As discussions around gender-affirming care evolve, the treatment of minors becomes a focal point, often sparking debates on its safety and implications. Treatments generally commence post-puberty, following an extensive therapeutic process and obligatory waiting periods. Minors receiving care frequently visit clinics for their treatments on a weekly basis.
Among the therapies provided, puberty blockers are a standard prescription for young individuals undergoing gender-affirming care. These blockers serve to halt the physical changes associated with puberty, providing a temporary pause in development.
According to Dvorak, “It’s a shot they get every three months, and it stops the feedback loop, so they don’t go into puberty. So it’s just a pause.” This treatment halts the development of sex-specific characteristics, such as breast growth in trans masculine patients and voice deepening in trans feminine patients.
While the use of puberty blockers is prevalent, Dvorak notes the importance of monitoring potential side effects like bone mineral loss, which necessitates regular vitamin level checks. Consideration of hormone injections typically follows a few years of this treatment.
Despite the focus on minors, Dvorak mentions that the majority of the clinic’s 2,500 patients are adults. Concerns linger about how political narratives surrounding transgender individuals might impact these patients.
“Where is it going to stop, and why is it okay for the government to tell you after research and in collaboration with professionals?” Dvorak questions.
“Putting the brakes on”
Kauth, on the other hand, raises concerns about the safety of these treatments, suggesting that young individuals might not fully comprehend the risks involved.
She compares it to allowing a child to get a face tattoo, explaining, “The law says – yeah, no, that is permanent, that is something that will negatively affect their life forever. We’re going to wait till they’re an adult, then have whatever you want done, done.”
Kauth criticizes the scientific research supporting gender-affirming care, describing it as having “very circular logic” and being composed of “all bad studies citing each other.”
Dvorak counters this view by emphasizing the evidence-based nature of treatments like hormones and puberty blockers, noting their longstanding use in treating other conditions in cisgender individuals without being deemed experimental.
Both healthcare professionals express concern for children’s mental health but from differing perspectives. Kauth attributes a rise in transgender identification to “social contagion,” likening it to trends like eating disorders.
A 2025 report by the Williams Institute indicates that 25% of transgender individuals in the U.S. are aged 13-17, approximately 700,000 youths. Conversely, Kauth references a claim from Transgender Trend suggesting that “around 85% of children change their minds and do not continue into adulthood as transgender.”
Dvorak argues that increased societal acceptance underlies the rise, asserting that addressing gender dysphoria positively impacts children’s well-being. “My heart gets so happy when I have a parent say to me, ‘I have my kid back,’” Dvorak shares, describing the alleviation of depression and anxiety as key goals of treatment.
Data from The Trevor Project’s 2024 survey highlights higher rates of suicidal thoughts among transgender individuals compared to the general population. Additionally, anti-trans laws correlate with worse mental health outcomes, according to a study.
Kauth maintains that while adults should have the freedom to seek gender-affirming care, safeguards are necessary for minors. “This is putting the brakes on – putting some safety measures around it until they can truly make up their own mind and make a more adult decision,” she states, emphasizing the importance of protecting youth.
The national stage
Views like Kauth’s remain prevalent among Republicans, reflecting broader political sentiments. “It’s hurting kids. It’s hurting other people,” Kauth remarks, questioning support for such treatments.
Republican nominee Brinker Harding also addressed transgender issues during his primary victory speech, highlighting concerns over topics like transgender surgery for minors and gender identity.
On a federal level, these positions align with those expressed by Trump administration officials, as reported by NBC News.
Local constituents frequently approach Kauth with concerns about transgender students participating in sports and using facilities that align with their gender identity. She supports the “Fairness for Girls” ballot initiative to categorize school sports teams based on biological sex.
According to the initiative, “Biological males have significant physical advantages — higher muscle mass, greater bone density, and elevated testosterone levels,” and asserts that these advantages threaten fairness in girls’ sports.
With significant financial backing, the petition is poised to feature prominently in the upcoming November general election.
