If either a child or an adult believes he or she is some sort of animal and desires the surgical removal of legs or arms, would any doctor even consider chopping off those limbs at the behest of the mentally ill patient? Why should it be any different for a request to castrate or mutilate from one who suffers from gender dysphoria?
The case of James Younger in Texas should finally answer this question for all of us. It’s time for conservatives to amputate the head of the sexual mutilation industry and make the performance of such castrations and mutilation operations illegal across the board.
On Monday, a jury in Texas (not California!) ruled that Jeffrey Younger, the father of a seven-year-old son whose mother wants to start the hormonal process to “transition” him to a “girl,” cannot receive custody of James, cannot do anything to prevent him from being treated like a girl, and cannot block the chemical castration. There is much debate over the courts, the custody battle, the degeneration of our society, and questions of a child’s mental understanding of the issues at that age. However, there is one question that comes before this entire debate, and if it were categorically answered, there would be no further debate. Why on earth is it legal for any hospital or medical practitioner to engage in such severe mutilation?
We can debate the merits of custody decisions when a certain parent, in this case the mother, Anne Georgulas, wants to treat the child in an abusive way, for example to cross-dress him. But to actually engage in castration, whether chemically or surgically, requires the use of medical services. In an industry that is regulated from head to toe – where so many experimental treatments for terminally ill patients with no other recourse are prohibited – how can there be no law against performing such amputations even for an adult, much less a child, even when both parents agree? What happened to the Hippocratic Oath?