Critical research dossier · Last reviewed 2026-05-16
The Dutch Protocol
How a Dutch experiment on adolescents became the model for medical treatment of gender dysphoria in minors — and why, since 2020, several countries have restricted it.
What this site is about
The Dutch Protocol — puberty suppression from early puberty, followed by cross-sex hormones and later surgery — was developed in the Netherlands and later adopted internationally (source). Puberty suppression was meant to buy time for diagnosis and decision-making, but the Cass Review found no evidence that puberty blockers buy time to think, since the vast majority of young people go on to hormones (source). The evidence on effects is weak: NICE (2020) rated the evidence for puberty blockers as "very low certainty" (source), SBU (Sweden, 2022) found the evidence insufficient (source) and the Cass Review (2024) found insufficient and/or inconsistent evidence on psychological and psychosocial effects (source). Since 2020, the Cass Review (UK), SBU (Sweden), COHERE (Finland) and NICE have examined the evidence base. The Netherlands, where it all started, kept its approach: on 30 June 2026 the Gezondheidsraad wrote that Dutch care is carefully organised and saw no reason to organise it differently, while rating the evidence for effects "low to very low" (source).
New — Section VII
The business model — follow the money
Who provides and who pays for transgender care in the Netherlands? Read the longread → · Macro analysis →
Latest news
17 June 2026
FTC and four states sue WPATH over deceptive claims about pediatric medical transition
The Federal Trade Commission, joined by Alaska, Iowa, Nebraska and Texas, has filed a federal complaint against the World Professional Association for Transgender Health. The allegation: WPATH's Standards of Care misled parents about the necessity, safety and effectiveness of puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones and surgery in minors.
What actually happened
In the Netherlands, services for children and adolescents with gender incongruence date from 1987 (source). The approach later known as the Dutch Protocol was developed by Peggy Cohen-Kettenis, founder of the Utrecht clinic; in 1998 she and van Goozen, then at the academic hospital in Utrecht, published a case study of a girl who had started puberty blockers at age 13 (source). The first outcome study (de Vries et al. 2011) covered 70 adolescents; de Vries et al. 2014 reported on 55 of them. Neither had a control group, and the Cass Review rated the 2011 study as of moderate quality, with no change in gender dysphoria (source). The Endocrine Society guideline and WPATH SOC 7 influenced almost all other guidelines, few of which were based on a systematic review of the evidence (source).
At the Tavistock GIDS in the UK fewer than 50 children were seen per year before 2009; from 2014 referrals rose exponentially to roughly 5,000 in 2021/22, a figure that according to the Cass Review may include double counting (source). According to the Cass Review the current group is a different cohort from that of the earlier studies, and the approach was extended to a broader group of adolescents who would not have met the criteria of the original Dutch study (source). In her foreword Cass called the debate exceptionally toxic and wrote that in few other areas of healthcare are professionals so afraid to discuss their views openly (source).
The debate became visible in detransition research, in the WPATH Files (according to Environmental Progress, members know that children and adolescents cannot grasp the lifelong consequences of treatment; that is the reading of Environmental Progress — of the members approached, one confirmed his own statements and another disputed the interpretation) (source), and in court cases like Bell v Tavistock (the High Court ruled against the clinic in December 2020; the Court of Appeal allowed the clinic's appeal on 17 September 2021 (source)). In March 2024, before the Cass final report of April 2024, NHS England decided that puberty blockers are no longer available as a routine commissioning treatment option for under-18s (source).
The evidence in four figures
de Vries 2014 cohort
n = 55
55 of the first 70 adolescents were followed up (de Vries 2014). According to Biggs, the main evidence for the protocol came from one study of 70 adolescents (source)
Continuation GnRHa → CSH
93–98%
Share of those who started puberty blockers who went on to cross-sex hormones in Dutch and UK studies (Cass Review: 93%, 98% and 98%). The Cass Review found no evidence that puberty blockers buy time to think (source)
RCTs
0
No randomised controlled trials were identified in the SBU systematic review of hormone treatment in children with gender dysphoria (search up to November 2021) (source)
The dossier
Section I
The Protocol
What the protocol claims to be, where it actually comes from, and which assumptions have never been tested.
Section II
The so-called "scientific basis"
The outcome studies of the Dutch clinics: a handful of publications without a control group.
Section III
International rollout
How the approach spread through guidelines and clinics, and how several countries have revised practice since 2020. See also the comparative table.
Section IV
Evaluations and the turn
Cass Review, SBU, COHERE, Karolinska, Ukom, WPATH Files — what independent researchers found when they actually looked.
Section V
Criticism, harm, legal battles
Methodological and ethical objections, detransition, Bell v Tavistock, Skrmetti, and the response of Amsterdam UMC.
Section VI
Documents & sources
Primary publications, guidelines NL/international, timeline, glossary, people index.
Section VII — New
The business model — follow the money
Who provides and who pays for transgender care in the Netherlands — academic centres, private clinics and insurers. With macro analysis (SiRM demand scenarios).
Quick entry points
For parents
What to ask clinicians, how not to hand over the conversation.
For clinicians
Source pathway for health professionals who want to test the evidence base.
For journalists
Checklists and pitfalls for anyone reporting on this.
Reference
FAQ
Frequently asked questions with direct dossier references.
Timeline 1972–present
Chronology of publications, policy decisions and evaluations — with an anchor per event.
People index
Profiles of authors, clinicians and evaluators — Cohen-Kettenis, de Vries, Cass, Levine, Bell.
International comparison
Ten countries, one table: GnRHa, CSH, required setting, policy.
Glossary
Clinical, methodological and institutional terms with a dossier link per term.
Press kit
Key figures, key claim and spokesperson contact for journalists.
Citation: Stichting Genderinfo i.o. (2026). Dutch Protocol — The dossier of a globally exported treatment error. Accessed via https://dutchprotocol.com/. See also /cite/.