Misinformation Surrounding Smith’s Transgender Policies

WE are thrilled to share this article by Vanida Plamondon~!

(shared here with permission of the author)

My name is Vanida Plamondon, an Alberta citizen and transgender woman, and author of the books: The Reasonable Bible: A Believer’s Biblical Handbook, Vanida’s Journey, and Convergent Realms: Player’s Guide to Jenamaris.
It comes to my attention that Alberta politicians have come under the sway of much transgender misinformation. I reached out to Alberta politicians to let them know that I will be happy to talk to them about the misinformation they may have been subjected to.
As they have seemed to be uninterested in discussing this misinformation, I encourage you and anyone you know to reach out to Alberta’s MLAs, and let them know they are being subjected to such misinformation. To help you I have whipped up a quick paper discussing the Premiere Smith’s Trans Policies misinformation, which I believe quickly touches on all the key points of misinformation.
I have included the paper, so that you may pass it on to your respective MLA.

 

---

Misinformation Surrounding Smith’s Transgender Policies

Vanida Plamondon

Introduction 

In contemporary discourse surrounding transgender rights and healthcare, the  implementation of policies holds significant ramifications for the well-being and rights of  transgender individuals. Recent attention has been drawn to the policies enacted by  authorities such as Marlaina Danielle Smith, whose decisions shape the landscape of  transgender healthcare access and societal inclusion. In this paper, titled “Misinformation  Surrounding Smith’s Transgender Policies,” we delve into the implications of Smith’s  regulatory measures, analyzing their impact on the transgender community and the  broader social fabric. 

Smith’s new transgender policies represent a pivotal juncture in the ongoing debate over transgender rights and healthcare access. Among these policies, a prominent feature is the  prohibition of access to puberty blockers and hormone therapy for gender reassignment or affirmation purposes for youth aged 15 and under, except for those who have already  

commenced treatment. Additionally, for individuals aged 17 and under, Smith’s policies  restrict the availability of top and bottom gender reassignment surgeries. These regulations purportedly stem from concerns over parental consent and perceived risks associated with  gender-affirming treatments. However, a critical examination reveals layers of  misinformation embedded within these policies. 

Firstly, Smith’s policies perpetuate misconceptions regarding the necessity of parental  consent for transgender youth seeking puberty blockers and hormone therapy. Contrary to  the implications of these regulations, parental consent is already a prerequisite for such  treatments, ensuring that youth undergo these interventions with informed familial  support. By misrepresenting the existing protocols, Smith’s policies contribute to a climate  of confusion and undermine the autonomy of transgender youth. 

Furthermore, Smith’s stance on gender reassignment surgeries reflects a  misunderstanding of established medical guidelines and practices. The imposition of age  restrictions on such procedures fails to acknowledge the nuanced considerations involved  in transgender healthcare decision-making. Additionally, by framing these restrictions as  protective measures, Smith’s policies overlook the potential harm inflicted on transgender  youth deprived of access to essential treatments. 

Amidst the rhetoric surrounding Smith’s policies lies a pressing need for evidence-based  policymaking in transgender healthcare. The repercussions of regulatory decisions extend  beyond mere bureaucratic measures, directly impacting the health outcomes and lived  experiences of transgender individuals. Thus, a departure from empirically informed  approaches risks exacerbating existing disparities and perpetuating harmful stereotypes.

Misinformation 

In dissecting the intricacies of Smith’s transgender policies, it becomes apparent that  misinformation forms a central pillar upon which these regulations stand. Delving into the  nuances of parental consent for puberty blockers and hormone therapy unveils a stark  contrast between the regulatory landscape as portrayed by Smith’s policies and the  empirical realities of transgender healthcare access. 

Contrary to the assertions embedded within Smith’s policies, parental consent is already  a foundational requirement for transgender youth seeking puberty blockers and hormone  therapy. Academic research and medical guidelines consistently affirm the necessity of  familial involvement in such decisions, emphasizing the importance of informed consent  processes that prioritize the well-being and autonomy of transgender youth. However,  Smith’s policies perpetuate the misconception that parental consent is lacking, thus  fostering an atmosphere of distrust and discord within the transgender community. 

Moreover, the age restrictions imposed on gender reassignment surgeries by Smith’s  policies reflect a departure from established medical norms and guidelines. Historically,  medical practitioners have advocated for individualized approaches to transgender  healthcare, recognizing the diverse needs and circumstances of transgender individuals  across age groups. Smith’s assertion of categorical age restrictions fails to acknowledge the nuanced considerations involved in transgender healthcare decision-making, thereby  amplifying misconceptions and hindering access to essential treatments. 

Examining the broader implications of Smith’s policies reveals a systemic dissemination  of disinformation that extends beyond specific regulatory measures. By framing these  policies as protective measures aimed at safeguarding youth, Smith engenders a false  sense of security while obfuscating the underlying realities of transgender healthcare  access. The deliberate spread of misinformation not only perpetuates harmful stereotypes  and stigmatization but also undermines the rights and dignity of transgender individuals. 

Furthermore, the propagation of disinformation by Smith’s policies exacerbates existing  disparities and barriers to transgender healthcare access. By distorting the narrative  surrounding parental consent and age restrictions, these policies contribute to a climate of  confusion and uncertainty, thereby impeding the ability of transgender youth to access  medically necessary treatments. In doing so, Smith’s policies not only perpetuate harmful  misconceptions but also exacerbate the marginalization and vulnerability experienced by  transgender individuals within society. 

The misinformation embedded within Smith’s transgender policies represents a  fundamental distortion of empirical realities and medical guidelines. By perpetuating  misconceptions about parental consent, age restrictions, and transgender healthcare  

access, these policies undermine the rights and dignity of transgender individuals while  perpetuating harmful stereotypes and stigmatization.

Scientific Evidence on Puberty Blockers and Hormone Therapy 

The advent of puberty blockers and hormone therapy represents a pivotal advancement  in transgender healthcare, offering transformative possibilities for individuals seeking to  align their physical characteristics with their gender identity. Tracing the historical trajectory of these interventions since the 1980s and examining their safety profile and psychological  benefits, a nuanced understanding of their significance emerges, debunking prevalent  misconceptions perpetuated by policies such as those implemented by Smith. 

Puberty blockers, also known as gonadotropin-releasing hormone analogs (GnRHa), have been utilized in clinical settings since the 1980s to alleviate the distress associated with  incongruent puberty development among transgender youth. Initially approved for the  treatment of precocious puberty, their application in transgender healthcare emerged as a  pioneering intervention to mitigate dysphoria and provide individuals with greater agency  over their bodily development. 

Extensive research conducted over decades underscores the safety and efficacy of  puberty blockers in transgender youth. Studies dating back to the early 1990s have  demonstrated the reversible nature of puberty suppression, with no adverse effects on  bone mineral density or cardiovascular health. These findings have been corroborated by  subsequent longitudinal studies, which attest to the long-term safety profile of puberty  blockers in transgender adolescents. 

