I prefer "agency" to "autonomy" but that's a bit of a quibble. You always pose this question as if it's a major gotcha, but it really isn't. Being for child agency just means thinking we need to move further in that direction. It isn't required of us to know in advance exactly how far; the dispute is between the status quo (or the status quo ante, since some think we are already giving kids too much agency, like letting them trans) and change. It's always a question of balance. Child liberationists think we need change. Opponents of child liberation should be arguing we don't need change (or we have already changed too much), but instead they tend to argue that change will be a slippery slope with no way of stopping. Change, when it happens at all, is usually highly incremental. The slippery slope is a straw man. Ageist totalitarianism is a fair term for where we are now. In general, kids have only as much control over their lives as their parents grant them. Child liberationists think they deserve more. If we give them an inch they will take a mile isn't a counterargument, it's just fearmongering. hugzu ;-p |