Sweden Pumps The Brakes On ‘Gender-Affirming’ Medical Interventions For Minors In Favor Of Therapy

Written by K. Walker on December 28, 2022

Sweden’s National Board of Health and Welfare published new treatment guidelines for gender dysphoric minors and it is the polar opposite of what is being pushed by the Biden administration.

With this move, Sweden joins Finland and the United Kingdom in taking a more cautious approach toward care for minors whose perceived gender doesn’t align with their biological sex.

The new National Board of Health and Welfare (NBHW) treatment guidelines for minors suffering from gender dysphoria move away from pharmaceutical interventions “affirming” a self-identified gender and instead promote therapy as the primary treatment option.

In 2021, Sweden had limited the use of puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and surgical interventions as treatments for gender dysphoric youth to clinical trials due to “insufficient scientific evidence.”

The new recommendations were published in mid-December and explicitly instruct medical providers that psychosocial support should be the first line of treatment for gender dysphoria in youth.

“Psychosocial support that helps the young person live with the body’s pubertal development without medication needs to be the first option when choosing care measures,” states the new recommendations according to the Society for Evidence-based Gender Medicine.

“Young people who suffer from gender dysphoria need to be able to quickly receive an investigation and be offered adequate care measures, based on the health and medical services’ assessments of the care needs. Good psychosocial care is fundamental,” says Thomas Lindén, head of the department at the National Board of Health and Welfare.

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.”

“As with the previously presented recommendations on hormone treatment, among other things, the uncertain state of knowledge speaks for caution at the moment,” says Lindén.

The same was said for so-called “gender-affirming” mastectomies for minors — they should only be offered in the framework of a clinical trial or in “exceptional cases.” The “exceptional cases” occur when gender incongruence begins in childhood, persists until puberty, and causes “psychological strain” rather than the Rapid-Onset Gender Dysphoria that has exploded exponentially in the last few years.

Throughout the document, the NBHW uses the term “gender dysphoria”, an acknowledged psychiatric condition. Sweden seemed to dismiss the prevailing view in the West that medical interventions are required for “gender identity” — the term pushed by activists and growing in popularity — which is a set of beliefs within the ideological framework of critical gender theory and is not based in either science or medicine.

“The NBHW still considers that gender dysphoria rather than gender identity should determine access to care and treatment,” states the report.

Interestingly, the document also notes that several things changed fairly recently, (since 2015, at least,) that have some clinicians cautious about the “affirmative care” model.

“Several factors have pointed towards increased caution in offering hormonal and surgical treatment: insufficient scientific evidence, an as yet unexplained increased number of people receiving the diagnosis, especially 13-17 years and with registered female gender at birth, less uniform experience-based knowledge among participating experts than 2015, and the documented occurrence of detransition,” states the recommendations.


The Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine (SEGM) is currently translating the full document for a more detailed analysis but did provide a preliminary analysis of the 6-page English summary that was released.

The new recommendations are in stark contrast to the 2015 model that relied on the World Professional Association of Transgender Health’s (WPATH) “Standards of Care 7″ that pushed for medical intervention.

WPATH has since come under criticism by medical and mental health professionals for dogmatically adhering to “ideological views unsupported by evidence, its exclusion of ethical concerns, and its mischaracterization of basic science” and using cherry-picked data.

Meanwhile, in the United States, “gender identity” rather than persistent, ongoing gender dysphoria originating in childhood is being used by so-called “health care providers” to push minors to become lifelong medical patients.

The standard of care in the U.S. prevents medical professionals from questioning a child’s self-reported gender identity. It also prevents them from exploring possible underlying factors causing the dysphoria such as other mental health conditions or social contagion. In most states, if a child says that their gender identity is different from their biological sex, the protocol for care is administering puberty blockers, then cross-sex hormones, and, if they choose, surgical transition.

Parents are told that puberty blockers are reversible, but that’s not exactly true. Often, once a child begins down the road to medicalization with puberty blockers, they continue on to cross-sex hormones which can have permanent and devastating effects — everything from hair loss and/or growth of facial hair, a permanently deepened voice in females to osteoporosis and even cancer.


The propaganda comes straight from the White House.

Biden is upset that some states (like Florida) are pushing back on the sterilization and genital mutilation of children that have been given the Orwellian label “gender-affirming care.”

Here is Biden bringing up trans-ing the kids at an event that was supposed to be about gay marriage.

From a guy that has no idea what he’s saying half of the time and thinks that gender dysphoria is chosen and not a mental health condition.

But this is consistent with the medicalization of “gender identity” rather than the acknowledged mental health condition “gender dysphoria.”

The websites of the American Psychological Association, American Psychiatric Association, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention define “transgender” as an “umbrella term” that includes gender nonconformity, or the rejection of stereotypical preferences and behaviors.

The propaganda and manipulation used to pressure parents to “affirm” what may not be actual gender dysphoria is borderline criminal. Parents are often told that if they don’t affirm a minor’s gender identity, the child will commit suicide.

Schools are socially transitioning students behind parents’ backs and the “experts” think that’s fine.

This was clear in recent Congressional testimony by LGBTQ+ activist Jessie Pocock who said that parents don’t have the right to know that their kid has confusion about their gender or sexuality.

This same alleged “expert” who says that she has been working with youth for years testified before a Congressional committee that she didn’t think that “detransition” was real.

This contradicts the NBHW guidelines that state that there is “documented occurrence of detransition.”

And, of course, the Stunning and Brave™ Assistant Secretary for Health and four-star Admiral in the U.S. Public Health Service, Dr. Rachel (formerly Richard) Levine, is pushing for “affirmative care” including medical and surgical interventions while calling it “empowering.”

This is the same Levine that is grateful that he didn’t transition until after having his kids.

Levine is calling for Big Tech to censor “health misinformation” regarding so-called “gender-affirming care.”

Pray, tell… which disinformation should be censored, Admiral Levine? The treatment recommendations from Sweden — and Finland and the United Kingdom and Florida — or the American model that has hospitals bragging that this will be a cash cow for them?

What about that chick that doesn’t think that detransitioning is real? Should she be censored for “disinformation” or should it be the growing number of detransitioners — both male and female — who regret the permanent changes to their bodies?

Who decides what is “disinformation” and what isn’t?

Sexologist and science reporter Dr. Debra Soh is enjoying the freedom of Twitter 2.0 to post her thoughts.

Admiral Levine would want her censored.

This last one is a doozy and precisely why Levine and his ilk want to control the flow of information.

Dr. Soh is probably right.

Elon Smoked The Old Twitter Bird

ClashDaily’s Big Dawg has put his own spin on what’s been going down on the ol’ Bird App — the old Twitter is dead and Elon is building a new one.

Check out Doug’s latest piece, ‘Elon Smoked The Old Twitter Bird.’

Use promo code, ‘FIRST20’, for 20% off all prints. We print on luster paper, museum quality canvas, wood, and for all you metal-heads, we print on metal. We use only the finest inks. Custom sizes are available from small to couch-sized wall monsters.

Get yours today!

ClashDaily's Associate Editor since August 2016. Self-described political junkie, anti-Third Wave Feminist, and a nightmare to the 'intersectional' crowd. Mrs. Walker has taken a stand against 'white privilege' education in public schools. She's also an amateur Playwright, former Drama teacher, and staunch defender of the Oxford comma. Follow her humble musings on Twitter: @TheMrsKnowItAll and on Gettr @KarenWalker