Entry › For journalists · Last reviewed 2026-05-16

For journalists and editorial offices

Source pathway, key figures, pitfalls and spokesperson contact for reporting on the Dutch Protocol and adolescent gender care.

Read this first

The /press-kit/ contains the quick brief: definition, key figures and contact. This page adds an editorial checklist and the most common pitfalls.

Checklist per topic

Refer to GnRHa without uncritically adopting the term "fully reversible" — see Cass Review.
Source claims: de Vries 2011, 2014.

Compare specific countries via /international/comparison/.
Distinguish systematic reviews (NICE, SBU, Cass) from political decisions (Tennessee, Florida).

State the source population: clinical cohort vs. online self-selection. See detransition, desistance.
Avoid citing Olson 2022 (already socially transitioned subgroup) as a general desistance figure.

State procedural/substantive: Bell v Tavistock was overturned on procedural, not substantive, grounds. See /debate/legal-cases/.

Unnamed assumption: that gender dysphoria causes psychological problems, and that medical treatment reduces them. This causal assumption has, according to critics, not been prospectively tested — see /debate/scientific-criticism/.
"The science is clear" — while the international evidence reviews (Cass, SBU, COHERE) emphasise exactly the weak evidence base. See /evaluations/.
Confusion between the Dutch original and international practice — the Cass Review documents substantial deviations. See /international/spread/.
"Suicide or transition" framing — clinicians warn that this formulation has no empirical basis (recorded in WPATH Files). See /evaluations/wpath-files-2024/.

Spokesperson contact

Stichting Genderinfo i.o., editorial office. See /contact/. For interview requests please state deadline and topic.