SelfID law passed in German parliament.

[Brefugee]

It's done.
636 votes
373 yea
251 nay
11 abstentions

Am going to assume that there will now be a long legal challenge. I want to scream.

Alice Schwarzer and the Emma-Magazine are already on it, pointing out what has been said here before, that your sex does not define your gender-role, that it's actually backwards to say "female behaviour" (stereotypes) make you a woman etc.
https://www.emma.de/artikel/alice-schwarzer-es-gibt-keinen-falschen-koerper-340969

Since they have a lot of reach, I hope they can get a campaign going.

@ConstructionTime Emma have been arguing against this project for ages, sadly they won't make the least bit of a difference. What we really need (embarrassing to say for a lifelong leftie) is for Springer to take a stance. Die Welt has started running critical articles but it's too little, too late, whereas "Bild" staff have inexplicably been muzzled. (Have a very vague recollection somebody may have mentioned a trans child, but can't recall now.) But hopefully once the shit starts hitting the fan for real that's when the tabloids can no longer avoid the topic.

"Bild" staff have inexplicably been muzzled.

I’ve not come across Maike Klebl before, but this is pretty clear.

https://www.bild.de/politik/kolumnen/kolumne/kommentar-ein-schwarzer-tag-fuer-frauen-87865368.bild.html

One thing I don't get is how this plays out in German medicine. Is it a gender-only marker or is there a way to define the underlying sex on paperwork?

Otherwise its a nightmare for sex-based treatment such as smear tests, heart disease, blood work etc. "Non-binary" does not mean much in that context.

And medical experimentation

@GrumpyPanda after posting this, I browsed the Emma homepage and saw how many articles there were from the past. I didn't think they hadn't been doing anything until now, more that I added it as an example of famous media. Perhaps now that the law was passed, more people realize what is happening and start speaking up before the 6 months are over.

Possibly the Springer press has a wider influence, but it's still a risky strategy, more akin to giving matches to the pyromaniac. I'm also not so sure they would properly differentiate between LGB topics and the trans-debate, and doing harm to LGB, too. It might work, but it could also rile up potential feminist/left allies.

@TheABC Good question, because for some screenings, all women are automatically contacted by their health insurance, to remind them to go (like breast-cancer-screening).

To add, this law replaces an outdated older law from the early 80s, in which, in order to change sex, the person was required to be unmarried and sterilised as well as surgically "adapted" to their new role. This is is not ethical or humane and violetes the constitution, and a High Court finally decided upon it in 2011. Since then, the law was not enacted.

In the left media, such as TAZ, it is clearly reported that it was about time that the requirement for surgery was removed, seeing as everyone has the right to a bodily integrity and refusal of surgery, especially for a non-medical reason.
https://taz.de/Bundestag-beschliesst-Gesetz/!6004179/

However, by separating the transgender debate into a law about social aspects and not talking about the legal implication for other areas, as PP outlined already, the connection between social transitioning and medical decisions, and the puberty blocker debate, especially for children and teenagers, is completely neglected.

In fact the High Court decision about bodily integrity and avoidance of unneccessary surgery could be used as argument against the medical transition-advocates.

The other big elephant in the room is about quota for women, which has been a big debate in Germany for a long time. I think that very large companies need to have a minimum amount of women within their board of directors, but it's not enforced for smaller companies. Many employers were encouraged to aim for a balanced workforce and if they have a majority of men, to hire more women until equity was reached (especially in sectors like tech, finance, business, engineering, STEM....). How can this be made fair and not turned on its head with the new laws?

Just to summarize, I think the old law wasn't ethical, either, and it is good that it was abolished, but the replacement creates new problems in many other areas, and its not well thought-through how many implications it has for women.

Just been targeted by this ad on this thread?! https://www.germany.travel/en/campaign/world-heritage/home.html?etcc_med=Redirect&etcc_cmp=unesco-en

@ConstructionTime
TRAs, including the authors of the Taz article or the people who fed them their information, are habitually lying about the old law on transsexuality. Yes, parts of it were declared unconstitutional and were no longer applied - problem.solved, no need for a new law rather than an edit. And what the usual suspects slways conveniently "forget" to mention is that the Constitutional Court emphatically approved the core logic of requiring medical gatekeeping - even going so far as to argue the state has a legitimate interest in the stability and serious character of people's gender identification (paraphrasing from memory.)

@TheABC
Good question re medics. Beats me if I know. The trouble with the German language is that there's a single term encompassing both sex and gender, making it much harder to hold down a clear line of defense against the woo merchants. What this also means - and what the MPs who nodded this off didn't get - is that Self-ID effectively REPLACES sex as a legal category with gender identity - so very much like the problem Sall Grover is facing. It's particularly bad because feminists only a couple of decades ago finally managed to include a signature clause in the constitution requiring the state to actively promote not just formal equality of the sexes, but equity of outcomes. All that's effectively down the drain with Self-ID. It's also likely to be one if the core points of contention for a potential constitutional challenge.

@GrumpyPanda Your comment made me look up the original law; thanks, you're right in that it was deemed partly unconstitutional mostly due to the surgery part. I should have re-checked it earlier.

