Giftedness in Children

When my daughter was quite young, we started to wonder if she might be gifted.  She was extremely alert as a baby, picked up all three of our spoken languages with no delays, as well as using signs we taught her.  She has always been very sensitive emotionally, and very observant.  The comments we got about her from strangers were always based on being impressed with something - but we really don't know how much of that was just our parenting style. 

We followed child-led weaning, and along with that she was introduced to regular adult food at an early age and has been eating independently even in restaurants from toddlerhood.  

We practiced elimination communication and she has been permanently out of diapers since age 18 months.

She speaks three languages and knows a lot of signs, and she is studying Latin and Tagalog in our homeschool.

She was interested in the written word early on but I did not want to push premature academics on her.  When I finally sat down to teach her to read, she picked it up in no time, and at age 9 she is now reading at about a 5th grade level.  I stopped ordering grade level readers for her after she completed the 4th grade one because I was starting to worry about the content being too advanced even if the language was fine.

My son likewise hit the ground running.  While he's much more social than his sister, he's still very sensitive and observant to his environment.  He notices things we wouldn't expect him to notice.  

In church daycare one day, when he was a little more than a year old, when we picked him up, the care taker commented how impressed she was with his talking - he was naming colors and generally interacting with her beyond what she expected.

He, too, speaks three languages with some signs.  He listens in to his older sister's Latin lessons and often picks things up without being taught.

He insisted on learning to read at age 5, and in less than a year he was reading at a first grade level.

Just the other day he made a mental connection we hadn't been expecting.  We were watching The Parenting Test, a show assessing different parenting styles.  One of the styles features was "free range".  He commented that he thought probably free range parents must be either sanguine or phlegmatic in temperament.  (We had taken a temperament assessment several months ago and he really latched on to everyone's temperaments.)  Did I mention he is 6 years old?

All this to say - so what?  Does this prove they are gifted?  Or are they just very bright, and sadly, most of their peers are not being challenged enough and so the disparity between them looks bigger than it is as far as potential is concerned?

Most Americans make multilingualism seem like a miracle almost.  We know around the world this is no big deal.  Most Americans are married to the diaper industry and fight their toddlers during "toilet training", while the majority of the world simply cannot afford 3 plus years of diapers and cloth gets old real quick, so they're motivated to get their kids toilet independence much sooner.  Most Americans send their children to public school, where - let's be honest - the curriculum is anything but academically rigorous, and everyone is put into cookie cutter age-based grades without the sort of one-on-one attention homeschooling affords that allows each child to develop at their unique speed.

So it is quite possible that our children are not gifted in the measurable sense of the word but merely have a lot of benefits that their peers do not that are allowing them to succeed in learning.

What would change for us if we got an unbiased third party to tell us that, indeed, there's more to it than that?  

I think I would push a little more.  Give a little more challenging work.  Be a little more intentional.

But that also comes with certain risks.  I could turn them off from a love of learning.  It could lead to burn out for all involved.  I could prioritize academics over more important things, like mental health or character development.

What if we simply proceed as if they really are gifted?  Why not challenge them as-is?  Why not gently push until there is a steady resistance?  Why not keep a balanced outlook in mind and just proceed right away?

Am I Christian?

The first problem is with labeling.  What makes a Christian?  There are definitely disagreements among self-proclaimed Christians about what makes a Christian.  Many fundamentalist evangelical protestants don't consider their ancestors in faith - Catholics and Orthodox, to be Christian.  Rather, they are blinded by the rituals and see pagan practices instead of an embodiment of a Christian lifestyle.  Protestants and Catholics and Orthodox all often disagree that Mormons or Jehova's Witnesses are Christians, while the latter do consider themselves as such.

Given this is what I have to work with, the only thing I can think of is that a Christian is someone for whose spiritual life the person of Jesus figures prominently, more so than any other.  Therefore, Bahai, Muslims, and Unitarian Universalists aren't Christian even though they all have a place for Jesus in their world-view because that place is not one of centrality and prominence.  

