Reply to post:

Boffins build AI that can detect cyber-abuse – and if you don't believe us, YOU CAN *%**#* *&**%* #** OFF

Ben Tasker

> now dare you apply a mild smack to your child for the purpose of behaviour correction

That's about the child's rights, not yours - so it's not taking away your rights, because you don't have the right to strike anyone else. Much like the upset at not being able to ban abortion, it's upset at being told you can't infringe someone else's rights.

I'm trying, really hard, here not to offer an opinion either way on smacking because it's the underlying principle that matters.

I would say though, that the majority of objection I've seen (and certainly objection by law) is not about "mild" smacks, but about being excessively rough. Not to say there aren't those that oppose *any* form of smacking.

As for objections to gendering at birth, that is pushing it too far IMO, but it's also far from the mainstream position - even on the left. When the child is older, then it's their choice - though I can understand a parent struggling with this, even out of habit - but I suspect it's potentially just as harmful to deny gender at a young age.

In much the same way, I don't agree with giving children drugs to block puberty - they're too young to understand the ramifications of that.

There was a video I saw recently (IIRC it was a US reality show at that) where a teen M -> F was talking to a doctor about the forthcoming gender-change op. She asked about whether she'd have much "depth" after the change, and was told that because of the puberty blocking meds she'd been taking, her penis was under-developed and therefore there'd be maybe a couple of inches depth at most - not nearly enough for comfortable penetrative sex.

So, despite having the very best of intentions, the group that gave her those puberty blocking pills have created a new issue - and one that will be of increasing importance as she grows older, sex becomes quite a big part of adult life (at least for a while).

In no way is this to say that she shouldn't be allowed the op, or to live her life as she sees fit, but it was entirely irresponsible of those in a position to do so to have given her those pills, especially given it seems she wasn't told about an entirely forseeable drawback of doing so.

Now there are undoubtedly people who will disagree with my assessment of this situation, or even just the position I've drawn as the result of a pretty small sample. But the number of people who will complain that you've announced you've got a baby girl? Pretty damn small (well, unless the baby is in fact a biological boy).

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon