Seriously disappointed in my country

[Kerr]

Hi all.

Just found out that in my county, for a long time transsexuals had to undergo sterilization to get a sex change. And they couldnt save semen or eggs to be used later. Why? Because by law sex change was only permitted if the person was sterile. This law passed in 1972. Of course, I would be more understanding of this if it was not for one small detail... the law wasnt changed until may this year. Thats at most 2 month ago.

Seriously, Sweden? SERIOUSLY?!?!?! I am very, very disappointed at you... seriously? Gosh, I am ashamed of my country for taking so LONG TIME to get rid of a STUPID LAW that only SCREW PEOPLE OVER. Seriously?!?!?!

Sorry, I just had to get that out of my system.

Take care,
Kerr.

 

[Quintessence]

A part of my brain says in response to this: "well, if you have a sex change and don't sterilize your former sex, I can see how that wouldn't really be considered a sex change there..."

A part of my brain also says in response: "sex changes are impossible; your DNA will still be what it was before the surgery and the shift is purely cosmetic."

And then another part of my brain says "that's a lot of money to pay for cosmetic surgery; who in the blazes could afford that in the first place?! Certainly not in my country, where health care costs are astronomical..."

And also: "can I have a 'sex change' to 'none' so my external self matches my complete rejection of gender as a valid social construct? Is the mandatory sterilization paid for by tax dollars? If so, than SWEET! Where do I sign up?!?!"

>_>

<_<

 

[Kerr]

A part of my brain says in response to this: "well, if you have a sex change and don't sterilize your former sex, I can see how that wouldn't really be considered a sex change there..."

A part of my brain also says in response: "sex changes are impossible; your DNA will still be what it was before the surgery and the shift is purely cosmetic."

And then another part of my brain says "that's a lot of money to pay for cosmetic surgery; who in the blazes could afford that in the first place?! Certainly not in my country, where health care costs are astronomical..."

And also: "can I have a 'sex change' to 'none' so my external self matches my complete rejection of gender as a valid social construct? Is the mandatory sterilization paid for by tax dollars? If so, than SWEET! Where do I sign up?!?!"

>_>

<_<

I am not entierly sure what you mean by "if you dont sterilize the former sex", to be honest. Women who are sterile are still women, and men who are sterile are still men. Sterilizing the "former sex" wont affect anything. It is not needed. But it does cause problems for transsexuals. Its just wrong.

 

[Quintessence]

I think I fundamentally don't understand how you can be considered to have a sex change yet somehow still have the reproductive organs of your former sex. It makes no sense.

"Hey, I'm a woman, but I still have a fully-functional penis." Er... what? Seems to me that if a person wanted to undergo a surgical sex change, the very first thing that goes is reproductive anatomy. That means you're going to be sterile, because you're removing your penis or uterus entirely. Isn't that the entire point? That's what *I* would do if I wanted a "sex change." I mean, I can't change my DNA, so all I can do is change the window dressing, so to speak.

Intersexed is a different thing entirely, granted... in that case it's not an either-or deal and removing your original sex organs isn't an issue.

 

[Wherenextcolumbus]

A part of my brain says in response to this: "well, if you have a sex change and don't sterilize your former sex, I can see how that wouldn't really be considered a sex change there..."

A part of my brain also says in response: "sex changes are impossible; your DNA will still be what it was before the surgery and the shift is purely cosmetic."

And then another part of my brain says "that's a lot of money to pay for cosmetic surgery; who in the blazes could afford that in the first place?! Certainly not in my country, where health care costs are astronomical..."

And also: "can I have a 'sex change' to 'none' so my external self matches my complete rejection of gender as a valid social construct? Is the mandatory sterilization paid for by tax dollars? If so, than SWEET! Where do I sign up?!?!"

>_>

<_<

Yes, the point of a sex change is to change the VISIBLE sex, and?
In regards to the OP why shouldn't transsexuals be allowed to save their reproductive cells so they can have children?

 

[Quintessence]

In regards to the OP why shouldn't transsexuals be allowed to save their reproductive cells so they can have children?

See, that's the part I really object to. That part is just dumb. The sterility thing I thought... kind of goes naturally with having a sex change. :areyoucra

 

[Wherenextcolumbus]

See, that's the part I really object to. That part is just dumb. The sterility thing I thought... kind of goes naturally with having a sex change. :areyoucra

No I mean before they have a sex change why shouldn't they be allowed to preserve eggs and sperm for later? Like in lab so they can have children later on

 

[Quintessence]

No I mean before they have a sex change why shouldn't they be allowed to preserve eggs and sperm for later? Like in lab so they can have children later on

Sorry, I didn't communicate clearly. I know what you meant. I was attempting to clarify that the only part I find stupid is a law that would prohibit saving haploid reproductive cells for later use.

Mandating sterility from a sex change simply strikes me as redundant, because that would come along with the sex change surgery anyway, yes?

 

[Wherenextcolumbus]

Sorry, I didn't communicate clearly. I know what you meant. I was attempting to clarify that the only part I find stupid is a law that would prohibit saving haploid reproductive cells for later use.

Mandating sterility from a sex change simply strikes me as redundant, because that would come along with the sex change surgery anyway, yes?

Yes that's true. But I think Kerr may have got it wrong, I thought the point was that trans people couldn't be legally defined as their gender identity until they have a sex change operation which would mean they couldn't have children. And not all trans people wish to have a sex change operation or rush into a sex change operation, which would mean all legal documents and identification would have their birth sex. So they are basically being forced to have a sex change operation in order to be recognised according to their gender identity.

