But They're Too Young To Consent!

They're eight years old, not eighteen!

Notwithstanding how manipulatively beautifully and poignantly the story is told, the truth is that an eight-year-old is incapable of deciding for him and/or herself.

"Him and/or herself"???  Is this a brainfart on my part?  Nope.

How is it that an eight year old is officially deemed capable of making such an extremely profound, serious, life-altering decision?

It sounds, to me, that the whole thing is a case of the manipulation of impressionable, programmable children who can't logically, rationally decide for themselves.  I don't see how consent to such a thing is even possible in children so young!

Remember when you were eight?  Do you think you could possibly be capable of making a valid decision of this magnitude at such an early age?

I suspect that there might have been some unethical, immoral actions on the part of some adults, perhaps including the parents, unless, of course, the parents were themselves victims of Machiavellian manipulation by unscrupulous, dishonest idelogical extremists.

It just doesn't seem acceptable to me that eight-year-old children are deemed capable of deciding to change their sex!

There ought to be a law governing under what circumstances sex changes in children are permitted and outlawed.  Yes, there are situations in which it would make sense, as in the case of babies born with odd genitalia, but for normal children, I don't believe that should be allowed at all.  Better to send confused-but-normal children to a child psychologist to help them sort out their thoughts, which, at such a tender age, frequently tend to be irrational, illogical, and out of touch with reality.  Of course, we know that, if we recall how mentally-confused-and-disordered we were at eight!  Like, for example, hey, we cannot fly, as we're not superheroes, right?

Elective, wholly unnecessary surgery of such an extreme nature is something that only adults ought to be deemed by society to be capable of consenting to!

Newsbusters points out that the story told by the radio station NPR was entirely one-sided.  Now, isn't there something wrong with that?  NPR isn't an ideological blog, so how do they justify spewing manipulative, socially-revolutionary propaganda like this?

Perhaps NPR has exposed itself as nothing but an ideologically-extreme and one-sided propaganda broadcaster.