Transgender Law in the Netherlands

The 2014 Transgender Law (formal name: ‘Act amending the recording of sex on birth certificates’) significantly relaxed the procedure for changing sex registration. Forced sterilisation and forced genital surgery were removed as requirements; since then, an expert statement has been sufficient. A follow-up bill introduced in 2021 also sought to abolish the expert statement and remove the age limit. That proposal faced political and legal criticism and never became law: on 2 July 2025, the government announced that it would withdraw it.

More on this site: Bill amending sex registration (NL, 2021–2026) and House of Representatives debate on the Transgender Law (2022).

Related topics can be found under Transgender Law: the withdrawn self-identification bill.

What the current law does

The law amended Article 1:28 of the Dutch Civil Code. Its main elements are:

• Sex registration can be changed from the age of 16 by submitting a request to the civil registrar.
• A statement from a designated expert (psychologist or doctor) is required, confirming that the conviction of belonging to the other sex is expected to be lasting.
• For younger children, a court procedure remains the only route.
• The law does not limit the number of changes: a subsequent change again proceeds through the civil registrar, with a new expert statement.
• The law recognises only M and F as sex categories in the BRP.

Explanatory information can be found on the website of the Dutch government.

The self-identification bill (2021)

In 2021, the government submitted a bill that:

• abolished the expert statement;
• removed the age limit of 16 (children under sixteen would be able to ask a court to approve the change);
• moved the procedure to the municipality where a person is registered, rather than the municipality of birth;
• introduced a short reflection period.

The House of Representatives debated the proposal in September 2022 but did not vote on it. Following the fall of the fourth Rutte government, the House declared it controversial in September 2023. On 2 July 2025, the government announced that it would withdraw the proposal. The proposal was separate from medical treatment; it dealt solely with legal registration.

Criticism of the bill

Criticism of the proposal comes from a range of perspectives — legal, feminist and child-psychiatric — and is often underrepresented in mainstream reporting. The main objections are:

• Abolishing the expert statement removes the final independent assessment. The current statement is neither a medical diagnosis nor ‘gatekeeping’ in the traditional sense; it is an accessible opportunity for reflection with a third party. Replacing it entirely with self-declaration equates registration with a free choice.
• Removing the age limit conflicts with the state of scientific knowledge about identity development in children and adolescents. The Cass Review (2024) explicitly warns against early legal and social fixation among minors.
• Consequences for sex-based rights are not worked out in the bill. As a result, interpretation in practice is left to institutions and courts, with the risk that women’s shelters, prison policies, sport and medical care will have to respond on an ad hoc basis.
• International experience: in countries that moved to self-identification earlier (Ireland 2015, Denmark 2014, Norway 2016), the procedure is now subject to evaluation. In Scotland, the British government blocked a similar law in 2023, the Gender Recognition Reform Bill, following widespread public opposition. The situations in Finland and Sweden are rarely considered in the Dutch debate.
• Statistical consequences: without a clear distinction between legal gender and biological sex in records, research, policy and enforcement will become more difficult over time.

What the law does not regulate

The Transgender Law deals exclusively with legal sex registration. Name changes, identity documents and medical care are governed by other regulations. Medical care for minors in particular — including puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones — is a separate issue that is undergoing significant international change.

Political and social debate

The bill was supported by organisations including COC Netherlands, Transgender Network and current healthcare providers operating within the affirmative model. Objections were raised by legal experts, part of the women’s movement (including the Voorzij foundation), several child psychiatrists and political parties that point to the consequences for sex-based facilities. An evaluation of the current 2014 law by the WODC (2017) had already identified varied experiences; a thorough evaluation of the self-identification proposal is lacking.