No tats for 10-year-olds

George K · "Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08

OCTOBER 13, 2022Mom Arrested For Letting Son, 10, Get Large Tattoo On His Arm, Police Say

A New York woman has been arrested for allowing her 10-year-old son to get a large tattoo across his forearm, artwork that was spotted by a school employee who reported the illegal ink to law enforcement.

Police this month busted Crystal Thomas, 33, for endangering the welfare of a child. She was booked on the misdemeanor charge and released from custody on a Town Court appearance ticket.

Thomas’s son was placed in the custody of child protective services officials.

According to police, the boy was tattooed inside a room at the hotel where Thomas and her two children reside. The Ulster County hotel is about 100 miles north of New York City.

Before inking the boy, police say, the tattoo artist got permission from Thomas. The resulting tattoo--the boy’s name in “full-size block letters”--was inked across the child’s forearm, said Chief James Janso of the Town of Lloyd Police.

The tattoo is large enough that “you would need a sleeve to cover it up,” said Janso.

Officials learned of the tattoo earlier this month when the boy asked the nurse at his middle school to apply Vaseline atop the fresh ink, Janso told TSG.

Janso described the tattoo artist as a “person of interest” who could face charges including tattooing a minor and endangering the welfare of a child. The whereabouts of the male suspect are currently unknown, said Janso.

89th

I think we all know there this goes from here.

First, you can't get a tattoo as a minor? Next, a kid can't get an affirming surgery to help them on their journey to become what they feel like they really are, such as a pirate. I mean, if you want a peg leg or hook for a hand, you really need to commit to the amputations.

George K · "Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08

@89th I teed it up for ya...

Aqua Letifer

Fine by me, generally speaking. 10's too young unless maybe it's some kind of cultural thing, and even then I'd have some doubts.

Mik

Allowing a 10-year-old to make a permanent decision of any sort is patently absurd and a total abdication of parental responsibility.

Copper

idiot

George K · "Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08

@George-K said in No tats for 10-year-olds:

@89th I teed it up for ya...

The NHS disagrees:

Most children who think they’re transgender are just going through a ‘phase’, says NHS
Doctors told not to encourage young people to change their names and pronouns

By Hayley Dixon, Special Correspondent23 October 2022 • 3:49pm
Most children who believe that they are transgender are just going through a “phase”, the NHS has said, as it warns that doctors should not encourage them to change their names and pronouns.

NHS England has announced plans for tightening controls on the treatment of under 18s questioning their gender, including a ban on prescribing puberty blockers outside of strict clinical trials.

The services, which will replace the controversial Tavistock clinic, will be led by medical doctors rather than therapists and will consider the impact of other conditions such as autism and mental health issues.

The plans, which are currently under public consultation, are for an interim service for young people with gender dysphoria whilst Dr Hilary Cass continues her review into the treatment offered by the NHS.

They note that there is a need to change the services because there is currently “scarce and inconclusive evidence to support clinical decision-making”.

NHS England says that the interim Cass Report has advised that even social transition, such as changing a young person’s name and pronouns or the way that they dress, is not a “neutral act” that could have “significant effects” in terms of “psychological functioning”.

Parent groups and professionals have long raised concerns that NHS medics have taken an “affirmative” approach to treating children, including using their preferred names and pronouns.

Be mindful of 'transient phase'

The proposals say that the new clinical approach will for younger children “reflect evidence that in most cases gender incongruence does not persist into adolescence” and doctors should be mindful this might be a “transient phase”.

Instead of encouraging transition, medics should take “a watchful approach” to see how a young person’s conditions develop, the plans state.

When a prepubescent child has already socially transitioned, “the clinical approach has to be mindful of the risks of an inappropriate gender transition and the difficulties that the child may experience in returning to the original gender role upon entering puberty if the gender incongruence does not persist”.

For adolescents, social transition will only be considered when it is necessary for preventing “clinically significant distress” and when a young person “is able to fully comprehend the implications of affirming a social transition”, says NHS England.