And here's my own dilemma.  I have gotten too wrapped up in the externals too frequently to really know if it's the person of Jesus or the traditions that happen to be associated with Jesus are what tickles my spiritual fancy.

I can't say with all honesty that I am somehow convicted that I must follow Jesus as He is portrayed in the Gospels.  I believe it is one valid way to lead a meaningful life, and I often wish that were enough for me, but I guess I just get wrapped up in the externals and lose sight of Jesus altogether.

Protestantism is out for me, as there isn't much of anything to get wrapped up in - you either have a relationship with Jesus or you don't.  By that standard, I don't.  

But just because I could live out the appearances of a decent Christian in the Catholic or Orthodox context doesn't make me any more of a Christian.  I still don't have a relationship with Jesus.  It's just easier to hide bc there's things that I can be doing that sort of distract me from that non-existent relationship.

Orthodox and Catholics would say that these practices are tools, ways for me to draw closer to God and thereby form and strengthen that relationship with God.  And I believe that, but it just doesn't seem to work for me.

I've had times in my life where I felt God's presence, but rarely was it specifically Jesus.  Except in Eucharistic Adoration, but that's because it's made pretty clear what we're looking at - the Eucharistic body of Jesus.  But then I consider the Orthodox understanding of the Real Presence and I have to agree - but, but.... you're supposed to *eat* it, not stare at it as it's held hostage in an ornate golden box!

So why not just sample here and there, as I've been doing?  Why do I keep feeling the need to identify myself with one group officially?  I want to belong.  But I don't want to do what it takes to belong, namely: conform.  I can fake it, sure.  But my integrity is important to me.  I was born into Catholicism.  I am no more a hypocrite here than any other Catholic struggling with their faith in some aspect.  I have a birthright to Catholicism.  That gives me some solace, knowing that God will meet me where I am.

But Orthodoxy would need to be a choice I make.  A conscious, intentional choice made as an adult, fully aware of what it is I am signing up for.  And I'll either need to actually believe it, or pretend to believe it.  I do not actually believe it, and I cannot fake it.  

And so I suffer alone and in silence.  

Why Not Unschooling?

Lately I've been wondering if I may not be heading in the direction of unschooling as our approach to home educating our kids.  The short answer is no.

Two reasons.  One, I keep hearing how unschoolers "trust" their children.  I don't think trust is a relevant term.  How can you trust someone to do something if they've never been exposed to it?  How can you trust someone to do the right thing if they've never been taught right from wrong?  How can you trust someone to know what to do without being explicitly directed?  This last one is particularly pertinent to me as an autistic woman who flew under the radar for over four decades.  There are many "common sense" things I only learned when they were explicitly explained to me, usually by my husband!  So I know first hand that not everything that comes naturally to one person will be natural to another.  I trust my children with the things they have already shown themselves to be trustworthy in.  That's the other thing.  I don't automatically trust people until they have shown me they are trustworthy.  Trust is earned.  I expect to have had my children "earn" my trust in their self-directed education by the time they are somewhere in their teens, but not before.  How do they know what they don't know?  How do they know what there is to know?  Of course, I can't teach them everything, nor do I want to.  But having more life experience than them, I at least know what sort of things have come in handy for me and why, and therefore which things I want to equip them with for the future.  

The second reason I won't be unschooling is because this is a join venture.  We are learning together.  Some things, they bring to the table and we all learn together.  Other things I bring to the table, and again, we all learn together.  I do not fill our days with busy work.  I do not insist on things because that's what the public schools are doing.  In the words of Charlotte Mason, I try to create a certain atmosphere where certain subject matter is a daily topic of conversation, and I try to instill a certain discipline in doing things because they have been set before us as being important by someone we love.  I think it is not the right attitude to raise a child to believe that they never have to bow to authority, that they are the master/mistress of their own life, because this is not always possible nor even healthy.  Of course, I want my kids to shoot for the stars, but not without proper safety equipment in place first!  Certain knowledge and skill sets are simply universally foundational in our society.  There is no question, for instance, that to be successful (productive/content/healthy) adults, they will need to not only have basic English literacy and numeracy down, but also cultural literacy (history, geography, social sciences, foreign languages, the arts), basic understanding of the physical world around them (sciences), and critical thinking skills to offset the incessant gaslighting present in mass media that passes as "news".  

