There's a very real chance that this could be viewed by a future generation like 1920s "Progressives" that thought they were agents of goodness and social progress, equipped with science.
This whole unqualified pro-trans push could be hubristic people who're unwittingly "medically fixing" queer kids with internalized concepts and phobias from their social culture.
Neither do I. Neither does anyone. You're attacking something that does not happen. Children who want to transition have to consult with physicians and psychologists.
> There's a very real chance that this could be viewed by a future generation like 1920s "Progressives" that thought they were agents of goodness and social progress, equipped with science.
No, there isn't. You seem to be talking about eugenics, which was people forcing their views of "science" onto others.
In the case of children transitioning, it's not anything being forced on them. Their parents are not coming up with it, and neither are their doctors. It's something they bring up themselves.
Children are almost always given reversible (meaning hormone-based) treatments, and the rate at which they change their minds later is 0.4%[1].
Considering how rare transgender people are in the first place, that is an exceedingly small number of people.
1. https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/media-s-detransition...
I'm talking about having a healthy sense of self-doubt.
History shows us that the imprimatur of science is used to advance hubris-driven, pernicious social ideas of a time.
The take-away is that when you're absolutely convinced that some new trend is moral and liberating, you should at the very least try to imagine the possibility that you're not only wrong but actively doing harm.
> AFAIK this and similar bills outlaw what could be termed “body modification” for under-18 children
Surgery recommended by a doctor is not "body modification," it is medical treatment.
Also, this goes far beyond surgery. It also outlaws the use of prescription drugs.
> roughly in line with overall limitations on the freedoms of underage individuals (e.g. regarding technically-consensual sex, or vulva surgery - which is legally “female circumcision” if performed on underage women
First of all, minors can have consensual, legal sex... with each other. Age-of-consent laws are intended to protect children from adults, not from themselves. I don't see what this has to do with anything, because it's unrelated to a medical condition and doesn't require a doctor to carefully manage it.
Second, "female circumcision" is not "vulva surgery," it is usually mutilation of the clitoris intended to eliminate female pleasure. It is not something a minor would (or could) seek as a treatment for any medical condition.