Contrary to prevailing misconceptions perpetuated by policies such as those enacted by  Smith, puberty blockers do not entail irreversible alterations to physical development or  fertility. Rather, they exert temporary effects by suspending the onset of puberty, thereby  affording transgender youth invaluable time to explore their gender identity without the  distressing burden of incongruent secondary sexual characteristics. 

Research conducted by reputable institutions underscores the reversible nature of  puberty suppression, with the resumption of pubertal development upon discontinuation  of treatment. Furthermore, studies investigating the impact of puberty blockers on fertility  have consistently found no evidence of adverse fertility outcomes. 

Beyond their physiological effects, puberty blockers and hormone replacement therapy  confer profound psychological benefits for transgender youth, alleviating dysphoria and  enhancing overall well-being. Research spanning several decades has elucidated the  positive impact of gender-affirming interventions on mental health outcomes, underscoring the pivotal role of early intervention in mitigating distress and fostering resilience among  transgender adolescents. 

Studies have documented significant improvements in mental health, self-esteem, and  quality of life following the initiation of puberty blockers and hormone therapy. Moreover,  longitudinal research has highlighted the enduring benefits of gender-affirming 

interventions, with reductions in depression, anxiety, and suicidal ideation observed over  time. 

The scientific evidence on puberty blockers and hormone therapy underscores their  safety, reversibility, and profound psychological benefits for transgender youth. By  dispelling prevalent misconceptions and addressing the empirical realities of these  interventions, a clearer understanding of their significance emerges, challenging the  misinformation perpetuated by policies such as those implemented by Smith. 

Debunking Claims Against Hormone Replacement Therapy 

In recent discourse surrounding transgender healthcare, hormone replacement therapy  (HRT) has emerged as a focal point of contention, with misinformation and fear-mongering  tactics clouding public perception. By scrutinizing claims regarding fertility issues  associated with HRT, analyzing fertility clinical studies involving transgender men, and  dispelling unfounded fears surrounding gender-affirming care, a comprehensive  understanding of the empirical realities of HRT emerges, challenging prevailing  misconceptions perpetuated by policies such as those enacted by Smith. 

One prevalent misconception perpetuated by opponents of gender-affirming care is the  notion that HRT inevitably leads to fertility issues among transgender individuals. However,  academic research and clinical evidence consistently refute such claims, underscoring the  nuanced relationship between HRT and fertility outcomes. 

Studies conducted by reputable institutions have elucidated the impact of HRT on  fertility, emphasizing the variability of individual experiences and the importance of  informed decision-making. Contrary to the assertion that HRT universally results in  infertility, research indicates that fertility preservation options, such as sperm and egg  banking, can mitigate potential concerns among transgender individuals seeking HRT. 

Moreover, longitudinal studies tracking fertility outcomes among transgender individuals  undergoing HRT have yielded encouraging findings. Research has documented successful  pregnancies and live births among transgender men and women who had previously  undergone HRT, underscoring the compatibility of gender-affirming care with reproductive  goals. 

Fertility clinical studies involving transgender men sheds further light on the intersection  of HRT and fertility. These studies revealed no significant differences in reproductive  success rates between transgender men receiving testosterone therapy and cisgender  individuals. Moreover, the study documented comparable rates of successful pregnancies  and live births among transgender men, dispelling prevalent misconceptions regarding the  irreversibility of HRT-related fertility changes. 

In addressing fears surrounding gender-affirming care, it is imperative to contextualize  these concerns within the broader socio-political landscape characterized by stigma and 

discrimination against transgender individuals. Fear-mongering tactics propagated by  opponents of transgender rights often rely on sensationalized narratives and anecdotal  evidence, disregarding the wealth of empirical research supporting the safety and efficacy  of gender-affirming interventions. 

Drawing upon academic research and expert consensus statements issued by leading  medical organizations, it becomes evident that gender-affirming care is grounded in  evidence-based principles and ethical guidelines. The benefits of HRT in alleviating gender  dysphoria, improving mental health outcomes, and enhancing overall quality of life are well documented, underscoring the imperative of destigmatizing transgender healthcare and  promoting access to affirming and culturally competent care. 

Debunking claims against hormone replacement therapy necessitates a critical  examination of empirical evidence, dispelling prevalent misconceptions perpetuated by  misinformation and fear-mongering tactics. By refuting assertions regarding fertility issues  associated with HRT, analyzing landmark fertility clinical studies involving transgender men,  and contextualizing fears surrounding gender-affirming care within broader socio-political  dynamics, a clearer understanding of the empirical realities of transgender healthcare  emerges. 

Importance of Robust Sexual Health Education 

Sexual health education plays a crucial role in shaping the well-being and autonomy of  individuals, particularly youth, navigating the complexities of their developing identities and  relationships. Amidst the misinformation surrounding Smith’s transgender policies, it is  imperative to underscore the significance of comprehensive sexual health education, which  not only empowers transgender youth but also fosters informed decision-making and  healthy relationships among all young individuals. 

At the heart of robust sexual health education lies the principle of empowerment,  enabling individuals to navigate their bodies, relationships, and sexual identities with  confidence and agency. For transgender youth, access to comprehensive sexual health  education is particularly vital, as it provides affirming and inclusive information that  validates their experiences and fosters self-esteem. 

Moreover, sexual health education benefits youth of all gender identities and sexual  orientations, offering a holistic understanding of sexual health, consent, and healthy  relationships. By equipping young individuals with accurate information and skills, sexual  health education cultivates resilience and promotes respect for diverse identities and  experiences. 

Education experts overwhelmingly concur on the necessity of consent-based sexual  health education, which emphasizes the importance of mutual respect, communication,  and autonomy in all sexual interactions. Consent-based education moves beyond traditional

models of abstinence-only or fear-based approaches, recognizing the inherent rights of  individuals to make informed choices about their bodies and relationships. 

The consensus among education experts underscores the imperative of addressing  topics such as consent, boundaries, and communication in sexual health curricula, ensuring that youth are equipped with the knowledge and skills to navigate intimate interactions  safely and responsibly. By fostering a culture of respect and understanding, consent-based  sexual health education lays the foundation for healthy relationships and equitable  societies. 

Central to the discourse surrounding sexual health education is the recognition of  youth’s right to comprehensive information about their bodies, consent, and healthy  relationships. Informed by principles of bodily autonomy and human rights, sexual health  education affirms young individuals’ inherent dignity and agency, empowering them to  make informed choices that align with their values and preferences. 

