Enforced sterilisation of trans people in Finland

[EarthSight]

www.bbc.co.uk/news/stories-55020994

There are also plans to reform the Trans Act, a law that currently requires those seeking legal gender recognition to undergo years of mental health screening and, unless they are already infertile, enforced sterilisation

Is there an enforced sterilisation program in Finland? I thought that was something associated with totalitarian rule, misogyny and the persecution of ethnic minorities?? Also, isn't this procedure meant to be called gender reassignment surgery or bottom surgery?? I was surprised to read it on the BBC website.

It's not really enforced sterilisation. It's just that they can't change the sex marker on their documents without surgery. But no one is forcing them to change the sex marker on their documents.

I was just reading the same article and noted the same passage. The details are scant but the implication is that Sanna Marin wishes to end the enforcemed sterilisation rule. The article praises Marin's approach to trans rights in general. So ending enforced sterilisation is a good thing, we are supposed to think? (Which it is, of course).

It's just curious because the BBC would never usually dream of referring to "bottom surgery" as sterilisation. I also don't recall the BBC making the link that young females who take testosterone to identify as transmen can often end up having a hysterectomy (sterilisation) because of vaginal atrophy. When feminists talk about preventing the sterilisation of trans children, who may well be gay, this is clearly a bad thing.

But does ' sterilisation' in this case actually refer to emasculation surgery (and hysterectomy)? Puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones can sterilise.

The language is interesting, I think.

They could just have easily have said that Finland currently requires people to have gender reassignment surgery before being able to change their legally recognised sex. I think many people would think this is a reasonable requirement, because obviously women don't have penises and men can't give birth, so if you want to be legally recognised as the opposite sex surely you would want to do this. Many people still don't realise that this is not a requirement for a GRC in the UK.

Using the term 'enforced sterilisation' instead of 'gender reassignment surgery before allowing a change of legally recognised sex' does make it look as though something is being forced on them against their will. They could say 'no' and not get the legal change of sex.

Puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones can sterilise.

I don't think they do. Sterilisation is a permanent procedure, but if an adult stops taking those drugs their fertility can recover. This may not be the case for children who have never gone through puberty though.

It's just curious because the BBC would never usually dream of referring to "bottom surgery" as sterilisation. I also don't recall the BBC making the link that young females who take testosterone to identify as transmen can often end up having a hysterectomy (sterilisation) because of vaginal atrophy. When feminists talk about preventing the sterilisation of trans children, who may well be gay, this is clearly a bad thing.

Quite! It is fascinating how they use language to describe the same thing for different purposes in the service of the same agenda.

@Ereshkigalangcleg

It's just curious because the BBC would never usually dream of referring to "bottom surgery" as sterilisation. I also don't recall the BBC making the link that young females who take testosterone to identify as transmen can often end up having a hysterectomy (sterilisation) because of vaginal atrophy. When feminists talk about preventing the sterilisation of trans children, who may well be gay, this is clearly a bad thing.

Quite! It is fascinating how they use language to describe the same thing for different purposes in the service of the same agenda.

Isn't it just.

See also this thread

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4088482-Christine-Burns-wants-people-to-do-the-maths

This may not be the case for children who have never gone through puberty though.

Yes. I'm not sure it's known what the effects of taking puberty blockers before any production of gametes and then taking cross sex hormones for a significant time, then detransitioning and stopping the medication. Whether you would eventually go through a kind of puberty.

@OldCrone What would say to an argument for this kind of description? For example, someone could make the argument that being shoe horned into something that one requires for some reason is effectively a type of enforcement. A bit like well paid jobs suddenly requiring that their applicants have already been sterilized for some reason. I still think though that the term is misleading for most people.

I'm not in favour of coercing people to have surgery, but then I'm also not in favour of the GRA or any sort of changing of legal sex. So my favoured approach would resolve both!

