By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Brazil’s CFM council raised the minimum age for transgender individuals to access hormone therapy from 16 to 18, also prohibiting puberty blockers for minors with gender dysphoria. The council further increased the minimum age for certain gender reassignment surgeries to 21. This decision follows similar actions in other countries, including Argentina, and mirrors growing global debate surrounding the provision of such treatments to minors. The move reflects a broader conservative trend impacting transgender rights, fueled by ongoing political and legal challenges worldwide.
Read the original article here
Brazil’s recent decision to raise the legal age for transgender individuals to access hormone therapy from 16 to 18 has sparked considerable debate. This isn’t an isolated incident; a global trend seems to be emerging where countries are re-evaluating access to such treatments for minors. While the political climate undeniably plays a significant role, even nations generally considered progressive are exhibiting shifts in policy.
The Brazilian Federal Council of Medicine (CFM), responsible for the decision, cited concerns prompting the change. The CFM’s 2019 authorization of hormone therapy for those 16 and older has been reversed. The council now prohibits hormone treatment before the age of 18, along with a ban on puberty blockers for children and adolescents with gender dysphoria. Furthermore, the minimum age for sexual reassignment surgery with potentially sterilizing effects has been increased from 18 to 21.
This action has intensified the ongoing discussion surrounding transgender rights. The timing coincides with other significant legal developments, including a recent UK Supreme Court ruling defining “woman” based on birth sex. The shift in Brazil also aligns with a broader Latin American trend. Argentina, for example, implemented a similar ban on gender transition procedures for minors earlier this year, highlighting a rising global concern.
Supporters of hormone therapy for transgender minors emphasize its potential to alleviate suffering by aligning physical development with gender identity. However, this approach faces growing scientific and legal scrutiny. The debate extends beyond Brazil, with the United States serving as a prominent example of a highly polarized landscape. The US, under previous administrations, has adopted a more restrictive stance on gender recognition. Currently, many US states prohibit hormone treatment for minors, and a Supreme Court decision on the matter is pending.
Concerns about the potential long-term effects of hormone therapy on minors are central to the debate. While advocates highlight the life-saving potential of this treatment for many transgender youth, questions remain regarding the full spectrum of possible consequences. This uncertainty, combined with broader shifts in societal views on gender identity, is driving the reconsideration of existing policies. The lack of comprehensive, long-term studies on the subject contributes to the complex and evolving nature of this issue.
Adding fuel to the controversy is the CFM’s track record in Brazil. The council’s past decisions, such as endorsing unproven COVID-19 treatments and obstructing access to legal abortions, have raised concerns about its impartiality and scientific rigor. Critics argue that this history casts doubt on the motivations and objectivity behind its recent decision on hormone therapy.
The Brazilian decision has elicited a wide spectrum of reactions. While some individuals and groups express support, citing the need for caution and further research before potentially irreversible treatments, others voice strong opposition. This opposition centers on concerns for the well-being of transgender youth and the potential negative impacts on their mental health. Many argue that denying access to gender-affirming care leads to increased rates of suicide among transgender minors, and preventing this access is tantamount to harming already vulnerable young people.
The argument often focuses on the age of majority and the capacity of minors to make informed decisions about their bodies and their health. The counter-argument suggests that 18 is a reasonable age to make such life-altering decisions, aligning with existing legal frameworks governing other major life choices. Some propose tying the decision to the age of consent, arguing that if a young person can legally consent to other decisions, they should be able to consent to medical treatments concerning their gender identity.
However, the concern remains that delaying access to potentially life-saving care could have devastating consequences. This issue isn’t merely about medical treatments; it touches upon the fundamental right to self-determination and the need for societal acceptance and support for transgender individuals. The debate highlights the complexity of balancing individual rights with potential risks, scientific uncertainty, and evolving societal norms surrounding gender identity. The outcome will likely continue to shape discussions and policies worldwide for years to come.