Even death seems funny compared to this...hope not to see my children one day asking me the permission for doing that :D I'm not still prepared for such things in my life, can't still accept gay and lesbians...it will take time and time! But if something makes them happy, let's do it. :vsign: peace

Obviously, the answer is not "yes" or "no" but, rather, the answer of a lawyer..."it depends".

Is 16 too young? It depends. If Lifestyle choice Yes | Medical Issue No

Like MMM posted before "what 16 year old feels right in their own skin"?

A typical 16 year old wouldn't be able to support themselves if kicked out on the street but then are supposed to be entrusted with this kind of decision while being coddled by their parents getting free food, rent, video games, and toilet paper?

The 16 year old that decides to have a sex change better be the 16 year old that can financially support themselves and pay for the operation themselves to show, at the very least, SOME sort of track record of having the emotional maturity and where-with-all to understand the consequences of a decision like this. (Again, a medical issue or some issue which extends past the guidelines of what constitute a "lifestyle" change is exempt from this.)

If I put myself in another person's skin, I'm still the one making the decisions. And I say 'No'. If you're not happy with your body, you're doing something wrong.

Why would not being happy in their own skin be a fault of that individual? There are people in horrific accidents, people who become severely disfigured or scarred, people who lose limbs or fail to walk again . . . should these people be happy in their own skins? Should they be denied prosthetic limbs, plastic surgery or basic compassion, just because 'well, if you aren't happy then it's your own fault'?

These examples I think are quite relevant to the topic of sex-change. I mean where do we draw the line? Who gets surgery and who doesn't? How do we decide what is a 'legit' problem, and what isn't? Personally I think your view is a little naive to the problems of other people.

People with terrible accidents is a different case. Ofcourse it's ok for them to use plastic surgery or things like that.
But I'm talking about people who are perfectly fine and still choose to change who they are. And all that because they "are not happy" or they want to look like their idol or whatever. It's incredibly stupid. Those people will have to learn to live with their self instead of destroying their identity and dignity.

Where I draw the line is this:

Terrible accident = Ok, go ahead.
All other reasons = No, don't do it.

Perhaps I wasn't clear. The point is it's all down to what a person deems as a 'real' reason as to change the way they look . . . if I broke my nose in an accident, or if I was just born with it crooked, what is the difference? Why would one be a 'correction' and the other just be 'vanity'?

People have various reasons, and there's also various degress of 'importance'. A person scarred all over in a fire obviously has more of an understandable need than a person in my example, who merely has a crooked nose, but they both still have a need and thus a right to correct whatever imperfection they feel needs correcting.

In specific to gender disorder. People who feel they are the wrong gender often have described to me, or in interviews I've seen, the same feeling that comes from a disfigurement. They feel disfigured, ugly, that when they look in the mirror it isn't a reflection that represents who they feel they should be . . . aren't these the same feelings a person feels who has been in an accident? Isn't the feeling of low self-image the same no matter what the cause?

I don't understand how you can distinguish between the two. Why is one person more deserving? Why should someone be forced to live with themselves? Why shouldn't they change if it would genuinely help them to feel better? Why deny them the right to be happy?