You may have seen the recent news story making waves across the US this past week: a Texas jury ruled against a father trying to win sole custody of his twin seven-year-old sons, one of whom is due to begin hormone replacement therapy in order to begin the transition from male to female.

This transition would occur at the discretion of the children’s mother, according to whom the child in question, named James at birth, now wishes to be called ‘Luna’ and to be referred to as a girl. The children’s father, on the other hand, claimed that allowing such a young child to make such a weighted decision was a decision “forced” upon the child, even going as far as to call his ex-wife “abusive”.

Initially, the decision garnered a wave of support from several progressive individuals and organisations,

Upon further review of the decision, the courts decided to give joint custody to the parents. However, the case has made way for wider debate concerning what an appropriate age is to allow a person to transition and lends itself to this week’s unpopular opinion.

The topic, and any debate surrounding it, is undoubtedly extremely loaded – those standing on one side of the aisle are branded transphobic, while their opponents are blamed for things such as the sexualisation of children.


One of the main issues surrounding cases such as these is that of consent. Many individuals – myself included – have questioned the inconsistency of the concept when applied to anything outside of gender and identity.

For instance, a seven-year-old is of course not permitted to consent to, say, a tattoo, driving a car, drinking alcohol, smoking, and so on.

This is primarily due to the fact that allowing such a young and psychologically underdeveloped individual to do these things would be potentially detrimental either to themselves or to others around them.

Why should a child, who is the same age I was when I had a burning desire to become a Power Ranger, be given the choice to make a decision which could potentially have lasting impacts for the rest of their life?

This issue becomes even more important when one considers the potential impacts gender transition can have upon the body physically. Medical journals and reports unanimously agree that prepubescent and continued hormone replacement – that which James’ mother wished for him to eventually undertake – can cause future infertility in both sexes.

This would, of course, be especially distressing for the individual if they were to decide to de-transition (something that is relatively uncommon but still happens to many transgender individuals), only to discover that the option to conceive children has been taken away from them.

Of course, there are many cases where children exhibiting symptoms of gender dysphoria – the NHS-recognised condition which entails an individual having strong feelings of identification with the sex opposite to that of which they were born – do maintain these feelings before deciding to transition as adults.


However, it cannot be ignored that the vast majority – somewhere between 80 and 85%, based upon varying statistics – of children who are diagnosed as having the condition grow out of it either leading up to or during puberty.

Overall, both myself and many others have absolutely no problem with a consenting adult choosing to do as they please with their body. The issue, however, lies with handing over such an enormous and impactful decision to a child who has likely not long learned how to read.

Young boys and girls displaying behaviours of the opposite sex – be it through their choice of toys, clothing and so on – should, of course, be given the freedom they need to grow up as happy children. However, allowing a child to alter their own physiology when the vast majority of individuals displaying this behaviour grow out of it by puberty points to a much deeper-rooted issue of virtue signalling as a result of today’s toxic political correctness.