By providing accurate and inclusive information, sexual health education promotes a  culture of respect for diverse identities and experiences, challenging harmful stereotypes  and promoting acceptance and understanding. Moreover, by addressing topics such as  sexual orientation, gender identity, and sexual health disparities, sexual health education  fosters empathy and compassion among young individuals, laying the groundwork for  inclusive and supportive communities. 

The importance of robust sexual health education cannot be overstated, particularly in  the context of misinformation surrounding Smith’s transgender policies. By empowering  transgender youth and youth in general with accurate information, consent-based  education fosters resilience, respect, and healthy relationships, laying the foundation for a  more equitable and inclusive society. 

Increased Risk of Harm Due to Limited Information 

Smith’s transgender policies, with their misinformation and restrictions on sexual health  education, have the potential to create a harmful environment for all youth, regardless of  gender identity or sexual orientation. By depriving youth of essential sexual health  education and perpetuating misconceptions, these policies not only undermine the  autonomy and well-being of transgender individuals but also heighten the risk of violence  and harm for cisgender and heterosexual youth. 

A cornerstone of Smith’s policies is the restriction or omission of sexual health education  that is inclusive and comprehensive. By failing to provide accurate information about topics  such as puberty, consent, and healthy relationships, these policies leave youth ill-equipped  to navigate their developing identities and relationships. This deprivation of essential  knowledge not only perpetuates ignorance but also fosters a climate of confusion and  misinformation surrounding sexual health.

Without access to comprehensive sexual health education, youth are vulnerable to  misinformation, coercion, and exploitation. Misconceptions about gender, sexuality, and  consent can lead to harmful behaviours and attitudes, perpetuating cycles of discrimination and violence. Furthermore, the absence of inclusive sexual health education contributes to  the stigmatization of marginalized groups, exacerbating disparities and hindering efforts to  promote equity and inclusivity. 

The lack of comprehensive sexual health education creates conditions that increase the  risk of violence and harm for all youth, irrespective of their gender identity or sexual  orientation. Misinformation and ignorance breed intolerance and discrimination, fostering  an environment where harassment, bullying, and violence thrive. Without the knowledge  and skills to navigate relationships and boundaries, youth are susceptible to exploitation  and abuse, perpetuating cycles of harm and trauma. 

Moreover, the stigmatization and marginalization of transgender individuals, perpetuated by policies such as those enacted by Smith, contribute to a climate of hostility and  discrimination. Transphobic rhetoric and exclusionary practices further isolate transgender  youth, denying them access to supportive resources and exacerbating their vulnerability to  violence and harm. In failing to address the root causes of discrimination and violence,  Smith’s policies perpetuate cycles of harm and injustice, undermining the rights and dignity  of all youth. 

The increased risk of harm due to limited information perpetuated by Smith’s  transgender policies is a pressing concern that demands urgent attention. By depriving  youth of essential sexual health education and perpetuating misconceptions, these policies  not only undermine the autonomy and well-being of transgender individuals but also  heighten the risk of violence and harm for cisgender and heterosexual youth. 

Impact of Requiring Parental Consent for Name and Pronoun  Use 

Smith’s policy mandating parental consent for transgender youth to use their chosen  name and pronouns at school carries profound implications for the well-being and safety of transgender individuals. By examining the potentially irreparable harm caused by such  requirements and the risk of outing youth to unsupportive parents, this section illuminates  the detrimental effects of policies that fail to recognize and affirm transgender identities. 

Requiring parental consent for transgender youth to use their chosen name and  pronouns at school disregards the autonomy and agency of individuals in asserting their  gender identity. For many transgender youth, their preferred name and pronouns are  integral to their sense of self and well-being, serving as affirmations of their gender identity  in a world that often invalidates and marginalizes them.

Denying transgender youth the right to use their chosen name and pronouns without  parental consent not only undermines their autonomy but also perpetuates feelings of  dysphoria and alienation. Research has consistently shown that affirming a transgender  individual’s chosen name and pronouns is associated with improved mental health  outcomes, including reduced rates of depression, anxiety, and suicidal ideation. 

Furthermore, requiring parental consent for name and pronoun use erects barriers to  affirming environments in schools, fostering a climate of discrimination and exclusion that  undermines the well-being and academic success of transgender youth. By prioritizing  parental authority over the rights and dignity of transgender individuals, such policies  perpetuate cycles of harm and injustice, compounding the challenges faced by  marginalized communities. 

One of the most significant risks associated with policies mandating parental consent for  name and pronoun use is the potential outing of transgender youth to unsupportive  parents. For many transgender individuals, coming out to family members can be a fraught  and dangerous process, with the risk of rejection, violence, and homelessness looming  large. 

Requiring parental consent for transgender youth to use their chosen name and  pronouns at school effectively forces individuals to disclose their gender identity to their  parents, regardless of their level of acceptance or support. For those living in unsupportive  or hostile environments, this disclosure can have devastating consequences, including  rejection, abuse, and expulsion from the home. 

Research has shown that family rejection is a significant risk factor for homelessness  among transgender youth, with a disproportionate number of homeless youth identifying  as transgender. Policies that mandate parental consent for name and pronoun use not only  exacerbate the risk of family rejection but also contribute to the cycle of homelessness and  marginalization experienced by transgender individuals. 

The impact of requiring parental consent for name and pronoun use extends far beyond  bureaucratic requirements, carrying profound implications for the well-being and safety of  transgender youth. By perpetuating barriers to affirming environments and risking outing  youth to unsupportive parents, such policies perpetuate cycles of harm and discrimination  that undermine the rights and dignity of transgender individuals. 

Reality of Family Rejection and its Consequences 

Smith’s assertion regarding the rarity of parental rejection of transgender youth is  contradicted by a wealth of academic research and historical context, which paint a stark  reality of the challenges faced by transgender individuals within their families. By examining the prevalence of family rejection and its profound impact on the well-being and safety of 

transgender youth, this section sheds light on the harmful consequences of policies that fail to recognize and affirm transgender identities. 

Smith’s claim regarding the rarity of parental rejection of transgender youth is not only  misleading but also dangerous, as it undermines the lived experiences of countless  individuals and perpetuates harmful stereotypes about family acceptance. The reality, as  evidenced by academic research and testimonies from transgender individuals, is that  family rejection is a widespread phenomenon with profound implications for the mental  health and well-being of transgender youth. 

Contrary to Smith’s assertion, studies conducted by reputable institutions such as the  Family Acceptance Project and the Trevor Project have consistently documented high rates  of family rejection among transgender youth. These studies, based on extensive surveys  and interviews with transgender individuals, reveal that a significant proportion of youth  experience rejection, hostility, and violence from their families upon coming out as  transgender. 

The prevalence of family rejection among transgender youth is staggering, with research  indicating that approximately 30% of families reject their children when they come out as  transgender. Moreover, many transgender youth are subjected to verbal, emotional, and  physical abuse from family members, exacerbating feelings of isolation, shame, and despair. 

