Research Proves Utah Youth Are Being Harmed

June 10, 2025

What happens when lawmakers ignore facts? Kids get hurt.

Across the country, trans youth are being denied care that reduces rates of suicide and depression because misinformation—not evidence—are shaping policy. Fueled by fear and political gain, lawmakers are turning false talking points into law, despite overwhelming research that shows gender-affirming care is safe, effective, and essential. False narratives about the care and experience for qenderqueer minors have led to dangerous policy that withholds care and dismisses the risk of harm for trans people. This isn’t just bad policy: it’s outright negligence.

Research has continued to show that access to care for trans youth leads to better mental health outcomes, decreased suicidality, and improved physical health outcomes. Most recently, Utah’s own Department of Health and Human Services published research noting the overall positive effects of gender affirming care for trans minors. Despite proof of the harms to our youth, 27 states have enacted policies banning or limiting vital healthcare for minors.

The Evidence

In 2023, Utah passed a bill banning medical gender affirming care to minors. In addition to banning care, this bill also required Utah’s Department of Health and Human Services to conduct an extensive study analyzing the effects of hormone therapy on minors, make recommendations for the permissibility of treatment, and conduct a systematic review of the research already published on the topic to identify the quality of current evidence.

The mandated study has been published, and the results are indisputable: Utah’s policy banning gender affirming care is more likely to harm the state’s youth than to help them. Here are some key takeaways from the study:

• There is a lot (over 270) of scientifically valid and reliable studies examining the effect of gender affirming hormonal therapies
• Gender affirming therapies improve recipients’ mental health and psychosocial outcomes
• Gender affirming therapies are effective in achieving bodily changes aligned with the patient’s identified gender
• Gender affirming therapies are safe and are not associated with worsened health outcomes, such as metabolic changes, cancer, bone density, and cardiovascular risks

The study offered overwhelming evidence that Utah’s moratorium on gender-affirming care is harmful. It also outlined clear steps the state can take to ensure safe, effective care for trans youth moving forward. Those recommendations include the establishment of a statewide board to provide credentialing, specialized training, and rigorous oversight to guarantee all providers have legitimate expertise that remains up to date with ongoing research.

The initial policy attempted to engage empirical data by mandating that more research be conducted on this topic. Requiring and funding research when new policy is passed on an area that lawmakers, and the general public are still learning about is a pivotal and important part of the policymaking process. That mandate, however, must also include an evaluation of existing research. In the case of Utah, the research already existed. It is heart-wrenching to consider how many trans kids have been unnecessarily harmed during this ban because widespread misinformation about safe care was louder than the 270+ research studies already published on the topic.

Misinformation Over Research in Trans Policies

Misinformation is particularly threatening when it comes to partisan issues because media framing, political party talking points, and personal values often determine the degree to which someone believes or questions information. Indeed, accurate statements are more likely to be perceived as false when the fact contradicts the person’s partisan beliefs.

The issue of widespread misinformation is compounded by today’s main drivers for policy change — influential special interest groups and powerful individuals. This has given room for the opinions and biases of a few to garner public support and have a greater impact on policy than empirical research. While public opinion and anecdotal experiences can be valid motivators for policy change, they are often not generalizable to the public at large and instead lead to misinformation or rare circumstances being interpreted as universal truths. Alternatively, reliable and valid research is generalizable to the entire population and thus far more accurate in determining what is best for the overall population.

Much legislation written for and about the trans community has often over-prioritized personal opinion and undervalued data. Policies that ban gender affirming treatment are introducing more risk than protection for minors, even though there is a vast and growing body of research that validates the safety and effectiveness of this care. While it may seem logical to prioritize public health research in policy making, empirical data is not a key driver of most policy platforms in the United States today. In fact, studies have shown that policymakers often do not utilize public health research when writing and approving health-related policy.

Unfortunately, policymakers’ tendency to overlook and dismiss research appears to be a hard pattern to break. Despite Utah’s own study proving gender affirming care is largely a safe and positive option for trans minors, it is still unclear when and if the moratorium on care will be lifted. If you live in Utah — or in any of the 26 states restricting treatment — demand that your representatives stop legislating fear and start following the facts. Healthcare policy should be driven by data, not ideology.