Instigator / Pro
1
1300
rating
221
debates
44.8%
won
Topic
#4710

Boys should be allowed to transition if they want to

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
3
Better sources
0
2
Better legibility
1
0
Better conduct
0
1

After 1 vote and with 5 points ahead, the winner is...

Mall
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Rated
Number of rounds
5
Time for argument
One week
Max argument characters
30,000
Voting period
One month
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Minimal rating
None
Contender / Con
6
1479
rating
318
debates
39.31%
won
Description

Definitions:
Boys - Persons who were born as males and who are under age 10.

Transition - When a person who is born a boy dresses like a girl, wears make up and is addressed like a girl.

Round 1
Pro
#1
Topic
"Boys should be allowed to transition if they want to"

Introduction
Trans children are often bullied and ridiculed for trying to be what they want to be. They are misunderstood. They dont harm anyone, but the world harms them a lot. They need love and support to be able to stand up to bullies. In this debate, we will cover transitioning and explain why is it so important for trans children.

Definitions
Boys - Persons who were born as males and who are under age 10

Transition - When a person who is born a boy dresses like a girl, wears make up and is addressed like a girl.

Arguments

1. Fullfill her dream
Trans children have a dream. Like all children, they want for their dreams to come true. Being born a boy, she wishes to be a girl. She doesnt ask for much. All she wants is for others to respect her wish. She wants to be a girl. That is her dream. The dream that people want to deny her of. Do not deny her of her dream. Fullfill her dream.

2. A better world
If people could be what they want to be, if there was less judgment in the world, if there was more love, if there was more acceptance, if person didnt have to feel bad for being different, if person wasnt told that she cannot be what she wants to be, if person wasnt tormented by labels, if person could choose how others will call her and address her, then we would have a better world.

3. There is no harm in transition
Person who is born a boy likes make up. She likes dresses. She wants for others to call her a girl. She doesnt want to hurt anyone, but others hurt her with their judgments, their ridicules and their attacks. People should respect her decisions. It doesnt hurt them. There is harm in judgment. There is no harm in transition.

4. Allowing transition prevents harm
Spreading love causes people to be more loving towards others. When person sees love, person absorbs love. Person becomes more loving, more accepting, less likely to hurt others. Allowing transition spreads love. Allowing transition prevents harm.


5. Her ideal should be respected
Person is born with an ideal. She wants her ideal. She wants to be what she wants to be. She doesnt want to be what others want her to be. Others want for her to be what they want her to be, but she wants to be that which she desires. She is a girl. Her ideal should be respected.

Conclusion
Boys should be allowed to transition if they want to.
Con
#2
I'm just going to make this flat out statement.

All the affairs of boys, children for that matter should be allowed to do anything that they do authorized by their parents/legal guardians within the law; within applicable religious matters.

That's just an all around encompassing statement when it comes to children. This is why we have consent laws and entitlements not yet given to children due to parental discretion.

The law labels a child as a minor up until a specific age and enables the proper legal guardian to use discretion in financial matters, medical matters , recreational matters i.e. films, motion pictures (movies), all sorts of affairs involving children where the weight of decisions lean on the parent.

Anything that the child should do is ultimately based on the authority of another. There's nothing that they should or should not do but be obedient. Children do not have any authority to act on their own from their wants dictating what should/should not be done. Anything a child should do is exactly what they're told, instructed, guided to do.

A child has no business, has no concern about what they should do on their own. They never have to think about what should be decided outside of the default and because of it which would be what the parent tells them to do. Just replace the word "should" with "told". 

The child does what they should do. NO

The child does what they are told.

That's it .

I believe we're in a culture now that is trying to diminishing the parent authoritative structure.

I suppose that's where this topic is stemming from. The child tells the parent where it's at.

There's really no argument or point you can come up with in defense or in support of the topic statement.

A boy , a child, should do what is according to the parent. That can't be superceded or invalidated. The child is immature to use a common expression," the child doesn't know any better". To try to introduce this matter with sex and gender identity, remember the consent laws. 

Now whatever the parents decides within the law , law of the land and or religiously for that child is one thing. But going by the topic, "a boy should be allowed.....", well under what jurisdiction, what authority?

Well if not by his own, he shouldn't be allowed to do anything just because he wants. 


Round 2
Pro
#3
Arguments
1. Fullfill her dream
We all want for our dreams to come true. We wouldnt like if someone destroyed our dreams. We shouldnt destroy her dream.We should let her fullfill her dream.

2. A better world
We all want a better world. We all want good things. We dont want bad things. We dont want judgment. World without judgment is a better world.

3. There is no harm in transition
Her transition doesnt cause you pain. It doesnt cause pain to anyone. It doesnt hurt. She likes it. There is no harm in transition.

4. Allowing transition prevents harm
Trans children are in pain if their desires arent respected. She will feel less pain if allowed to transition. Her wish, that was unfullfilled, will be fullfilled. Allowing transition prevents harm.

5. Her ideal should be respected
Everyone wants for their ideals to be respected. Everyone has an ideal. Her ideal should be respected.

