Home › Society › Gender and politics

Gender and politics

Gender has in a short time become a political subject in which two kinds of questions are intertwined. On the one hand the classical question about the position of women in public functions. On the other hand a much more recent — and much more far-reaching — discussion about self-identification, legal change of sex and access to sex-based provisions. These two subjects are often lumped together while they are substantively independent of each other.

Women in politics

In Dutch and European parliaments women, after decades of emancipation, are considerably better represented than in the past, although full parity has not yet been achieved. Opinions differ on the desirability of quotas — a legitimate political debate with arguments on both sides.

Self-identification as a legal principle

The major political shift of the past decade is the gradual introduction of legal self-identification: the idea that a person, without medical or psychological assessment, and solely on the basis of their own statement, can have their registered sex changed. In the Netherlands in 2014 the expert requirement was partly abolished, and later bills proposed further relaxation, including for minors.

Critics — including feminist groups, lawyers and child psychiatrists — point out that self-identification has far-reaching consequences that remain under-exposed in the debate. Sex is not an administrative detail but a category that runs through statistics, medical care, sport, the prison system, shelters for abused women and victims of sexual abuse. Letting go of an objective standard touches all these domains.

The British change of course

In the United Kingdom the highest court ruled in 2025 that in the Equality Act the terms "woman" and "sex" refer to biological sex. This ruling — and before that the findings of the Cass Review on youth care — marks a clear turn. For women-specific provisions, sport, prisons and data recording this means a return to the biological baseline. Comparable debates are running in the Netherlands and the rest of Europe.

Conservative versus progressive: a misleading framing

In the media the debate is often presented as conservative versus progressive. That is not accurate. Many of the most outspoken critics of self-identification are classical feminist authors (Stock, Joyce, Bindel, Phillips), lesbian activists and left-leaning scholars. Objections to youth transition also come from clinicians who are not politically considered conservative — think of the psychiatrists in Sweden, Finland and Norway who have tightened their national policy. Reducing these voices to "right-wing" or "anti-trans" is factually incorrect and unjustifiably closes off the debate.

The term "transphobia" as a political instrument

In political debate "transphobia" is regularly used as a catch-all term for any substantive criticism of self-identification, youth transition or affirmative care. This shifts the discussion from substance to the motives of those who raise it. This restricts public discussion without solving the underlying problem. Legislative attempts to criminalise legitimate substantive criticism — for instance by extending anti-discrimination legislation — deserve critical scrutiny on the grounds of freedom of expression.

Women's rights and sex-based categories

A significant political flashpoint is the protection of sex-based provisions: shelters for abused women, women's wings in prisons, hospital policy, sport. When access is based entirely on self-identification, practical conflicts arise — not hypothetical but documented cases in the United Kingdom, the United States and Canada, among others. Political debate should focus on these concrete trade-offs, not on identity struggles.

International tension

Internationally positions vary widely. Some countries push gender self-identification as a human right in EU and UN contexts; others — including a growing number of European countries — are shifting back to due care, particularly around youth care. The Netherlands will have to make its own choice in this, ideally based on evidence and sound risk analysis, not on activist pressure.