A lot of us take for granted the ability to look how we want to look, dress how we want to dress and be who we want to be.

What if being who you wanted to be was a political issue?

This is the ever-present challenge that the 1.3 million transgender adults and 300,000 transgender youth in the United States face on a daily basis.

As of April 30, 27 states in the U.S. banned various forms of gender-affirming care for trans youth, outlawing anything from surgery to medications. These bans keep up to 40% of trans youth between the ages of 13 and 17 from getting the care they need.

Tennessee’s ban on gender-affirming care for minors was upheld recently by the Supreme Court in a 6-3 decision along party lines, opening the door for further bans across the country.

Many of these bans are based on the idea that gender-affirming care for trans people is exclusively surgical and irreversible, something that could not be further from the truth.

Elizabeth Panetta, a clinical social worker and adjunct assistant professor with the University of Minnesota Medical School, said gender-affirming care involves various forms of medical, therapeutic and cosmetic care used by both trans and cisgender people alike.

“How I view GAC is as care that is for anybody, both transgender and cisgender,” Panetta said. “It’s care that recognizes people’s gender identities coming in and ways that we can make sure their gender identities are validated, accepted and also given support.”

Fin Walling, a third-year student at the University and member of the Queer Student Cultural Center’s board, said while many people who oppose gender-affirming care think of it as dramatic surgeries, the label applies to far more than just surgery, which is not always necessary for trans people to achieve their ideal gender presentation.

“In short, it’s anything done to alleviate gender dysphoria,” Walling said. “Styling one’s hair, changing one’s clothes, voice training, altering a passport and taking hormones.”

Access to gender-affirming care is critical for the health and well-being of LGBTQ+ youth. Research suggests access to puberty blockers and gender-affirming hormones dramatically decreases rates of depression and suicidal thoughts, even after only one year of use.

Unfortunately for many, this care is often restricted, a hassle to receive or even unobtainable.

Panetta said many standard healthcare procedures are already difficult to access, making more specialized gender-affirming care even harder to receive due to a limited pool of providers and variations in healthcare coverage.

“A lot of people really assume that being able to get a medical intervention under a gender dysphoria diagnosis is something that you can get like that,” Panetta said. “I have to do a lot of reminding people that a lot of our care, regardless of mental health diagnosis, is hard to access.”

No matter what firebrand politicians and people on the internet say, no child is walking into a hospital and immediately getting a gender-affirming surgery. 

Similarly, regretting steps taken to transition is also quite rare, with a review of 27 studies finding an average of just 1% of trans people who had any type of surgery regretted the procedure.

Derek Waller, an adjunct professor who teaches a course on LGBTQ+ law at the University’s law school, said a lot of the political rhetoric around gender-affirming care and trans people parallels historical rhetoric against gay rights.

“There has been a concerted, what I would call moral panic or a disinformation campaign about gender-affirming care for the last 10 years or so,” Waller said. “A lot of the information that is being shared is just not accurate.”

The current political environment in the U.S. is growing increasingly hostile toward trans people. Earlier this year, Republican Rep. Nancy Mace drew backlash for interrupting a House committee hearing by repeatedly shouting a transphobic slur.

Walling said even though Minnesota is a blue state, the normalization of discrimination against trans people at the federal level, which is potentially causing increased stress among genderqueer individuals, is worrisome.

“For example, passports saying ‘M’ being issued to very feminine presenting trans women who now have to deal with that every time they present ID is just obnoxious,” Walling said. “It’s dangerous and discriminatory.”

Waller said while the Supreme Court ruling on Tennessee’s ban won’t affect Minnesota due to our statutory protection of gender-affirming care and our status as a trans refuge state, the ruling potentially leaves the door open for more restrictive bans to be implemented in states with bans already in place.

“The Court’s decision doesn’t necessarily mean that a ban on gender-affirming care for adults would be similarly upheld,” Waller said. “I think that’s a lot more of a risk now than before this opinion came out, and I wouldn’t be surprised if we see some states try to ban gender-affirming care for adults as well.”

Placing limitations on gender-affirming care not only misunderstands what gender-affirming care is and who uses it, but also denies thousands of teens and adults the ability to improve their quality of life.

“Gender-affirming care as a term is very new, but it has existed for centuries, similar to how trans people have existed as long as humanity has,” Panetta said. “Gender-affirming care is not just for trans people, it’s for all people, and many people access this type of care.”

Letting people be who they truly are is essential for a healthy society, so it’s time to rethink how we think about gender-affirming care.