Conclusion
Allowing her to transition will fullfill her dream, will create a better world. There is no harm in it. It prevents harm. Allowing her to transition respects her ideal.
Boys should be allowed to transition if they want to.

Rebuttals
I'm just going to make this flat out statement.
All the affairs of boys, children for that matter should be allowed to do anything that they do authorized by their parents/legal guardians within the law; within applicable religious matters.
That's just an all around encompassing statement when it comes to children. This is why we have consent laws and entitlements not yet given to children due to parental discretion.
The law labels a child as a minor up until a specific age and enables the proper legal guardian to use discretion in financial matters, medical matters , recreational matters i.e. films, motion pictures (movies), all sorts of affairs involving children where the weight of decisions lean on the parent.
Anything that the child should do is ultimately based on the authority of another. There's nothing that they should or should not do but be obedient. Children do not have any authority to act on their own from their wants dictating what should/should not be done. Anything a child should do is exactly what they're told, instructed, guided to do.
A child has no business, has no concern about what they should do on their own. They never have to think about what should be decided outside of the default and because of it which would be what the parent tells them to do. Just replace the word "should" with "told". 
The child does what they should do. NO
The child does what they are told.
That's it .
This entire argument is 
"Parents get to decide. Therefore, child should not be allowed to transition."

The conclusion doesnt logically follow because parent's decisions need to be for the well-being of a child and not just "authority for the sake of authority.

I believe we're in a culture now that is trying to diminishing the parent authoritative structure.
Well, contrary to the popular belief, parents dont own their children.

I suppose that's where this topic is stemming from. The child tells the parent where it's at.
In this case, transitioning is child's harmless decision about her own body. Parents shouldnt meddle in everything.

There's really no argument or point you can come up with in defense or in support of the topic statement.
What you are saying is not the topic. The topic is "they should be allowed". It is not "Who gets to decide if children should be allowed".

A boy , a child, should do what is according to the parent. That can't be superceded or invalidated. The child is immature to use a common expression," the child doesn't know any better". To try to introduce this matter with sex and gender identity, remember the consent laws.
Can we instead remember that children arent property, that they have feelings and needs?

Now whatever the parents decides within the law , law of the land and or religiously for that child is one thing. But going by the topic, "a boy should be allowed.....", well under what jurisdiction, what authority?
We are here to debate. Not to do appeal to authority.

Well if not by his own, he shouldn't be allowed to do anything just because he wants
My argument was never only "Should be allowed because she wants".
Rather, well-being, happiness, freedom and lack of harm were all presented as arguments.
Con
#4
"Therefore, child should not be allowed to transition."

Quote where I stated this please.

"The conclusion doesnt logically follow because parent's decisions need to be for the well-being of a child and not just "authority for the sake of authority."

Correct. Don't dispute that. Parents have authority nevertheless under law.

"Well, contrary to the popular belief, parents dont own their children."

Well this is not up for debate. That's why I just used the word "authority ". Under law it is the parent that has that over the child. So the child should do what the parent authorized, not what they want.

"In this case, transitioning is child's harmless decision about her own body. Parents shouldnt meddle in everything."

Parents have TOTAL authority under law over there children. A minor cannot sign or sign alone for a medical procedure without the consent of a parent. Did you not know this ? That's why this is really not up for debate. 

"What you are saying is not the topic. The topic is "they should be allowed". It is not "Who gets to decide if children should be allowed".

The problem is your topic is not consistent with reality. Do you know that parents/legal guardians have total authority by law over their children?

If you do know that , what does having total, notice total, total authority mean?

"Can we instead remember that children arent property, that they have feelings and needs?"

We can remember that along with the instructions that are set forth by legal guardians. It appears as if you don't know that everything that has to do with a child is approved of by a legal guardian because they're in the care of that guardian. The children are not like grown adults that don't have to get permission or approval. So children first and foremost do things allowable by the guardian. That is the structure. The child has a need , well the responsibility of the guardian is to provide the needs. The child doesn't ultimately decide the needs. The guardian knows better than the child that determines the needs to be met ultimately for the best. As far as wants that again has to be ok'd by the guardian and then everything falls in.

See an adult should do whatever it is according to their wants. A child is not , is not equal to an adult in this manner. We don't have to get into the term "property", it's got nothing to do with that .

I think we need a refresher on the nature of the
parent/child structure today.

"We are here to debate. Not to do appeal to authority."

There really is no debate. A child can't do anything, not one thing they can do without the approval of authority. 

Let me reiterate the topic. I don't think you're getting this.

"Boys should be allowed to transition if they want to"

Let me ask this question and I want to see which one you'll choose as it is structured by reality of the law and the world. You can only choose one as is verbatim. You can't mix up the words adding to it or taking away.

Boys should be allowed to transition if they want to?

-OR

Boys should be allowed to transition if they are allowed to by a legal guardian?

"My argument was never only "Should be allowed because she wants".

That's all the topic title reads. Do you wish to retract it then?

Furthermore you say "never only". A child's wants is not  or never a part of the justification. It may be one of the reasons. But the only justification is that which is reached from the sound mind of an adult over the child's life watching over the child. See remember the adults bring up, raise up the children guiding and teaching them to rationalize. The adults don't look to the children . The children have to be trained by them and in the process mature upon a certain age where the law states "ok, guardianship is no longer mandated at this time". The children are grown, they're on their own at that point.

"Rather, well-being, happiness, freedom and lack of harm were all presented as arguments."

Is this all in the final discretion of the parent/legal guardian?

Remember the Father, the Mother is to know what's best. The child's best welfare and interest would include all the elements you just listed.











Round 3
Pro
#5
Arguments
1. Fullfill her dream
Her dream is a small dream, but it means so much to her. She loves her dream. It doesnt cost much to fullfill it. Fullfill her dream.

2. A better world
We would like to live in a world with no violence, where everyone feels loved and accepted. We should accept trans children as they are. We should create a better world.

3. There is no harm in transition
She doesnt want to hurt you. She just wants control over her life and her body. It is her body. She belongs to herself. She is not a slave. There is no harm in transition.

4. Allowing transition prevents harm
She will be happy if she is allowed to dress like a girl. Happy people are more peaceful. Her happiness will spread to others, making the world peaceful. Allowing transition prevents harm.

5. Her ideal should be respected
Her ideal is that of a free world where children have right to be what they want to be, where children are free. Her ideal should be respected.

Conclusion
Allowing her to transition will fullfill her dream, will create a better world. There is no harm in it. It prevents harm. Allowing her to transition respects her ideal.
Boys should be allowed to transition if they want to.

Rebuttals

Quote where I stated this please.
Your entire case is built upon "if parents oppose, child should not be allowed to transition even if child wants to.

Correct. Don't dispute that. Parents have authority nevertheless under law.
Transitioning helps the child who wants it. Parents should not have authority to prevent child from transitioning when child wants to.

Well this is not up for debate. That's why I just used the word "authority ". Under law it is the parent that has that over the child. So the child should do what the parent authorized, not what they want.
Child is not a toy. Child has wishes. Parents should sometimes respect those wishes.

Parents have TOTAL authority under law over there children. A minor cannot sign or sign alone for a medical procedure without the consent of a parent. Did you not know this ? That's why this is really not up for debate.
Transitioning is good for the child who wants it. Medical procedure has nothing to do with transitioning. Parents shouldnt be allowed to prevent a child from transitioning if child wants to.

The problem is your topic is not consistent with reality. Do you know that parents/legal guardians have total authority by law over their children?
Where does the law say that parents can abuse their children? And how is such law relevant to "what should be done"?

If you do know that , what does having total, notice total, total authority mean?
It means slavery.

We can remember that along with the instructions that are set forth by legal guardians. It appears as if you don't know that everything that has to do with a child is approved of by a legal guardian because they're in the care of that guardian. The children are not like grown adults that don't have to get permission or approval. So children first and foremost do things allowable by the guardian. That is the structure. The child has a need , well the responsibility of the guardian is to provide the needs. The child doesn't ultimately decide the needs. The guardian knows better than the child that determines the needs to be met ultimately for the best. As far as wants that again has to be ok'd by the guardian and then everything falls in.
Transitioning improves the well-being of children who want to transition. It makes them happy. Guardians have no right to destroy child's happiness. Guardians have no right to prevent child from transitioning.

See an adult should do whatever it is according to their wants. A child is not , is not equal to an adult in this manner. We don't have to get into the term "property", it's got nothing to do with that .
Actually, property is by definition controlled by its owner. When you say that children should be over total control of parents, you are saying that they are parent's property.

There really is no debate. A child can't do anything, not one thing they can do without the approval of authority. 
We are debating what should be done, not who has authority over who.

Let me ask this question and I want to see which one you'll choose as it is structured by reality of the law and the world. You can only choose one as is verbatim. You can't mix up the words adding to it or taking away.

Boys should be allowed to transition if they want to?

-OR

Boys should be allowed to transition if they are allowed to by a legal guardian?
Boys should be allowed to transition if they want to.

That's all the topic title reads. Do you wish to retract it then?
I was talking about my arguments to support the topic. They were never about child's wishes alone, but also about well-being, happiness and reduction of harm.

Furthermore you say "never only". A child's wants is not  or never a part of the justification. It may be one of the reasons. But the only justification is that which is reached from the sound mind of an adult over the child's life watching over the child. See remember the adults bring up, raise up the children guiding and teaching them to rationalize. The adults don't look to the children . The children have to be trained by them and in the process mature upon a certain age where the law states "ok, guardianship is no longer mandated at this time". The children are grown, they're on their own at that point.
How is any of this relevant?

Is this all in the final discretion of the parent/legal guardian? Remember the Father, the Mother is to know what's best. The child's best welfare and interest would include all the elements you just listed
No. There are cases where parents abuse their children. Claiming that parents know best is not just fantasy, but also an appeal to authority, since we are debating what should be done, not who gets to decide what should be done.

Con
#6
"Your entire case is built upon "if parents oppose, child should not be allowed to transition even if child wants to."

