In a few years' time, the gender registration will no longer be stated on identity cards, Minister Ingrid van Engelshoven (Education, Culture and Science) wrote in a letter to the House of Representatives on Friday.

The gender is expected to be omitted from 2024 or 2025 on new ID cards. The registration will still remain on passports, because this must be done according to European agreements.

Van Engelshoven also announces that it will help companies and organizations to prevent unnecessary sex registration. The minister has an "online toolbox" built for them, including a decision framework and examples.

The need to limit unnecessary gender registration is included in the 2017 coalition agreement of the current coalition of VVD, CDA, D66 and ChristenUnie. LGBTI organizations have long argued for an end to mandatory gender registration by the government.

Research from the Interior has shown that the gender of identity cards can be omitted without many practical consequences for, for example, the police or military police, who use the cards for identification, writes Van Engelshoven.

Passports are more complicated, because they must meet certain international conditions if they are to remain suitable as a travel document. An alternative is to offer the option of entering an 'X' at the gender. Malta and New Zealand, for example, are already doing this.

However, the passport must correspond to the Personal Records Database (BRP), which is based on the birth certificate. That is why the alternative of choosing a third sex category in the birth certificate must first be made possible, says Minister for Legal Protection Sander Dekker (VVD). He investigated this possibility for Van Engelshoven.

In the Netherlands there are already people who are registered as this third category, which is called "sex cannot be determined". But this was only possible after they filed a lawsuit for this themselves.

If Van Engelshoven wants to make this possible on a structural basis, a legislative amendment is required. However, judges disagree whether such a third category may be offered structurally under current law. That is why, before proceeding with a change in the law, Dekker first wants to await developments in case law, which for the time being "does not show a uniform picture".