The consequences of family rejection are profound and enduring, contributing to a  myriad of adverse outcomes for transgender youth, including depression, anxiety,  substance abuse, and suicidality. Studies have shown that transgender youth who  experience family rejection are at significantly higher risk of homelessness, with a  disproportionate number of homeless youth identifying as transgender. 

Furthermore, the impact of family rejection extends beyond individual well-being,  contributing to broader disparities in health, education, and socioeconomic status among  transgender individuals. By perpetuating cycles of discrimination and marginalization,  family rejection perpetuates the systemic inequalities faced by transgender youth,  hindering their ability to thrive and achieve their full potential. 

The reality of family rejection and its consequences undermines Smith’s claim regarding  the rarity of parental rejection of transgender youth. By ignoring the empirical evidence and perpetuating harmful stereotypes, policies that fail to recognize and affirm transgender  identities contribute to the marginalization and harm experienced by transgender  individuals within their families. 

Exclusion of Trans Girls and Women from Competitive Sports 

Smith’s policy banning trans girls and women athletes from participating in women’s  sports divisions represents a contentious issue that has sparked debates regarding  fairness, inclusion, and the rights of transgender individuals. Despite claims made by Smith,

the exclusionary nature of such policies disregards expert opinions and empirical evidence  that refute the notion of inherent biological advantage among trans athletes. By examining  the historical context and academic research surrounding transgender participation in  sports, this section aims to illuminate the complexities of the debate and challenge the  misinformation perpetuated by exclusionary policies. 

The issue of transgender participation in sports has garnered increased attention in  recent years, reflecting broader societal discussions surrounding gender identity and  inclusion. Historically, transgender athletes have faced numerous barriers and challenges in accessing competitive sports, including discrimination, stigma, and exclusion from gender segregated divisions. 

Despite progress in recognizing the rights of transgender individuals in various aspects  of society, including sports, policies and regulations governing transgender participation  remain contentious and subject to ongoing debate. The intersection of gender identity,  biology, and athletic performance has fueled controversies and conflicting perspectives,  highlighting the need for evidence-based approaches that prioritize fairness and inclusion. 

Smith’s policy banning trans girls and women athletes from women’s sports divisions  perpetuates misconceptions and stereotypes regarding the inherent advantages of  cisgender athletes over their transgender counterparts. However, expert opinions and  empirical research refute these assertions, underscoring the lack of scientific evidence  supporting claims of inherent biological advantage among transgender athletes. 

Numerous studies conducted by sports scientists, medical professionals, and athletic  associations have concluded that transgender athletes do not possess a systematic  performance advantage over cisgender athletes. The International Olympic Committee  (IOC), the NCAA, and other governing bodies have implemented guidelines and policies that recognize the rights of transgender athletes to compete in accordance with their gender  identity while mitigating concerns about fairness and competitiveness. 

Research examining the physiological differences between transgender and cisgender  athletes has found that any potential advantages or disadvantages are highly individualized and influenced by factors such as hormone levels, training regimens, and genetic variability. 

Moreover, the overarching principle of fairness in sports dictates that athletes should be  judged based on their skills, abilities, and dedication rather than their gender identity or  biological characteristics. 

The exclusion of trans girls and women from competitive sports based on  misconceptions about biological advantage undermines principles of fairness, inclusion,  and respect for diversity. Smith’s policy, like similar exclusionary measures, perpetuates  harmful stereotypes and denies transgender individuals the opportunity to participate fully  in sports, depriving them of the physical, social, and emotional benefits associated with  athletic competition.

Positive Effects of Youth Participation in Sports 

Youth participation in sports has long been heralded for its myriad benefits,  encompassing physical fitness, mental resilience, and emotional well-being. Against the  backdrop of misinformation surrounding Smith’s transgender policies, it is crucial to  underscore the evidence supporting the positive effects of sports on youth, as well as the  importance of inclusivity in sports for the well-being of all individuals, including transgender youth. 

Engaging in sports from a young age is associated with numerous physical benefits,  including improved cardiovascular health, enhanced muscular strength and endurance, and reduced risk of obesity and chronic diseases. Research has consistently demonstrated the  positive impact of regular physical activity on overall health and well-being, highlighting the  importance of sports to promote lifelong fitness and wellness habits. 

Moreover, youth participation in sports fosters the development of fundamental  movement skills, such as coordination, agility, and balance, which are essential for physical  literacy and athletic performance. By providing structured physical activity and skill  development opportunities, sports empower youth to lead active and healthy lifestyles,  laying the foundation for lifelong health and wellness. 

In addition to its physical benefits, youth participation in sports is associated with  numerous mental and emotional advantages, including improved self-esteem, enhanced  social skills, and reduced symptoms of anxiety and depression. Research has shown that  engagement in sports promotes positive mental health outcomes by fostering a sense of  belonging, mastery, and achievement, thereby enhancing overall quality of life. 

Furthermore, participation in team sports offers opportunities for social interaction,  camaraderie, and peer support, which are vital for promoting resilience and coping skills  among youth. By providing a supportive and inclusive environment, sports empower youth  to navigate challenges, build relationships, and develop essential life skills that contribute to their overall well-being and success. 

Inclusivity in sports is paramount for ensuring the well-being and safety of all individuals,  irrespective of their gender identity or expression. By embracing diversity and promoting  equity, sports organizations and policymakers can create environments that foster  acceptance, respect, and belonging for transgender youth and all participants. 

Research has shown that inclusive sports environments benefit participants, including  increased participation rates, improved team cohesion, and enhanced performance  outcomes. By valuing diversity and challenging stereotypes, inclusive sports programs  promote a culture of respect and acceptance, thereby reducing stigma and discrimination  and creating opportunities for all youth to thrive.

The positive effects of youth participation in sports are well-documented, encompassing  physical fitness, mental resilience, and emotional well-being. By promoting inclusivity in  sports and embracing diversity, we can create environments that empower youth to lead  active, healthy, and fulfilling lives while fostering acceptance, respect, and belonging for all  individuals, including transgender youth. 

Challenges Faced by Trans Youth 

Transgender youth navigate a complex landscape marked by social, familial, and  institutional challenges that profoundly impact their well-being and sense of belonging.  Against the backdrop of misinformation surrounding Smith’s transgender policies, it is  essential to illuminate the realities faced by transgender youth, including high levels of  harassment, family rejection, and suicidal ideation. Additionally, contrasting the experiences of affirmed transgender youth with those facing discrimination and rejection underscores  the critical importance of affirming and inclusive environments in promoting the health and resilience of transgender youth. 

Transgender youth experience disproportionately high levels of harassment,  discrimination, and violence compared to their cisgender peers. Research has consistently  shown that transgender youth are more likely to be targets of bullying, verbal abuse, and  physical assault in schools, communities, and online spaces. The hostile environment  created by harassment contributes to feelings of isolation, fear, and vulnerability among  transgender youth, undermining their sense of safety and well-being. 

