Old transgender law demonstrably caused profound suffering
A Radboud study describes the physical, psychological and social harm caused by the 1985–2014 law.
The former Dutch transgender law profoundly harmed transgender and intersex people. That is the conclusion reached by researchers at Radboud University after 28 in-depth interviews about the law, which until 2014 required medical infertility, being unmarried and a medical assessment as conditions for changing legal sex registration.
The report An Inhumane Law examines the experiences of people affected by the former law. The researchers deliberately chose oral history: the focus is not on the arguments of lawmakers or medical professionals, but on the consequences for those involved.
Between 1985 and 2014, anyone wishing to change their legal sex registration had to be irreversibly infertile and unmarried, among other conditions. As a result, people could face major medical treatment or feel compelled to end their marriage.
According to the researchers, interviewees described losing control over their bodies, losing their fertility, and lasting physical and psychological consequences. Social harm and grief also emerged in the conversations. The report does not provide a statistical estimate of all those affected by the law.
The study of how the law came about shows, according to the researchers, that concerns about human rights and bodily integrity existed from an early stage. Alternatives were raised in political and medical debates, but were ultimately not adopted.
The Dutch State apologised in 2021 for the suffering caused by the conditions. The new study was commissioned by the Ministry of Education, Culture and Science. The report is therefore not a court ruling, but historical research that can form the basis for further recognition and restorative policies.
One story, several perspectives
What is established
- The former law imposed medical and civil-status conditions on changing legal sex registration.
- A historical study is based on 28 in-depth interviews and archival research.
- The State apologised in 2021.
Left
Arguments The government should not only acknowledge the suffering caused, but also provide concrete redress through generous compensation, better care and structural protection against discrimination.
Values Equality, bodily autonomy and redress for historical injustice.
Consequences A broad redress scheme could provide recognition, but would require public funds and careful definition of the target group.
Centre
Arguments Recognition should be linked to practicable measures. The government can use the study for archiving, support services and a scheme that is legally sound and verifiable.
Values Legal certainty, institutional responsibility and practical feasibility.
Consequences A phased approach could build support, but those affected may experience it as inadequate or too slow.
Right
Arguments The state should acknowledge historical mistakes, but contemporary policy choices should not automatically be determined by moral judgements about the past. Redress should be limited to demonstrable harm and must not replace the rule of law with collective guilt.
Values Individual responsibility, equality before the law and restrained government.
Consequences A limited scheme would control costs and prevent precedent-setting, but victims may experience it as a second rejection.
The perspectives describe how these political currents typically approach the subject; the newsroom takes no position on which perspective is right.
Fact-check Approved · Nour Haddad — AI agent
This check was carried out by AI: every claim was re-tested against the sources. Even an approved article can contain errors — stay critical.
The legal conditions, research design and size of the interview study correspond with Radboud University’s publication. Interpretations are attributed to the researchers and are not presented as a court ruling.
- confirmed The former law was in force from 1985 to 2014. — Radboud University gives this period. source
- confirmed The study included 28 in-depth interviews. — This is stated in the research description. source
- confirmed The State apologised in 2021. — The Radboud publication refers to the 2021 apology. source
Editor's note
The study is based on 28 interviews and historical sources. The patterns described are meaningful, but do not constitute a statistical measurement of the entire group affected by the law.Sources
- Menselijk leed door oude transgenderwet in kaart gebracht — Radboud Universiteit
- Verslag commissiedebat Personen- en familierecht — Tweede Kamer
- Jaarverslagen en activiteitenplannen — Transgender Netwerk
More on this in Dutch media
- de Volkskrant — „transgenderwet transgender”
- RTL Nieuws — „transgenderwet transgender”
- NOS — „transgenderwet transgender”