I think there is a more complex history whereby people who wanted to access surgery to transition used old and existing sterilisation laws. In other words, there was no other legal framework for people to access gender reassignment surgery. The more recent incarnation of the law requires the person to be infertile to change gender, which in practice is the outcome of hormone treatment, but I think sterilisation is another way of proving this. Yes, it seems to me that Sanna Marin wishes to end the requirement to be infertile, which would therefore also end the requirement to take hormones or seek sterilisation prior to legal transition. In other words, self-ID. But it is a more complex picture than enforced sterilisation suggests.

There's zero consistency anywhere in this ideology.

Here in the UK we have Jolyon and his Good Law Project suing the NHS because it's imperative that self described trans children receive 'gender affirming' (puberty blockers then cross sex hormones) treatment immediately. The intention being that surgery will follow at 18. It's apparently a human rights atrocity if all gender questioning minors aren't put on this pathway with haste.

Then also, such as this case, they want drugs and surgery to be separate to the notion of being trans for adults therefore paving the way for thousands of people to identify as the opposite sex presumably with only pronouns, lipstick or bowties as evidence (if even that).

In all my decades on this earth I've never witnessed a movement that wants it's cake and to eat it as much as gender identity ideology.

I think the interviewee is deliberately being disingenuous to push forward her belief in the acceptance of 'self-identifying' being the only necessary criteria for a legal sex change. 'Enforced' obviously suggests 'no choice', much like in the 'bad old days' in Sweden where people with mental health problems and physical and learning disabilities where forcibly sterilised by the State, and which I believe only ended as a blanket policy in the mid 1980's?

Yes, it seems to me that Sanna Marin wishes to end the requirement to be infertile, which would therefore also end the requirement to take hormones or seek sterilisation prior to legal transition. In other words, self-ID. But it is a more complex picture than enforced sterilisation suggests.

That's an excellent point. And the main point is that at first a "sex change operation" was how people conceptualised trans people who weren't simply cross dressing. The laws in many jurisdictions reflect that.

Sorry not read the thread.

Read the article some.

The idea that for people to formally change their sex marker on all their docs they need to do xyz is not new, surely.

On this board. There is a discomfort with self ID. But also a discomfort that people should have to have major surgery to get these things changed.

So in a way. How do things proceed? Self ID is, well. If you believe that human females exist as a thing then it's not a goer.

They say ok not if no surgery. And the automatic nice female reaction is oh fuck you can't insist on that!!!

I'm sure there's a simple solution here. But it's interesting how women instinctively just don't want anyone harmed.

Men can't turn into women or vice versa.

That's just a basic fact.

If you fuck with what the words man and woman mean... Ok..

And then you fuck with what the words male and female mean.

Across all species? Not sure...

So a country says surgery is necessary to redefine in law as the opposite sex. Which means infertility etc.

But we've gone beyond this haven't we?

I don't want anyone. Young old male female to have unnecessary surgery. I've spent a lot of time in hosp. It takes over your life.
And you middle bits, reproductive parts, are really embedded. Large blood supplies etc. None of this is trivial surgery.

How did we get to a point where healthy people are going for this? Kids? And female anything is verboten? Girl woman etc we have no name? How did that happen???

So if I understand correctly- enforced sterilisation basically just means that in order to change your gender on your forms- you have to actually physically and surgically transition- not just socially? Was the article originally not in English? Using the term forced sterilisation is utterly inflammatory really.

It's how it works in some countries.

There's a question around. What you need to do to legally change sex.

The kind and sensible answer is, well no one should be forced to have surgery.

But that also leads to. Change your name on your gas bill...

Whole thing is a mess.

People can't change sex. In reality.

Obviously having to have surgery is bad.

Whole thing surely points to some new classifications?

Sex and gender are not the same.

Why not record both?

Then it's much easier to do sensible stuff. And keep decent records. Etc.

Look after people according to needs.

I said to DH earlier. If sex and gender are recorded and looked after etc that's great.

The fact that sex especially female is being subsumed. Negated. Done away with. Rather than there being an extra thing. Shows it all up.

Trans people have specific experiences needs etc. So do women. Why the absolute aim to sort of. Refuse to see that?

No one should feel pressurised to have surgery. That's awful.

But the idea that people can change sex is. It's just not true. Have male female. Man woman. Trans man trans woman. And work to get the trans people the support they need.