Which is the reality. I want to stick with that. Parents are over children. Not the other way around. It's seems like you have this delusion that it's supposed to be nearly equal between the two just because a child is a human being. Is this how liberal society has gotten?


"Transitioning helps the child who wants it. Parents should not have authority to prevent child from transitioning when child wants to."

Who has authority over who under the law, the child or their legal guardian that's in total authority and responsibility?

When you say "Parents should not have authority", are you taking authority over the parents?

Have you ever heard a parent say you don't have a right to tell them how to raise their child?

"Child is not a toy. Child has wishes. Parents should sometimes respect those wishes."

Toy, property, you can continue to come up with all these labels. Then you continue to say "parents should" do this and that, but you have no authority over any parent. So trying to make a point about what they should do is futile.

"Transitioning is good for the child who wants it. Medical procedure has nothing to do with transitioning. Parents shouldnt be allowed to prevent a child from transitioning if child wants to."

You have no authority over any parent. So trying to make a point about what they should do is futile.

"Where does the law say that parents can abuse their children? And how is such law relevant to "what should be done"? "

I don't know if you're attempting to misrepresent my points or misrepresent what authority is. The law grants what's called legal guardianship. Under the law , the legal guardian has complete authority over their dependents that they have total responsibility over for protection and welfare. That's it. Now will a guardian elect or allow any kind of transitioning with their child, IT'S UP TO THEM.

I don't know if this will register with you now or in the future. It is the discretion and decision made by the parent or what the parent ALLOWS the child to decide. That is the role of a parent. It's the parents responsibility of all the affairs of a child.

Again, again, again, a minor requires signature from a parent on a medical procedure. They require parental/legal representation. 

I don't know what is difficult about understanding the parent over the child. I guess this society has really went off the deep end in just about everything. A child can tell a parent how it's going to go like the child knows better than the parent. 

Stuff like this definitely opens the gate up on child consent permitting child and adult sexual relationships.

I digress.

"It means slavery."

Ok let's go with your biased expression.

The company I work at has total authority with compensating for my work. They're authorized to do that. Now to translate it with the company has slavery to compensate or to try to make it fit better, they're enslaved to pay out or I guess I'm enslaved to get paid.

It doesn't translate too well. The term slavery is ambivalent, colloquially people use it differently particularly in a context of obligation, shackled and imprisoned. So I do suggest when you use the terms "total authority", be clear because of the bewildering contexts. 

I could go on and on. I have total authority to demolish a building. I'm not obligated to. I'm just allowed to. 

A parent is allowed to instruct , decide things for and over the child. You can call that enslavement. Then I would ask what are the terms of the enslavement?

The terms simply are instructing, deciding things for and over the child as the responsibility of the parent, not the child but the responsibility of the parent for the well being and rearing of that child progressing to be a law abiding citizen. The same law allowing the parents to do that.

"Transitioning improves the well-being of children who want to transition. It makes them happy. Guardians have no right to destroy child's happiness. "

My friend, the reality is the parent/guardian knows best. The child can't just simply do what they want. Sorry , reality check.

"Guardians have no right to prevent child from transitioning."

Show me the law that takes this right away from a guardian/parent. I mean they're the ones that have to sign on any medical visit, dental visit, medical care. I mean the child has to be listed as a dependent on an adult's insurance policy.

"Actually, property is by definition controlled by its owner. When you say that children should be over total control of parents, you are saying that they are parent's property."

I made no such statement"children should be over total control of parents".

You're telling me " you are saying that they are parent's property."

But what am I telling you?

This is where I know you have no more rebuttals because everything just repeats.

You can use any label you want. Property, slavery, toy, any of these labels. Instead of being indirect, just come out and say parents are not to have authority over children, children are to be equal. Children can even be over the parents. 

You cannot show me any law at least in the United States that minors can sign off on their own medical affairs. So how you going to argue that children should be allowed with a transition/transition operation based on their own whatever like they're grown?

Just concede please.

"We are debating what should be done, not who has authority over who."

So are we not having a basis for what should be?

Your basis is just the children themselves. Mines is by law, the parents and guardians.

Nothing is "just should be" for the sake of.

"Boys should be allowed to transition if they want to."

So out of these two positions:

"Boys should be allowed to transition if they want to?

-OR

Boys should be allowed to transition if they are allowed to by a legal guardian?"

You chose the former. So your position, you don't believe in parental authority . Do you believe in some? Yes or no.

If just believe in some, do you believe the child and adult are equals? Yes or no .

"I was talking about my arguments to support the topic. They were never about child's wishes alone, but also about well-being, happiness and reduction of harm."

Ok does this include being all under
parental/guardian authority or not? Yes or not

If you left that out, it would be an ad hoc point but also one you'd concede to.

"How is any of this relevant?"

It's the reality which is the truth I'm demonstrating to you. A child should do what the parent allows them to. You have to digest this. A child doesn't have any rights that supercede the authority of a legal guardian under the law. The child doesn't have their own private business, doesn't own anything that the parent has provided for because the parent is the provider. I think if you understand that the child is not an adult that has their own choices to make , their own responsibilities, use their own experienced judgement and conduct their lives, you can wrap your head around all I've been saying to you on this topic.

