News Release

New in the Hastings Center Report, May-June 2023 Issue

Transgender Youth Athletes, Gender-Affirming Care, Home Care in America

Peer-Reviewed Publication

The Hastings Center

Examining the Ethics and Impacts of Laws Restricting Transgender Youth‐Athlete Participation

Valerie Moyer, Amanda Zink, Brendan Parent

As of this writing, 21 states have passed laws barring transgender youth-athletes from competing on public school sports teams in accordance with their gender identity. Proponents of these regulations claim that transgender females in particular have inherent physiological advantages that threaten a “level playing field” for their cisgender competitors. Existing evidence is limited but does not support these restrictions. Gathering more robust data will require allowing transgender youth to compete (rather than preemptively barring them), but even if trans females are shown to retain some advantage, this would not have greater moral significance than the many other “fair” physical and economic advantages found across sports. These regulations deprive transgender youth, an exceptionally vulnerable population, from the vast physical, mental, and social benefits of sports. While we advocate for transgender inclusion under our current, gender-segregated model of sport, we propose changes to the overarching structure that would promote a more inclusive and fairer athletic environment.

Gender‐Affirming Care for Cisgender People

Theodore E. Schall, Jacob D. Moses

Gender-affirming care is almost exclusively discussed in connection with transgender medicine. However, this article argues that such care predominates among cisgender patients, people whose gender identity matches their sex assigned at birth. To advance this argument, we trace historical shifts in transgender medicine since the 1950s to identify central components of “gender-affirming care” that distinguish it from previous therapeutic models, such as “sex reassignment.” Next, we sketch two historical cases—reconstructive mammoplasty and testicular implants—to show how cisgender patients offered justifications grounded in authenticity and gender affirmation that closely mirror rationales supporting gender-affirming care for transgender people. The comparison exposes significant disparities in contemporary health policy regarding care for cis and trans patients. We consider two possible objections to the analogy we draw, but ultimately argue that these disparities are rooted in “trans exceptionalism” that produces demonstrable harm.

Also in this issue:

Home Care in America: The Urgent Challenge of Putting Ethical Care into Practice

Coleman Solis, Kevin T. Mintz, David Wasserman, Kathleen Fenton, Marion Danis

Other Voices

Centering Home Care in Bioethics Scholarship, Education, and Practice

Mercer Gary, Nancy Berlinger

Dementia and Concurrent Consent to Sexual Relations

Samuel Director

Other Voices

Dementia, Sex, and Consent: Beyond the Uncomplicated Cases

Jed Adam Gross, Evelyn M. Tenenbaum

Table of Contents Hastings Center Report: Vol 53, No 3 (


For more information, contact:

Susan Gilbert

Director of Communications

The Hastings Center

845-424-4040 x244


Disclaimer: AAAS and EurekAlert! are not responsible for the accuracy of news releases posted to EurekAlert! by contributing institutions or for the use of any information through the EurekAlert system.