I agree there's probably more protections necessary. For example I'm also strongly against any religion based altering of the body of children -- circumcision included -- that isn't medically necessary. Although I guess that's a much discussed topic of its own.
The problem is that drawing this line isn't always simple. Make the law too strict, and you can just as easily end up barring doctors from performing surgeries that by their correct case-by-case judgement is necessary, but the law prohibits because it necessitates, say, medical consensus in general. But make the law too lax and you open the doors to purely cosmetic surgeries which I am absolutely against.
What we cannot have is the ability for children whom cannot legally make medical decisions be allowed to start things like gender-affirming care. Because if we can't trust them with other less life-altering choices, how could we trust them with that? Especially given how easily influenced children are.
The problem is that drawing this line isn't always simple. Make the law too strict, and you can just as easily end up barring doctors from performing surgeries that by their correct case-by-case judgement is necessary, but the law prohibits because it necessitates, say, medical consensus in general. But make the law too lax and you open the doors to purely cosmetic surgeries which I am absolutely against.
What we cannot have is the ability for children whom cannot legally make medical decisions be allowed to start things like gender-affirming care. Because if we can't trust them with other less life-altering choices, how could we trust them with that? Especially given how easily influenced children are.