Who Knew? Affirming the Mental Illness of Gender Dysphoria Only Created Deeper Mental Illness

n April, a bombshell study out of Finland was published which documented the great psychological harm that is being done to these children. The study charted an increase in psychiatric illness among youth after they had undergone gender transition.

A landmark Finnish study of more than 2,000 adolescents has dealt a serious blow to the central promise of the child ‘gender medicine’ movement.
Adolescents who undergo sex alteration procedures experience a sharp rise in severe psychiatric illness in the years that follow, a landmark Finnish study has found.
The peer-reviewed study, published this week in Acta Paediatrica found that specialist psychiatric treatment rates rose more than sixfold among males and more than doubled in females after intervention.
Led by Professor Riittakerttu Kaltiala of Tampere University Hospital, the study tracked every young person under 23 who contacted Finland’s nationally centralised gender identity clinics between 1996 and 2019. The cohort of 2,083 individuals was followed for up to 25 years, compared against 16,643 matched population controls.
Because Finland’s health registers are mandatory and patients cannot opt out, the dataset captured the complete fate of every gender-referred adolescent in the country over that period.
“Severe psychiatric morbidity is common among gender-referred adolescents and appears to be more prevalent in those referred after the recent surge in referrals,” the study’s authors concluded.
“Psychiatric needs do not subside after medical gender reassignment.”

I recounted here a week or so ago my battle with Google’s AI before it finally admitted that its first answer to the question of whether hormonal or surgical “treatment” of teens who suffer from gender dysphoria actually reduces their suicide rate was wrong, and in fact, rather than seeing a reduction of some 47% in suicides, newer studies showed that they increased or stayed the same. It did better this time on an inquiry as to European countries and great Britain ending “gender affirming care” for adolescents:

AI Overview

Several European nations and Great Britain have restricted or moved away from routine medicalized gender-affirming care for adolescents, citing a lack of robust long-term evidence for safety and efficacy.

Key Countries and Policy Shifts

Great Britain (England, Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland): The National Health Service (NHS) stopped routine prescribing of puberty blockers for minors outside of formal clinical research trials following the independent Cass Review, and the UK government subsequently implemented an indefinite ban on the sale and supply of puberty-suppressing hormones to minors.

Sweden: Sweden's National Board of Health and Welfare severely restricted the use of puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones for adolescents in 2022, limiting them to exceptional clinical trial settings after concluding the risks outweighed the potential benefits.

Finland: The Finnish Council for Choices in Health Care (PALKO) adjusted guidelines to prioritize psychological and psychosocial support as the primary line of treatment for minors, restricting surgical and hormonal interventions to exceptional or research contexts.

Norway: The Norwegian Healthcare Investigation Commission recommended a more cautious approach, advising that puberty blockers and gender-affirming hormone treatments for minors under 18 be treated as experimental care within clinical studies.

Denmark and France: While stopping short of total bans, health authorities and medical academies in Denmark and France have urged extreme caution, shifting guidelines to emphasize psychotherapy and tightening criteria for medical interventions due to concerns over overdiagnosis and weak evidence.

Core Reasons Cited

Systematic Reviews: Independent reviews (such as the UK's Cass Review) found the evidence base supporting the long-term benefits and safety of puberty blockers and hormone therapy in youth to be weak or inconclusive.
Unknown Long-Term Impacts: Health ministries have raised concerns regarding potential impacts on bone density, fertility, and lifelong medical dependence.
Shift in Model: Affected nations have generally pivoted from an early-intervention "gender-affirmative" model toward holistic developmental evaluations and psychotherapy as the first line of care for adolescent gender distress.

Grok says the same thing:

Several European countries and the UK have restricted — not always fully banned — puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones for adolescents with gender dysphoria. The changes follow systematic evidence reviews that found the research base to be weak, benefits uncertain, and risks (bone density, fertility, unknown effects on brain development, comorbidities) poorly quantified. Referrals also rose sharply, especially among adolescent-onset natal females.

United KingdomThe Cass Review (2024) concluded there is no reliable high-quality evidence that puberty blockers improve gender dysphoria, mental health, or other outcomes, and that effects on cognition and sexual development are unknown.

NHS England ended routine prescribing of puberty blockers for under-18s in March 2024; they are available only in research trials.
An indefinite UK-wide ban on new NHS and private prescriptions of puberty blockers for gender dysphoria in under-18s took effect in late 2024/early 2025 (existing patients can continue). It is scheduled for review in 2027.
Cross-sex hormones are subject to “extreme caution”; they are not routinely offered under 16 and require a strong clinical rationale under 18. NHS England consulted in 2026 on ending routine use for all under-18s.
Scotland’s gender clinic also stopped prescribing blockers and hormones to under-18s.

A clinical trial (PATHWAYS) is underway to generate better evidence.Nordic countriesThese countries moved first and most clearly toward restriction after their own reviews.

Finland (2020): Psychotherapy is first-line. Puberty blockers and hormones may be used only after comprehensive psychiatric evaluation, generally from early puberty for blockers and from age 16 for hormones, and only in limited cases. Finnish authorities described medical transition of minors as experimental.
Sweden (2022): National Board of Health and Welfare concluded that, at the group level, risks of blockers and cross-sex hormones outweigh benefits. Treatment is limited to exceptional cases or clinical trials.
Norway (2023): The Healthcare Investigation Board recommended classifying puberty blockers, hormones, and surgery for minors as experimental and restricting them to research settings.
Denmark: Practice tightened sharply. The share of referred youth offered hormones fell from about 67% to about 10%. New guidance emphasizes psychological care and limits medical treatment mainly to those with dysphoria from early childhood.

None of the Nordics enacted a complete legal prohibition comparable to the UK blocker ban; treatment remains possible in tightly defined exceptional or research circumstances. Legal gender recognition has simultaneously become easier in some of these countries (self-ID from 16 in several).

Other European countries

France: The National Academy of Medicine (2022) called for “the greatest reserve” because of possible effects on growth, bone health, and fertility. There is no statutory ban; off-label prescription with parental consent remains possible. A restrictive bill was not enacted.
Netherlands: Origin of the “Dutch protocol.” Guidelines have not been rewritten as restrictively as in the Nordics. Parliament ordered an outcomes investigation. A 2026 Health Council advisory described the pathway as carefully designed and saw no reason, on current (limited) data, to stop offering treatments after thorough assessment.
Germany, Austria, Switzerland: Medical societies issued 2025 guidelines that continue to allow treatment after assessment. Germany has had internal debate and evidence reviews.
Spain: Relatively permissive after the 2023 self-determination law; access varies by region.
Some Eastern or Central European countries (Hungary, parts of Italy under review) have tighter legal or practical limits.

ContextThese policy shifts were driven by evidence reviews (Cass, Swedish SBU, Finnish COIN/PALKO, Norwegian UKOM, etc.) rather than by a single political line. Reviews consistently rated the evidence for benefits as low or very low quality and highlighted the changed caseload (rapid-onset cases, high rates of autism, trauma, and mental-health comorbidity). Advocacy groups have criticized the restrictions as denying care; clinicians and health authorities in the restricting countries have framed them as a return to ordinary evidence-based standards given the unknowns. Practice across Europe remains heterogeneous: the UK and Nordics are the most restrictive on medicalization of minors; several Western and Southern countries still allow broader access after assessment.