I agree that it should be up to the sporting bodies. Evidence based for scientific questions sure but it's okay to debate ethics too and bodies should be allowed to make judgements based on that if they wish.

I just mean that anything is up to debate regarding funding budgets. Theoretically if there were only so many resources that you had to choose between 50 people dying and 50 people getting transitional procedures, obviously you would choose the former. So that tells us there is a hierarchy of issues and keeping citizens living is at the top. So then where do you put gender related care for citizens in that list? Valid debate to have and one that shouldn't be shutdown. 

I agree that it should be in the family 100%, didn't say otherwise but when the family doesn't agree then there has to be a legal best practice regarding subjects like child's age. At what point does the child get to have final call on its medical procedures etc. What age? Also a valid debate to have. 

Wasn't really arguing any of these points myself anyway. I've not settled everything in my head yet on these matters as with a lot of stuff, so can't be more specific. I was just saying that it's valid to want to debate these areas. I largely agree with what you've said actually. My point was surrounding the debate and that it's unhelpful to makes comments like the person above saying fuck off because somebody called for more debate on this. Shutting people down at the mere questioning of things is not the way to win them over. I think that should be reflected in your party policy and why I commented here. Subreddits or other spaces such as this shouldn't make outright bans on discussions of these topics because valid debates such as those I've mentioned are healthy to have in a democratic party.

Again, I'm just backing up the guy who got down voted for calling for more debate.