Good article, but the headline is misleading. Singapore has always been a cautious country on this. They didn’t just now start.
As a conservative southern Asian country, they’re not at all like progressive Western European countries that have, at least at one point, had essentially every facet of society overrun by transgenderism including schools, governments, institutions, media, hospitals and entertainment etc.
Transgender isn’t something that’s really talked about in Singapore and definitely not promoted, accepted or celebrated. They don’t really have a trans social contagion there.
Unlike the progressive western countries, Singapore never relied on WPATH and gender transition procedures were never routine, widely accepted or recommended there, nor was it promoted by schools, the media and medical institutions. So even before this, the surgeries and drugs were already basically inaccessible for under people 21 (which is the age of majority in Singapore).
As a result, Singapore is more on par with countries like Bulgaria, Turkey, Hungary and Georgia, which have also recently enacted new restrictions, but have still always been against it, rather than progressive countries like Sweden, Finland, the US or the UK, which once strongly supported child transition and then backtracked and are still supporting transgenderism in other ways…
Point taken. From another angle, it could be argued that the guidelines have some incautious features surprising for a conservative country: the gender-affirming language; the exceptional cases loophole for 18-21 year olds to be given cross-sex hormones.
Fair enough. I haven’t read the actual guidelines yet so I’m not sure about the actual language. But did the guidelines say what exactly counts as an “exceptional case” for 18-21 years olds? If not, I’m not sure how that loophole would actually be implemented in practice since it’s not clearly defined in the circular.
However, Singapore still has other restrictions and barriers on gender transition treatments for 18+ that were in place previously and would still make it virtually inaccessible for that age group regardless.
From what I can tell, that seems to be how a lot of similar conservative countries in Eastern Europe or Southern Asia restrict gender transition treatments for people over 18. Instead of passing formal explicit bans for adults, they instead enact various smaller restrictions and barriers that essentially create a de facto ban by making it virtually inaccessible.
Not to mention, there’s not really any providers offering gender procedures in Singapore anyway. There may be like 1 or 2 private providers, but the last public hospital to offer gender procedures to adults in Singapore reportedly stopped offering it in 2013, with most people there now going to Thailand get it instead.
You’re right. The guidelines are contradictory on that point: they allow exceptions when benefit can be proven & yet they elsewhere acknowledge the evidence base is too weak to make judgments about benefit.
It appears that even in these countries that have banned or restricted the practice of medical and surgical affirmation, they all seem to take a softly, softly approach.
As i understand it, the original Dutch protocol was started because the results of transition later in life were not very successful, so they thought that implementing them before puberty might be better.
So this was a first in itself. Let’s take an unsuccessful treatment in adults and inflict it on children.
Now when all the long term results are proving disastrous we have Governments slowly coming to their senses.
But I am waiting for one Government to finally state the truth.
This was a monstrous medical treatment started from a false premise, perpetuated by conflicted ideologues and not stopped early enough to save thousands of children from mutilation and multiple ongoing side effects and increased mortality.
From the content of the guidelines, it would seem that at least some of the clinicians on the working groups drafting the documents share the "gender-affirming" worldview. The net effect is nonetheless more cautious than is the case in Australia, for example.
Countries backtracking on access youth access to gender-affirming care include:
• Sweden (Kingdom of Sweden): Puberty blockers and hormones available only in "exceptional circumstances," prioritizing psychotherapy instead.
• Finland (Republic of Finland): Finland updated its guidelines in 2020 to prioritize psychological support, making puberty blockers and hormones rare for minors.
• United Kingdom (UK): Has banned the prescription of puberty blockers for children outside of research settings.
• Norway: Gender Affirming Care is considered experimental and restricted to clinical research settings.
• Denmark: Danish clinics have adopted a more conservative, cautious approach, mirroring changes in Norway and Sweden
• France: The French National Academy of Medicine is limiting the use of blockers and promoting psychosocial support instead.
• United States: 27 states have implemented bans or restrictions on care for transgender minors.
• And now Singapore.
I suspect that our gender physicians have dug a hole so deep to admit that they were wrong would be career ending.
Singapore isn’t really “backtracking” like those other countries since they never really supported it to begin with.
Like, Singapore is not a progressive country that was a leader in pushing and normalizing LGBTQ like Sweden and at no point did Singapore ever strongly support gender transition procedures or transgenderism in general.
Singapore has never been on board with transgenderism. The social contagion has never really existed there, transgenderism is not taught about in schools or promoted by the media and gender transition procedures have always been restricted and virtually inaccessible for both kids and adults and they’ve been recommending against it for minors in particular for years.
Unlike the progressive western countries, Singapore never relied on WPATH and gender transition procedures were never routine, widely accepted or recommended there, nor was it promoted by schools and medical institutions.
As a result, Singapore is more on par with countries like Bulgaria, Turkey, Hungary and Georgia, which have also recently enacted new restrictions, but have still always been against it, rather than progressive countries like Sweden, Finland, the US or the UK, which once strongly supported child transition and then backtracked and are still supporting transgenderism in other ways…
Good article, but the headline is misleading. Singapore has always been a cautious country on this. They didn’t just now start.
