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

Pronouns

Language as a battleground of ideology.

The demand to use specific pronouns for individuals—under threat of disciplinary action, dismissal, or social exclusion—is one of the most controversial aspects of gender ideology. It directly infringes on freedom of conscience and freedom of speech: people are not being asked to be polite, but are being forced to take an ideological stance.

In the Netherlands, employers, universities, and government agencies have begun implementing pronoun policies. Employees who refuse to address a colleague using their chosen pronouns—including non-binary variants such as “they/them” or “she/her” for biologically male individuals—may face sanctions. The legal basis for this is controversial.

The difference between politeness and coercion

No one disputes that people have a right to respectful treatment. The problem is the coercion. An employee who refuses to go along with an ideological view of the nature of gender is doing nothing more than holding fast to their own convictions. Making this a punishable offense is a violation of freedom of conscience—a fundamental right intended precisely to protect minorities from majority coercion.

The linguistic change is also problematic in substance. Language is a shared system. The unilateral imposition of new meanings and rules by an activist movement undermines the communicative function of language. When the plural pronouns “they/them” are mandated as singular for a single person, this demonstrably leads to ambiguity in text and speech.

Freedom of speech is at stake

Legal experts and civil rights organizations warn that mandating specific language use sets a dangerous precedent. The line between prohibiting aggressive behavior and prescribing political views is thin. Once the government or an employer determines which ideological positions someone must convey in their language use, there is no logical endpoint.

What the international reevaluation reveals

The topic of pronouns 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 research 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

Regarding Pronouns, 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 the cause of the problem. Clinicians who advocate for caution face internal complaints and public campaigns. The result: only one side of the story remains audible.

International Reconsideration

In recent years, various national health authorities have distanced themselves from the gender-affirming 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 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 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 for minors is problematic and that serious side effects (bone density, fertility, cognitive development) are not adequately explained.