The Norwegian Healthcare Investigation Board, (NHIB/UKOM) has deemed puberty blockers, cross-sex-hormones & surgery for children & young people experimental, determining that the current “gender-affirmative” guidelines are not evidence-based and must be revised. /1
The UKOM report asserts that future guidelines must rely on a systematic review of evidence rather than cherry-picking studies, and that all hormonal and surgical interventions must be restricted to research settings to ensure clear protocols, safeguarding & adequate follow-up./2
The existing Norwegian treatment guidelines for gender-dysphoric youth, based on a 2015 report ”The Right to the Right Sex,” closely mirror WPATH SOC7 “gender-affirming” model. Medical gender affirmation is widely available to youth, with no psychological assessments required. /3
Under the current Norwegian guidelines, youth may receive puberty blockers at tanner stage 2, cross-sex-hormones at 16, and surgeries at 18. The report noted that these widely available interventions are irreversible, carry many risks, and rest on insufficient evidence. /4
The report criticized Norway’s current "gender-affirmative" guidelines as inadequate, noting a lack of specificity regarding assessment & determination of medical necessity of risky and irreversible interventions provided to youth whose identities are still forming. /5
The Norwegian Healthcare Investigation Board noted several worrying trends: the rapid rise of gender dysphoria in adolescents (esp. females), the high burden of mental illness (75%) & a high prevalence of neurocognitive conditions (ADHD/autism, Tourette) in the affected youth. /6
The recommendations by the Norwegian Healthcare Investigation Board (NHIB/UKOM) align Norway with the changes among the growing number of European countries (Sweden, Finland, England) which aim to safeguard youth from harm by sharply restricting youth gender transitions. /7
However, unlike Sweden, Finland and England, Norway explicitly calls out the group of young adults whose development is still ongoing and who are at risk for erroneously undertaking gender transitions. The report notes that the age of consent for sterilization in Norway is 25./8
NHIB/UKOM notes that the right to medical care does not include the right to experimental treatments. As an experimental intervention, gender transitions will be subject to heightened scrutiny around informed consent, eligibility criteria, and outcomes evaluation./9
Norway's proposed model appears to resemble the model of care outlined in the Cass review. Gender dysphoric youth will receive care for their distress in local primary care settings with multidisciplinary support. Youth gender transitions will be an exception, not the rule. /10
The Board also comments on the highly polarized & unbalanced nature of the discussions surrounding care for gender-dysphoric youth, which stifles scientific debate. The Board calls on all parties to treat each other with professionalism, empathy and respect. /11
SEGM will be analyzing the report in more detail. Currently, our assessment is that the UKOM report is akin to UK's Cass Review in that it makes recommendations for restructuring youth gender services. How Norway's NHS will implement these recommendations remains to be seen. /12
The largest Norwegian daily newspaper, Aftenposten, interviewed the UKOM project leader, Stine Marit Moen. The links to the interview, the executive summary, and the full report are are provided below. /13 aftenposten.no/norge/i/jlwl19… ukom.no/rapporter/pasi…
https://t.co/3gWmdKZTHQ
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
The new study from the early Dutch cohort of puberty suppressed youth will require substantial analysis, but several important preliminary points can be made. /1
👉To cut to the chase, the study cannot answer the key question of whether early pubertal blockade (at Tanner stage 2) leads to worse adult sexual outcomes, because there were only 5 cases of early puberty blockade.
To increase the sample, the authors lumped early puberty (Tanner 2) with mid puberty (Tanner 3). The resulting sample (n=17) was still too small, and it was not possible to perform statistical analysis comparing sexual function outcomes of early/mid puberty suppression with later pubertal suppression (Tanner 4/5).
Therefore, no conclusions can be made about the effects of earlier vs. later pubertal suppression on future sexual function, and it is unclear how the authors concluded that early PB has no adverse effects on sexual function. /2
👉The only conclusion that can be made with some degree of confidence is that puberty-suppressed individuals have high rates of sexual dysfunction in adulthood (at average age 29). About 30% have not been sexually active in a year. In addition, 50% of males (MtF) and 58% of females (FtM) reported having one or more sexual dysfunction.
Not all typical domains of sexual dysfunction are accounted for in the study. There is no reporting on pain during sexual activity - previous studies have shown this is a frequent problem identified in transgender people after gender affirming medical treatment. Thus, this study may seriously underestimate sexual dysfunction.