This is what a parent is for. So this has to do or is relevant to ALL choices, decisions that relate to the child's life which would include this transitioning stuff. This is the parent's role. You can call it any name you like. This is the parent raising the child. Not the other way around where they go and decide for themselves unless allowed by the parent. I just think you're rejecting this reality.

"No. There are cases where parents abuse their children. "

What did I just say?

"Remember the Father, the Mother is to know what's best. The child's best welfare and interest would include all the elements you just listed".

You come back and say "no". Are you saying"no" to what you listed?

I said in the best welfare. How is "abuse" that?

You know we're talking about lawful best interest cases. Here you go with the "there are cases". You take the word "authority" and conflate it with abuse, all this negative stuff. 

I can do the same to fit my position and say in the cases of best interest of the child under parental authority period.

I distinguish with saying "under the law", "under the law", "under the law", "under the law". This way I'm not conflating everything with the term "authority ".

 
"Claiming that parents know best is not just fantasy, but also an appeal to authority, since we are debating what should be done, not who gets to decide what should be done."

First off , you say "claiming ". Are you saying parents don't know best? How are they going to take care of their children ?

What should be done can't get done if it isn't decided on. It has to be decided on to be done. If you say a child should do this or that, if the child is not deciding they should do something and not deciding "what", then the "what" doesn't exist.

When you make the following statement:
"Boys should be allowed to transition if they want to"............do you not know a decision is being made right there?

You say we're not debating who gets to decide what but someone is already deciding right there. Otherwise we wouldn't have any such statement or position about what should be done. Somebody has already decided that. You have to decide to declare what should be. You have to decide what should be to declare what should be. You have to decide the "should be", the "should" part to get to the "declare " part.

If the child should do what they want, is the parent or child deciding it?

Better yet , ARE YOU DECIDING? Is it the parent, child or you?

You made this topic statement now.























Round 4
Pro
#7
Arguments
1. Fullfill her dream
Destroying person's dreams destroys more than dreams. It destroys her creativity, her confidence, her feeling of safety. Letting her wear make up is not a big deal. Letting her wear dress is not a big deal. Calling her a girl is not a big deal. Fullfill her dream.

2. A better world
World where there is love is a world that becomes happier. Love is happiness, greatest happiness. It is a better world.

3. There is no harm in transition
Her transition will not destroy your life. Your hate will destroy hers. Abandon your hate so that she might have mental peace. There is no harm in transition.

4. Allowing transition prevents harm
Your hate hurts her. You dont accept her and what she wants to be. If you change, harm will be prevented. It would mean so much to her. Allowing transition prevents harm.

5. Her ideal should be respected
Her ideal would make the world better for her and for others. For her, because she would have what she wants. For others, because they would no longer be persons of hate but persons of love. Her ideal should be respected.

Conclusion
Allowing her to transition will fullfill her dream, will create a better world. There is no harm in it. It prevents harm. Allowing her to transition respects her ideal.
Boys should be allowed to transition if they want to.

Rebuttals

"Your entire case is built upon "if parents oppose, child should not be allowed to transition even if child wants to."
Which is the reality. I want to stick with that. Parents are over children. Not the other way around. It's seems like you have this delusion that it's supposed to be nearly equal between the two just because a child is a human being. Is this how liberal society has gotten?
Parents dont own children. They may only do that which is good for the well being of children. We already established why transitioning is good for the well being of children.

"Transitioning helps the child who wants it. Parents should not have authority to prevent child from transitioning when child wants to."
Who has authority over who under the law, the child or their legal guardian that's in total authority and responsibility?
Logic and reason have authority over all. Parents dont get to harm children, or do that which obviously harms children.

When you say "Parents should not have authority", are you taking authority over the parents?
Have you ever heard a parent say you don't have a right to tell them how to raise their child?
Its not their child. Child is not a property.

"Child is not a toy. Child has wishes. Parents should sometimes respect those wishes."
Toy, property, you can continue to come up with all these labels. Then you continue to say "parents should" do this and that, but you have no authority over any parent. So trying to make a point about what they should do is futile.
Me not having authority is irrelevant to what should be done.

I don't know if you're attempting to misrepresent my points or misrepresent what authority is. The law grants what's called legal guardianship. Under the law , the legal guardian has complete authority over their dependents that they have total responsibility over for protection and welfare. That's it. Now will a guardian elect or allow any kind of transitioning with their child, IT'S UP TO THEM.
Its not up to them if they have responsibility to ensure child's well being. Parents have no right to deny their child of well being. Transitioning improves well being of a child by making child happy, giving child a choice and causing no harm. Parents have no right to deny child of transitioning. 

I don't know if this will register with you now or in the future. It is the discretion and decision made by the parent or what the parent ALLOWS the child to decide. That is the role of a parent. It's the parents responsibility of all the affairs of a child.
See previous text.

