This is a bit niche but for those of us directly impacted by treatment for gender distressed/gender dysphoric young people, it’s great news.
Put simply, the Dutch protocol is how we ended up with the Tavi not differentiating between the old cohort of male adolescents who had identified as the opposite sex from a young age and persisted into adolescence. This group was the target group for the introduction of puberty blockers. They were seen to be mentally stable with little evidence of underlying issues (am generalising here, but you’ll get the point). As the cohort started to change over recent years to more adolescent girls who had not shown any signs of gender distress as children and who were presenting with a number of underlying issues, the protocol was equally applied to them as well- no questioning was made if the protocol was suitable for them as well.
This is now being questioned by the author of the original study and it is suggested that differing paths including where mental heath support might be more appropriate.
twitter.com/zaneemma/status/1309517727598481409?s=21
Link to paper: pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2020/09/17/peds.2020-010611
“ This raises the question whether the positive outcomes of early medical interventions also apply to adolescents who more recently present in overwhelming large numbers for transgender care, including those that come at an older age, possibly without a childhood history of GI. It also asks for caution because some case histories illustrate the complexities that may be associated with later-presenting transgender adolescents and describe that some eventually detransition”