Why Transitioning Kids Is Wrong

The decision to allow minors to undergo sex transition procedures, including hormone therapies and surgeries, is one of the most ethically fraught and controversial issues in modern medicine. While proponents argue that these interventions are necessary to alleviate gender dysphoria and affirm a child’s identity, there are compelling reasons to view such practices as deeply problematic, particularly when performed on individuals who, by definition, lack the maturity and life experience to fully comprehend the lifelong consequences of these decisions. Minors are not permitted to vote, drink alcohol, or enter into binding contracts precisely because society recognizes their limited capacity for judgment. Yet, inexplicably, we allow them to make irreversible, life-altering decisions about their bodies—decisions that may lead to regret, physical harm, and profound psychological consequences. This is not only inconsistent but also a dangerous dereliction of our duty to protect children.
...
First and foremost, minors are not developmentally equipped to make decisions of this magnitude. The adolescent brain is still maturing, particularly the prefrontal cortex, which governs decision-making, impulse control, and the ability to weigh long-term consequences. This is why we do not allow teenagers to make other permanent, life-altering choices. Imagine a 14-year-old walking into a doctor’s office and demanding the amputation of a healthy arm because they "identify" as disabled—a condition known as body integrity dysphoria. No ethical physician would comply, and society would rightly condemn such an act as medical malpractice. The reasoning is obvious: the minor’s perception of their identity may change, and the procedure is irreversible. So why do we treat requests for sex transition procedures differently? A minor who seeks to have their breasts or genitals surgically altered is making a similarly drastic and permanent decision, yet some doctors and medical organizations not only permit but actively encourage it. This double standard is indefensible.
...
The irreversibility of these procedures is a critical concern. Puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and surgeries such as mastectomies or genital reconstruction carry profound and often permanent effects. Puberty blockers, often touted as "reversible," can impact bone density, fertility, and brain development, while cross-sex hormones can lead to sterility and other long-term health risks. Surgical interventions, such as the removal of healthy breasts or genitals, are unequivocally irreversible. If a child later regrets their decision—a not uncommon occurrence, as evidenced by the growing number of "detransitioners"—they are left with a body that has been permanently altered, often at great physical and emotional cost. The medical community has a responsibility to prioritize "first, do no harm," yet these procedures violate that principle by exposing minors to risks that they cannot fully understand or consent to.
...
Detransitioners’ stories highlight the tragic consequences of rushing minors into these interventions. Many report feeling pressured by medical professionals, therapists, or social influences to transition, only to realize later that their dysphoria was rooted in other issues, such as trauma, mental health struggles, or societal pressures. These individuals are left with irreversible changes to their bodies—deepened voices, facial hair, or missing body parts—and a profound sense of betrayal by the adults who were supposed to protect them. The medical establishment’s failure to adequately address these outcomes is a moral failing. Instead of acknowledging the complexity of gender dysphoria and the potential for regret, some doctors and activists dismiss detransitioners as anomalies or even attack them for speaking out. This is not science; it is ideology masquerading as medicine.
...
Moreover, the comparison to other forms of bodily autonomy for minors is stark. Society does not allow minors to get tattoos, pierce certain body parts, or even take aspirin at school without parental consent, yet we permit them to undergo experimental and invasive procedures with lifelong implications. This inconsistency reveals a disturbing cultural blind spot. Proponents of these interventions often frame them as "life-saving," citing the risk of suicide among gender-dysphoric youth. However, the evidence linking these procedures to improved mental health outcomes is weak and contested. Studies often suffer from methodological flaws, short follow-up periods, and a lack of control groups. Meanwhile, countries like Sweden and the UK have begun restricting these interventions for minors, citing insufficient evidence of their benefits and growing concerns about harm. If the science is so unsettled, why are we allowing children to serve as guinea pigs in this medical experiment?
...
The ethical parallels to historical medical abuses are chilling. In the past, doctors performed lobotomies, forced sterilizations, and other harmful procedures, often justified by the prevailing cultural or scientific beliefs of the time. These practices were later recognized as grave ethical violations, and we look back in horror at the harm inflicted. Decades from now, will we view the current trend of performing sex transition procedures on minors with similar regret? The rush to affirm a child’s self-reported identity, without sufficient psychological evaluation or exploration of underlying issues, risks repeating these mistakes. Gender dysphoria is a complex condition that may resolve naturally with time—studies suggest that up to 80-90% of children with gender dysphoria desist by adulthood if not medically intervened upon. By rushing to "treat" these children with irreversible procedures, we may be denying them the chance to grow into their bodies and identities naturally.
...
Finally, we must ask: where is the accountability? Doctors who perform these procedures are not merely following a child’s wishes; they are making a professional judgment that such interventions are appropriate. Yet, when things go wrong, it is the child—not the doctor—who bears the lifelong consequences. Medical organizations that endorse these practices, such as the American Academy of Pediatrics or the World Professional Association for Transgender Health, have failed to uphold rigorous standards of evidence and ethics. Instead, they have succumbed to ideological pressures, prioritizing affirmation over caution. This is not healthcare; it is activism at the expense of vulnerable children.
...
In conclusion, allowing minors to undergo sex transition procedures is a profound ethical failure. These interventions are irreversible, their benefits are uncertain, and their risks are immense. Minors, by definition, cannot consent to such life-altering decisions, and society has a duty to protect them from harm—even harm they may request in moments of distress or confusion. Just as we would not amputate a healthy arm at a child’s request, we must not permit the removal of healthy breasts or genitals. To do so is not compassionate; it is reckless and unethical. We must demand better for our children: comprehensive psychological support, time to explore their identities, and protection from irreversible harm. History will judge us harshly if we fail to act.