Still, assuming the respondents' answers focused on recent sexual experiences as adults, the reported rate of sexual dysfunction (50-58%) compares unfavorably to the general Dutch population, where only 7%–17% report sexual dysfunction in the last 12 months (see table below).
However, even that cannot be assumed, since the respondents were asked if they had *ever had sexual difficulties, which means such difficulties may have occurred at any stage in their life: during puberty blockade; while on cross-sex hormones pre-surgery, immediately post-surgery, or well after the surgery.
Failure to differentiate between the stages when the sexual difficulties occurred is a major methodological limitation which makes the data shared by the authors extremely challenging to interpret. /3 rutgers.nl/wp-content/upl…
Given the skewed sex ratios among gender-dysphoric youth, most attention has focused on females. But the number of males has sharply risen as well—and the effects of androgen blockers & estrogen on males remain under-discussed. A new peer-reviewed paper addresses this gap. /1 ⬇️
While systematic reviews provide only low-certainty evidence of harms of estrogen and testosterone blockers in males, in reality the harms are likely, as explained by the authors of the paper. Lack of evidence of harm ≠ evidence of lack of harm. /2 link.springer.com/article/10.100…
The authors highlight a broad range of risks from estrogen use in males: sterility, stroke, brain volume loss, cognitive impairment, dementia risk, autoimmune disease, metabolic dysfunction, pancreatitis, and elevated rates of breast, thyroid, and testicular cancer and brain tumors, and early mortality. Many of these risks remain under-discussed in clinical settings. /3
📢 The volume of research in youth gender medicine has exploded in recent years. To meet the growing need for rigorous analysis, we’re launching SEGM Digest: concise, scientifically grounded reviews of influential publications. Issue 1 covers 7 major papers from Apr–May 2025. /1
📄 HHS Review (2025):
Issue 1 of SEGM Digest opens with an overview of the landmark 2025 HHS Review of pediatric gender dysphoria treatments. The Review's evidence and ethics analysis do not support the provision of hormones and surgery as the standard of care for GD youth. /2 segm.org/SEGM-Digest-Is…
📄 Utah Report (2024):
Utah’s Department of Health commissioned an assessment of safety and efficacy of hormones in GD minors. Puzzlingly, the report omits an evidence synthesis—the primary aspect of any credible evidence review, limiting its utility. /3 segm.org/SEGM-Digest-Is…
New peer-reviewed study finds that the evidence base for pediatric gender medicine is weak: individual studies are inconsistent, and systematic reviews show no clear benefits. Guidelines that state or imply that medical transition is the standard of care aren't evidence-based. /1
The study is not a systematic review (a limitation that the authors note), but it provides a comprehensive overview about what's known about the evidence base underpinning youth gender medicine. /2 link.springer.com/article/10.100…
Studies originating from gender clinics tend to focus on measuring the magnitude of the hypothesized psychological benefits. There is less focus on studying the risks and harms. This new publication provides a succinct summary of expected harms, along with the rationale. /3
🧵Germany’s new GD guidelines represent a shift toward caution, by acknowledging that most youth with gender distress have temporary "gender non-contentedness" and should not be medically transitioned. Still, significant problems remain, as we explain in our Spotlight. Link⬇️ /1
The final Guidelines are the result of a year-long debate and revisions following the release of the earlier draft. The final recommendations are now more cautious, but core issues remain.
Chief among them: the guidelines are not evidence-based. /2
Originally, the Guidelines were intended to be “evidence-based.” However, the team abandoned its systematic reviews in 2020, and chose to rely on WPATH's. When WPATH suppressed its own systematic reviews, the guidelines lost the ability to claim the evidence-based "S3" status. /3
A new peer-reviewed article examining the criticisms of the Cass Review, just published. The authors found that the primary source of the criticism, a non-peer-reviewed paper published on the Yale Law School website, contains numerous inaccurate and misleading claims.
Link👇/1
The authors of the new publication conclude:
"The Cass Review’s careful, balanced investigations and judgments were a comprehensive, evidence-based response to the controversies in this pediatric clinical arena. Recently-published critiques of the Review have contained incorrect or inadequately contextualized claims. Because accurate information about medical interventions is essential to informed consent, it is important to correct errors in potentially influential publications." /3