The exact content for any of these may be up for debate, but the importance of some level of all of these "subjects" is beyond contestation for me.  And the idea that my kids should have to wait until the situation arises in order to be intrinsically motivated to then finally learn the pertinent information or skills seems like a major waste of time and procrastination of the inevitable.  Instead, when faced with the situation at hand, they ought to be able to hit the ground running, already knowing what to do for the best outcome.

I don't think higher level math or science is necessary unless one is going into a field that requires it.  But arithmetic and basic algebra is something we use as part of our financial literacy such as budgeting, and in meal-planning and cooking - at the very least.  

I don't think an in-depth understanding of the intricacies of chemistry or physics is necessary for everyone, but understanding the basics of weather patterns, seasons, how these affect the availability of food, what happens to waste, the environmental impact of our consumer choices - these are all things that matter.

I don't think everyone needs to be a lyricist or public speaker or poet, but let's be honest.  People judge us based on how we express ourselves both orally and in writing.  Misspellings and bad grammar may not necessarily translate to lack of know-how on a given subject, but they will look bad and cost us our credibility.

I could go on but I won't.  The bottom line is, taking the relaxed, eclectic Charlotte Mason-inspired approach to our home education, my children spend 2-3 hours a day on content prepared by me, and the rest of their waking hours (so about 11 hours!) pursuing their passions, getting lost in their own pursuits, following rabbit trails, perfecting the skills they find most interesting, inquiring about information they find most appealing, doing whatever their hearts desire.  Letting go of those 2-3 daily hours of prepared content will not help my children suddenly have the amount of time they need to self-educate... they already do that!  They do that on the weekends, during breaks, in the evenings, and they don't realize they are still learning even though we don't officially call it "homeschooling".  

In a word, we won't be unschooling because we don't have to.  We already have the perfect set up with the right balance of prepared content and freedom to cover all of our bases.

Am I religious?

What does it mean to be religious?  I used to be both, religious and spiritual.  Specifically, I was "a believer".  I believed in the standard interpretation of my faith tradition.  I identified so closely with my religion, that I didn't appreciate the cultural aspect of religion and simply associated religion with "truth".  So when I started to doubt the literal "truth" of my religion, I embarked on a decades-long spiritual journey to find a different religion that could take the place of my previous world-view.  Never in over 20+ years did it occur to me that maybe none of the world religions have the full, literal truth of reality.  I simply assumed that one of them must, and if it isn't mine, it must be a different one, and once I found it, I would convert, so that I could see the world through the lense of truth again.

Even after having gotten a pretty decent understanding of many different faith traditions and finding some fault with every single one of them, I could not allow to rise to the surface what was already brewing deep within: none of the religions have the literal truth because that isn't the purpose of religion.  Religion is an aspect of culture, meant to help people find their place in the world.  It teaches us how to get along with each other, how to overcome difficulties, how to live meaningful lives, and eases the trauma of transitioning from this life to eternity - both for those approaching death and those left behind.

In fact, religion is quite useful and can be a very positive force in a person's life... unless it is interpreted literally and God is taken hostage and kept far away from all nuances of understanding and meaning. Then it is no different than any other cult, just much more socially acceptable and widely practiced.

When I was diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorder, I was handed a symbolic new set of lenses through which to see the world.  I was given the gift of self-understanding.  My incessant need to label things in order to understand them finally helped me look back on my life and appreciate why I had been unable to find "the religion of truth."  The name of the game was: nuance!

