How could it come to this?

A turning point presents itself

This all came to be from a societal sense of social injustice that is characteristic of our time and is a result of civil rights movements, such as gay rights and women’s rights. Thanks to these movements, we can now talk about equal rights between men and women, and equality for gays. But people went on to look for other sources of structural injustice that may not have been there at all. Thus, transgenderism became allied to LGB movements, and transactivism emerged. No longer was someone’s self-declared identity, as male or female, independent of their biological sex, allowed to be questioned. Critical questions were quickly dismissed as transphobia. Schools, care centres and the mainstream media began to support this activism out of social concern.

We now see an influx of young people, especially girls, to gender clinics. Their gender dysphoria seems to be the new anorexia, looking for a way out to acceptance. Social media plays an important role in this, influencers open up a trans world in which they come home to. But also the current climate, in which transgenderism is imposed as normal, and the low threshold of gender centres, which further confirm these people on the path they have taken, have a non-negligible influence.

The consequences are there for all to see. The blind spot of this identity thinking is gradually becoming clear. Detransitioners, the victims of gender ideology, can no longer be denied and are beginning to group together. Apart from the medical consequences, they are stigmatised and have to rebuild their lives. The broken families, the parents who know their child’s life story better than anyone, are not heard. They know their child is not trans, but their opinion does not matter.

But there is hope; all over the Western world we see people rising up who will no longer remain silent. New organisations are being founded and are supporting each other. Ethical therapists are sounding the alarm. New studies refute the effectiveness of invasive affirmative care and advocate psychotherapy. The countries that advocated the most liberal stance on transgender care are now urging caution and reluctantly adjusting their policies.

Finland
Finland was the first country to distance itself from the WPATH (World Professional Association for Transgender Health) guidelines (Standards of Care) and reported that psychotherapy should come first. This change took place after a systematic review.
Psychiatrist Dr Riittakerttu Kaltiala-Heino conducted groundbreaking research in 2015 which showed that more than 75% of adolescents who sought gender reassignment surgery needed help for psychiatric problems other than gender dysphoria. These findings were strongly confirmed in recently published research papers (89% of the interested parties needed such help). As a result of these findings, Finland adopted strict guidelines in 2020 that prioritise therapy over hormones and surgery.

Sweden
At Karolinska Hospital in Sweden, a new policy banning hormone treatment for minors came into force in May 2021. This was because the risk-benefit ratio was found to be highly uncertain by, among others, the UK NICE evidence review (National Institute for Health and Care Excellence) and Sweden’s own Health and Technology Assessment (SBU) evidence review conducted in 2019, which found a lack of evidence for medical treatments, and a lack of explanation for the sharp increase in the number of adolescents with gender dysphoria in recent years.

Norway
In March 2023, Norway joined these countries that are moving away from the WPATH guidelines. The Norwegian Healthcare Investigation Board (NHIB/UKOM) has classified puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones and surgery for children and adolescents as experimental and found that current ‘gender-affirming guidelines’ are not based on evidence and need to be revised.

Denmark
In August 2023, Denmark also decided to severely restrict gender transitions for young people. The medical journal Ugeskrift for Læger confirmed this. Most young people referred to the centralized gender clinic will no longer receive a prescription for puberty blockers, hormones or surgery, but will receive therapeutic guidance and support.

Belgium
In the Journal of Medicine and Health Care, P. Vankrunkelsven, K. Casteels and J. De Vleminck argued for important reforms in treatment protocols for gender dysphoria: How can we provide the best care for young people experiencing gender incongruence?

England
On 10 April 2024, the Cass report was published, the result of an in-depth four-year investigation into gender care for minors in the UK. The report was extremely negative about the way care for children with gender confusion was driven by activism. In addition to England, Scotland also decided to immediately suspend medical interventions on minors. It is important to note that the Cass report highlights that the problems are not limited to under-18s, but that the group of young adults between 18 and 25 also face many of the same problems.

Germany
The 128th German Medical Association 2024 adopted a resolution calling for puberty blockers, sex-changing hormones and surgery for gender dysphoric adolescents to be restricted to strictly controlled research settings. Another resolution stipulated that minors should not be allowed to “identify” as a chosen gender without first undergoing a specialised psychiatric assessment.

France
On 28 May 2024, the Senate passed the bill by Jacqueline Eustache-Brinio and several of her colleagues aimed at regulating medical practices in the care of minors with gender issues. This bill came about based on a report by a working group of 18 LR senators, which demonstrates the lack of evidence in gender medicine. Moreover, they warn that adolescent sexual transition could be the biggest ethical scandal in history.

Europe
ESCAP (European Society of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry) calls for the application of clinical, scientific and ethical standards in the care of gender dysphoric minors. At the European level, child and adolescent psychiatrists have united to emphasize, in the light of recent research findings and developments, that unnecessary experimental and invasive treatments with unproven psychosocial effects should be avoided.