Family rejection is a significant risk factor for transgender youth, with many facing  hostility, misunderstanding, and abandonment upon coming out to their families. Studies  have shown that a substantial proportion of transgender youth experience rejection, verbal  abuse, and even homelessness as a result of family rejection. The absence of familial  support and acceptance exacerbates feelings of isolation and despair, contributing to  adverse mental health outcomes, including depression, anxiety, and suicidality. 

The prevalence of suicidal ideation among transgender youth is alarmingly high,  reflecting the profound impact of discrimination, rejection, and stigma on mental health  and well-being. Research has consistently demonstrated that transgender youth are at a  significantly elevated risk of suicidal ideation, with rates of self-harm and suicide attempts  far exceeding those of their cisgender peers. The intersection of multiple forms of  marginalization, including gender identity, race, and socioeconomic status, compounds the  risk of suicidal ideation among transgender youth, highlighting the urgent need for  targeted interventions and support services. 

The experiences of affirmed transgender youth who receive support and validation for  their gender identity stand in stark contrast to those facing discrimination and rejection.  Affirmed transgender youth who have access to affirming environments, inclusive 

healthcare, and supportive social networks experience improved mental health outcomes,  including reduced rates of depression, anxiety, and suicidality. 

Conversely, transgender youth who face discrimination, rejection, and lack of access to  affirming resources are at significantly elevated risk of negative mental health outcomes  and adverse psychosocial consequences. The disparity in experiences underscores the  critical importance of creating environments that verify and validate the identities of  transgender youth while challenging discrimination, stigma, and misinformation. 

Transgender youth face a multitude of challenges, including high levels of harassment,  family rejection, and suicidal ideation. Contrasting the experiences of affirmed transgender  youth with those facing discrimination underscores the critical importance of affirming and  inclusive environments in promoting the health and resilience of transgender youth. 

Misguided Concerns About Affirmation in Schools 

Smith’s warnings about the risks associated with affirmation and inclusion in schools for  transgender youth reflect a perpetuation of misinformation and misunderstanding  regarding the well-being of trans individuals. Contrary to Smith’s claims, historical evidence  and academic research highlights the real risks posed by transphobic policies and practices, which undermine the rights and well-being of transgender youth. By examining the  evidence, we can debunk misguided concerns about affirmation in schools and underscore  the imperative of creating inclusive and supportive environments for all students. 

Smith’s warnings about the risks associated with affirmation and inclusion in schools for  transgender youth are based on misconceptions and unfounded fears rather than  empirical evidence. By perpetuating stereotypes and misinformation, Smith’s assertions  contribute to a climate of discrimination and exclusion that undermines the rights and  dignity of transgender youth. 

One of Smith’s erroneous claims is that affirmation and inclusion in schools may lead to  confusion or harm among transgender youth. However, research has consistently shown  that affirming a transgender individual’s gender identity is associated with improved mental health outcomes, including reduced rates of depression, anxiety, and suicidality. Affirmation in schools, which includes the use of chosen names and pronouns, access to gender affirming facilities, and inclusive curricula, promotes a sense of validation and belonging  among transgender youth, fostering resilience and well-being. 

Furthermore, Smith’s warnings about the alleged risks of affirmation in schools overlook  the extensive body of evidence demonstrating the adverse effects of discrimination and  rejection on transgender youth. Research has shown that transphobic policies and  practices, such as denying access to affirming resources and excluding transgender  students from gender-segregated activities, contribute to adverse mental health outcomes 

and psychosocial distress. By perpetuating stigma and discrimination, Smith’s policies pose  a real risk to the well-being of transgender youth, undermining their rights and dignity. 

Contrary to Smith’s assertions, historical evidence and academic research underscores  the real risks posed by transphobic policies and practices in schools. Transgender youth  who experience discrimination, rejection, and lack of access to affirming resources are at  significantly elevated risk of adverse mental health outcomes, including depression, anxiety, and suicidality. Studies have shown that transgender youth who face transphobic policies  and practices are more likely to experience harassment, bullying, and violence in schools,  exacerbating feelings of isolation and despair. 

Moreover, research has highlighted the importance of creating inclusive and affirming  school environments in promoting the health and well-being of transgender youth. Policies  that affirm transgender students’ gender identities, such as allowing the use of chosen  names and pronouns, providing access to gender-affirming facilities, and implementing  inclusive curricula, have been shown to have positive effects on mental health outcomes  and academic achievement. 

Smith’s warnings about the risks associated with affirmation and inclusion in schools for  transgender youth are unfounded and misguided. Historical evidence and academic  research underscores the real dangers posed by transphobic policies and practices, which  undermine the rights and well-being of transgender youth. 

Conclusion 

Smith’s transgender policies, rooted in misinformation and fear-mongering, pose  multifaceted risks and consequences that undermine the rights, well-being, and dignity of  transgender youth. Through a critical examination of historical context and academic  research, this paper has illuminated the detrimental effects of Smith’s policies on various  aspects of transgender youth’s lives, including access to healthcare, education, and  participation in sports. From the denial of gender-affirming care to the exclusion from  gender-segregated activities, Smith’s policies perpetuate discrimination and stigma,  exacerbating the already significant challenges faced by transgender youth. 

Academic research underscores the imperative of evidence-based policymaking and  inclusive practices to support the well-being of all youth, regardless of gender identity.  Policies prioritizing inclusion, respect, and affirmation create environments where all  students can thrive, fostering resilience, respect, and acceptance. By centring the voices  and experiences of transgender youth, policymakers and educators can create policies and  practices that reflect the principles of equity, justice, and dignity. 

Moreover, addressing misinformation and promoting affirming environments for  transgender youth is paramount in ensuring their health, safety, and well-being. By  challenging stereotypes, dispelling myths, and fostering understanding, we can create a 

society that embraces diversity, celebrates difference, and respects the rights and dignity of all individuals. It is incumbent upon policymakers, educators, and society at large to  prioritize efforts to combat misinformation, promote evidence-based practices, and create  inclusive environments that affirm the identities and experiences of transgender youth. In  doing so, we can make a more equitable and just world where all individuals, regardless of  gender identity, can thrive and live authentically. 

Additional Reading (and References) 

Daphna Stroumsa, “The State of Transgender Health Care: Policy, Law, and Medical Frameworks”, American  Journal of Public Health 104, no. 3 (March 1, 2014): pp. e31-e38. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2013.301789 

Safer JD, Coleman E, Feldman J, Garofalo R, Hembree W, Radix A, Sevelius J. Barriers to healthcare for  transgender individuals. Curr Opin Endocrinol Diabetes Obes. 2016 Apr;23(2):168-71. doi:  10.1097/MED.0000000000000227. PMID: 26910276; PMCID: PMC4802845. 