As I began to slowly recognize that nothing in life was strictly black or white, whether I wanted it to be or not, I began to apply this same logic to my faith tradition.  I finally accepted that there was nothing to run away from and nothing to run to.  I would have no choice but to form my own personal belief system based on what I have learned from all the different faith traditions, from personal experience, and from science and logic.  

After a brief time of mourning, I started to think about how I could reintroduce the religion of my upbringing into my adult life in a meaningful way.  I hadn't technically left the church - not since coming back the second time some years ago.  Not physically, anyway.  But mentally and emotionally, I had checked out.  

I was Catholic through and through.  I was familiar with the liturgy of the Mass, even if it's changed a lot since my childhood (not even counting the change in language).  I was comfortable with a lot of the messages that come to me from the art, music, ritual, and Bible stories.  And if life is about nuance, then I can take the good with the bad... or rather, I can take the good and leave the bad.  I don't have to allow the bad things to totally ruin the good.  I can simply learn to ignore the things that are illogical, immoral (ironic, I know), or just irrelevant to my life.

And circling back to the need to label... how do I label myself now?  Am I religious?  My knee-jerk reaction was that yes, in spite of no longer believing in the basic Christian theology, by virtue of being appreciative of Catholic ritual, I was still religious.  But lately, I've wondered if that's not misleading.  Generally people use "religious" and "believer" as if they were interchangeable.  They are not.  I am not both, religious and a believer.  I am just religious.  But my religiosity does not mean that I follow the dictates of my religion, well, religiously.  And that's because my religion is a part of my culture.  I have freedom in only adopting those parts of my culture/religion that actually bring me closer to God and being a better person.  Those are the very point of religion, if you ask me.

And so I'm spiritual, religious, but not a believer.  Of course, that last term is a misnomer as well.  I believe in plenty of things, even spiritual realities that haven't been (or cannot be) proven by science.  I just form my own opinions and beliefs now, instead of simply regurgitating what has been passed down as unquestionable tradition.  

Autism Accomodations

I have never had formal accommodations.  Not in school, not at work, not ever.  I was diagnosed just last fall, the day after my 43rd birthday.  And only now I can see that I've been getting accommodations all my life without even realizing it.  My life is THAT charmed.  I never even had to ask for it, but now that I know what to look for, I see how my life has always been filtered through someone's assistance.  First, it was my parents, who sheltered me and kept my childhood near idylic.  The only small problem was that, unaware of my autism, they didn't realize I'd need to be intentionally taught basic things about getting along in life, such as meal planning and cooking, and that I did not automatically understand the nuances of life.  Instead, once I heard a statement and took it to be true, it was 100% unequivocally true for all time.  I didn't realize it may change with time or circumstances, or that it may only be partially true.  So I ran into many instances of confusion and frankly, like life was gaslighting me.  

At age 19, after getting my Associate's Degree while still living at home, I joined the Army.  It, too, came with its own accommodations.  I was told where to be when, what to wear, what to do, when and what to eat (without having to cook or plan any of it) etc. While very stifling for some, it eliminated the need for my autistic brain to struggle with decision fatigue.  I didn't enjoy the poor morale, though, and as fate would have it, my father's accident and resulting traumatic brain injury gave me an early out of my military commitment.  

But by the grace of God, though, by this time I had met my now-husband, who followed me to my home state and with whom I lived after getting out of the Army.  And it is he who has filtered life for me ever since.

I have never lived on my own.  I have never had to juggle work and bills and school and parenting and whatever else people consider non-negotiables.  I've been cruising and unaware of it.

Thanks to my autism diagnosis, I've been reflecting on how I've gotten this far in life without any accommodations.  I was diagnosed with "level 1" autism, which already would imply I should be able to get along better than others on the spectrum.  But even so.  I have a graduate degree.  I served in the military.  I speak multiple languages.  I held down several long-term jobs.  I had two home births and I homeschool my children.  All things that seem like accomplishments for many people, especially those who wouldn't personally see themselves doing some of these things.

