Gender change in minors: Justice placed ideology above the protection of children

The V Chamber of the National Court of Appeals in Federal Administrative Litigation has just suspended, until a final ruling exists, the effects of DNU 62/2025. The measure had prohibited minors under eighteen from accessing hormonal treatments and surgical interventions to adapt their bodies to a self-perceived gender identity. The Chamber revoked the first instance rejection and re-enabled the previous regime while the trial continues. This is a severe setback in the defense of the most vulnerable.

It must be said without hesitation: the judicial decision once again exposes children and adolescents to medical interventions with consequences that, in many cases, are irreversible. The decree sought to restore common sense: to set a firm limit against hormonal treatments and irreversible sex change interventions in minors. Before the age of eighteen, the State must protect and preserve the physical, sexual, psychological, and moral integrity of Argentines.

For years, the validity of the Gender Identity Law of 2012 introduced a foreign agenda in Argentina where we abandoned biology. But when this cultural experiment crossed the boundaries of minority age, the issue took on the dimension of a public health tragedy. The Law went much further than what people know. Article 11 allowed minors to access hormonal treatments with the consent of parents or guardians and also contemplated surgeries, in this latter case with judicial intervention. Additionally, it required the public system, social security, and private health insurance to guarantee these services and incorporate them into the Mandatory Medical Plan. We are not talking about an ideological discussion, but about a law, a policy funded by all Argentines.

When the DNU was issued, progressives first claimed that rights were being suppressed. Then they said that the Government was prohibiting something that supposedly was not happening. The very judicial files that halted the DNU contradict this. One case involved a teenager who had received hormonal blockers since the age of twelve and then testosterone from the age of fifteen; another involved a seventeen-year-old who was already receiving testosterone and had a mastectomy indicated. The Justice ordered to continue or cover both practices. Interventions in minors were indeed occurring.

It is also not true that the Government's caution is an Argentine "whim." The most comprehensive systematic reviews available conclude that there is a lack of quality research on blockers and masculinizing or feminizing hormones in adolescents. For blockers, no firm conclusions can be drawn about dysphoria, mental health, cognitive development, or fertility. For hormones, the evidence of psychological benefits is limited and mainly short-term; uncertainties about fertility, bones, and cardiometabolic effects persist.

The National Academy of Medicine of Buenos Aires also stated in 2025 that it does not endorse these treatments in minors and recommended a comprehensive approach, focused on children, their families, relationships, and the support of mental health services.

That is why countries like the United Kingdom, Sweden, and Finland that had advanced with these policies began to reverse course. England stopped offering blockers as routine treatment and restricted their provision to minors after considering the evidence on safety, risks, benefits, and outcomes to be insufficient. In 2026, the NHS also paused the initiation of new prescriptions for masculinizing and feminizing hormones while investigations into their effects continue. Sweden, given the scientific uncertainty, reserved these interventions for exceptional circumstances.

The suffering of a teenager with dysphoria is real and deserves respect. That is why we cannot leave them at the mercy of ideologized policies that promote sex change. Anxiety, depression, distress, and adolescent suicide must open our eyes. Many young people referred to these services also present mental health issues. Reducing all that pain to a change of identity constructed through drugs or surgeries is to condemn the lives of young people.

The Chamber presented the prohibition as an absolute restriction and an injury to the principle of non-discrimination. But equality does not require offering any medical intervention requested; it requires protecting with special care those who do not yet possess full maturity. Judicial activism places ideology above medical prudence and the state duty to protect children. We are not discussing how adults should live. We are discussing whether a minor can fully consent to treatments that alter their sexual development, compromising their fertility or producing permanent bodily changes. First, the child is protected; upon reaching adulthood, each person is responsible for their decisions.

DNU 62/2025 by Javier Milei was a correct, medically prudent, and politically necessary decision. Who will take responsibility for the effects of these policies when decisions made during adolescence can no longer be reversed?

The suspension of the presidential measure does not represent a triumph of ideology over common sense. A judicial ruling cannot replace scientific evidence nor turn children into hostages of ideological causes.

Protecting minors from decisions that exceed their capacity for discernment is the primary obligation of families and the State. The judicialization of this decree shows how far we are from having won this battle. But rulings can suspend a decree but cannot suspend the truth. We are convinced that this will not remain as it is; sooner or later, scientific evidence, prudence, and common sense will return to the side of those who most need to be protected: children.