That's not my point. I'm pointing out that there's an inconsistency that needs to be addressed:
1) They're alleging he's incapable of understanding or consenting to a medical procedure.
2) But they're saying he's capable of making the consented decision to have sex.
How is that confusing? There is a significant difference from a social experience and a medical procedure. One has a lot more legal and health ramifications than the other. There are reasons why this continues to be a concern for guardianship, because it involves the negotiation of ensuring that the rights of the individual are not unjustifiably circumvented, while their need for services and support remains.
Furthermore, what they are stating is that
legally his consent is different from his social consent. He may say he is in favor, but that does not mean that the courts would agree he actually gave legal consent. Under legal consent, he has the right to have sex without approval from the state, whereas medical procedures come under additional scrutiny (especially those with a dangerous past, like sterilization).
But to your point - no, I disagree. If you don't understand what sex really is and what it's meant for, you shouldn't be permitted or encouraged to have it. Come on - we hear it in abortion arguments all the time: don't have sex if you're not mature enough when you're a teen. . . etc.
The problem here is that nowhere in the article does it suggest that this individual does not know what sex was, while having it.
Furthermore, there is a significant difference between what you are arguing from what is being argued in the abortion context. While the non-disabled adult is free to have sex as they please, with the only ramifications being once a child is produced (and even then, the conversation is usually restricted to offspring, not their ability to screw), you seem to be under the impression that you should stop those with intellectual disability from even engaging in sexual activity. What's fascinating is that you stick with the argument that legal consent is knowledge of what sex is, but somehow children without disabilities (who cannot give legal consent) are granted this knowledge of sex.
Third, we have had sexual education for individuals with intellectual disability for decades.
Underaged children who are more mentally advanced than this man aren't allowed to consent and parents wouldn't permit them to engage (or shouldn't) - he doesn't get special treatment just because he's physically reached a certain point in his life.
Yeah, and they are children. This man is an adult. He's hardly asking for special treatment, considering the rest of his life he is considered legally inferior to that of any non-disabled or mildly-disabled adult. He had to go through a court system in order to determine if he could be sterilized, regardless if he wanted it in the first place.