That's not good enough though is it? Why not?

Why this insistence that a male who says he feels female is literally a woman. And should be in female prisons, refuges, sports, etc etc.

Why?

How many people actually believe that any bloke who says. I'm female. Is literally female and always has been? Why is this being pushed? Because it's obvious cobblers.

SD1978

in reality though

If you are on hormone blockers then cross sex hormones etc. It's non trivial.

You won't even go though puberty.

That's what is being pushed for by various groups.

Whatever Finland say. Is up to them? To s point? If they want to say to change your sex marker in law you need to do xyz. They are not saying people can't live how they want, dress how they want, change their name socially etc.

They are saying that is the line for legal sex change.

I'm not sure it should happen at all. No one changes sex.

And if you pretend they do then this has a lot of consequences.

I'm sure there's a simple solution here. But it's interesting how women instinctively just don't want anyone harmed.

Isn’t the solution to just abolish any sex change law?

Separate sex and gender identity in law and otherwise. Allow (even encourage) people to express themselves how they wish.

Isn’t the solution to just abolish any sex change law?

Not necessarily. Being damned clear on what the law is really about would work too.

If a society divides people into female, male, and eunuch then there's a fair case for having this reflected in documents.

And, of course, if you still have your genitals intact, you're not a eunuch. Which should be reflected in your documents.

I missed this originally.

Are they trying to say that through self id, and not getting srs, they're therefore not being forced to sterilise themselves?

Is this the trope that some tras use to argue that no self identifying trans person should have hormones or surgery?

They're trying to say that the "physical sex" box on your documents ought to be a matter of personal choice.

Which is batshit. And is likely to lead to a whole host of problems, such as border officials assuming you're using a fake passport if it says F and you've got a dick.

But if it were a case of eunuchs being given a different sex marker, no problem. (Aside from the ethical implications of creating a eunuch class, of course.)

@SD1978

So if I understand correctly- enforced sterilisation basically just means that in order to change your gender on your forms- you have to actually physically and surgically transition- not just socially? Was the article originally not in English? Using the term forced sterilisation is utterly inflammatory really.

Sterilisation seems to be the term used in official international documents, such as this one from the ECtHR about a case they ruled on a few years ago. But of course it is not 'forced' on anyone, it is something which is required if someone wishes to make a significant change to their legal documentation.

But the whole discussion about changing the sex marker on legal documents seems to have got turned upside down. The original GRA was brought in following the case which Christine Goodwin took to the ECtHR. The court found that not being able to marry a man breached the human rights of a MtF transsexual who had undergone gender re-assignment surgery, and the GRA was passed with such people in mind.

So the discussion then was really around the question: 'If someone has had gender reassignment surgery, should they be allowed to have a change of sex marker on their official documents?'

The question now is: 'Since we allow some people to change their sex marker, what should the requirements of those people be?' The outcome then progresses to not requiring 'sterilisation'/gender reassignment surgery, and eventually ends with self ID.

If Christine Goodwin had gone to the ECtHR in 2002 and said 'I want to be legally recognised as a woman because I feel female', the case would have been thrown out of court (or more likely wouldn't have got that far in the first place). The wish for legal recognition followed the gender reassignment surgery, and there was an argument that such transsexuals didn't have the same human rights as the rest of the population (of course, neither did lesbians and gay men who wanted to marry their partners).

So it's gone from 'should transsexuals be allowed a change of legal sex following surgery?' to 'should surgery be a requirement for a change of legal sex?'

The fact that people are allowed to 'change sex' (in legal terms) is now a given, and nobody is now asking whether this is a sensible course of action in the first place (except some of us).

Very clearly put, OldCrone, and one reason we see so many problems today is in the phrasing of the first question.

'If someone has had gender reassignment surgery, should they be allowed to have a change of sex marker on their official documents?'

The reassignment should be reflected by modifying the M (or F) on the document, not overwriting it.

If Goodwin had gone from M to M(t) then none of their arguments for colonising womanhood or women's spaces would have a leg to stand on.