ALFABET bende
Abbreviations Identities Topics About
2
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T
U
V
W
X
Y
Z
← All topics

Cancel

Anyone who deviates from the ideology is punished.

Canceling—the deliberate damage to the reputation, career, or social standing of someone who deviates from the prevailing ideology—is one of the most visible tools of the woke movement. It is not about debate or conviction, but about exclusion and humiliation.

Documented cases abound. Scholars who publish gender-critical research lose their positions. Journalists who question transition practices involving minors are offered resignations. Columnists who acknowledge biological reality have their contracts terminated. In all these cases, there is no substantive rebuttal—only pressure on employers, advertisers, and platforms.

How Cancellation Works

A coordinated group identifies a target. Statements are taken out of context or deliberately misinterpreted. Employers, sponsors, and platforms are bombarded with complaints and threats. The pressure is rarely legal—it’s about reputational damage and economic pressure. The result is an atmosphere of self-censorship that extends far beyond the immediate targets.

What distinguishes cancel culture from ordinary social criticism is the asymmetry: it is never used against the movement itself, only against outsiders and dissidents. Critics within the LGBTQ+ community itself—think of lesbians who object to the replacement of biological sex with gender identity—are hit just as hard as external critics.

The Price of Self-Censorship

Self-censorship is the silent damage of cancel culture. People remain silent not because they agree, but because they cannot bear the consequences. Teachers, doctors, policymakers, and journalists keep quiet about legitimate doubts. This undermines the quality of the debate and, ultimately, the quality of decisions regarding education, healthcare, and policy.

What the international reevaluation shows

The issue of “canceling” is not separate from the broader medical reevaluation. The Cass Review (2024) in the United Kingdom led to a de facto halt on puberty blockers within NHS England. SBU and Karolinska in Sweden withdrew their support for medical transition in minors outside of a study context starting in 2022. Finland (COHERE, 2020) and Norway (UKOM, 2023) followed suit. NICE (2020) classified the evidence base for puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones as “very low certainty.”

The Netherlands is lagging behind. The Dutch Protocol—once touted as an international model—is being abandoned elsewhere. The data on which it is based do not come from randomized trials, but from observational studies with cohorts that are not generalizable to the current referral population.

How the discussion is being stifled

Around the issue of “canceling,” the gender-affirming model is defended through moral pressure and scientific claims that do not hold up to scrutiny. Anyone who refers to the Cass Review or the Scandinavian shift is not given a rebuttal but is labeled transphobic. The WPATH Files (2024) showed that even within WPATH there was uncertainty regarding informed consent for minors.

Parents who come forward with concerns are dismissed as troublemakers. Clinicians who advocate for caution face internal complaints and public campaigns. The result: only one side of the story remains heard.

International Reconsideration

In recent years, various national health authorities have distanced themselves from the gender-affirmative model for minors. The common denominator: evidence of 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 the routine prescribing of puberty blockers outside of a study setting.

  • 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 the 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.