Topics
The intolerance of the LGBTQ+ movement manifests itself in various areas. Below you will find critical analyses by topic.
The Cass Review
Evidence for puberty blockers is lacking.
Scandinavia stopped
Sweden, Finland, and Denmark reversed course.
ROGD
Social influence on gender identity in young people.
Academic freedom
Documented cases of censorship.
ESG backlash
When activism becomes too costly.
Where medical certainty has been shattered
The ideological framework within which the topics below are situated relies on a medical claim that has collapsed in several countries over the past four years. The Cass Review (2024) led to a halt on puberty blockers in NHS England outside of clinical trials. SBU and Karolinska (Sweden, 2022), COHERE (Finland, 2020), UKOM (Norway, 2023), and NICE (UK, 2020) took similar steps. The WPATH Files (2024) revealed that uncertainty regarding informed consent also exists within WPATH.
The Netherlands is lagging behind in this area. The Dutch Protocol—once the international hallmark of the gender-affirming model—is being abandoned elsewhere. Policies that rely on an abandoned protocol deserve revision.
Why the Criticism Is Widely Supported
Opposition to the excesses of the LGBTQ+ movement does not come from a single political camp. Lesbians oppose the replacement of biological sex with gender identity. Sports federations oppose allowing trans women in women’s competitions. Women’s rights organizations oppose the loss of women-only spaces. Pediatricians and psychiatrists oppose the medicalization of young people. Detransitioners oppose the silencing of their stories.
This broad coalition shows that the debate is not about left versus right. It is a debate about factual consequences versus ideological self-declaration. Anyone who interprets this as hate shuts down the conversation before it even begins.
How this topic page is structured
The topics below are separate entry points into a single ongoing narrative: the way in which a political movement shields its claims from public scrutiny. Cancel culture and self-censorship are the mechanisms that make this possible. Topics such as trans people in sports, children and gender, ROGD, and the Cass Review describe specific areas where the consequences are measurable. ESG backlash, woke companies, and academic freedom demonstrate how the movement operates beyond its original domain.
Each topic is intended as a starting point for further reading—not as a conclusion. The sources at the bottom of each page refer to the international reevaluation that forms the framework.
International Reconsideration
In recent years, various national health authorities have distanced themselves from the gender-affirming model for minors. The common denominator: the evidence for lasting benefits is lacking, while the risks are real.
Cass Review (2024). Review commissioned by NHS England, conducted by Hilary Cass. Conclusion: the evidence base for puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones in minors is weak. NHS England ceased routine prescribing of puberty blockers outside of clinical trials.
SBU — Sweden (2022). The Swedish Agency for Health Technology Assessment (SBU) and Karolinska University Hospital discontinued the use of puberty blockers and hormones for minors outside of clinical trials. Reason: lack of evidence for effectiveness and safety.
NICE — United Kingdom (2020). Two NICE evidence reviews (puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones) classified the evidence base as very low certainty. None of the studies identified met modern methodological standards.
COHERE — Finland (2020). The Finnish Council for Choices in Health Care revised its protocol: psychotherapy as first-line treatment, medical transition for minors only in exceptional cases and within a research setting.
UKOM — Norway (2023). The Norwegian UKOM classified transgender care for minors as experimental; existing protocols do not meet the requirements for evidence-based care.
WPATH Files (2024). Internal discussions among WPATH clinicians acknowledge that informed consent with minors is problematic and that serious side effects (bone density, fertility, cognitive development) are not adequately explained.