In this case fear of lawsuit is part of it but also looking to the state to determine when someone is able to exercise medical agency. That later perspective is the ethics.

I'm ethically against adults having sex with minors for example. That said, the age I consider "minor" changes depending on the juristiction I'm considering.

I let the citizenry make that determination and then adapt my ethics appropriately.

That said, even I draw lines below about 15 which is where my morality comes in.

Morality and ethics are very separate concepts. Morality is entirely internal whereas ethics are guided by outside principles.

We deal with this in healthcare a lot, which is why I said in another discussion that I am ethically pro-choice but morally pro-life.

In cases where a legal minor (not emancipated) disagrees with the decisions of the legal guardians regarding medical treatment, the minor may petition the court to overrule the decision of the legal guardians. That is a legal procedure that exists to handle exceptional cases, and should be adequate.

I agree

In the event that there are "automatic medical emancipation" laws without any kind of process, I would oppose them categorically.

This is an honest question so that I understand your perspective accurately. Do you believe a 16yo should be able to obtain oral contraceptives without their parent's permission?

Or should the parent be able to deny that to the minor despite the fact the parent cannot control that minor's sexuality?

I believe the 16 year old has access to emancipation procedures, and can use those if desired.

So they have to go to court to take "the pill"?

Once emancipated, the 16 year old is an adult.

Not at all, @DrYuriMom , the minor would have to go to court to set aside the decision of the legal guardians.

Many parents will consent.

Hmm'kay

I just wanted to be clear where you stood. I'm not judging. I just want to be clear.

It's very simple. Legal guardianship is controlling, unless set aside with due process.

If there is a disagreement between the guardian and the minor on medical issues, there is process to handle that.

Hmm'kay. We can agree to disagree on that but at least I get where you are coming from and can certainly respect it given your consistency in application.

As things stand, it all varies from state to state which warms the cockles of my 10th Amendment heart

Now as far as the sexism of transgender. Honestly, in many cases, yes, @halfthink.

Historically there were many more M-to-F than F-to-M for the very reason that "tomboy" carries very different connotations in the US than does "sissy"

Many under the transgender umbrella are there only because their gender expression is outside the bounds of permissability in their culture.

They flock with transexuals only because society derides men who where feminine clothing.

That said, transsexuality is totally different and really has nothing to do with clothing. I never cross dressed while male bodied.

Not once.

I wore my first skirt fully six months AFTER I transitioned. My first dress two months after that.

Nowadays I wear a skirt or a dress maybe five days a year.

Most of the time I just wear scrubs. They're easier and I don't have to worry about blood spatters. I even wear them on weekends simply because of ease.

Also, I tried cosmetics during my first year but threw my hands up in frustration and now wear the stuff only once every 10 years, for my high school reunions.

I have someone else apply it

Personally, I always envied the wide array of choices women have

When it comes to clothing at least

My wife was totally useless during my transition, aesthetically at least, since she's a total tomboy and wears a dress only when someone dies. She hasn't worn makeup since our wedding 29 years ago.

No kidding, RedOblivion.

Before I got teased for wearing a pink dress shirt. Now I get teased for never wearing a dress. Sigh...

what is going on here?

really long suicide note.

ah