Primer: Banning Gender-Affirming Care
As we approach the general election in November, a key partisan divide that both parties will stress is their stance on gender-affirming care for minors. The term gender-affirming care refers to a range of social, psychological, behavioral, and medical interventions that support an individual’s gender identity when it conflicts with their assigned gender at birth. Republicans have enacted some form of ban on this care in 24 different states, including Florida, Texas, and Georgia. Democrats have supported this form of medical care, framing it as a simple healthcare rights issue. With this background, the Political Union this week will debate the following resolution: States should restrict gender-affirming care for minors.
Advocates of a ban argue that this form of medical care endangers children. Politicians like the Missouri Attorney General characterize gender-affirming care as child mutilation. There is also some evidence that suggests there are significant side effects, like fertility loss and a drop in bone density, especially with hormone therapies. Further, this topic should not be spinned into a civil rights issue. Children are not always afforded rights on big decisions that impact them – they face significant financial regulations, must go to school, and can’t drink. This would just be another restriction that would force them to grow older before making a massive change in their lives. Banning gender-affirming care is the safe decision.
Opponents of a ban argue that this medical care is safe and medically necessary. It supports the well-being of many transgender, non-binary, and gender-expansive people who feel distressed or experience dysphoria because of their gender identity. Gender-affirming care decreases depression, anxiety, and suicide attempts for this demographic, so some doctors view it as an absolute medical necessity. The side effects need a lot more study before they can be fully accepted, as well. And it is absolutely a civil rights issue: gender identity is fundamental to who someone is as a person, and the decision that they are uncomfortable with their gender at birth is not taken lightly. If a person decides they would like to transition, it is unfathomable that a politician can remove their ability to be who they truly feel they are. A ban would also stand at odds with the parental right to make decisions about their children, and it can interfere with the crucial relationship between parents and doctors. A ban on gender-affirming care would be an undue and dangerous burden on youth and families.
Join the Political Union in debating this resolution on Monday at 7pm in Scott Hall 201!
"Trans rights" by San Diego Shooter is licensed under CC BY-NC-ND 2.0.