Abby Walch, Caroline Davidge-Pitts, Joshua D Safer, Ximena Lopez, Vin Tangpricha, Sean J Iwamoto, Proper  Care of Transgender and Gender Diverse Persons in the Setting of Proposed Discrimination: A Policy  Perspective, The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism, Volume 106, Issue 2, February 2021, Pages  305–308, https://doi.org/10.1210/clinem/dgaa816 

GOLDENBERG, T., L. REISNER, S., W. HARPER, G., E. GAMAREL, K. and STEPHENSON, R. (2020), State-Level  Transgender-Specific Policies, Race/Ethnicity, and Use of Medical Gender Affirmation Services among  Transgender and Other Gender-Diverse People in the United States. The Milbank Quarterly, 98: 802-846.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0009.12467 

Jaclyn M. White Hughto, Adam J. Rose, John E. Pachankis, and Sari L. Reisner. Barriers to Gender Transition Related Healthcare: Identifying Underserved Transgender Adults in Massachusetts. Transgender Health.Dec  2017.107-118.http://doi.org/10.1089/trgh.2017.0014 

Roberts, Tiffany & Fantz, Corinne. (2014). Barriers To Quality Health Care For The Transgender Population.  Clinical Biochemistry. 47. 10.1016/j.clinbiochem.2014.02.009.  

Goldenberg T, Reisner SL, Harper GW, Gamarel KE, Stephenson R. State Policies and Healthcare Use Among  Transgender People in the U.S. Am J Prev Med. 2020 Aug;59(2):247-259. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2020.01.030.  Epub 2020 May 14. PMID: 32417021; PMCID: PMC7384261. 

Green Jamison (2017) Legal issues for transgender people: a review of persistent threats. Sexual Health 14,  431-435. https://doi.org/10.1071/SH17104 

Nadia Dowshen, Rachel Meadows, Maureen Byrnes, Linda Hawkins, Jennifer Eder, and Kathleen Noonan. Policy Perspective: Ensuring Comprehensive Care and Support for Gender Nonconforming Children and  Adolescents. Transgender Health.Dec 2016.75-85.http://doi.org/10.1089/trgh.2016.0002 

Rafferty, Jason R.. “Ensuring Comprehensive Care and Support for Transgender and Gender-Diverse Children  and Adolescents.” Pediatrics 142 (2018): n. Pag. 

Dubin S, Lane M, Morrison S, et al. Medically assisted gender affirmation: when children and parents disagree. Journal of Medical Ethics 2020;46:295-299. 

Cavanaugh T, Hopwood R, Lambert C. Informed Consent in the Medical Care of Transgender and Gender Nonconforming Patients. AMA J Ethics. 2016 Nov 1;18(11):1147-1155. doi:  

10.1001/journalofethics.2016.18.11.sect1-1611. PMID: 27883307.

Shumer DE, Nokoff NJ, Spack NP. Advances in the Care of Transgender Children and Adolescents. Adv Pediatr.  2016 Aug;63(1):79-102. doi: 10.1016/j.yapd.2016.04.018. Epub 2016 Jun 3. PMID: 27426896; PMCID:  PMC4955762. 

Management of gender dysphoria in adolescents in primary care. Joseph H. Bonifacio, Catherine Maser, Katie  Stadelman, Mark Palmert. CMAJ Jan 2019, 191 (3) E69-E75; DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.180672 

Clark BA, Virani A. This Wasn’t a Split-Second Decision”: An Empirical Ethical Analysis of Transgender Youth  Capacity, Rights, and Authority to Consent to Hormone Therapy. J Bioeth Inq. 2021 Mar;18(1):151-164. doi:  10.1007/s11673-020-10086-9. Epub 2021 Jan 27. PMID: 33502682; PMCID: PMC8043901. 

Rosenthal SM. Transgender youth: current concepts. Ann Pediatr Endocrinol Metab. 2016 Dec;21(4):185-192.  doi: 10.6065/apem.2016.21.4.185. Epub 2016 Dec 31. PMID: 28164070; PMCID: PMC5290172. 

Olson-Kennedy J, Chan YM, Garofalo R, Spack N, Chen D, Clark L, Ehrensaft D, Hidalgo M, Tishelman A,  Rosenthal S. Impact of Early Medical Treatment for Transgender Youth: Protocol for the Longitudinal,  Observational Trans Youth Care Study. JMIR Res Protoc. 2019 Jul 9;8(7):e14434. doi: 10.2196/14434. PMID:  31290407; PMCID: PMC6647755. 

Rew, L., Young, C.C., Monge, M. and Bogucka, R. (2021), Review: Puberty blockers for transgender and gender  diverse youth—a critical review of the literature. Child Adolesc Ment Health, 26: 3-14.  https://doi.org/10.1111/camh.12437 

Guss C, Shumer D, Katz-Wise SL. Transgender and gender nonconforming adolescent care: psychosocial and  medical considerations. Curr Opin Pediatr. 2015 Aug;27(4):421-6. doi: 10.1097/MOP.0000000000000240.  PMID: 26087416; PMCID: PMC4522917. 

Nokoff NJ. Medical Interventions for Transgender Youth. [Updated 2022 Jan 19]. In: Feingold KR, Anawalt B,  Blackman MR, et al., editors. Endotext [Internet]. South Dartmouth (MA): MDText.com, Inc.; 2000-. Available  from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK577212/ 

Feldman J, Brown GR, Deutsch MB, Hembree W, Meyer W, Meyer-Bahlburg HF, Tangpricha V, TʼSjoen G, Safer  JD. Priorities for transgender medical and healthcare research. Curr Opin Endocrinol Diabetes Obes. 2016  Apr;23(2):180-7. doi: 10.1097/MED.0000000000000231. PMID: 26825469; PMCID: PMC4821501. 

Brandt JS, Patel AJ, Marshall I, Bachmann GA. Transgender men, pregnancy, and the “new” advanced paternal  age: A review of the literature. Maturitas. 2019 Oct;128:17-21. doi: 10.1016/j.maturitas.2019.07.004. Epub  2019 Jul 8. PMID: 31561817. 

Obedin-Maliver J, Makadon HJ. Transgender men and pregnancy. Obstet Med. 2016 Mar;9(1):4-8. doi:  10.1177/1753495X15612658. Epub 2015 Oct 28. PMID: 27030799; PMCID: PMC4790470. 

