July 25, 2024
It should be obvious to anyone sane and moral that the radical "leftists" have this one completely backwards in the current age! I'll explain this simple concept:
Besides abstinence, which is its own approach, the process of non-damaging non-modifying temporary sexual experimentation can possibly be done without harm when (normal) youth are mature enough to do so (in some States at 18, others 17, and others 16), usually already relatively safe to do so before they know enough to make any final decisions, whereas any permanent physically life-altering mutilations and permanent modifications through drugs and surgeries will have a permanent effect that is totally inappropriate for someone who is inexperienced, ignorant, and possibly some parts immature and confused, and most likely easily manipulatable by super persuasion powers like AI computers (Tik Tok, Facebook, etc.), teachers, and other pushy radical socialists, and not safe for someone to do at a non-adult age at all.
It's even possible that in some jurisdictions, it may be appropriate in the minds of governance to allow non-harmful non-permanent experimentation before full adulthood, BEFORE the age at which adulthood may allow permanent irreversable life-altering decisions like taking drugs and/or surgeries that damage someone's body. (I should state the well known fact that there is no non-harmful gender switch surgery or drug.) Having said that, there are all sorts of caveats all over the place: heterosexual experimentation has a risk of unwanted family creation and/or more permanent damage from hormonal pregnancy blockers that might be encouraged, and non-heterosexual experimentation would have a substitution effect for young minds where the drive for acceptance and joy will seem sufficient compared to the longer term needs humans have of lasting geneology through procreation, but if those hazards are appropriately avoided, there is relatively little or no damage done with that type of experimentation compared to the experimentation caused by mutilation. This is mostly a comparison; I'm not advocating that any jurisdiction run out and radically lower non-harmful experimentation permission ages to validate their mutilation attacks because of this point I'm making.
Because of this, the "appropriate age" of permissible non-harmful non-permanently damaging sexual experimentation, which technically is different for each person and each contextual system of rules of thumb to organize a sensible approach to life, in actuality should be equal to or LESS THAN the age at which it is OK for someone to be permanently harmed and mutilated, the latter of which is currently taken by all sane people to be the age of automatic emancipation at 18 years of age. However, right now, the radical anti-USA anti-humanites are doing the EXACT OPPOSITE: they are pushing and often doing the permanent mutilation of UNDERAGED people, while it is still considered in most jurisdictions the official policy that no sexual experimentation should be done until the automatic emancipation age (18). Not only is this wildly criminal in a logical sense (regardless of what laws say) and immoral in every system ever conceived, but it is absolutely backwards in terms of the appropriate ordering of earliest possible non-harmful experimentation and eventual adulthood emancipation rights. This alone should key us into the realization that not just morally, but legally, law should be written to recognize that at no point should radical mutilation be allowed to someone who is not even considered mature enough to have the right for non-harmful experimentation (given our current situation of massive mutilation attacks after massive brainwashing manipulation campaigns to ruin as many children as possible). While on the subject, I further state that permanent harm should not be allowed to anyone under 18 in any circumstance, whether by drugs or surgery, at capital penalty, regardless of any illicit privacy laws or policies that may hinder investigations of revealing such heinous crimes. I will try to dodge the other issue of non-harmful experimentation consent arguments neatly by saying that if the age of consent for non-damaging non-harmful sexual experimentation is still set at the same age as adulthood or whatever it is in a considered jurisdiction already, and that mutilation is set to be totally forbidden and capital punishment for aiding or participating in the mutilation of anyone under the age of adulthood, that at least that would restore the natural ordering of proper safeties, rights, and recognitions of who owns who and basic human rights to exist and not be harmed by government and radical people in power. Parents should have the primary right to health of their children until they're 18 (in normal emancipation circumstances); if the parents are not good enough for their children, then we should not take their place, since we should let nature run its course and evolution do what it is supposed to. This is the cleanest, nicest, healthiest, and best solution for the children and adults, and is the most compatible with our Constitution, our systems of logic and humanity, our societies, and how we should run things.
This is very obvious to anyone who is a sane adult. Anyone who does not automatically know this by the age of adulthood should be considered too dangerous to have full adult rights, and definitely should not have any right to manipulate or teach children.