Woke companies
Activism you can’t ignore.
In recent years, major corporations have embraced gender activism as part of their brand and HR policies. What began as flying a rainbow flag in June has evolved into mandatory training sessions, policy changes, and a corporate culture in which employees are expected to endorse ideological positions—or face the consequences.
Mandatory “diversity and inclusion training” presents gender ideology as a scientifically established reality. Employees who object on substantive grounds are viewed as obstructive. Company intranets, newsletters, and events are used to spread ideological messages—without employees having the option to opt out without professional consequences.
Pinkwashing versus Real Change
Critics within the LGBTQ+ community itself point to “pinkwashing”: companies that fly rainbow flags in Western countries but simply do business as usual in countries where homosexuality is a criminal offense. The activist façade primarily serves brand image and internal HR purposes, not the well-being of truly vulnerable LGBTQ+ individuals elsewhere in the world.
The economic power of large corporations makes their involvement in ideological campaigns problematic. When an employer of thousands exposes its employees to specific political and ideological messages and punishes dissent, the power imbalance is enormous. This is not the company’s free speech—it is the use of economic power to enforce ideological conformity.
The ESG Agenda
ESG (Environmental, Social, Governance) criteria are used by major investors to evaluate companies. Social criteria increasingly include scores on LGBTQ+ inclusion policies, as measured by activist organizations. Companies that want to score high—and thereby gain access to ESG-linked capital—have a financial incentive to embrace gender activism, regardless of the views of their employees or customers.
What the international reevaluation reveals
The theme of “woke” companies 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 “woke” companies, the gender-affirming model is defended with 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 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.