Again, again, again, a minor requires signature from a parent on a medical procedure. They require parental/legal representation.
Transitioning is not a medical procedure that can cause harm. Transitioning is for the well being of a child. Your entire argument rests on idea that parents should be allowed to deny child of well being.

I don't know what is difficult about understanding the parent over the child. I guess this society has really went off the deep end in just about everything. A child can tell a parent how it's going to go like the child knows better than the parent.
Its not that the child knows better than the parent. It is that some parents harm children. That should be prevented.

Stuff like this definitely opens the gate up on child consent permitting child and adult sexual relationships.
No, sexual relationships are a different issue with different arguments used for them.

"It means slavery."
Ok let's go with your biased expression.
The company I work at has total authority with compensating for my work. They're authorized to do that. Now to translate it with the company has slavery to compensate or to try to make it fit better, they're enslaved to pay out or I guess I'm enslaved to get paid.
How is this a refutation to "Parents owning their children is slavery"?

It doesn't translate too well. The term slavery is ambivalent, colloquially people use it differently particularly in a context of obligation, shackled and imprisoned. So I do suggest when you use the terms "total authority", be clear because of the bewildering contexts.
If one person has total authority over another person, that is slavery. Ownership is defined by authority to make decisions regarding something.

A parent is allowed to instruct , decide things for and over the child. You can call that enslavement. Then I would ask what are the terms of the enslavement?
Total authority over a person makes that person a slave.

The terms simply are instructing, deciding things for and over the child as the responsibility of the parent, not the child but the responsibility of the parent for the well being and rearing of that child progressing to be a law abiding citizen. The same law allowing the parents to do that.
Transitioning improves well being.

"Transitioning improves the well-being of children who want to transition. It makes them happy. Guardians have no right to destroy child's happiness. "
My friend, the reality is the parent/guardian knows best. The child can't just simply do what they want. Sorry , reality check.
This is an appeal to authority fallacy and circular reasoning. You say that parent has authority because parent knows best. You say that parent knows best because parent has authority. You never explained why parent knows better than scientists, reasonable thinkers and so on.

Show me the law that takes this right away from a guardian/parent. I mean they're the ones that have to sign on any medical visit, dental visit, medical care. I mean the child has to be listed as a dependent on an adult's insurance policy.
Does a parent have a right to deny child of healthcare? No. It  would harm the well being. Same way, parent cannot deny child of transitioning.

You can use any label you want. Property, slavery, toy, any of these labels. Instead of being indirect, just come out and say parents are not to have authority over children, children are to be equal. Children can even be over the parents.
Actually, in my world, no one is over anyone.

So are we not having a basis for what should be?
Your basis is just the children themselves. Mines is by law, the parents and guardians.
Nothing is "just should be" for the sake of.
My basis is logic and reason, well being, happiness and prevention of harm.

You chose the former. So your position, you don't believe in parental authority . Do you believe in some? Yes or no.
No. Authority just creates an appeal to authority. It is against reason and for blind obedience.

If just believe in some, do you believe the child and adult are equals? Yes or no .
Child and adult are not equal. No two humans are equal. However, children have rights that parent cant violate.

It's the reality which is the truth I'm demonstrating to you. A child should do what the parent allows them to. You have to digest this. A child doesn't have any rights that supercede the authority of a legal guardian under the law. The child doesn't have their own private business, doesn't own anything that the parent has provided for because the parent is the provider. I think if you understand that the child is not an adult that has their own choices to make , their own responsibilities, use their own experienced judgement and conduct their lives, you can wrap your head around all I've been saying to you on this topic.
Parent providing for the child doesnt make a child the parent's property, nor does it let the parent to deny child of well being.

This is what a parent is for. So this has to do or is relevant to ALL choices, decisions that relate to the child's life which would include this transitioning stuff. This is the parent's role. You can call it any name you like. This is the parent raising the child. Not the other way around where they go and decide for themselves unless allowed by the parent. I just think you're rejecting this reality.
Parent's role is to ensure well being, not deny it.

You know we're talking about lawful best interest cases. Here you go with the "there are cases". You take the word "authority" and conflate it with abuse, all this negative stuff. 
I can do the same to fit my position and say in the cases of best interest of the child under parental authority period.
It is in the best interest of a child to be allowed to transition.

I distinguish with saying "under the law", "under the law", "under the law", "under the law". This way I'm not conflating everything with the term "authority ".
"Claiming that parents know best is not just fantasy, but also an appeal to authority, since we are debating what should be done, not who gets to decide what should be done."
First off , you say "claiming ". Are you saying parents don't know best? How are they going to take care of their children ?
Some parents fail to care properly for their children. Many make mistakes.

What should be done can't get done if it isn't decided on. It has to be decided on to be done. If you say a child should do this or that, if the child is not deciding they should do something and not deciding "what", then the "what" doesn't exist.
Should be done talks about what is right thing to do, not about what is decided to be done by someone.

