About Alfabetbende

Why this website exists.

Alfabetbende.nl is a critical website addressing the intolerance the LGBTQ+ movement displays toward those with differing views. The name "Alfabetbende" refers to the ever-lengthening acronym the movement uses to present itself—and to the behavior of a gang: a group that imposes its will, whether you like it or not.

This website was not created out of hatred toward LGBTQ+ individuals. It was created because the public debate about the movement’s ideology is being stifled. Scientists who are critical of transition practices are losing their jobs. Journalists who ask questions are being canceled. Parents who are concerned about the medicalization of their children are being dismissed. That deserves attention.

What this site is

A platform for critical analysis. The topics and gender identities discussed here are examined for their content, their origins, and the societal consequences of the political agenda attached to them. The content is based on documented facts, published research, and publicly known cases.

What this site is not

A hate site. No individuals are attacked based on their identity. There are no calls for violence, discrimination, or exclusion. The criticism focuses on the ideology and behavior of the movement as a political and social force—not on the people who are part of it.

Freedom of speech means the right to be critical of any ideology, movement, or political current. That freedom also applies to criticism of the LGBTQ+ movement. Anyone who equates that with hate speech proves exactly the point this website is making.

What criticism is being made here

Alfabetbende criticizes a specific model: the gender-affirming model that has become dominant in Western gender care since the 2010s. That model is based on self-declaration, rapid affirmation, and—in the case of young people—medical intervention. Research from England, Sweden, Finland, Norway, and the Cass Review (2024) has undermined the evidence base for that model. The Netherlands has not yet made that shift.

The criticism here is directed at the model, not at individuals. That distinction is often dismissed by the movement itself—anyone who offers criticism is labeled transphobic. That is a rhetorical maneuver, not an argument. A political movement may be criticized without dragging the people who are part of it into the fray.

What sources are relied upon

The Cass Review (2024), conducted for NHS England, is considered the most thorough evaluation of transgender care for minors to date. Conclusion: the evidence base is weak; routine use of puberty blockers is not justified. SBU in Sweden, COHERE in Finland, and UKOM in Norway reached similar conclusions. NICE (2020) classified the relevant studies as having very low certainty. The WPATH Files (2024) revealed internal uncertainty regarding informed consent.

For the cultural aspect, the analysis draws on documented “cancel culture” cases, statements from detransitioners, and public statements from lesbian organizations, sports associations, and women’s rights organizations.

What does not happen here

Here, individuals are not attacked for their identity. Here, there is no call for violence, discrimination, or exclusion. Here, no claims are made that are not based on documented facts, published research, or publicly recorded cases.

What does happen: critical reading, asking questions, and refusing to go along with the ban on asking questions. Anyone who equates that with hate speech confirms the pattern this website describes.

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.