The Ethical Debate: Restricting Gender-Affirming Healthcare for Children
Introduction
In recent years, the conversation around gender-affirming healthcare for transgender children has become a highly charged ethical and political issue. On one hand, there are strong advocates for providing access to gender-affirming care to support the well-being and mental health of transgender youth. On the other hand, some argue that it is morally necessary to restrict access to certain medical interventions for children. As a trans advocate, it is important to explore the ethical dimensions of this debate to understand the diverse perspectives and the potential impacts on transgender children.
The Argument for Restricting Gender-Affirming Healthcare for Children
Those who support restricting gender-affirming healthcare for children often cite concerns about the long-term implications of medical interventions. Their arguments include:
Age and Maturity: Critics argue that children and adolescents may lack the maturity and cognitive capacity to fully understand and consent to irreversible medical treatments. They worry that decisions made during childhood could lead to regret in adulthood. [It could lead to regret in adulthood. Not that it WILL, but it COULD. There are stories of transgender individuals who, in their twenties, regret having transitioned in childhood or adolescence.]
Physical and Psychological Development: There is concern that medical interventions, such as hormone blockers or surgeries, could interfere with the natural physical and psychological development of children. Opponents argue that it may be better to wait until individuals are older and more certain about their gender identity. [Children/adolescents aren't psychologically developed enough to make adult decisions. Sorry if I sound like I agree with Trump, but transitioning should be put on hold until adulthood.]
Potential for Reversal: Some believe that gender identity can be fluid, particularly in younger children, and that medical interventions could prematurely lock them into a specific identity that they may not hold in the long term. [I believe this one goes very well with the previous one. When I was about twelve years old, I fantasized about being a girl. This was my first experience with gender dysphoria, as I mentioned in previous posts. My father wasn't the type of man you would approach with something like this. If he had been, I might have transitioned when I was in my early teens. I would never have become a parent. At least, not to my oldest three kids. (The fourth is my adopted son.) If I had been able to talk to Dad about it, and if I had been allowed to transition, my adulthood would have been filled with regret over not having biological children.]
Ethical Responsibility: From an ethical standpoint, some argue that healthcare providers have a responsibility to "do no harm" and that the potential risks of medical interventions for children may outweigh the benefits. [The only thing I'll say to this is, arguing this point is "ethically responsible".]
The Counterargument: Supporting Transgender Children
On the other side of the debate, many trans advocates and healthcare professionals argue that restricting access to gender-affirming care can have significant negative consequences:
Mental Health and Well-Being: Transgender children who are denied access to gender-affirming care often experience higher rates of anxiety, depression, and suicidal ideation. Supportive care can alleviate gender dysphoria and improve mental health outcomes. [This is why, as I mentioned in an earlier post, I advocate for psychiatric therapy to support children with gender dysphoria. With this support, I believe they would be far less likely to experience anxiety, depression, and suicidal ideation. You can give supportive care that would alleviate GD and improve mental health outcomes without physically transitioning the child.]
Evidence-Based Care: Research shows that gender-affirming care, including the use of puberty blockers and hormone therapy, can be beneficial and safe for transgender youth. These treatments provide time for children to explore their gender identity without the stress of undergoing puberty in their assigned gender. [I may be inclined to go along with the puberty blockers, but not the hormone therapy. If a young biological male is treated with estrogen and begins growing breasts, but then decides to not go through with it, he would then face adulthood with the embarrassment of being a man with a woman's breasts. Of course, you would argue that he could have the breasts surgically removed, but he wouldn't have that financial burden if he had had to wait until adulthood to transition.]
Autonomy and Agency: Advocates argue that children and adolescents should have a say in their medical care, particularly when it comes to their own bodies and identities. Denying them access to care can undermine their autonomy and sense of agency. [I agree that children and adolescents should have such a say, but only to a point. Choosing to transition is a very personal, and a very adult decision. In other words, it's a decision that should only be made by the person wanting to transition, and only when they can make that decision as an adult.]
Affirmation and Support: Providing gender-affirming care can signal to transgender children that they are seen, valued, and supported. This affirmation can significantly enhance their self-esteem and quality of life. [Oh, please! You can let transgender children know that they're seen, valued, and supported without the irresponsible action of medical intervention. Of course, this takes ingenuity and imagination. Qualities that proponents of child transitioning may be lacking.]
Conclusion
The ethical debate around restricting gender-affirming healthcare for children is complex and multifaceted. It requires balancing concerns about the long-term implications of medical interventions with the immediate need to support the mental health and well-being of transgender youth. As a trans advocate, it is crucial to listen to the voices of transgender individuals, healthcare professionals, and families to ensure that policies and practices are informed by compassion, evidence, and respect for autonomy.
Personal Conclusion
Of course the debate is complex! Of course it's multifaceted! I'm in favor of supporting the mental health and well-being of transgender children, but that can be, and should be, done without the immoral and unethical medical interventions of minors! As I've said multiple times, I began experiencing gender dysphoria when I was a preteen. And, yes, my adolescence was filled with depression, but that depression was not caused by GD. It was caused by the death of my mother at a time in my life when a boy begins needing his mother the most. Did I want to die? Yes! Was I suicidal? Absolutely not! I wouldn't avoid situations where death was possible, but I would never have caused my own death. I was raised believing that suicide negates ones chances of the absolution of wrongs done in this life, thereby denying one an afterlife of bliss. My soul was and is far too important to me to risk eternity in Hell. Children will grow up well balanced if they are supported with love and a conscionable morality. Yes, I wish my dad had done better, but he came from a time when none of this was even beginning to be realized. All in all, I'm glad that I couldn't transition as a child. I do wish I'd begun this journey decades ago, but as an adult.
I was once told that I seem angry. I admit it: I am angry! I'm angry that the transgender community, as a whole, forgives and supports immoral and unethical actions and irresponsible behaviors supposedly for the advancement of the whole community. But this mindset is counterintuitive! Instead of insisting the "right" to medically transition youth, opt to support their mental well-being with psychiatric therapy with the promise of medical intervention upon reaching adulthood. Remember, they can still be on their parents insurance policies until they're mid-twenties, so that might ease the financial burden, and leaves a wide open avenue for them. Instead of "invading" spaces and activities where we are not accepted, why not advocate for our own spaces, our own activities? i.e. Special needs people have the Special Olympics. Why not push for the creation of a Transgender Olympics? What I'm saying is, there's always a way. But continuing to insist that WE are the same as THEM is both fallible and misguided. Doing so is only serving to bring a growing resistance against us. My father and grandfather used to tell me, "Work smarter, not harder." That's what we need to do!
Comments
Post a Comment