Utah has become the first state this year to ban gender-affirming health care for transgender youths, part of a wave of anti-LGBTQ legislation brewing in statehouses.   

The state’s Republican-dominated Legislature fast-tracked the bill – which prohibits transgender surgery for those under the age of 18 and bars hormone treatments for minors who have not yet been diagnosed with gender dysphoria – two days after its session opened Jan. 17. GOP Gov. Spencer Cox signed the legislation Saturday.

So far this year, at least 10 other states have introduced bills targeting such health care access for transgender and gender-nonconforming people: Kansas, Kentucky, Missouri, Montana, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas and Virginia.

In 2022, at least 15 states restricted access to gender-affirming care or considered laws that would do so, according to the Williams Institute. Some of the bills carried penalties for health care providers and even families.

ADVOCATES SAY BANS ARE ‘CRUEL’ AND ‘DANGEROUS’:Should transgender youths have access to gender-affirming care? 

What is gender-affirming care?

Gender-affirming care is a term for medical care that is “highly individualized,” according to Dr. Kellan Baker, executive director of the Whitman-Walker Institute. “There is no set way to go through gender affirmation. Everyone’s needs are different.”

Care can involve social transitions such as a new name, a new haircut, new clothing and different pronouns – none of which are irreversible, he said. Medical care, which can include hormone therapy, can be crucial, he said. Puberty delaying medications, which are reversible, Baker said, allow youths time to explore their identity “free of a ticking clock.”

GENDER-AFFIRMING CARE EXPLAINED:What to know about gender-affirming care for transgender and nonbinary communities

What do backers of these bills say? 

Supporters of gender-affirming care bans often claim they are saving young people from regret later in life. 

Cox said in a statement that his decision was based on his belief that it was wise to pause “these permanent and life-altering treatments for new patients until more and better research can help determine the long-term consequences.”