When you make the following statement:
"Boys should be allowed to transition if they want to"............do you not know a decision is being made right there?
You say we're not debating who gets to decide what but someone is already deciding right there. Otherwise we wouldn't have any such statement or position about what should be done. Somebody has already decided that. You have to decide to declare what should be. You have to decide what should be to declare what should be. You have to decide the "should be", the "should" part to get to the "declare " part.
If the child should do what they want, is the parent or child deciding it?
Better yet , ARE YOU DECIDING? Is it the parent, child or you?
You made this topic statement now
Its the reasoning that should decide. A choice supported by best reasons and by greatest number of reasons is reasonably the best choice.
Con
#8
"Parents dont own children. They may only do that which is good for the well being of children. We already established why transitioning is good for the well being of children."

This is for the parent to decide. Not you or me.

"Logic and reason have authority over all. Parents dont get to harm children, or do that which obviously harms children."

Please select one of the two options presented in the question below .

"Who has authority over who under the law, the child or their legal guardian that's in total authority and responsibility?"

"Its not their child. Child is not a property."

If not the parent's child in their legal custody, who's child is it?

"Me not having authority is irrelevant to what should be done."

What YOU say should be done is irrelevant as you don't have authority.

Got to understand it works different when it comes to a parent and child. If we were just talking about adults, it could be different. Children by default fall under whatever their law abiding parents and guardians have setup for rules to rear their children.

This is what I've been saying all along whether you're not getting it or eventually will, what children should and shouldn't do are governed by the rules of who's over them under the law. That's what it means to have parental responsibility.

"Its not up to them if they have responsibility to ensure child's well being."

This doesn't make any sense . So a parent that ensure THEIR child's well being, it's not up to them to ensure.

No. Get this reality straight. A parent under the law has legal responsibility over their child. So it is at the parents discretion to permit or not allow anything involving their child. That is the parent's, not the child's, not you not anybody, the parent's responsibility.

Maybe you just don't accept that. There's really no way to make that more clear that I can think of.

"Parents have no right to deny their child of well being. "

You have no right to tell a parent how to raise their child. Simple plain and plain and simple.

"Transitioning improves well being of a child by making child happy, giving child a choice and causing no harm. Parents have no right to deny child of transitioning."

This is why I ask do you have authority over the parent? If you'll be honest and say that you don't, step aside, accept that it's the parent's call . Now if this all of your opinion or a suggestion to a parent, there's no debate there. There's nothing correct or incorrect about an opinion. It's just what you think or believe but not vested in facts.

"Transitioning is not a medical procedure that can cause harm."

Not the point. Any child going through a transition concerning medical professionals requires parental representation or parental presence.

"Transitioning is for the well being of a child. Your entire argument rests on idea that parents should be allowed to deny child of well being."

You will never find one statement I've made such as "parents should be allowed to deny child of well being."

This proves that you've made an assumption instead of comprehending what I've said. I've said it's up to the parents. Let me quote what I said exactly and you argue based on that instead of the assumptions.

Here's what I said :

"Now will a guardian elect or allow any kind of transitioning with their child, IT'S UP TO THEM."

No where in that statement I said a guardian will outright deny anything. I kindly request that you pay closer attention to the words that I state so we're not confusing things up with the readers.
Thanks.

"Its not that the child knows better than the parent. It is that some parents harm children. That should be prevented."

I'm not debating that. This is the reason I continue to say "under the law". A parent under the law or lawful in all welfare of any child. So we don't even have to go there. We know that. I try to be specific as possible instead of generalizing to include all cases of parents.

"No, sexual relationships are a different issue with different arguments used for them."

The point I was making is that so much room is allowed for a child to make decisions. 

"How is this a refutation to "Parents owning their children is slavery"?"

I'm not making a refutation. I'm demonstrating the play over semantics basically. I don't care what term you use unless you define it.

"If one person has total authority over another person, that is slavery. Ownership is defined by authority to make decisions regarding something."

Ok that's the way you define it. Has no bearing on what I'm saying. So be it.

"Total authority over a person makes that person a slave."

If you want to call it that , uh-huh whatever. 

"Transitioning improves well being."

Yes well I'll use me as an example. I'll decide what is an improvement for my offspring. I'll use the law if I detect any imposing that has a harassing like nature on a private family matter . The law is on my side for that.

"This is an appeal to authority fallacy and circular reasoning. You say that parent has authority because parent knows best. "

Well disprove or prove me wrong. Is a parent supposed to know what's best or is the child? I mean who is raising who?

"You say that parent knows best because parent has authority. You never explained why parent knows better than scientists, reasonable thinkers and so on."

That's because I don't recall making the statement that a parent knows because they have authority. A parent would know better than a child having learned more, experienced more of life , trial and error.

You bring the scientists in. Well under the law , if that scientist is not a legal guardian over the child, the scientist can't dictate anything over the child. You're never going to get around this. The parent is over the child. The parent is over the child. The legal guardian is over the child period. That's it.
A child ought not to debate with a parent like they know better.

Don't debate that a parent lawfully is not over a child . Don't do that.

"Does a parent have a right to deny child of healthcare? No. It would harm the well being. Same way, parent cannot deny child of transitioning."

