he told her she was slim and going on a diet would be bad for her health.

Now, many children are convinced by TV shows and their peers that transgender is the coolest way to be. And the pressure groups insist that doctors not even question these feelings, but begin sterilizing hormone treatments and removal of healthy organs. That is insane.

Requiring doctors to blindly begin treatments for “gender dysphoria” is just as insane as requiring doctors to affirmatively treat anorexia. They would not be allowed to tell my 97-pound daughter that she isn’t fat, but would have to affirm her feelings of being fat, and start her on crash diets and laxatives.