Transgender youth: current concepts. Ann Pediatr Endocrinol Metab. 2016;21(4):185-192. Published online  December 31, 2016. DOI: https://doi.org/10.6065/apem.2016.21.4.185 

Hoffkling, A., Obedin-Maliver, J. & Sevelius, J. From erasure to opportunity: a qualitative study of the  experiences of transgender men around pregnancy and recommendations for providers. BMC Pregnancy  Childbirth 17 (Suppl 2), 332 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-017-1491-5 

Haberland N, Rogow D. Sexuality education: emerging trends in evidence and practice. J Adolesc Health. 2015  Jan;56(1 Suppl):S15-21. doi: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2014.08.013. PMID: 25528976. 

Goldfarb ES, Lieberman LD. Three Decades of Research: The Case for Comprehensive Sex Education. J Adolesc Health. 2021 Jan;68(1):13-27. doi: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2020.07.036. Epub 2020 Oct 12. PMID: 33059958.

Breuner CC, Mattson G; COMMITTEE ON ADOLESCENCE; COMMITTEE ON PSYCHOSOCIAL ASPECTS OF CHILD  AND FAMILY HEALTH. Sexuality Education for Children and Adolescents. Pediatrics. 2016  Aug;138(2):e20161348. doi: 10.1542/peds.2016-1348. Epub 2016 Jul 18. PMID: 27432844. 

Sarah Denford, Charles Abraham, Rona Campbell & Heide Busse (2017) A comprehensive review of reviews of  school-based interventions to improve sexual-health, Health Psychology Review, 11:1, 33-52, DOI:  10.1080/17437199.2016.1240625 

Kirby D, Short L, Collins J, Rugg D, Kolbe L, Howard M, Miller B, Sonenstein F, Zabin LS. School-based programs  to reduce sexual risk behaviors: a review of effectiveness. Public Health Rep. 1994 May-Jun;109(3):339-60.  PMID: 8190857; PMCID: PMC1403498. 

What Does Not Work in Adolescent Sexual and Reproductive Health: A Review of Evidence on Interventions  Commonly Accepted as Best Practices. Venkatraman Chandra-Mouli, Catherine Lane, Sylvia Wong. Global  Health: Science and Practice Sep 2015, 3 (3) 333-340; DOI: 10.9745/GHSP-D-15-00126 

Schneider M, Hirsch JS. Comprehensive Sexuality Education as a Primary Prevention Strategy for Sexual  Violence Perpetration. Trauma Violence Abuse. 2020 Jul;21(3):439-455. doi: 10.1177/1524838018772855.  Epub 2018 May 2. PMID: 29720047; PMCID: PMC6283686. 

Pingel ES, Thomas L, Harmell C, Bauermeister J. Creating comprehensive, youth centered, culturally  appropriate sex education: What do young gay, bisexual and questioning men want? Sex Res Social Policy.  2013 Dec 1;10(4):10.1007/s13178-013-0134-5. doi: 10.1007/s13178-013-0134-5. PMID: 24348222; PMCID:  PMC3862289. 

Stieglitz KA. Development, risk, and resilience of transgender youth. J Assoc Nurses AIDS Care. 2010 May Jun;21(3):192-206. doi: 10.1016/j.jana.2009.08.004. Epub 2010 Mar 29. PMID: 20347346. 

Bradford, Nova & DeWitt, James & Decker, Jilyan & Berg, Dianne & Spencer, Katherine & Ross, Michael. (2018).  Sex education and transgender youth: ‘Trust Means Material By and For Queer and Trans People’. Sex  Education. 19. 1-15. 10.1080/14681811.2018.1478808.  

Johns MM, Lowry R, Andrzejewski J, Barrios LC, Demissie Z, McManus T, Rasberry CN, Robin L, Underwood JM.  Transgender Identity and Experiences of Violence Victimization, Substance Use, Suicide Risk, and Sexual Risk  Behaviors Among High School Students – 19 States and Large Urban School Districts, 2017. MMWR Morb  Mortal Wkly Rep. 2019 Jan 25;68(3):67-71. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.mm6803a3. PMID: 30677012; PMCID:  PMC6348759. 

Haley SG, Tordoff DM, Kantor AZ, Crouch JM, Ahrens KR. Sex Education for Transgender and Non-Binary Youth: Previous Experiences and Recommended Content. J Sex Med. 2019 Nov;16(11):1834-1848. doi:  10.1016/j.jsxm.2019.08.009. Epub 2019 Oct 1. PMID: 31585806. 

Johns MM, Lowry R, Andrzejewski J, et al. Transgender Identity and Experiences of Violence Victimization,  Substance Use, Suicide Risk, and Sexual Risk Behaviors Among High School Students — 19 States and Large  Urban School Districts, 2017. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2019;68:67–71. DOI:  

http://dx.doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.mm6803a3. 

Shelton, J., & Bond, L. (2017). “It Just Never Worked Out”: How Transgender and Gender Expansive Youth  Understand their Pathways into Homelessness. Families in Society, 98(4), 284-291.  

https://doi.org/10.1606/1044-3894.2017.98.33 

Johnson KC, LeBlanc AJ, Sterzing PR, Deardorff J, Antin T, Bockting WO. Trans adolescents’ perceptions and  experiences of their parents’ supportive and rejecting behaviors. J Couns Psychol. 2020 Mar;67(2):156-170.  doi: 10.1037/cou0000419. PMID: 32105126.

Sellers, Mitchell. (2018). Absent Inclusion Polices: Problems Facing Homeless Transgender Youth. Public  Integrity. 20. 1-15. 10.1080/10999922.2018.1446629.  

Greytak, Emily & Kosciw, Joseph & Diaz, Elizabeth. (2009). Harsh Realities: The Experiences of Transgender  Youth in Our Nation’s Schools. Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN).  https://https://www.glsen.org/research/harsh-realities-experiences-trans-youth-schools 

Katz-Wise SL, Rosario M, Tsappis M. Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Youth and Family Acceptance.  Pediatr Clin North Am. 2016 Dec;63(6):1011-1025. doi: 10.1016/j.pcl.2016.07.005. PMID: 27865331; PMCID:  PMC5127283. 

Seibel BL, Silva BB, Fontanari AMV, Catelan RF, Bercht AM, Stucky JL, DeSousa DA, Cerqueira-Santos E, Nardi  HC, Koller SH, Costa AB. Corrigendum: The Impact of the Parental Support on Risk Factors in the Process of  Gender Affirmation of Transgender and Gender Diverse People. Front Psychol. 2018 Oct 12;9:1969. doi:  10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01969. Erratum for: Front Psychol. 2018 Mar 27;9:399. PMID: 30349504; PMCID:  PMC6194344. 

Jones, Tiffany & Smith, Elizabeth & Ward, Roz & Dixon, Jennifer & Hillier, Lynne & Mitchell, Anne. (2015). School  experiences of transgender and gender diverse students in Australia. Sex Education. 16. 1-16.  10.1080/14681811.2015.1080678. 

