In the nation’s most progressive state, you only need to be 12 years old to privately seek and consent to treatment for gender transitioning.
Denise Shick By Denise Shick
SEPTEMBER 24, 2018
You have to be 16 obtain a driver’s license in California, 18 to buy a rifle, engage in consensual sex, or get married without parental consent, and 21 to buy a handgun, alcohol, or marijuana. But in the nation’s most progressive state, you only need to be 12 years old to privately seek and consent to treatment for gender transitioning.
The recently enacted California law was written to “provide that the rights of minors and nonminors in foster care, as described above, include the right to be involved in the development of case plan elements related to placement and gender affirming health care, with consideration of their gender identity.”
The new law also includes this provision: “All children in foster care, as well as former foster youth up to 26 years of age, are entitled to Medi-Cal coverage without cost share or income or resource limits. The Medi-Cal program provides transition-related health care services when those services are determined to be medically necessary.”
That means that all tax-paying Californians will help to pay for all the various services included in these transition cases, regardless of your opinion of the matter.
The law’s authors seem to mean well. The bill also states:
It is the policy of the state that all minors and nonminors in foster care shall have the following rights:
(1) To live in a safe, healthy, and comfortable home where he or she is treated with respect.
(2) To be free from physical, sexual, emotional, or other abuse, or corporal punishment.
Those provisions within this law—and many of the others that follow them—are laudable at first glance. Who would oppose kids living in safe homes and being free of abuse? But meaning well often differs from doing well. The difference can be found in the sub-provisions that enunciate the methods for the well-meaning provisions. One provision says, for example:
The right of minors and nonminors in foster care to health care and mental health care described in paragraph (4) of subdivision (a) of Section 16001.9 includes covered gender affirming health care and gender affirming mental health care. This right is subject to existing laws governing consent to health care for minors and nonminors and does not limit, add, or otherwise affect applicable laws governing consent to health care.
Remember that the right to “gender affirming health care” extends to foster-care children as young as 12. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC):
Children in this age group [12-14] might:
Show more concern about body image, looks, and clothes.
Focus on themselves; going back and forth between high expectations and lack of confidence.
Experience more moodiness.
Show more interest in and influence by peer group.
Express less affection toward parents; sometimes might seem rude or short-tempered.
Feel stress from more challenging school work.
Develop eating problems.
Feel a lot of sadness or depression, which can lead to poor grades at school, alcohol or drug use, unsafe sex, and other problems.
What is the common link in all those points listed above? Immaturity. Adolescents are no longer little children, but they are not even close to being ready to make adult decisions. Choosing one’s gender—as if that really is a choice—is also certainly not a decision to be placed in the hands of one who “goes back and forth between high expectations and lack of confidence,” or one who “experiences more moodiness,” or who “feels a lot of sadness or depression.”
Many studies have found that human brains take a long time to develop fully—as long as 25 years or more. That means that adolescents are at a distinct disadvantage in decision making. That’s why you see the immaturity issues listed in the CDC analysis above. Chronologically, adolescents are only about halfway to full brain development. Yet the new California allows—and almost compels—adolescents to make irreversible, potentially life-altering decisions.
“The vast majority of gender dysphoric children affirmed as the opposite sex go on puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones are permanently sterilized as a result,” the American College of Pediatricians states in “Protect Children: Vote No on AB 2119.” Should a 12-year-old be allowed to make a decision that might cause him or her to be permanently sterilized?
This presumably well-meaning law has placed children as young as 12 ahead of caring foster parents in making decisions that could render those children incapable of one day having and raising children of their own—children who would have one day grown up and made decisions of their own. Wise decisions, we would hope. Those capable of making wise choices must stand firm in the struggle against those who simply mean well.
Denise Shick is author of “My Daddy’s Secret,” “When Hope Seems Lost,” and “Understanding Gender Confusion.” She serves on the academic council of the International Children's Rights Institute and directs Help 4 Families Ministry.
wtf happened to our country ?
Despite the fact that few 12 year olds seek this at all doesn't seem to make much difference with you. 2 factors weigh heavily here the environmental factor, family dysfunction, sexual abuse, or simple gender confusion syndrome which allowed time usually subsides! Encouraging a child to behave in this way is criminal! There's nothing normal or natural about this. Even in Darwinian evolution survival of the fittest and preservation of the species through biological procreation would dictate which species are successful and which die out, where as mankind would die out. This behavior is not an example of natural selection or genetic superiority. It's PC bullshit!
This is some sick shit! In California it is now illegal to seek psychological counseling for gender confused teen or even small children while the state and lunatic parents encourage the sexual reassignment surgery (mutilation) and hormonal treatment. More than 40% of these transgender people commit suicide or attempt it as the years go on.
It seems California is competing with Oregon on insanity in this area:
I could go all day
sorry Di you had that one :)
In Oregon, the change was made to the Oregon Health Plan and the age of consent is 15.
While 15 is the medical age of consent in the state, the decision to cover sex-change operations specifically was made by the Health Evidence Review Commission (HERC).
Members are appointed by the governor and paid by the state of Oregon. With no public debate, HERC changed its policy to include cross-sex hormone therapy, puberty-suppressing drugs and gender-reassignment surgery as covered treatments for people with gender dysphoria, formally known as gender identity disorder.
Therefore it would not be found under Oregon Law. Oregon, California and Washington has also started implementing third-sex gender markers on birth certificates. So parents or states encouraging sex reassignment seems to be a small step from assigning third-sex gender markers. There are numerous articles about drag queen children and parents raising their children "genderless".
"Washington State’s potential movement beyond that customary indoctrination is part of a growing trend in adapting legislation to reflect a change in perception of gender in the United States. Third sex gender markers have already been adopted by California, where one can be identified as “nonbinary” on their legal identification, and Oregon, which led the way when they adopted the marker “X.” This futuristic amendment to state law is obviously controversial."
In my opinion, the larger picture appears to be the state trying to push parents out of the loop by offering this without parental consent.
One is free to believe the article or not, but one must refrain from name calling in any case.
Yep Diana you got it!