Science and common sense are slowly gaining ground.

The Norwegian Healthcare Investigation Board announced last week that it will be revising the current guidelines for so-called “gender-affirming care”, which is provided to minors, because they no longer believe these are evidence-based. The board acknowledged that the increasing number of teenage boys identifying themselves as men post-puberty is still understudied.

According to the updated guidelines proposed, the use and provision of cross-sex hormonal therapy, puberty blocking agents, and surgery related to transition would be limited in clinical settings and restricted only for research purposes. Norway has joined Finland, Sweden and the United Kingdom to introduce greater safeguards for children. Eight states in the United States have so far banned affirmative action for those under 18. Tennessee is the newest to do this.

It’s great that more professional groups are recognising the experimental nature this approach has in children. Existing research indicates that many children with gender dysphoria become comfortable in their own bodies after puberty. Those who wish to transition abruptly post-puberty are likely experiencing social contagion. These studies were dismissed by activists because they didn’t fit their preferred narrative.

This narrative will, however, continue to crumble. In a recent article in the academic journal Archives of Sexual Behavior, the author discusses the fact that the placebo effect was not adequately considered when interpreting the newer findings in support of transitioning among children. The term “placebo” is often used to describe a patient’s reaction to an ineffective intervention. However, it can also refer to the positive psychological and physical effects of undergoing treatment.

Participating in a research study can bring a patient special attention and an expectation that his or her condition (such as gender dysphoria), will improve. This may be beneficial in a therapeutic environment, but it shouldn’t affect the results of a study because researchers want to determine objectively whether a treatment is effective. It is important to consider this when evaluating interventions which can affect a person’s fertility and future sexual function, as well as their long-term health.

It may be a small victory, but I’ll take it — both because Norway changed course and because an academic paper that further questioned gender ideology was published.