Transgender youths discuss social hostility, isolation due to gender-affirming care bans
Click Here to Manage Email Alerts
Key takeaways:
- Transgender youths said bans on gender-affirming care have caused some to relocate to different states.
- Respondents say they have experienced more hostility since legislation has been proposed.
Transgender youths discussed social concerns, facing hostility and being worried about losing access to care when interviewed about legislation prohibiting gender-affirming care, according to findings published in LGBT Health.
“Nearly half of U.S. states have either implemented partial or complete restrictions on gender-affirming medical interventions for gender-diverse youths or are considering such legislation,” Richard A. Brandon-Friedman, PhD, LCSW, LCAC, assistant professor in the division of adolescent medicine, department of pediatrics at Indiana University School of Medicine, and colleagues wrote. “These harsh, discriminatory laws restrict access to evidence-based care under the auspices of ‘protecting’ youth, despite no evidence that restricting access to gender-affirming care improves gender-diverse youths’ well-being and significant research showing its benefits. This study illuminates the breadth and depth of consequences — both experienced and anticipated — faced by gender-diverse youths and their families as they confront legislation restricting their access to gender-affirming medical interventions.”
Researchers interviewed 16 youths aged 9 to 18 years and 16 caregivers about the impact of gender-affirming care. All participants began receiving care from November 2022 to June 2023. The interview included questions on how legislation prohibiting gender-affirming care and social discourse affected the lives of gender-affirming youths and their caregivers. Interviews took place via Zoom a mean 9.37 weeks after each youth’s initial intake appointment.
Four themes were discussed during the interviews. Participants discussed the potential effect of losing access to gender-affirming care. Youths were concerned about not only losing access to care, but also that legislation could lead to restrictions on other health care. Caregivers were concerned about the implications of youths losing access to care and some said they believed that the political environment is a bigger obstacle to treatment than a lack of providers and finances.
Both youths and caregivers said hostility has increased due to debates on gender-affirming care legislation. Youths said negative messaging on social media has hurt their emotional health and social well-being. This has led to peer alienation, less support from teachers and withdrawal from unsupportive peers and family members, according to respondents. Caregivers expressed concerns about the safety and well-being of their child and the entire family.
Proposed gender-affirming care legislation led to large personal changes for some. Youths discussed relocating to other states where they would have access to gender-affirming care, and some expressed concern about the disruption relocating would lead to. Some caregivers unable to relocate discussed having their child move to another state so they would not lose access to care. Youths also discussed not attending family events to avoid discussing legislation and gender diversity with family. Caregivers said they felt responsible for protecting their child from anyone questioning their gender identity.
The final theme centered on gender-affirming youths and their caregivers being driven to political and social action. Youths said they felt that they could promote change for themselves and other gender-affirming people, whereas others said resisting legislation brought them closer to other transgender youth. Caregivers said they support gender-diverse youths by networking with other caregivers, attending rallies or legislative events and joining lawsuits against the legislation.
“This research suggests several areas for further inquiry,” the researchers wrote. “First, the experiences of gender-diverse youths undergoing nonvoluntary withdrawal of gender-affirming care and/or currently experiencing restricted access to gender-affirming care must be explored. In addition, the experiences of gender-diverse youths who forgo seeking gender-affirming care or who preemptively stop gender-affirming care due to concerns about future access need to be better understood. Finally, the physiological impacts of stopping hormone treatment should be evaluated.”
Collapse
Click Here to Manage Email Alerts