The proposals note that a “significant proportion of children” who are referred for treatment have neuro-development issues or family of social problems.

The new treatment teams will be led by a medical doctor and the service will only take referrals from GPs and other NHS professionals.

NHS England will also “strongly discourage” young people from buying hormones from private clinicians and will not accept clinical responsibility for the treatment of those who have done so.

Catseye3

I'm of two minds about this.

Absolutely it is irresponsible to allow a child of that age to make that sort of permanent decision. But is it the state's responsibility to step in on something I happen to disapprove of?

Horace

@Catseye3 said in No tats for 10-year-olds:

I'm of two minds about this.

Absolutely it is irresponsible to allow a child of that age to make that sort of permanent decision. But is it the state's responsibility to step in on something just because I disapprove of it?

That’s how child neglect or abuse laws work. The question is whether you consider it child neglect or abuse. There are no further questions.

George K · "Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08

@Catseye3 said in No tats for 10-year-olds:

But is it the state's responsibility to step in on something I happen to disapprove of?

It arrested the mother who allowed the 10-year-old to get a tat.

That answer your question?

Doctor Phibes

I don't understand how anybody can promote this stuff for 10 years olds.

Either the trans-stuff or the tattoo.

Children have a right to be protected from bloody stupid parents who harm them or allow them to harm themselves.

Catseye3

@George-K said in No tats for 10-year-olds:

That answer your question?

No.

Catseye3

@Doctor-Phibes said in No tats for 10-year-olds:

bloody stupid parents

Just as you have the right to pronounce parents -- or anybody -- "bloody stupid". Much as I'd like to deprive stupid people of the right to vote, I have yet to figure out a way to exclude them from the privilege of being American.

Doctor Phibes

@Catseye3 said in No tats for 10-year-olds:

@Doctor-Phibes said in No tats for 10-year-olds:

bloody stupid parents

Just as you have the right to pronounce parents -- or anybody -- "bloody stupid". Much as I'd like to deprive stupid people of the right to vote, I have yet to figure out a way to exclude them from the privilege of being American.

I'm happy for them to vote. I'm not happy for them to damage children. Somebody needs to step in if they're going to cause harm to somebody who isn't old enough to make mature decisions for themselves.

Horace

That’s why the question is a very simple one. Do you or do you not consider it neglect or abuse? From there, government intervention is not a difficult question.

I suspect most people on the fence, are really on the fence about not wanting to own an opinion that it is not neglect or abuse. Understandably so. That is a difficult opinion to say out loud, for sane people.

Catseye3

@Horace said in No tats for 10-year-olds:

From there, government intervention is not a difficult question.

The question of government intervention is never a simple one.

Doctor Phibes

@Horace said in No tats for 10-year-olds:

That’s why the question is a very simple one. Do you or do you not consider it neglect or abuse? From there, government intervention is not a difficult question.

I suspect most people on the fence, are really on the fence about not wanting to own an opinion that it is not neglect or abuse. Understandably so. That is a difficult opinion to say out loud, for sane people.

I find the question easy to answer for 10 year olds. It might become more difficult to answer for, say, 16-18 year olds.

Mik

Prior to 18 the answer was a form No to any such question. After, Our policy was this. We cannot, once you are 18, stop you from getting tattoos or piercings beyond the ears. But understand that if you do so against our wishes it will be seen as your statement of independence, that you are ready to make your own decisions and pay your own way.

There’s no free lunch.

George K · "Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08

Bears repeating:

"At work I see naked people every day. I've seen good tattoos, and I've seen bad tattoos. I've seen new tattoos and I've seen old tattoos. I've never seen a good, old tattoo."

Aqua Letifer

@George-K said in No tats for 10-year-olds:

Bears repeating:

"At work I see naked people every day. I've seen good tattoos, and I've seen bad tattoos. I've seen new tattoos and I've seen old tattoos. I've never seen a good, old tattoo."

In other words, "no Maori hires. Like, ever."

The New Coffee Room

No tats for 10-year-olds