Schedule:
Saturday, January 17, 2026
Marquis BR 6, ML 2 (Marriott Marquis Washington DC)
* noted as presenting author
Brody Mantha, MSW,
PhD Student and Clinical Social WOrker, University of Michigan-Ann Arbor, Ann Arbor, MI
Shanna Kattari, PhD, Associate Professor, University of Michigan-Ann Arbor, Ann Arbor, MI
Chelsea Bruno, MSW, Associate Researcher, University of Michigan-Ann Arbor, Ann Arbor, MI
Thea Bultman, MSW, Research Assistant, MSW, University of Michigan-Ann Arbor
E.B. Gross, MSW, Doctoral Candidate, Social Work & Psychology, University of Michigan-Ann Arbor, Ann Arbor, MI
Quinn Hafen, PhD, Assistant Professor, University of Wyoming, Laramie, WY
Amy Hecht-Zizes, MSW, Research Assistant MSW, University of Michigan-Ann Arbor
Rory O’Brien, PhD, Postdoctoral Fellow, University of Michigan-Ann Arbor
Houda Tarraf, MSW, Research Assistant MSW, University of Michigan-Ann Arbor
Kristie Seelman, PhD, Associate Professor, Georgia State University, Atlanta, GA
Background/Rationale: In recent years, there has been a surge of new legislation restricting gender-affirming care in the United States, with a record of 186 bills introduced in 2024 (Trans Legislation Tracker, 2025). Gender affirming care can look like everything from puberty blockers that allow young people time to fully assess their gender related needs to hormone replacement therapy to affirming surgeries. In 2023, 24 states passed gender-affirming care restrictions for minors, and several states have introduced bills that would further restrict gender-affirming care, extending restrictions to mental health services and expanding partial bans (Mallory & Brown, 2024). State-level policies influence residents' well-being, including physical and psychological health. In states with more restrictive policies, rates of depression of transgender and gender diverse (TGD) individuals and self-reported suicidal thoughts and attempts were higher than in those states with protections for TGD people and gender affirming care (Miller-Jacobs et al., 2023; Price et al., 2024). Similarly, states and cities with TGD and gender-affirming care protections reported fewer instances of discrimination (Truszczynski et al., 2022).
Methods: We approached this study using a phenomenological approach, looking into the experience of parents and caregivers of TGD young people in, or formerly from, states with gender affirming care bans. Participants were recruited virtually through social media, private support groups of parents, and therapists serving this population. Twenty interviews were conducted with caregivers of trans and gender diverse youth, with twenty-two unique individuals participating. Participants were asked the same semi-structured interview questions which elicited open-ended responses. The interviews were then transcribed, cleaned, and each was coded by two members of our team using inductive coding before the codes were moved into themes using virtual tabletop coding methods (Clarke & Braun, 2017; Jackson Levin et al., 2020),
Results: We created several themes from the inductive codes. These included the need for more/ acknowledgement of financial freedom; fear of safety for their trans and gender diverse youth; commitment to advocacy; and engagement in policy. In addition, several families mentioned an anxiety in living in states that had, or were going to pass gender-affirming care bans, and a sense of betrayal and/or loss.
Conclusions: Results indicate the need for further support for TGD individuals in three main areas. First, access to support groups and the ability to identify supportive individuals who can assist in navigating systems. Secondly, advocating for specific state-level policies that protect gender-affirming care for youth. Finally, the offering of funding to help families relocate, establish support networks, and seek care in nearby states could help alleviate the stress these families experience.
![[ Visit Client Website ]](images/banner.gif)