Vasterman: 92,500 Dutch young people identify as trans or gender-diverse
Peter Vasterman analyzes the figures from Seks onder je 25e. The result: 92,500 young people, a 45 percent increase in five years, and a sex ratio that undermines the biological explanation.
The big numbers
The four-yearly Seks onder je 25e survey — conducted by Soa Aids Nederland and Rutgers at the request of the Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport and the National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM) — asked young people between twelve and twenty-five in its fourth edition how they identify themselves. Three point three percent of that group identify as transgender or gender-diverse. In absolute numbers: approximately 92,500 young people. Five years earlier, that percentage was 2.3 percent. The increase in absolute numbers amounts to 29,000 young people — a growth of forty-five percent in five years. Vasterman places the figures side by side and asks the logical question: which congenital biological condition changes in prevalence by forty-five percent in five years?
Girls dominate — and by a wide margin
The sex ratio is the most striking figure. Among girls, the percentage who are trans or gender-diverse is 4.3 percent. Among boys, it is 2.4 percent. Female young people make up 63 percent of the entire group — 58,563 girls compared with 33,936 boys. The increase is also uneven: among girls, the percentage grew by 1.4 percentage points in five years, while among boys it grew by 0.7 percentage points. Vasterman points out that a congenital condition cannot account for such a sex-skewed increase. What can account for it: a socially transmitted identity label that is prominently present in female peer groups on TikTok, Tumblr, and Instagram.
Inside the figures: non-binary is growing, transgender is declining
The detailed figures make the picture even more interesting. Among girls, specific identification as "transgender" actually declined between 2017 and the current measurement, from 0.9 to 0.6 percent. Among boys, it rose slightly, from 0.4 to 0.7 percent. The growth is occurring elsewhere. Among girls, the non-binary category has exploded, from 0.2 to 0.8 percent — a fourfold increase. The "not sure yet" category among girls rose from 0.3 to 1.3 percent — more than a fourfold increase. What we are seeing, then, is not an increase in the classic trans identity, but an explosion of non-binary and questioning self-identification, particularly among girls. Sociologically, that is an entirely different phenomenon from medical gender dysphoria. A later article examines why fewer and fewer young people identify as non-binary or trans.
Waiting lists and treatment
The treatment figures make clear that this identity effect is spilling over into medical care. Thirteen percent of transgender young people have received "gender-affirming treatment" — approximately 2,548 young people. One percent of the gender-diverse group has received treatment — approximately 694 young people. Nine percent are on the waiting list — approximately 1,764. The average age at which these young people say they arrived at their identity is 16.6, with a standard deviation of four years. This means that a substantial majority only arrive at this self-image during or after puberty. These are not the children for whom the Dutch Protocol was originally designed — children with persistent dysphoria present since early childhood. The background to that Dutch treatment model is discussed elsewhere on this site.
The comparison with the UMCG figure
Vasterman explicitly links these figures to other Dutch research. The UMCG-TRAILS study found in a Northern Dutch cohort that persistent, clinically significant gender dissatisfaction among young adults occurs at the per-mille level — less than one percent under a strict definition. Seks onder je 25e measures 3.3 percent self-identification. The difference between the two figures is not a measurement error. It is the difference between a clinical condition and a social identity. The fact that we conflate these two things in public and political debate is something Vasterman has been writing about for years. His analysis of the healthcare figures appears in the article on the growth of transgender healthcare since 2012.
What the figures do and do not tell us
The figures do not tell us how many of the 92,500 young people will still think of themselves this way five years from now. They do not tell us whether the self-chosen label leads to persistent dysphoria or to letting it go. They do not tell us what role comorbidities — autism spectrum conditions, eating disorders, depression — play in choosing this label. They do not tell us what percentage ultimately undergoes irreversible medical interventions or how many of them later detransition. Dutch research is lacking on all these questions. What we do know is this: in five years, self-identification increased by 29,000 young people, particularly among girls and particularly in the non-binary and questioning categories. Anyone who calls this a natural biological phenomenon is not reading the figures.