But see, I have had unofficial accommodations all along.  That's why I've been able to do what I have done.  I have had a support system, if even in only one or two people.  I have had people who accepted me as I am, appreciated me for what I did bring to the table, and didn't fault me for what I didn't.  I have experienced unconditional love since day one.

No wonder neither I nor anyone else ever thought I could have autism.  And yet, finding out has been one of the best things to have happened to me.  Because now I don't feel guilty for the shortcomings that have led me to depend on my "accommodations". 

When I Stopped Being Christian

I had been on a decades-long search for "Truth" (with a capital "T"), reading and researching all major (and several minor) world religions.  I've been able to find some truth everywhere I turned, making it increasingly more difficult to choose "the one right path".  I refused to acknowledge that there was no such thing. 

I finally turned to Eastern Orthodox Christianity.  I found a beautiful little church where I periodically attend Saturday vespers, where I stand in the presence of the Divine, surrounded by reminders of the holy, transported to a timeless place by the candlelight and chanting.  I met Father Joshua here, a very approachable priest who is a husband and father of 9!  I started taking Intro to Orthodoxy classes with him and a very small group of other inquirers, most already having committed to conversion.  

I enjoyed these sessions very much.  But what became undeniable thanks to them is that there was an entire ocean of disconnect between what Orthodoxy - and in fact, Christianity in general - teaches and what I actually believe in my heart of hearts.  I so wanted Orthodoxy to be the answer to my prayers.  In a way, it was, but not in the way I expected.  Orthodoxy was like a living history experience, helping me feel closer to the earlier Christians.  As I became convinced that Orthodoxy is probably one of the closest interpretations of Christianity that there is, I likewise became convinced that I could pretend no longer to believe that the Christian myths and legends were literally true.

Actually, depending on whom you ask, you'll learn that literal interpretation is actually besides the point, or at least it can be.  And it is this new understanding that is allowing me to start reconstructing my place within the Christian mythos.  For a long time now, I've said that I find the symbolic understanding of various Christian teachings to be much more relevant and meaningful to me than the literal explanations, but since the symbolic is only ever given any airway as a layer upon the assumed literal, it's hard to have one without the other among other Christians.  

If a Christian is a follower of Christ, and if Christ is the Logos, the Way and the Truth and the Life, then Christ is the Western embodiment of the Tao, and then I can call myself a Christian.  But really, it would be more accurate and less cumbersome to just say I am a cultivator of the Tao (however imperfectly I stumble with that).  Maybe personifying all manner of divine energies does more harm than good, at least for my sense of ... rightness.  My sense of familiarity and comfort is absolutely very much still within the Catholic-Orthodox liturgical church life.  The rituals are meaningful.  The ornamentation is beautiful.  The music can be uplifting (it pretty much is guaranteed to be in the Orthodox church - with the Catholic church, it's hit or miss.)  

But alas, I cannot yoke myself fully to this religious identity, because with it come certain expectations and limitations that I do not find helpful nor necessary.  For this reason, I'm unable to convert to Orthodoxy, as this would be hypocrisy.  But I am able to periodically bask in Orthodoxy's divine beauty as a visitor (thank God they welcome visitors!), while remaining Catholic.  You see, I can't shake being Catholic even if I wanted to.  The Catholic church doesn't seem to care much if I actually believe what it teaches.  It just wants to count me among its adherents.  And since the feeling is sort of mutual, it's a win-win for me.  Contrary to what I used to think, I'm not being a hypocrite if I participate in Catholic ritual with reservations, because there is an overwhelming sense of "God meets you where you are", and this is where I am, so I keep bringing myself as-is to God, and whatever God deems appropriate, God will do regarding my faith journey.  

What I need to do is completely let go of any sense of external validation from fellow Catholics/Christians/believers.  It is not for them that I remain a Catholic.  It is to nourish that of God that resides within me.  I do it for me and I do it for God.  And if ever God decides to lead me elsewhere, I hope I will be strongly tethered at that point to God-the-Truth and not merely God-the-Interpretation, to follow the path laid out in front of me.

