One of (not the only) the reasons why I oppose bills that limit the types of medical care available to children (including transgender therapies) is because think parents are better-suited to make these kinds of decisions along with their children than are state governing authorities. I certainly I want my own kids to see that I believe this—that what happens to them ought to be up to us as a family, and no one else.
And I’d bet that many (not all) proponents don’t really think their kid could desire to transition genders. So they see this as a law for “them” that won’t affect “us.” Therefore, as sacrosanct and parental authority may be in other areas of life, it’s worth the “loss” here because, well…it’s not really a loss if you’re convinced it can never happen to you.
(I’m open to pushback on that being a common perspective among proponents of laws banning transgender therapies for children. I can’t read people’s minds, after all.)
But whether I’d win or lose that bet, I’ve been there (“This can’t be happening to me…”) one too many times to let that shape my thinking about these issues.
I suppose all this adds up to the simpler point that:
I believe there can be reasonable exceptions to the general idea that irreversible gender-related therapies for minors are bad. And if there are reasonable exceptions, then sweeping legislation is not the right answer.