Most seven-year-olds have difficulty deciding on Christmas lists, let alone anything as permanent as gender choice. However, a jury in Texas has ruled against a father’s petition for sole custody of his twin seven-year-old boys as a means to protect one from undergoing hormonal gender-change therapy at the hands of his mother. A judge has yet to formally enter custody orders, but Jeffrey Younger will likely now be forced to refer to his son James as “Luna,” the identity his mother Ann Georgulas has used for him since enrolling him in kindergarten, and stand by as his son takes potentially dangerous medication despite not being physically ill at all:

Jeffrey Younger had petitioned a court in Texas to grant him sole custody of his twin sons, James and Jude, in part to avoid a plan to infuse James with female hormones. James, who would like to be called Luna, has been the center of controversy in the heated debate among his parents and others. Anne Georgulas, the mother of the two boys, has advocated for James to transition into Luna and has strongly backed the idea of chemically castrating her son and beginning hormone replacement therapy. The ruling on Wednesday will prevent Jeffrey from having sole custody of his children and paves the way for Georgulas to proceed with the procedure. The court has ruled that Georgulas will maintain sole custody of her two children and go forward with plans to give James life-altering medical procedures. Her original court filing had sought to limit her ex-husband’s visits with their children and require that he now refer to James as Luna. She further asked that Jeffrey not be exposed to any people who would not confirm his female identity.

Good luck with that. Unless Georgulas plans to home-school James/Luna, this child will be surrounded by other kids who will repeatedly refuse to confirm his female identity. That’s because James/Luna is a prepubescent biological male by medical definition and biological fact, at an age where sexual identity shouldn’t actually matter at all — until one draws undue attention to it, as is exactly what Georgulas has been doing.

LifeSite’s Madeleine Jacobs offered a video report yesterday after the verdict from the pro-life perspective:

Expert witnesses testified to a child’s inability to full comprehend the potential side effects of such therapy, such as permanent infertility, inability to ever naturally engage in sexual relations, and a decreased lifespan. On Friday, protesters called on Texas lawmakers to pass legislation making it illegal for anyone under 18 years of age to begin a medical transition. They argued that children cannot fully understand the lifelong consequences of their decisions and parents should not be allowed to make this decision for their children. Currently, there aren’t any U.S. laws that restrict the use of puberty blockers or cross-sex hormones or outline a minimum age of administration.

Four weeks ago, Jazz wrote about the destructive and dangerous side effects of these “puberty blocker” drugs. He notes that the most common of these, Lupron, has not been approved by the FDA for use as a long-term puberty blocker, but is approved for shorter-term use in delaying early-onset puberty. That makes sense, as precocious puberty has long-term health consequences of its own that are well documented. The risk of short-term use in these cases is calculated against a serious medical risk from non-treatment, and is used with the presumed consent of both parents.

The FDA hasn’t actually approved any such therapy for prepubescent children whose parents want to delay or prevent puberty for the desire of gender change. Nor is there any reason to assume the risk of Lupron or other drugs when gender dysphoria does not create a risk of physical damage, especially in seven-year-olds. If adults want to make a choice of gender transition, that’s one thing, but adults (and juries) imposing those kinds of long-term risks on children far below any rational age of consent for no good medical reason is simply insane. In what other contexts do courts allow the use of risky medication on children without any physical ailments, let alone mandate their use against the will of one of the custodial parents?

Where is the FDA on this anyway? Is this the same FDA that drags its heels on allowing experimental therapies for terminally ill adult patients with the full capacity for informed consent? This gap on puberty blockers suggests that political correctness plays more of a role than logic at the FDA.

Let’s hope that Younger gets the chance to appeal this decision to a court with more rational thinkers. James/Luna should get a chance to make it completely through his childhood before making these kinds of decisions — and more importantly, he should be making them for himself as an informed adult capable of actual consent.