The minority stress model has become a well-used framework to explain and analyse health among LGBTQ people, and specifically among transgender and gender-diverse people (TGD), when it is sometimes called ‘the gender minority stress model’. Scholars have argued the need for critical discussions about some of the assumptions underlying the gender minority stress model and how it has been used and discussed. Drawing on a pluralistic understanding of theories and employing a Foucauldian understanding of critique, we discuss implicit assumptions and epistemological standpoints of the gender minority stress model and the connected limitations. We also ask what the concept of cisnormativity can give rise to in comparison with the minority stress framework. We make four arguments: 1) the calls for extensions to the model could be seen as a desire to understand and analyse TGD people's health from an all-encompassing perspective, resulting in theoretical vagueness and the silencing of excluded aspects; 2) in the gender minority stress literature, identity is largely taken for granted and there is no consideration of how power is constitutive for all subjects; 3) the model risks individualising the effects of social norms, and internalisation could be further theoretically developed in relation to the repression hypothesis; 4) in the translation process from LGB minorities to TGD, as well as in thinking about cisnormativity, the issue of gender-affirming care has largely been neglected. By initiating a critical discussion around these issues and illustrating how different theories and frameworks can illuminate different possibilities for thinking and knowing, we aim to open up new routes for thinking about TGD health and medicine.