For anyone interested, this site by the ministry of Justice is a reliable source for the original text.
https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/tsg/BJNR016540980.html#BJNR016540980BJNG000200311

§8 has additional comments underneath referring to the non-application until there is a new law, which is the one that passed a few days ago.

This is the decision of the constitutional high court from 2011:
https://www.bverfg.de/e/rs20110111_1bvr329507.html

Line 27 refers to the surgery because when the original law was created, it was not possible for a man to marry another man, which has since changed. Interestingly, the text only talks about men, and not possible trans-men. It seems to have been created with the thought that it's only an topic of M-F-transition.

Thus, there was an argument that the requirement for surgery should be removed because two men can now be in a registered partnership (which is not 100% equal to marriage in the sense of the German law, though) and it's not illegal for two men to be partners.

I had not realized that this comment by the court connects to the debate about trans being a possibility when being gay is not accepted (either by the law in a country or by its society).

Line 28 about sterilisation was commenting on the topic of possible future children, who should be able to know their heritage and wouldn't be able to do that when the father changed. This debate has now moved on in society, together with changed laws on adoption.

Line 30 comments on the societal expectations at the time of the 80s law, where they lawmakers did not want legally male persons birthing children; it would create "disorder" (their wording, not mine).

Line 50 and 51 point out again that the original intention of the law also was to avoid gay marriage.

Line 57 then refers to the actual complainant who brought the case and explains that to change M-F (in this case) the law can not demand violation of bodily integrity from a person who in all other aspects (socially) already changed. Here, the person wanted to be registered female in order to marry a female partner.
So this was a use-case that wasn't envisioned by the lawmakers in the 80s, either, because then a registered partnership did not exist.

It seems the old law was not only deemed unconstitutional because of the requirement of surgery but also because other laws that criminalize homosexuality were abolished and and equivalent to marriage is available, so that the whole set-up of the old version was now falling down.

Maybe they thought that a simple edit wouldn't work anymore? It's a bit like a game of Mikado, taking out one piece can cause everything else crumbling down.

This is madness

@ConstructionTime

Maybe they thought that a simple edit wouldn't work anymore? It's a bit like a game of Mikado, taking out one piece can cause everything else crumbling down.

I very much doubt it. TRAs and their allies in both FDP and Greens were hell-bent on getting Self-ID without any medical gatekeeping whatsoever. Hence the need for misinformation. I'm fuming actually- local newspaper in their summary this morning repeated the lie about "replacing the unconstitutional TSG". This when it's quite likely the replacement itself that's unconstitutional, given that it contradicts both Basic Law 3.2 (Equality of the sexes) and 5 (Freedom of Thought).

The Greens currently have two MtF MPs in the Bundestag, one somewhat passes, one who, to me, seems to be "the term which cannot be used". Fairly sure you can see which is which

https://www.dw.com/en/nyke-slawik-weve-earned-the-right-to-be-acknowledged-and-respected/a-65198649

At least one of them did not do any legal and medical steps, was then outraged when the ballot papers showed the male name - again, you'll be able to see on the pictures which one I am referring to.

That the Greens are steeped in this ideology sadly does not surprise me. What does surprise me though is how many people are falling for the "most marginalised in society" lie.

Which one is that in the photo?

anyway - Germany has had an off relationship with sex and sexuality (read older German literature/biographies and you may be a bit shocked) and last week a member of Parliament resigned when it was pointed out that his photos (which he published i believe) of him eating his own poo was not very Parliamentarian (minister for women and children or something like that).

very strange

The one in the thumbnail photo is Nyke Slawik, the article also contains a picture of another MP who is "transgender"

Someone said upthread that parents will be able to choose the "gender of a baby" at birth, rather than going off the sex of the child.

I've looked for evidence of that and I can't find it. Which has made me look like an absolute tool to my adult son who is moving to Germany this year to get married.

I thought I could trust the sources here, but I guess not! ffs

@SwordToFlamethrower

The parents can't "choose at birth". However, for under 14s the parents can exercise the right to Self-ID on behalf of the child, and the law doesn't specify a lower age limit. What it does specify is that from age 5 the consent of the child is necessary. So strictly in theory, parents could indeed apply to change the sex marker of their, say, 3 or 6 month old. In real life one would hope social services would get involved and prevent this. But how about, say, 3 years?

This is the two of them at a previous committee hearing:

I looked for the original document with the actual law, as most media will summarize the result somewhat.
The wording so far is that this is a "decision" by parliament for a law, but the actual law is not valid yet, but in six months, as others mentioned upthread.
I'm sorry it's only in German and might require going through a translation app.

There are two links:
one is to the page on the parliament's homepage which collates all information, the speeches, the results and so on.
https://www.bundestag.de/dokumente/textarchiv/2024/kw15-de-geschlechtseintrag-997406

The on the right side, when you scroll down, there is the part labelled "Beschluss" (Decision).
Filed here is the document "Gesetzentwurf 20/20949" ("draft bill") as pdf, and that seems to be the bill which was then accepted by parliament, so it's not a draft anymore.
Direct link to the pdf:
https://dserver.bundestag.de/btd/20/090/2009049.pdf
Page 7 starts with the actual law, the rest are preliminaries.

