It is a topic that has sparked heated international debate for years: the safety and effectiveness of puberty blockers and gender-affirming hormones in young people with gender dysphoria. Following parliamentary questions on this matter, the Minister for Health, Welfare and Sport asked the Health Council for advice. On 30 June 2026, the Council issued its opinion: available evidence does not support organizing transgender care for young people in the Netherlands any differently from the current approach.
According to the committee, the Dutch care system is carefully structured, with a comprehensive diagnostic phase and support from multidisciplinary teams. At the same time, it acknowledges that too little is yet known about long-term effects, for example on cognition and fertility. The committee’s recommendations include better training for GPs and mental health professionals, stricter due diligence requirements in the Quality Standard, and national monitoring of outcomes, including regret and detransition.
A humanities perspective within the committee
Prof. Dr Enny Das, Professor of Communication and Influence at the Centre for Language Studies (CLS), was involved in the drafting of this advice as a member of the temporary committee on Transgender Care for Young People. Das had previously contributed to the report My Gender, Whose Care? (2023), which, commissioned by the Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport, mapped out the increase and changes in the demand for support among transgender people. Drawing on this background, and from a humanities perspective, she explained to the committee how transgender care for young people is organised in the Netherlands. She emphasises the importance of the committee’s broad composition, which includes not only doctors but also legal, methodological, theological and humanities expertise, because, in her view, requests for help or care are never isolated.
Requests for help and care do not arise in a vacuum — they are linked to a person’s social environment and to broader societal developments, such as legislation, the political climate and discrimination. Only when you take that context into account do you gain a proper understanding of the complexity of this issue. I find it very valuable that the discussion within the committee was led by experts, each of whom contributed a piece of that puzzle. – Enny Das
What science can and cannot say
Das also points out that the advisory report provides greater insight into the limits of scientific evidence within clinical practice; what conclusions scientific studies do and do not allow, and how these relate to the principles of evidence-based medicine. In her view, this helps to dispel misunderstandings about the role that scientific literature plays in decision-making regarding this care. She also highlights the recommendation to better equip GPs and mainstream mental health services to address exploratory gender-related issues, so that referrals to specialist gender centres are less frequent – something she believes can prevent the pathologisation and medicalisation of these issues.
The full advisory report can be read at gezondheidsraad.nl.