Heavily subsidized trans organizations thought they had a monopoly on opinion formation, but common sense has prevailed

Elections can be a great relief. Particularly, of course, if, after years in which the legitimate needs of the population were ignored and much ideological pushback threatened to be laid down in legislation, common sense demands its rights and brings about a change. As happened on November 22.

It is not yet certain whether these elections will result in the formation of a new right-wing cabinet in the short term. The House will now enjoy the ‘May recess’ and that also means that negotiations will not really resume until Monday, May 6. This is being worked on, because May 15 is the deadline for the informants Van Zwol and Dijkgraaf.

But in any case: how much the new relationships are already a blessing for the country became clear this week when a (narrow) parliamentary majority (73-70) declared that this outgoing cabinet should immediately withdraw the new Transgender Act. This withdrawal means that science and experts are finally being listened to, that the monopoly of activists is finally being broken, and above all: that the underlying problem will finally receive serious attention.

Moral disqualification

In the meantime, D66 minister Franc Weerwind does not intend to take any notice of the motion from SGP and NSC. He is of the opinion, as he reported on X, that the motion is ‘inappropriate both substantively and procedurally’. Substantive because the bill and the people involved deserve a debate. Procedural because the motion torpedoes a ‘careful legislative process’ and deprives the House of Representatives of the opportunity to conduct ‘dialogue’ about the bill.

These two tweets actually bring together all the misery of the past few years.

First of all, it is of course inappropriate and rather haughty to call a parliamentary statement ‘inappropriate’. That is a moral disqualification that does not pass. Moral self-exaltation and hypocrisy often go hand in hand, and if anywhere, that is also the case here.

Anyone who has followed the discussion of the bill will remember that the House of Representatives last discussed it in September 2022. That’s where things went terribly wrong. The progressive groups thought the bill would be a hammer blow. They presented it as if this law were only an ‘administrative act’, and who is against the right to change your sexual identity in the basic administration? Aren’t we all for self-determination?

But in the meantime, other aspects of the bill – despite the intended monopoly of the trans activists – had come to light. And those facts and questions had led to doubts among CDA and VVD. Weerwind itself did not have time to respond that day, and since then – with so much doubt and division within the coalition – nothing has been heard from the cabinet. The opportunity to conduct ‘dialogue’ was deliberately not seized by the previous government for a year and a half.

After the elections last November, the bill was declared controversial. Which means that it was up to a new cabinet whether or not to continue the discussion of this bill.

In the meantime, the social debate continued. The TV program Zembla already made it clear that treatment in gender clinics is based on a very shaky scientific basis. The extensive Cass report recently appeared in England, which made it clear that the treatment usually chosen in gender clinics, which is based on the importance of ‘affirming’ feelings of gender doubt and treating them medically (with puberty blockers, cross sex hormones and possibly surgical interventions). Psychological and psychotherapeutic treatment of young people with gender dysphoria, according to Dr. Hilary Cass, is much better, because there are often very different problems underlying the gender dysphoria.

Beating a dead horse

What does this have to do with the Transgender Act? A lot. The social and legal ‘affirmation’ of gender dysphoria often turns out to be a first step towards this medical ‘affirmation’, with irreparable consequences.

So it was flogging a dead horse, this Transgender Act. And hence the idea to just sweep him off the table altogether. NSC spokeswoman Nicolien van Vroonhoven used the argument that with this law, spaces that have until now been exclusively intended for women (toilet rooms, changing rooms, women’s prisons, etc.) would also become accessible to men who present themselves as trans women with malicious intent. That is also important (because there is more going on here than just a single incident), but it is not decisive as an argument.

The core of the discussion is that we are confronted with extensive psychological problems among thousands of young people, that these problems often take the form of gender dysphoria (but very often go away) and that the treatments that are currently being chosen are anything but the interests of these young people.

It is a pity that this facet does not want to get through to the losers of this debate. The BNN/VARA website ‘Joop’ spoke of a victory of ‘fierce right-wing anti-trans sentiment’ – shrill words when we take the real and sincere arguments against the law seriously. Lisa van Ginneken (former D66 MP and initiator of the proposal) was allowed to shed her tears in an interview with de Volkskrant and argued, among other things, that the ‘trans organizations have not been heard’. The reality is that heavily subsidized organizations such as Transvisie and Transgender Netwerk Nederland thought they had a monopoly on opinion formation and thought they could smuggle the bill through parliament. Opponents were disqualified from protests as ‘transphobic’ and worse https://twitter.com/CoachCaroline/status/1783001454262808602 treated.

Real and sincere commitment

Until recently, these voices had free rein, but the November elections have drowned out their sound by the insights of common sense and – what is more – real and sincere involvement in the issues at hand. The fact that Weerwind is now speaking big words is not only hypocritical, but, given these changed relationships, it is above all a desperately empty gesture.

Bart Jan Spruyt is a historian and journalist. His columns about politics and society appear every Saturday in Wynia’s Week.

Wynia’s Week always appears, twice a week. It is the donors who make that possible. Not a donor yet? Look HERE. Thank you!