God's Magical Dust book

 A flashback to my first book from 2015, God's Magical Dust. I wrote and illustrated this bilingual Spanish-English children's book shortly after my daughter was born.  I wanted there to be a book about donor conception that was available in Spanish, and also one that incorporated Bible verses for support.  Among Catholic theologians, there is some controversy as to if embryo adoption is a valid form of adoption, and the topic of donor conception is rejected carte blanche.  I poured over the reasoning behind the RCC's stance on artificial reproductive technology, and while I agree on the part about creating "excess" embryos that are then just thrown out or donated to science (or even worse, aborted after multiple embryo transfers prove to be more successful than hoped for), that is where my agreement ends.  

I agree that sex belongs in the safety and sacredness of marriage between two consenting adults (the details there also differ between me and the RCC, since I do not think the gender of the spouses matters).  However, I do not believe that sex is some sort of super-natural way of the couple becoming more like God, in that literally "two become one" when natural conception goes according to plan.  

My husband and I grew much closer in our relationship with each other not because we got lucky and conceived without effort, but because we had to work hard and long and make sacrifices and have many heart-to-heart conversations that drew us closer as we decided how to proceed on our journey towards parenthood.  The fact that our "unitive act" didn't directly lead to the conception of our children is a non-issue for us.  We are closer as a result of not only our joint experience of infertility, but also because of the various manners in which we tried to resolve it.

That said, I disagree that IVF (in vitro fertilization) or IUI (intra-uterine insemination) are in any way inherently evil.  Most especially if the gametes of the two spouses are used.

When it comes to donor gametes, this becomes much more convoluted.  Personally, for us, we could not get on board with bringing a "third parent" into our family.  However, because we know life begins at conception, embryo adoption was just that - adoption.  So we were bringing not a "third parent" but a whole other family, the genetic family, into our family, in a way.  For us, we couldn't get past seeing the use of donor egg or donor sperm as different from "having a baby with someone other than my spouse", even if sex was not a part of the equation.

But I had to allow for the possibility that other couples may see things differently.  Other couples may very well be able to look past that, precisely because there is no hanky panky going on.  And for those couples, I would hate to impose my own person comfort level, if it meant the difference between having a baby or not.  Embryo adoption is not feasible for everyone, and it is not available everywhere.  Egg and sperm donation is much more common and sperm donation in particular is a lot more affordable than embryo donation for the recipients.

Ultimately, when we decided to pursue embryo adoption to start our family, it was done with a ton of spiritual research and reflection.  The end result was the birth of this book, God's Magical Dust.  Because really, what else are human gametes if not "God's magical dust"?  After all, in the Bible it says that from dust we come....

The book is rather two books in one.  The first half is in English, and the second half is a repeat of the first, but in Spanish.  This was mainly so as not to take away from the illustrations by excessive text.  But also, there was a page minimum to publishing the book ;)

I hope you enjoy God's Magical Dust and feel free to share your thoughts!

Parental Rights vs Trans Kids Rights?

Most reasonable people would agree that everyone in a free society should have the right to do whatever they want to do unless and until that right starts to interfere with the rights of others.  When there is such a conflict, which is often the case, it is important to put one's personal opinions aside in the interest of figuring out what is the greatest good.

The reason people do not have certain rights and responsibilities until they are 18 years old is because that is the age we as a society have determined to be the time when a person can reasonably be expected to know enough about the world to make decisions with full understanding of their implications.  

This is the reason that we have to wait until we are 18 to vote, get married, pay taxes, buy cigarettes... even older to rent a car or hotel room or run for office or buy booze.  Some decisions have been granted to slightly younger people - generally 17 year olds can enlist in the military and see an R rated movie, while 16 year olds can drive unaccompanied and apply to be emancipated from their parents if they can establish due cause.  There is obviously some wiggle room in the later teen years, as maturity levels vary widely between individuals, and we all know some 40 year olds that you would not trust babysitting your kids or house sitting for you.  But there are certain age restrictions nonetheless because what would the vote of a five year old really mean?  That they have mastered the art of eeney-meeney-miney-mo?

