When gender-affirming medical interventions are banned, the impacts to gender-diverse youth (GDY) and their families go beyond limiting access to medical care. This also increases social stressors, cause social network disruptions, increase hostility toward the gender-diverse community.
This is according to a study – “Perspectives of Gender-Diverse Youth and Caregivers Facing Gender-Affirming Medical Intervention Bans” by Richard A. Brandon-Friedman, Ali Tabb, Teresa M. Imburgia, Tayon R. Swafford, J. Dennis Fortenberry, Meredith Canada, and Kelly L. Donahue – that appeared in LGBT Health.
The researchers particularly noted the anti-transgender environment in the US, where – in the past two years – nearly all 50 states have debated bills seeking to ban minors’ access to gender-affirming medical interventions, with many being passed into law. So they documented GDYs’ and their caregivers’ experiences as they grapple with how such laws impact their families.
For this study, 16 GDY and 16 caregivers participating in a longitudinal study of the impact of gender-affirming care on GDYs’ well-being were interviewed about how the legal and social discourse was impacting them and their families. When interviewed, some participants had completed only the initial intake, others had completed the intake and an initial medical consultation, and a few had recently started gender-affirming hormones. Thematic analysis was used to identify common threads in the youths’ and caregivers’ experiences.
The study identified four main themes: Direct effects of losing access to gender-affirming medical interventions, reflecting how losing access to care would impact well-being; growing hostility toward the gender-diverse community, noting increasing social negativity; personal and social upheaval, reflecting the many aspects of families’ lives affected; and galvanization into social action, documenting drives to effect social change.
For the researchers, “laws banning gender-affirming medical interventions impact GDY and their families beyond limiting access to medical care. They increase the social stressors, cause social network disruptions, increase hostility toward the gender-diverse community, and lead some GDY and caregivers to engage more politically to protect their community.”
According to the researchers, gender-affirming health care providers need to recognize how the social and political environment impact GDY and their families to provide high-quality, person-centered care.
Particularly to provide meaningful and holistic care, health care providers “must be cognizant of how GDY and their families are grappling with the current sociopolitical environment. GDY and their families face not only the direct loss of care but also increased hostility and upheaval.”
Since minority and identity-based stresses contribute to psychosocial health concerns, emphasizing the necessity of provider attunement to these stresses and their impact, then “providers should be prepared to offer GDY and their caregivers additional supports as they face such adversities.”