There's a breakdown of the self-ID provisions here: Transmenschen: Bundestag beschließt Selbstbestimmungsgesetz | tagesschau.de

Basically a simple declaration for over 18s, kids from 14 to 18 can have their application accepted with parental consent, for under 14s the application has to be made by parents or guardians (and there will be trendy parents who use this to legally trans their children)

The thing is that the coalition has pitched this entirely as an exercise in allowing trans people to change their names and sex markers on official documents more easily. It was an open goal because the old 1980 law, requiring sign off by two psychiatrists, had been ruled unconstitutional. And the advertising has mostly been lots of images of attractive young Instagram influencers with interesting hair colours talking about inclusion and not being discriminated against.

I'm getting very distinct vibes of Theresa May being persuaded that self-ID was an easy win without any overheads. They're just handwaving away any concerns about safeguarding or about medicalising kids. Hopefully it won't take Germany as long to catch up as it took the UK. Not least because this is an incredibly unpopular government.

The equality of the sexes is that which might break this law. In $7 of this new law it says that the registered sex/gender is relevant if you need a 50/50 parity which could mean that the obligation for gender parity is fulfilled when you have 50% men and 50% TW.

Do you know whether there are already legal cases going on somewhere?

@SwordToFlamethrower $3 (from the pdf above)
"Erklärungen von Minderjährigen und Personen mit Betreuer
(...)
(2) Ist die minderjährige Person geschäftsunfähig oder hat sie das 14. Lebensjahr noch nicht vollendet, kann nur der gesetzliche Vertreter die Erklärungen zur Änderung des Geschlechtseintrags und der Vornamen (§ 2) für die Person abgeben. "

=
Declarations by minors (...)
(2) summarized by me: Under 14yo, only the legal guardian (=parents) is permitted to declare gender-changes and changes of the first name.

If a woman turned up in any professional setting like TG did in this meeting, they'd be asked to get properly dressed.
The outfit is in no way professional, and even less so if you take into consideration that this is parliament.

The German self-ID law is indeed bonkers! And it is astounding that countries like Finland and Norway, countries that I have considered to be beacons for women's rights and equality, also allow self-ID and have thrown women's rights under the bus in such a spectacular way! In Finland the self-ID law only applies to adults, but it has been badly thought through. Finland is a country with mandatory military service for men, so this law could be misused by men wanting to avoid military service. When politicians were asked about this, the response was that they trust the citizens not to abuse this law. Also no clear guidance on trans-women's access to women's prisons and sport and female quotas in workplaces. A lot of grey areas on such important matters for women.

What is infuriating is that the biggest advocate for the self-ID law in Finland was Sanna Marin, the former PM and a female! So much for sisterhood...

Thankfully Theresa May had opposition to her plans to implement self-ID in the UK. Many countries have managed to get self-ID approved through the back door without women understanding what it actually means for them. In the UK too much light has now been shed on this harmful ideology, so will be very difficult to get a self-ID law approved through the back door. As much as I don't like the current Conservative government, I am pretty sure had we had a Labour government in power in the past 10 or so years we would probably now have a self-ID law in place. So thank God for the conservatives for getting something right and I am saying this as someone who has never voted Conservative and I consider myself to be a lefty.

Theresa May and Sanna Marin- classic examples of adults putting their own desire for social approval above anything else.

Thanks for taking the time to reply to me. My future DIL is German and speaks fluent English. She is doing Alevels at the moment so don't want to burden her with it just now.

It seems as though, the part about under 14s needing parental consent is where the assumption is being made that technically, parents could have say, a male baby born, but choose to put female to bring them up "as a girl"? So, like a loophole.

But my understanding is that under 14s need parental consent, but the child must actually state they want to change their legal gender/sex. A baby can't ask to change genders so I'm not sure. I'd love to see the wording though. In English of course!

Are the German government so naive as to think that people won't exploit the system and abuse it or do they really just not care about the safety, dignity and fairness for women and children?

@SwordToFlamethrower

It seems as though, the part about under 14s needing parental consent is where the assumption is being made that technically, parents could have say, a male baby born, but to put female to bring them up "as a girl"? So, like a loophole.

Not quite. Over 14s make the declaration themselves but still need parental consent. If there's disagreement the child can apply (to court?) to have it overridden. Under 14s, parents make the declaration but need the consent of the child if the child is over 5.

With a baby... Parents can't simply register the wrong sex since a certificate from hospital/the midwife is needed for registration. They could presumably apply to change it shortly thereafter, but I can see German Standesbeamte getting quite stroppy about that - they've long had the power to reject ludicrous sleb-type children's names, and used it liberally! There'd probably be a referral to social services for endangering the child's welfare. But again, with a 2 or 3 you old it's much more of a grey area. There's a video of a TW dad asking his 3 y.o. son what his preferred pronouns are...! (There's also a separate video by the bloke's FIL saying he's shunned by the extended family because of abusive behaviour... now there's a surprise.)