As a conservative southern Asian country, they’re not at all like progressive Western European countries that have, at least at one point, had essentially every facet of society overrun by transgenderism including schools, governments, institutions, media, hospitals and entertainment etc.
Transgender isn’t something that’s really talked about in Singapore and definitely not promoted, accepted or celebrated. They don’t really have a trans social contagion there.
Unlike the progressive western countries, Singapore never relied on WPATH and gender transition procedures were never routine, widely accepted or recommended there, nor was it promoted by schools, the media and medical institutions. So even before this, the surgeries and drugs were already basically inaccessible for under people 21 (which is the age of majority in Singapore).
As a result, Singapore is more on par with countries like Bulgaria, Turkey, Hungary and Georgia, which have also recently enacted new restrictions, but have still always been against it, rather than progressive countries like Sweden, Finland, the US or the UK, which once strongly supported child transition and then backtracked and are still supporting transgenderism in other ways…
Point taken. From another angle, it could be argued that the guidelines have some incautious features surprising for a conservative country: the gender-affirming language; the exceptional cases loophole for 18-21 year olds to be given cross-sex hormones.
Fair enough. I haven’t read the actual guidelines yet so I’m not sure about the actual language. But did the guidelines say what exactly counts as an “exceptional case” for 18-21 years olds? If not, I’m not sure how that loophole would actually be implemented in practice since it’s not clearly defined in the circular.
However, Singapore still has other restrictions and barriers on gender transition treatments for 18+ that were in place previously and would still make it virtually inaccessible for that age group regardless.
From what I can tell, that seems to be how a lot of similar conservative countries in Eastern Europe or Southern Asia restrict gender transition treatments for people over 18. Instead of passing formal explicit bans for adults, they instead enact various smaller restrictions and barriers that essentially create a de facto ban by making it virtually inaccessible.
Not to mention, there’s not really any providers offering gender procedures in Singapore anyway. There may be like 1 or 2 private providers, but the last public hospital to offer gender procedures to adults in Singapore reportedly stopped offering it in 2013, with most people there now going to Thailand get it instead.
You’re right. The guidelines are contradictory on that point: they allow exceptions when benefit can be proven & yet they elsewhere acknowledge the evidence base is too weak to make judgments about benefit.
It appears that even in these countries that have banned or restricted the practice of medical and surgical affirmation, they all seem to take a softly, softly approach.
As i understand it, the original Dutch protocol was started because the results of transition later in life were not very successful, so they thought that implementing them before puberty might be better.
So this was a first in itself. Let’s take an unsuccessful treatment in adults and inflict it on children.
Now when all the long term results are proving disastrous we have Governments slowly coming to their senses.
But I am waiting for one Government to finally state the truth.
This was a monstrous medical treatment started from a false premise, perpetuated by conflicted ideologues and not stopped early enough to save thousands of children from mutilation and multiple ongoing side effects and increased mortality.
From the content of the guidelines, it would seem that at least some of the clinicians on the working groups drafting the documents share the "gender-affirming" worldview. The net effect is nonetheless more cautious than is the case in Australia, for example.
Countries backtracking on access youth access to gender-affirming care include:
• Sweden (Kingdom of Sweden): Puberty blockers and hormones available only in "exceptional circumstances," prioritizing psychotherapy instead.
• Finland (Republic of Finland): Finland updated its guidelines in 2020 to prioritize psychological support, making puberty blockers and hormones rare for minors.
• United Kingdom (UK): Has banned the prescription of puberty blockers for children outside of research settings.
• Norway: Gender Affirming Care is considered experimental and restricted to clinical research settings.
• Denmark: Danish clinics have adopted a more conservative, cautious approach, mirroring changes in Norway and Sweden
• France: The French National Academy of Medicine is limiting the use of blockers and promoting psychosocial support instead.
• United States: 27 states have implemented bans or restrictions on care for transgender minors.
• And now Singapore.
I suspect that our gender physicians have dug a hole so deep to admit that they were wrong would be career ending.
Singapore isn’t really “backtracking” like those other countries since they never really supported it to begin with.
Like, Singapore is not a progressive country that was a leader in pushing and normalizing LGBTQ like Sweden and at no point did Singapore ever strongly support gender transition procedures or transgenderism in general.
Singapore has never been on board with transgenderism. The social contagion has never really existed there, transgenderism is not taught about in schools or promoted by the media and gender transition procedures have always been restricted and virtually inaccessible for both kids and adults and they’ve been recommending against it for minors in particular for years.
Unlike the progressive western countries, Singapore never relied on WPATH and gender transition procedures were never routine, widely accepted or recommended there, nor was it promoted by schools and medical institutions.
As a result, Singapore is more on par with countries like Bulgaria, Turkey, Hungary and Georgia, which have also recently enacted new restrictions, but have still always been against it, rather than progressive countries like Sweden, Finland, the US or the UK, which once strongly supported child transition and then backtracked and are still supporting transgenderism in other ways…
Very wise.