Dutch Protocol

A critical research dossier
Protocol Studies International Evaluations Debate Documents Timeline FAQ About

About · Last reviewed 2026-05-16

About this site

Position

Dutch Protocol is a critical research project of Stichting Genderinfo i.o. We regard the Dutch Protocol as a dangerous development in adolescent care: irreversible hormonal and surgical interventions in minors on the basis of evidence classified as "very low certainty" by every independent evaluator. This site documents how it could come this far, what harm has been done, and why countries have been reversing course one by one since 2020. We are not neutral — we are source-faithful.

1. Publisher

This site is maintained by Stichting Genderinfo i.o. — a Dutch foundation in formation whose statutory aim is public information about gender care based on peer-reviewed scientific literature, official evaluation reports and publicly available sources. The foundation was set up in 2025 and registered in the Netherlands. The site is not affiliated with Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit, the Ministry of Health (VWS) or any government or university body.

Correspondence address and board composition are available on request via the contact page.

2. Our position

In our assessment, the Dutch Protocol is not defensible as routine clinical practice for minors. That conclusion rests on:

  • The judgment of virtually every independent national evaluator since 2020 (NICE, SBU, COHERE, Cass, Ukom, Sundhedsstyrelsen).
  • The absence of any randomised controlled trial in this domain.
  • The documented shift in patient population since 2015, which renders the original inclusion criteria unusable.
  • The acknowledgement by clinicians in the WPATH Files that valid informed consent from 13–16-year-olds cannot effectively be given for loss of fertility and sexual function.
  • The existence of documented detransition cohorts in which young adults report that their decision in adolescence was not well considered.

We bring this position not as opinion, but as the source-faithful reading of the available evidence. Anyone who disagrees is invited to consult the primary sources — all citations lead to the original publication.

3. Editorial principles

  • Every factual claim is supported by a Vancouver footnote with source.
  • The claims of the original researchers are reproduced integrally (see /debate/response-vumc-amsterdam-umc/) — and then weighed against external evidence.
  • Independent systematic reviews (NICE, SBU, Cass, COHERE) weigh more heavily than publications from the original clinic.
  • Opinion and commentary pieces are cited as part of the debate, not as factual source — see /methodology/.
  • Corrections are documented; "Last reviewed" indicates the date of the most recent check.

4. Conflict of interest statement

The editors and board of Stichting Genderinfo i.o. receive no funding from pharmaceutical companies, clinics, patient organisations, law firms or advocacy groups — on either side of the debate. The project is funded from the foundation's own means. Conflict of interest statements are available on request.

5. What this site is not

  • Not a government body and not a university institute.
  • Not a provider of medical, legal or policy advice.
  • Not a replacement for primary sources — all references lead to the original publication.
  • No pretension of neutrality. But an obligation of source-faithfulness.

6. Corrections

Factual inaccuracies can be reported via the contact form. Every correction received is verified against the primary source; if confirmed, the page is amended and the change noted at the bottom, with date.