This is a false equivalency. A child in some instances doesn't even ask for healthcare. The parent has to determine when they must take their child before a doctor . Again I want you to understand what a legal guardian is only authorized to do. It's THEIR responsibility to look after the what.......the welfare of the child, what is best. So anything that is best because they know their own child presumably, do they not?

You don't know the child in any given case that you don't know. I don't know. We're not there in that child's life. Who would know best? The one over them in their daily lives helping them, guiding them, protecting, providing a home. 

It gets no more beautiful than that.

"Actually, in my world, no one is over anyone."

Come to this world of reality comrade.

"My basis is logic and reason, well being, happiness and prevention of harm."

Ok and how do parents fit into that?

"No. Authority just creates an appeal to authority. It is against reason and for blind obedience."

You're not arguing reality. You answer was no. You're arguing of what you dream a world to be.
As family households go, parents are over their children, one spouse over the other not in all instances.

I mean without authority and control , civilization collapses. It's up to you if you wish to take the negative side of that or make it negative. You're on the opposing side I guess you got to do that.

"Child and adult are not equal. No two humans are equal. However, children have rights that parent cant violate."

Nobody is arguing this either. But you're the opposing side so appropriately you go to the negative side.

Being that the child is not equal to the adult, the adult has more knowledge to be able to direct and guide the child. This is why the adult is responsible for making the final choices. If you just acknowledge that alone, the topic title would have read "Boys should be allowed to transition if their parents approve ."

This is just the default. Boys, girls, children should be allowed to do anything or shouldn't be allowed based on parental authorization or permission or restriction . That is the first and foremost basis not the desires or what a child "thinks" they want . Remember a child's knowledge is lesser . You admit indirectly that an adult is not equal to a child. It's in the best interest of that child to have a more experienced individual that can help guide them.

"Parent providing for the child doesnt make a child the parent's property, nor does it let the parent to deny child of well being."

Again nobody is arguing that.

"Parent's role is to ensure well being, not deny it."

Again nobody is arguing that.

"It is in the best interest of a child to be allowed to transition."

If you're not the parent of the child, that is left up to the discretion of the parent.

"Some parents fail to care properly for their children. Many make mistakes."

What's your point? Some parents don't fail. 

Leave this to the properly lawfully legal guardian. It's not your business.

"Should be done talks about what is right thing to do, not about what is decided to be done by someone."

Ok when you make a statement about what is the right thing to do, you've decided what is right to do. You can't evade the fact that a decision is still made upon what to do. You don't even realize your own biased double standard. You're arguing what a parent has no right to do while at the same time, you don't have the right to dictate over lawful parental duties.

You argue that the parent shouldn't have a decision to deny this and that . They shouldn't say no. Now you're over the parent deciding and or telling them that they should , they should say yes.

It's like you have the right to make the decision and it stands, they don't. Doesn't work that way.


"Its the reasoning that should decide.".

The reasoning done by who? No matter which direction you take on this, we come back to the same location of conclusion. You can't separate "should" from decisiveness of somebody.

"A choice supported by best reasons and by greatest number of reasons is reasonably the best choice."

Bottom line, are the parent's making the choice or are you making it for them ?

Not a rhetorical question. Debate is pretty over.
 





































Round 5
Pro
#9
I respect your opinion about parents, however parents cant decide everything.

Since the debate is pretty much over, I believe we covered the main points and there is nothing more to add except the closing statement. It was a good debate. If you have interest in some other topic, I will be happy to debate.
Con
#10
"I respect your opinion about parents, however parents cant decide everything."

It's not an opinion. The reality is, parents are over their children. If you refuse to accept that then you deny reality. 

I asked you many questions that you did not answer. This is suspected of you not answering due to being refuted. 

I didn't get an answer to whether who decides for the child, the child, the parent or you deciding for the parent.

You didn't acknowledge or refute my point on your double standard there. 

You didn't give a rebuttal to my point on anything that should be is connected to some sort of decision. 

You didn't have a rebuttal to my point on even saying what is right, you're deciding what is right.

You are saying what is right for what parents to do while any given parent may say it's wrong. You're arguing your decision whether you realize it or not supercedes . If it doesn't, you'd say leave it up to the parents.

There are just many things you couldn't refute or get out of that got you positioned in contradictions. Just one after another.


You say parents can't decide everything, well who does?

Do you see how you just stopped there? You're walking right into another conflict with this statement.

Who does decide everything? Is it someone that decides things that the parent can't? 

Is it a shared duty?

Does the parent decide one thing and someone else decides another?

Who is that other?

Are you referring to you ?

I can understand if you didn't want to say you because then that would mean indicating you over the parents or over the children. Which again is the double standard I was talking about.

But I'm not going to call you a slave owner or one who has children or parents as your property. 

When you say parents can't decide everything, it begs the question of who does . You left it open ended like that because you don't have an answer that would be consistent with your position shutting my down at the same time.

It's really just a poor indirect way of conceding trying to give a rebuttal although a weak rebuttal.

Just stay away from this topic. You just was not prepared for it.