 

[Quintessence]

Sadly, given how unbelievably rigid most people are when it comes to "gender identity" you virtually have to have a sex change operation for others to recognize you as what you want anyway. In an odd way, the law might be doing some the favor of a reality check: want to be perceived as gender-male, you'd better look sex-male. Urgh, stupid things like this make me wish all the more that humans would simply regard each other as humans and quit fixating on genitalia and gender. If you're not having sex, who cares about genitals? And gender? Oh, I'm not even going to get started on that piece of nonsense and how it puts people into sexist, stereotyped little boxes...

 

[Wherenextcolumbus]

Sadly, given how unbelievably rigid most people are when it comes to "gender identity" you virtually have to have a sex change operation for others to recognize you as what you want anyway. In an odd way, the law might be doing some the favor of a reality check: want to be perceived as gender-male, you'd better look sex-male. Urgh, stupid things like this make me wish all the more that humans would simply regard each other as humans and quit fixating on genitalia and gender. If you're not having sex, who cares about genitals? And gender? Oh, I'm not even going to get started on that piece of nonsense and how it puts people into sexist, stereotyped little boxes...

I don't think the law is doing the favour of a reality check, considering there are females who are not trans for example, who have been mistaken for men.
But I agree, is there really a need to have male/female on a drivers license for example. If there is already a picture on it for identification, who cares?

 

[Kerr]

I think I fundamentally don't understand how you can be considered to have a sex change yet somehow still have the reproductive organs of your former sex. It makes no sense.

"Hey, I'm a woman, but I still have a fully-functional penis." Er... what? Seems to me that if a person wanted to undergo a surgical sex change, the very first thing that goes is reproductive anatomy. That means you're going to be sterile, because you're removing your penis or uterus entirely. Isn't that the entire point? That's what *I* would do if I wanted a "sex change." I mean, I can't change my DNA, so all I can do is change the window dressing, so to speak.

Intersexed is a different thing entirely, granted... in that case it's not an either-or deal and removing your original sex organs isn't an issue.

Honestly, I think the surgery takes care of that. Was going to write that but then my brain came up the brilliant idea to write something else . Confess I am a little confused by this subject, lol. In any case, this law simply shouldnt exist because its useless and only causes problems.

Horrorble is correct about the identity thing, I think.

 

[Kerr]

Mandating sterility from a sex change simply strikes me as redundant, because that would come along with the sex change surgery anyway, yes?

It wasnt mandating sterility from a sex change, to be picky. It was mandating sterility before the sex change could take place.

 

[Quintessence]

It wasnt mandating sterility from a sex change, to be picky. It was mandating sterility before the sex change could take place.

Ah. So one of those thoroughly pointless laws that somehow made it on the books, probably attached to another piece of legislation to sneak it on by? Or does that not happen in Sweden? Seems to happen sadly often in my country. Things that should be different bits of legislation get rolled into huge packages and approved all at once (or refused all at once).

 

[Kerr]

Ah. So one of those thoroughly pointless laws that somehow made it on the books, probably attached to another piece of legislation to sneak it on by? Or does that not happen in Sweden? Seems to happen sadly often in my country. Things that should be different bits of legislation get rolled into huge packages and approved all at once (or refused all at once).

According to wikipedia it was to keep family trees from becoming chaotic. Not entierly sure what that means, tbh. In any case, I am not sure if it was actually meant to force people to sterilize themselves to change sex or to make sure only sterile people undergo sex change. Since I dont know what was possible back in the 70s I am also unsure if the law was intended to prevent people from saving their egg and sperm for later use, or if it was just a consequence when we learned how to do that. Doesnt matter, really. We should have thrown this law out the window a long time ago.

Also, if the little research I did is correct, transsexuals has been opposed to this and it hasnt just been a rudamentary law for them. They appearently consider it degrading or something.

 

[mycorrhiza]

Indeed, Sweden isn't always as legally progressive as the people here like to think. I'm glad that it's finally legal to change your sex without getting a sterilization. We're moving in the right direction, at least.

Stalking was legal until 2010, photographing people in for example toilets or locker rooms without their consent wasn't made illegal until this year and sexual abuse of animals is still legal. There are many laws here that are crazy.

 

[Kerr]

Indeed, Sweden isn't always as legally progressive as the people here like to think. I'm glad that it's finally legal to change your sex without getting a sterilization. We're moving in the right direction, at least.

Stalking was legal until 2010, photographing people in for example toilets or locker rooms without their consent wasn't made illegal until this year and sexual abuse of animals is still legal. There are many laws here that are crazy.

Sexual abuse of animals is legal :areyoucra?

 

[Penumbra]

Really, any laws that make transsexual people's day more difficult without a very good purpose don't need to exist. I assume a lot of it comes from fear or misunderstanding.

I think a lot of people, when they think of trans people, get a mental image that looks something like this:

(Drag queen performer.)

Rather than, say, this:

(Hot trans guy.)

 

[mycorrhiza]

Sexual abuse of animals is legal :areyoucra?

Yup. It was legalized at the same time as homosexuality, because they were in the same paragraph of the law. However, if the government's proposition passes it will be banned next year.

 

[Kerr]

Yup. It was legalized at the same time as homosexuality, because they were in the same paragraph of the law. However, if the government's proposition passes it will be banned next year.

What was going through their heads when they did THAT ?