Shiloh
Editor, Senior Moderator
Source: https://lisaselindavis.substack.com/p/letter-from-finland-and-sweden
Letter from Finland and Sweden
Can they help us solve America's most vicious culture war?
Lisa Selin Davis
10 hr ago
Earlier this year, as the U.S. culture war over trans kids was reaching full tilt, Sweden’s National Board of Health and Welfare (NBHW) released new guidelines for treating young people with gender dysphoria, or what is increasingly called “gender incongruence.” That means puberty suppressants, cross-sex hormones and gender surgeries—often called “gender-affirming care”—to make one’s body appear more like the opposite sex’s—or increasingly, with nonbinary gender medicine, neither sex.
They read: “The NBHW deems that the risks of puberty suppressing treatment with GnRH-analogues and gender-affirming hormonal treatment currently outweigh the possible benefits, and that the treatments should be offered only in exceptional cases.”
Finland’s Council for Choices in Health Care (COHERE) came to almost the exact same conclusion a year earlier, noting, through a translation: “The first-line intervention for gender variance during childhood and adolescent years is psychosocial support and, as necessary, gender-explorative therapy and treatment for comorbid psychiatric disorders.” And: “In light of available evidence, gender reassignment of minors is an experimental practice.” Gender reassignment medical interventions “must be done with a great deal of caution, and no irreversible treatment should be initiated,” COHERE wrote.
These guidelines were in contrast to those proffered by the World Professional Association of Transgender Health (WPATH), an advocacy group made up of activists, academics, lawyers, medical and mental health care providers, which creates “standards of care” that many providers elect to follow. WPATH, which will soon issue its 8th iteration of its SOC, is lowering recommended ages for blockers, hormones and surgeries, and adding chapters on medicine for those with gender identities like non-binary or eunuch. (WPATH did not respond to a request for comment.)
Meanwhile, in the U.S., much of the left, medical associations and activist organizations like the ACLU are claiming doctors agree that gender-affirming medical interventions are “life-saving,” and Assistant Secretary of Health Rachel Levine asserted there’s medical consensus as to its benefits—despite some European countries claiming the opposite. Some activists and gender clinicians in the U.S. still find even WPATH too restrictive.
In Sweden and Finland, the health care community itself was taking on this issue. But here in the U.S. it was playing out in legislatures and courts, the science so politicized that it had become a moral, rather than a medical, issue. This summer alone, Republican Congressmen Jim Banks and Tom Cotton introduced the Protecting Minors from Medical Malpractice Act, which would allow minors who transitioned up to 30 years to sue for malpractice. California introduced SB107, which would allow any child to come to California to medically transition without parental knowledge or consent. Texas had investigated parents of trans kids for child abuse if they transitioned children; earlier, other parents had been investigated, and some had lost custody of their kids, for not transitioning them.
In other words, the U.S. was going completely crazy over the issue of trans kids. Why, I wondered, were Sweden and Finland proceeding so differently, and without the political turmoil that has enveloped what is arguably America’s most virulent culture war? What could they teach us?....
Letter from Finland and Sweden
Can they help us solve America's most vicious culture war?
Lisa Selin Davis
10 hr ago
Earlier this year, as the U.S. culture war over trans kids was reaching full tilt, Sweden’s National Board of Health and Welfare (NBHW) released new guidelines for treating young people with gender dysphoria, or what is increasingly called “gender incongruence.” That means puberty suppressants, cross-sex hormones and gender surgeries—often called “gender-affirming care”—to make one’s body appear more like the opposite sex’s—or increasingly, with nonbinary gender medicine, neither sex.
They read: “The NBHW deems that the risks of puberty suppressing treatment with GnRH-analogues and gender-affirming hormonal treatment currently outweigh the possible benefits, and that the treatments should be offered only in exceptional cases.”
Finland’s Council for Choices in Health Care (COHERE) came to almost the exact same conclusion a year earlier, noting, through a translation: “The first-line intervention for gender variance during childhood and adolescent years is psychosocial support and, as necessary, gender-explorative therapy and treatment for comorbid psychiatric disorders.” And: “In light of available evidence, gender reassignment of minors is an experimental practice.” Gender reassignment medical interventions “must be done with a great deal of caution, and no irreversible treatment should be initiated,” COHERE wrote.
These guidelines were in contrast to those proffered by the World Professional Association of Transgender Health (WPATH), an advocacy group made up of activists, academics, lawyers, medical and mental health care providers, which creates “standards of care” that many providers elect to follow. WPATH, which will soon issue its 8th iteration of its SOC, is lowering recommended ages for blockers, hormones and surgeries, and adding chapters on medicine for those with gender identities like non-binary or eunuch. (WPATH did not respond to a request for comment.)
Meanwhile, in the U.S., much of the left, medical associations and activist organizations like the ACLU are claiming doctors agree that gender-affirming medical interventions are “life-saving,” and Assistant Secretary of Health Rachel Levine asserted there’s medical consensus as to its benefits—despite some European countries claiming the opposite. Some activists and gender clinicians in the U.S. still find even WPATH too restrictive.
In Sweden and Finland, the health care community itself was taking on this issue. But here in the U.S. it was playing out in legislatures and courts, the science so politicized that it had become a moral, rather than a medical, issue. This summer alone, Republican Congressmen Jim Banks and Tom Cotton introduced the Protecting Minors from Medical Malpractice Act, which would allow minors who transitioned up to 30 years to sue for malpractice. California introduced SB107, which would allow any child to come to California to medically transition without parental knowledge or consent. Texas had investigated parents of trans kids for child abuse if they transitioned children; earlier, other parents had been investigated, and some had lost custody of their kids, for not transitioning them.
In other words, the U.S. was going completely crazy over the issue of trans kids. Why, I wondered, were Sweden and Finland proceeding so differently, and without the political turmoil that has enveloped what is arguably America’s most virulent culture war? What could they teach us?....
