It's not banned in any countries. The 3 countries that have made changes are the UK, Sweden and Finland.
We can leave the UK out for now, it is a complete mess and Brexit, which was obviously going to hurt the UK badly, has been worse than imagined they are economically and politically irrelevant right now.
Finland has been reviewing and updating all their rules and have put a temporary halt on everything while new legislation is drafted. Not sure which way they are heading.
Sweden is the most high profile case and the reasons for the change isn't because they don't believe in the therapy. Sweden has been one of the most progressive countries in this area. In 1972 they made all the aspects of transitioning covered under the national healthcare program. It has been widely accepted since and basically a none issue until recently. Since the late 90's Sweden has averaged about 300-400 cases a year.
In 2022 they had 800+ people applying for treatment. This is double the average so they decided that they needed to investigate why there was such a sudden increase. So the Karolinska hospital limited the cases for those under 18 until they can determine why the sudden increase in applications has occurred in a place where it has been widely accepted for decades.
There is some belief that the increase in ASD may be a contributing factor and it needs more research. The two groups where the increase is coming from is a large increase in female to male and people pursuing treatment after the onset of puberty. They don't feel like they have an understanding of why these groups have seen the most change.
There is no push to stop these transitions, only to make sure they are being handled in the right way and helping the right people. This will all be determined within the medical community and not the political one as it should be. Here are the key changes from the Swedish National Board of Health and Welfare, it seems like a reasonable approach (although leaves a lot of questions still open):
Key Changes in the Updated Guidelines
'Following a comprehensive review of evidence, the NBHW concluded that the evidence base for hormonal interventions for gender-dysphoric youth is of low quality, and that hormonal treatments may carry risks. NBHW also concluded that the evidence for pediatric transition comes from studies where the population was markedly different from the cases presenting for care today. In addition, NBHW noted increasing reports of detransition and transition-related regret among youth who transitioned in recent years.
NBHW emphasized the need to treat gender dysphoric youth with dignity and respect, while providing high quality, evidence-based medical care that prioritizes long-term health. NBHW also emphasized that identity formation in youth is an evolving process, and that the experience of natural puberty is a vital step in the development of the overall identity, as well as gender identity.
In light of above limitations in the evidence base, the ongoing identity formation in youth, and in view of the fact that gender transition has pervasive and lifelong consequences, the NBHW has concluded that, at present, the risks of hormonal interventions for gender dysphoric youth outweigh the potential benefits.
As a result of this determination, the eligibility for pediatric gender transition with puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones in Sweden will be sharply curtailed. Only a minority of gender dysphoric youth—those with the “classic” childhood onset of cross-sex identification and distress, which persist and cause clear suffering in adolescence—will be considered as potentially eligible for hormonal interventions, pending additional, extensive multidisciplinary evaluation.
For all others, including the now-prevalent cohort of youth whose transgender identities emerged for the first time during or after puberty, psychiatric care and gender-exploratory psychotherapy will be offered instead. Exceptions will be made on a case-by-case basis, and the number of clinics providing pediatric gender transition will be
reduced to a few highly specialized centralized care centers.'
I get why people are concerned (although it has been blown completely out of proportion) and I have certainly seen cases that look pretty shocking, but in the end I am not even remotely qualified to opine with any real knowledge or understanding of the issues.
As long as it remains in the political realm, it will be difficult to make any real progress in the US.