The European Union adopted in October 2025 its “LGBTIQ+ Equality Strategy 2026-2030,” a document that immediately sparked heated debate across the continent. The strategy, officially presented by the European Commission, promises to raise the bar on rights, safety, and inclusion for LGBTIQ+ people, but some of its content is generating strong criticism from women’s rights activists, child protection organizations, and national governments.

The Three Pillars of the Strategy

According to a report from AdnKronos, the strategy is structured around three main pillars: protection from violence and hatred, effective equality in access to employment and services, and sustained involvement of civil society. The document begins with uncomfortable data: “Approximately one in four LGBTIQ+ people, and almost half of trans people, have experienced ‘conversion’ practices in the form of physical or sexual violence, verbal abuse, and humiliation.” To combat these phenomena, the Commission has implemented concrete operational tools: a process to stop conversion practices, a European knowledge hub on illegal online hate speech linked to the Code of Conduct, an Action Plan against cyberbullying with a particular focus on LGBTIQ+ minors, guidelines on inclusive recruitment, and dedicated funding through the CERV+ strand of AgoraEU of up to €3.6 billion [$4.2 billion—ed.] in the next budget framework. The report considers “conversion” practices a form of violence. This view is by no means shared by everyone. The practice of “conversion” is based on a psychological approach aimed at reorienting and harmonizing one’s perceived identity with one’s biological sex.

The Most Controversial Issue: Gender Self-Determination Without Age Limits

The point that has raised the most controversy surrounds legal gender recognition. As reported by the Daily Mail and the New York Post, the Strategy states that the Commission will “support the development of legal gender recognition procedures based on self-determination, free from age restrictions.” This means that, under the proposal, children could be allowed to legally change their gender at any age, without the need for medical or therapeutic assessments. The document criticizes Member States that currently require medical interventions or approvals before a person can change gender on legal documents, noting that their rules “vary significantly.”

According to News Ghana, of the 27 EU Member States, only nine currently accept self-identification without medical obstacles, while twelve still require expert advice. In the UK, children can start hormone therapy at 16, but must wait until age 18 to change their legal gender.

Critical Reactions

Maya Forstater, CEO of Sex Matters, called the plan “appalling,” telling the Telegraph that “this Europe-wide strategy promotes legal gender self-identification for children of all ages and a ban on talk therapy for vulnerable children.” Faika El-Nagashi, founder of the Athena Forum, accused Brussels of seeking to “mainstream gender identity ideology into almost all policy areas, including women’s rights.” A particularly controversial aspect concerns the ban on so-called “conversion therapies.” According to The European Conservative, the EU aims to ban any intervention by therapists that could challenge a child’s chosen identity. The problem, critics point out, is that “talk therapy” — aimed at verifying whether a young person is sure she wants to change sex — could be banned entirely, preventing professionals from encouraging reflection before making an immediate statement.

The Funding Issue

According to a report by MCC Brussels, over €220 million [$256.8 million–ed.) in EU funds have been used to promote what they call a “radical gender identity agenda,” supporting policies that undermine women’s rights, child protection, and national sovereignty. Frank Furedi, Executive Director of MCC Brussels, commented: “There is a two-way process in which civil society is systematically bought off to provide legitimacy to the EU, while the EU itself becomes increasingly radicalized by ideologues.” The strategy also allows Brussels to block funding for “discriminatory regions” that do not align with its values. This has already happened with Hungary, which saw over €700 million in funding suspended after introducing child protection laws that prohibited the promotion of transgender ideology to minors under 18.

Medical Evidence Versus Rapid Affirmation

A crucial element of the debate concerns scientific evidence. An article by Annarosa Rossetto on my Italian blog reports on the experience of Finnish psychiatrist Riittakerttu Kaltiala, head of adolescent psychiatry at Tampere University Hospital, where the clinical reality has proven to be very different from the promises of the “Dutch protocol.” The doctor participated in the assessment of over 500 adolescents and observed that approximately 90% were girls, the vast majority with significant psychiatric problems, many on the autism spectrum.

In June 2020, the Finnish COHERE published recommendations after a systematic review, concluding that studies supporting the “affirming” model, i.e., “affirmative therapy” (confirming one’s current perceived identity, regardless of biological sex), are flawed or unreliable, that reassignment in minors is an “experimental practice,” and that transition should be postponed “until adulthood,” prioritizing psychological interventions. Similar reviews in the United Kingdom and Sweden have reached similar conclusions.

As UnHerd observes, “the push to normalize the idea of ​​the ‘trans child’ comes despite the alarm raised by medical authorities across Europe. In 2022, the French National Academy of Medicine warned that the rise in gender distress among young people is often mediated by society, that hormonal and surgical interventions carry serious and irreversible risks, and that it is impossible to distinguish a lasting trans identity from a transitory phase of adolescence.” Furthermore, several European countries are reversing course: Sweden suspended treatments for minors in 2021, Finland allows them only in exceptional cases, and the United Kingdom has banned puberty blockers for those under 18. “So why is Brussels moving in the opposite direction?” asks journalist Josephine Bartosch. The answer is that beyond politics, there is an ideological position at stake. Indeed, “The Commission has recommended a ban on ‘conversion therapy,’ a measure that appears humane but actually functions as a gag on clinical honesty. The bans will prevent therapists from asking why a young person feels discomfort with their sexual body; professionals risk sanctions simply for encouraging reflection rather than immediate affirmation.”

Finally, it should be noted that, curiously, the Commission has completely ignored cases of detransition and the scandal involving the English Tavistock Clinic that led to its closure. This is a case that calls for greater caution given the sensitivity of the issue.

The phenomenon of detransitioners — people who, after a gender transition (social, hormonal, or surgical), decide to return to their birth gender — filing lawsuits against doctors and clinics is increasing sharply, especially in the United States from 2024 to 2025. This trend reflects greater awareness of potential irreversible harm (such as infertility, bone problems, or psychological trauma) and allegations of medical negligence, such as lack of informed consent or inadequate assessments. These are emblematic cases that are influencing debates and policies, with statutes of limitations being extended in several states to give victims more time. In Europe and Italy, the cases are fewer and more recent, but the resonance is nonetheless strong and is giving parents pause.

Conclusion

The new LGBTIQ+ Strategy 2026-2030 represents a crucial crossroads for Europe. On the one hand, it aims to protect a vulnerable minority from discrimination. On the other, its more radical proposals — particularly those on gender self-determination without age limits for minors — raise fundamental questions about child protection, parental authority, medical prudence, and respect for national competence and sovereignty. Above all, they highlight the extent to which the European Commission is influenced by ideological positions.

The proposals are not yet binding and must be approved and implemented by national governments. But the debate is only just beginning, and it promises to be one of the most heated in the European Union in the coming years.