I'm a big fan of good faith discussions - because that's how I think the world gets to understand the nuances and complexities of arguments. I am indeed pro-choice, as I'm a liberal and your question is an interesting one.

I would be happy for someone who had an abortion to take a public position opposed to abortion and to tell their story. Their story might apply to other people. It might not. That's why I'm also a fan of your story. I think the more success and failure stories there are in the mix, the more information another individual has to make the correct choice. It's dangerous to bias the flow of information one way or another on something as vital as this issue.

I would also support the right of any individual to have their day in court if they feel society has wronged them - Keira Bell's case was heard, restrictions were placed then the case was appalled and the decision overturned. There was a legal overreach against the civil liberties of children. King and Vos were clear, this is something Gillick competent children can and should decide for themselves. Again, as a liberal, I have no problem with this, the courts system is doing its job.

It does then beg the question, why did Keira Bell make the wrong choice - what information did she not have access to? Which clinicians did not explore with her the full implications of her actions? Faced with no legal redress, the answer is 'Keira fucked up her choice' If she was competent (and she was) and transitioning is supposed to elicit in people the sort of responses you've written about so eloquently - why should anyone ever detransition at all? Asking the right sort of probing questions of Keira isn't Transphobia, because Keira isn't Trans. Putting you through the same line of questioning might be, because you are. But how are clinicians and adults involved in a child's life supposed to tell the difference? The path of 'least harm' is a difficult one to tread.

Evangelical Christians are some of my least favourite people on the planet. I'm moderate, they are not. However, beacause I'm a liberal, they're entitled to have their views, entitled to voice them, and entitled to be slapped down when they attempt to enforce their position outside of the courts or make any power grab on either language or law. That cuts both ways though. Centre ground and moderation is the only real way forward in a pluralistic democratic society. Thanks for engaging. :o)