One of the main public relations strategies of "gender-affirming care" advocates is to deny that the model of treatment being used in American clinics differs in any significant way with the one now used in European clinics
- Over the past two years, and following systematic reviews of evidence, health authorities in Sweden, Finland, and the U.K. have agreed that no evidence exists that the benefits of puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones outweigh the risks.
- All three countries have since imposed measures to reduce drastically the accessibility of these drugs to teenagers.
Gender-affirming care differs from the more cautious Dutch approach that European nations are now implementing
- According to the affirmative model, gender identity is knowable from a very early age, and once declared, a child's gender identity calls for immediate and uncritical "affirmation" by parents, peers, clinicians, and teachers
- This contrasts starkly with the Dutch model, which, drawing on decades of research, acknowledges that gender dysphoria in children is very likely to desist by adolescence or early adulthood, in many cases resolving into homosexuality
- Behind these differing recommendations on social transition are diverging assumptions about the etiology of gender identity-the second point of disagreement.
The Dutch model is agnostic on the question of etiology.
- They focus on classification of symptoms and believe that the cause of mental pathology may be less important, clinically speaking, than the contours, tenacity, and severity of its presentation.
- Less willing to allow popular narratives to cloud their judgment, practitioners of the Dutch model have been more open to recognizing the importance of social influences on identity formation in youth.
- Practitioners of the affirmative model argue that the causes of mental-health problems should be investigated and treated prior to gender transition.
No comments:
Post a Comment