When it comes to issues of sexuality, things start to get a little dicey, as is the case among adults as well.  An 18 year old can be arrested for "statuory rape" of their 17 year old partner if the minor's parents have it out for them, even though the age of consent for sex is 16 in many places.  It can't be that the water in one state makes for more mature 16 year olds than in others.  So the age restrictions do seem to be rather abstract.  But the point is that all 50 US states have a minimum age of 16 for consent to sex, which means across the nation, no one agrees that teens younger than 16 are generally mature enough to understand the full reprecussions of sexual intimacy and the potential fallout, both physical and emotional of engaging in what many (myself included) believe is an activity best suited for adults married to each other.  But that's a digression.

Interestingly, we already see a disconnect between the laws on the books about minium age of consent and the age at which an adolescent can get an abortion without their parents' consent or knowledge.  If the teenager is of the age of consent in their state, then they must by extension be considered old enough to handle the ramifications of that decision, including an unintended pregnancy.  For instance, the state of Oregon does not grant minors under the age of 18 consent to sex, yet neither does it require parental consent or notification either.  This is a mixed message.  On the one hand, the state is saying that a 16 or 17 year old is not old enough to enter into a sexual relationship, yet that same state is saying that if they do anyway, they can then proceed to decide if an abortion would be the best course of action should they get pregnant.  Isn't the former much less involved than the latter?  Many people do regret their abortions, not to mention the invasiveness and potential complications from an abortion.  Shouldn't they be accompanied by their parents when making such a life-changing decision?

So already we see that the idea that 18 is a magical age at which a child becomes an adult is wrong.  There is no such magic moment.  It is a very nuanced situation.  And you know who can best help determine when a child is ready for the responsibility?  Their parents.  Not the government, and not the child themself. 

If a child or tween cannot consent to sex, how can they consent to anything else having to do with sexuality and gender?  How can they realistically grasp the ramifications of undergoing irreversible therapies such as hormones or surgery when they haven't lived long enough to get that they can't just click undo and go back if they change their minds?  And I think it goes without saying that adolesence is a time of self-discovery, when teens try on different identities in order to figure out which is the best fit for them.  To insist on the minor committing to the first identity they try on in the name of "allyship" is terribly misguided.

I of course have in mind here the idea that when a child expresses that they feel they are of a different gender than has been affiliated with their sex, we are seeing the government stepping in to interfere with how the child's parents choose to handle this ubiquitous growing phase.  That is not to say that children cannot know that they were born "in the wrong body".  But it is simply too soon to know for certain which children will stick with this identity realization, and which will try it on for a while and then move on to something different.  

For this reason, I support the idea of letting a child try on different genders so long as they do not require any permanent ramifications.  They can change their outfits, their hair, their name, their pronoun... all things that, should this turn out to be a phase, can be changed back.  And even if it is not a phase, and the child does end up not identifying with the gender associated with their sex, if we believe that gender is a spectrum, how do we know that the child may not grow up to identify as nonbinary, and any intentional, invasive treatments did more harm than good if they only forced the person to present more of a different gender, but still of a binary gender nonetheless?  

There is no reason to jump to life-long changes when a child expresses a desire to transition.  We can support them without making them responsible for decisions they are simply too young and immature to make on their own.  This is too great of a burden and it is irresponsible parenting to rush the process, and even more irresponsible governing to interfere in what should remain between the child and their parent.

What I know the retort to all of this is, is that "not everyone has the benefit of having compassionate, understanding parents".  I totally get this and sympathise, but what does that say about the state of our society that we presume that parents are not doing their job and therefore the child is better off with the state than with the very people whose role is to protect them and provide for them and prepare them for adulthood?

If we start bypassing parents, we might as well keep lowering the age of majority, until parenting is a mere 5 year stint that ends when the parents drop off their child at mandatory kindergarten, to be educated, indoctrinated, and essentially raised by the state.