With the looming threat of new legislation such as Florida’s “Don’t Say Gay” bill, it is more crucial than ever for the LGBTQ+ community to stand together against hateful attempts at regulating our identites.

Currently, 20 states are waging a war against the rights of transgender youth to life-saving, gender-affirming treatment. Each of these 17 states has filed at least one anti-transgender medical care ban, most concerning the treatment of youth.

Some of the bills would penalize medical providers for delivering gender-affirming care, while others would criminalize parents seeking gender-affirming care for their children. These bills are based on unsupported, uninformed arguments concerning the risks of and general procedure of gender-affirming care for those under the age of 21.

As someone who has personally experienced the difficulties that are already presented to transitioning youth seeking gender-affirming care, and as someone who understands the importance of said affirming care, I oppose any state bill prohibiting or restricting gender-affirming treatment for transgender youth.

Upon a review of the many proposed bills, there appears to be a general misunderstanding by policymakers of the procedures already in place regarding gender-affirming care. Given the assumption that we as a society can and should trust highly trained medical professionals and well-established medical associations, the latter have already put into place sufficient guidelines for providing gender-affirming care.

A very popular counter-argument to my position against restrictive bills is the moral concern and criticism of the young age at which people mistakenly believe youth to be accessing irreversible treatment, lest they might regret it when they are older.

This, however, is not based on the reality of medical practice. According to the Endocrine Society’s 2017 guidelines, which are widely accepted in the medical community, hormone treatment is not recommended for pre-pubertal persons . After puberty does begin, blockers are the first non-permanent step available for youth. Further, the care of youth is always managed by an expert multi-disciplinary team comprised of medical professionals and mental health professionals).

All of the procedures currently in place have been purposely curated for the safety and well-being of the person undergoing treatment, and that includes an extensive examination by mental health professionals to ensure that treatment is the best option.

Many of the proposed bills, however, threaten that option. Puberty blockers in particular are a wonderful option, as they can halt the physical changes that come along with puberty, giving the individual a chance to further explore their gender identity without the mental anguish of a body developing physical traits that don’t align with the way they feel inside.

In fact, a 2020 study found that transgender adolescents showed poorer psychological well-being before treatment, but showed a similar or better psychological functioning compared with their cisgender peers after the start of specialized care involving puberty suppression.

Another study conducted in 2020 concluded that depression scores and suicidal ideation declined in transgender youth after endocrine (hormone) intervention, while the quality of life scores showed an increase with intervention.

Other studies have come to similar conclusions. With a population so at risk of depression and suicide, legislative interference between individuals and life-saving healthcare is incredibly unjust.

Many trusted medical associations, including the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Medical Association and the American Psychiatric Association, have all made statements showing similar concern for the intervention of policymakers in gender-affirming health care.

It is widely asserted by such associations that the involvement of uninformed state policymakers is unnecessary and that the administration of gender-affirming treatment for youth need only concern the individual in need, their guardians and the providing professionals.

The American Medical Association called the proposed bills “a dangerous legislative intrusion into the practice of medicine.” The American Psychiatric Association wrote: “patients and their physicians, not policymakers, should be the ones to make decisions together about what care is best for them.”

I know that it may not be in the nature of all people to put their trust into medical professionals, associations or relatively small studies, but it is clear that many proponents of restrictive bills are motivated by a concern for the well-being of our country’s youth.

If this is the case, legislators and their backers need to fully understand the weight of their potential decisions, as well as have an informed understanding of what gender-affirming treatment for youth actually means. For those who have not personally navigated the process of accessing gender-affirming treatment in their youth, or supported a loved one through it, it is difficult to grasp just how extensive and reliable it is.

Associations like the Endocrine Society have put into place guidelines that are researched and specifically for the benefit of those receiving treatment.

Ultimately, rather than spending time and effort attempting to place restrictions on necessary health care for some individuals, policymakers should be focusing on making it more accessible to everyone.