Doubting Dutch

A new survey suggests that most people in the Netherlands disapprove of puberty blockers

Photo by Luna Wang on Unsplash

Psychology first

Only 5 per cent of people polled in the Netherlands—home to the puberty blocker-driven Dutch protocol for paediatric medical transition—support the use of these drugs as the primary response to gender-distressed youth.

Of six questions on paediatric medical transition put to 4,179 voters, a preference for psychological treatment (75 per cent) over puberty blockers was the only common ground across political party affiliation, according to pollster and entrepreneur Maurice de Hond. One in five people simply did not know what was best.

“Support for the medical approach [by political allegiance] does not exceed 15 per cent anywhere,” Mr de Hond wrote on his website. That figure of 15 per cent was from loyalists of the progressive-left PRO party.

For this question, respondents were told that minors with gender dysphoria “often face other issues as well”.

“In children with gender dysphoria, other issues often play a role as well, such as autism, depression, or trauma,” Mr de Hond said.

---

Council vetoed

A representative sample took the survey in late July to early August, after the Health Council of the Netherlands issued its June 30 report. The council acknowledged the weak evidence for the Dutch protocol but claimed there was no reason to restrict puberty blockers or cross-sex hormones because, based on treatment guidelines, their delivery was carefully organised.

A new, revised Dutch guideline for hormonal treatments is to be aligned with the 2022 standards of care (SOC-8) from the World Professional Association of Transgender Health (WPATH). Authors of SOC-8 include prominent Dutch clinicians such as psychiatrist Dr Annelou de Vries and clinical psychologist Dr Thomas Steensma.

Defending itself against US legal action for allegedly false and deceptive conduct, WPATH has argued that its standards are simply one opinion in a contested debate, no longer the gender gospel of the “science is settled” era.

SEGM@segm_ebm

WPATH now agrees that pediatric transgender medicine is marked by "medical and scientific uncertainty." It represents its SOC-8 recommendations merely as an expression of WPATH's "free speech." Yet for years, WPATH presented its guidelines as an unquestionable medical standard of

2:09 AM · Aug 11, 2026 · 46K Views

---

16 Replies · 227 Reposts · 1.02K Likes

Dutch courage

The new Dutch survey was commissioned by the authors of a June 25 opinion article in the newspaper Trouw calling for the Health Council to inquire deeply into the foundational assumptions of the Dutch protocol. The authors constitute a broad group, with clinicians and ex-politicians including Pieter Omtzigt, founder of the centrist New Social Contract party.

On the survey question whether doctors can predict the stability of a minor’s wish for a gender change, 30 per cent of respondents said No, with 23 per cent Sometimes, 19 per cent Yes, and 11 per cent Don’t know.

The question was dismissed as irrelevant by 17 per cent who insisted that a change of sex is not possible.¹

Mr de Hond said the persistence of a cross-sex identity “goes to the heart of the medical debate: can doctors reliably predict whether a child’s desire to change gender is permanent? Only 19 per cent of the Dutch population believe they can.”

Told that “Puberty blockers, hormones and subsequent operations can have lasting physical consequences”, respondents in the de Hond survey were asked what they made of these interventions.

They were pointless, according to 44 per cent, because “No one can truly change their sex.” Just over a quarter of those polled agreed these interventions “can help the body achieve the desired appearance”. Three in ten did not know or did not answer.

For this question, respondents were “presented with the potential physical consequences: effects on bone development, fertility, the cardiovascular system and brain development, and subsequent complications following surgery”.

Mr de Hond said: “The political divide is sharpest here: 59 per cent of PRO voters and 57 per cent of [centre-left] D66 voters see it as a way to achieve the desired appearance”.

By contrast, 81 per cent of those supporting the radical-right FVD party held the view that sex cannot be changed; only 6 per cent of PRO voters agreed with this proposition.

Respondents with higher education and those under age 35 were more likely to embrace medical interventions as a means to attain “the desired appearance”.

The poll also tested competing values with the question, “The evidence regarding the outcomes of these treatments is uncertain. Which factor should be given the greatest weight?”

Just over a third of respondents opted for “Preventing [minors] from receiving treatment too early that could have lasting consequences”.

The next largest group, 28 per cent, agreed with “Helping [minors] to accept their bodies and their sex”. Next, 24 per cent chose the aim of “Preventing [minors] from waiting too long for help that might be beneficial”. In effect, Mr de Hond said, almost two-thirds had adopted a cautious response.

“A difference between men and women is also evident on this question: women are more likely to opt for preventing premature treatment (41 per cent versus 32 per cent), whilst men are more likely to opt for acceptance (32 per cent versus 26 per cent),” he said.

On the question whether parents should have the right to refuse puberty blockers or cross-sex hormones for their child, agreement was strongest (63 per cent) in the age group (45- to 54-year-olds) most likely to have children still living at home.

Two-thirds of respondents answered Yes to the question “England, Sweden and Finland have become much more cautious about these treatments. Should the Netherlands follow suit?”

Even those who vote for the left-leaning PRO and D66 parties did not constitute majorities opposed to this precautionary, less medicalised posture.

These are significant results because the famous Amsterdam clinic presents itself as more cautious than the overseas adopters of its Dutch protocol for gender medicalisation of minors.

The protocol and its key 2011 and 2014 papers have more recently come under sharp scrutiny, and there have been anecdotal reports that clinical practice in the Netherlands does not live up to the seeming caution of its treatment guidelines.

“Across the six questions [in the poll], two distinct trends emerge,” Mr de Hond wrote. “The first is a sharp political divide, with PRO and D66 on one [left] side and JA21, PVV and FVD on the [right], whilst the CDA and VVD are closer to the right-wing bloc than to the centre.

“The second [trend] runs along the lines of education and age: those with higher levels of education and younger people have greater confidence in the medical approach, whilst those with lower levels of education and older people have considerably less.

“These two lines reinforce each other, but do not dominate everything: when asked what should actually be done, a large majority in virtually every group opts first for psychological support.”

1. In Dutch, the term Geslacht usually means sex, with Gender used as a loan word from English. The de Hond survey uses Geslacht, while gender dysphoria appears as Genderdysforie.