Pariseau, E. M., Chevalier, L., Long, K. A., Clapham, R., Edwards-Leeper, L., & Tishelman, A. C. (2019). The  relationship between family acceptance-rejection and transgender youth psychosocial functioning. Clinical  Practice in Pediatric Psychology, 7(3), 267–277. https://doi.org/10.1037/cpp0000291 

Camille Brown, Carolyn M. Porta, Marla E. Eisenberg, Barbara J. McMorris, and Renee E. Sieving. Family  Relationships and the Health and Well-Being of Transgender and Gender-Diverse Youth: A Critical Review.  LGBT Health.Dec 2020.407-419.http://doi.org/10.1089/lgbt.2019.0200 

Caitlin Ryan, David Huebner, Rafael M. Diaz, Jorge Sanchez; Family Rejection as a Predictor of Negative Health  Outcomes in White and Latino Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Young Adults. Pediatrics January 2009; 123 (1): 346– 352. 10.1542/peds.2007-3524 

Koken JA, Bimbi DS, Parsons JT. Experiences of familial acceptance-rejection among transwomen of color. J Fam Psychol. 2009 Dec;23(6):853-60. doi: 10.1037/a0017198. PMID: 20001144; PMCID: PMC2840628. 

Morris, Jessica & Vanraalte, Judy. (2016). Transgender and gender nonconforming athletes: Creating safe  spaces for all. Journal of Sport Psychology in Action. 1-12. 10.1080/21520704.2016.1184732.  

Reynolds A, Hamidian Jahromi A. Transgender Athletes in Sports Competitions: How Policy Measures Can Be  More Inclusive and Fairer to All. Front Sports Act Living. 2021 Jul 14;3:704178. doi: 10.3389/fspor.2021.704178. PMID: 34337407; PMCID: PMC8316721. 

Jones BA, Arcelus J, Bouman WP, Haycraft E. Sport and Transgender People: A Systematic Review of the  Literature Relating to Sport Participation and Competitive Sport Policies. Sports Med. 2017 Apr;47(4):701-716.  doi: 10.1007/s40279-016-0621-y. PMID: 27699698; PMCID: PMC5357259. 

Pitsiladis Y, Harper J, Betancurt JO, Martinez-Patino MJ, Parisi A, Wang G, Pigozzi F. Beyond Fairness: The  Biology of Inclusion for Transgender and Intersex Athletes. Curr Sports Med Rep. 2016 Nov/Dec;15(6):386- 388. doi: 10.1249/JSR.0000000000000314. PMID: 27841808. 

Safer JD. Fairness for Transgender People in Sport. J Endocr Soc. 2022 Mar 17;6(5):bvac035. doi:  10.1210/jendso/bvac035. PMID: 35350392; PMCID: PMC8944319.

Sykes, Heather. “Transsexual and Transgender Policies in Sport”. Women in Sport and Physical Activity Journal  15.1 (2006): 3-13. https://doi.org/10.1123/wspaj.15.1.3. 

Johns MM, Beltran O, Armstrong HL, Jayne PE, Barrios LC. Protective Factors Among Transgender and Gender  Variant Youth: A Systematic Review by Socioecological Level. J Prim Prev. 2018 Jun;39(3):263-301. doi:  10.1007/s10935-018-0508-9. PMID: 29700674; PMCID: PMC5976555. 

Bochicchio L, Reeder K, Aronson L, McTavish C, Stefancic A. Understanding Factors Associated with Suicidality  Among Transgender and Gender-Diverse Identified Youth. LGBT Health. 2021 May-Jun;8(4):245-253. doi:  10.1089/lgbt.2019.0338. Epub 2021 Apr 27. PMID: 33904768. 

Reisner SL, Vetters R, Leclerc M, Zaslow S, Wolfrum S, Shumer D, Mimiaga MJ. Mental health of transgender  youth in care at an adolescent urban community health center: a matched retrospective cohort study. J  Adolesc Health. 2015 Mar;56(3):274-9. doi: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2014.10.264. Epub 2015 Jan 7. PMID:  25577670; PMCID: PMC4339405. 

Witcomb GL, Claes L, Bouman WP, Nixon E, Motmans J, Arcelus J. Experiences and Psychological Wellbeing  Outcomes Associated with Bullying in Treatment-Seeking Transgender and Gender-Diverse Youth. LGBT  Health. 2019 Jul;6(5):216-226. doi: 10.1089/lgbt.2018.0179. Epub 2019 Jun 11. PMID: 31184969. 

Eldridge, J.J. (2020). Moving academia beyond the gender binary. In E. Heinrich and R. Bourke (Eds.), Research  and Development in Higher Education: Next generation, Higher Education: Challenges, Changes and  Opportunities, 42 (pp 19 – 27). 

Austin A, Craig SL, Navega N, McInroy LB. It’s my safe space: The life-saving role of the internet in the lives of  transgender and gender diverse youth. Int J Transgend Health. 2020 Jan 6;21(1):33-44. doi:  10.1080/15532739.2019.1700202. PMID: 33015657; PMCID: PMC7430466. 

Tankersley, A.P., Grafsky, E.L., Dike, J. et al. Risk and Resilience Factors for Mental Health among Transgender  and Gender Nonconforming (TGNC) Youth: A Systematic Review. Clin Child Fam Psychol Rev 24, 183–206  (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10567-021-00344-6 

Pollitt AM, Ioverno S, Russell ST, Li G, Grossman AH. Predictors and Mental Health Benefits of Chosen Name  Use among Transgender Youth. Youth Soc. 2019 Jun;2019:10.1177/0044118X19855898. doi:  10.1177/0044118X19855898. Epub 2019 Jun 16. PMID: 33223575; PMCID: PMC7678041. 

Eisenberg ME, Gower AL, McMorris BJ, Rider GN, Shea G, Coleman E. Risk and Protective Factors in the Lives of Transgender/Gender Nonconforming Adolescents. J Adolesc Health. 2017 Oct;61(4):521-526. doi:  10.1016/j.jadohealth.2017.04.014. Epub 2017 Jul 21. PMID: 28736148; PMCID: PMC5626022. 

Johns MM, Poteat VP, Horn SS, Kosciw J. Strengthening Our Schools to Promote Resilience and Health Among  LGBTQ Youth: Emerging Evidence and Research Priorities from The State of LGBTQ Youth Health and  Wellbeing Symposium. LGBT Health. 2019 May/Jun;6(4):146-155. doi: 10.1089/lgbt.2018.0109. Epub 2019 Apr  8. PMID: 30958731; PMCID: PMC6551982. 

Fleshman RK. Building Resilience, Reducing Risk: Four Pillars to Creating Safer, More Supportive Schools for  LGBTQ+ Youth. Dela J Public Health. 2019 Jun 27;5(3):46-52. doi: 10.32481/djph.2019.06.009. PMID: 34467040; PMCID: PMC8389759.