It depresses me that this is good news.

[mothwing]

First, what I suppose passes for good news under the circumstances over here, even though it was really about time - now it's possible to get a registered partnership with your spouse without additional surgical requirements in Germany.

The rest of the law, however.

Oh, God, dear God, why. Thank you, Bundesverfassungsgericht. Now we only need you to do away with the clause that requires people to be permanently sterile, plz, because what the fuck is this:

«Im Namen des Volkes in dem Verfahren über die Verfassungsbeschwerde»

[...]

(1) Auf Antrag einer Person, die sich auf Grund ihrer transsexuellen Prägung nicht mehr dem in ihrem Geburtseintrag angegebenen, sondern dem anderen Geschlecht als zugehörig empfindet und die seit mindestens drei Jahren unter dem Zwang steht, ihren Vorstellungen entsprechend zu leben, ist vom Gericht festzustellen, dass sie als dem anderen Geschlecht zugehörig anzusehen ist, wenn sie
1. die Voraussetzungen des § 1 Abs. 1 Nr. 1 bis 3 erfüllt,
2. (weggefallen)
3. dauernd fortpflanzungsunfähig ist und
4. sich einem ihre äußeren Geschlechtsmerkmale verändernden operativen Eingriff unterzogen hat, durch den eine deutliche Annäherung an das Erscheinungsbild des anderen Geschlechts erreicht worden ist.
(2) In dem Antrag sind die Vornamen anzugeben, die der Antragsteller künftig führen will; dies ist nicht erforderlich, wenn seine Vornamen bereits auf Grund von § 1 geändert worden sind.

--> apparently now suspended. =D

[...] (zu 3.) Das Bundesministerium des Innern erarbeitete zum 7. April 2009 den Entwurf eines Gesetzes zur Reform des Transsexuellenrechts, der jedoch aufgrund der bereits fortgeschrittenen Legislaturperiode nicht mehr in das Gesetzgebungsverfahren eingebracht wurde (BTDrucks 16/13157, S. 1). Der Entwurf hielt an der Zweiteilung zwischen „kleiner“ und „großer Lösung“ fest. Für die zur Personenstandsänderung führende „große Lösung“ sollte die dauernde Fortpflanzungsunfähigkeit und nunmehr statt der bisher in § 8 TSG geforderten Operation eine in körperlicher Hinsicht erfolgte Anpassung an das Erscheinungsbild des anderen Geschlechts zur Voraussetzung gemacht werden, jedoch nur, soweit die dafür notwendige medizinische Behandlung nicht zu einer Gefahr für das Leben oder zu einer schweren dauerhaften Gesundheitsbeeinträchtigung des Betroffenen führe.

In der Begründung des Gesetzesentwurfs wurde dazu ausgeführt, auf die Voraussetzung der dauernden Fortpflanzungsunfähigkeit könne grundsätzlich nicht verzichtet werden. Die vom Geschlecht abhängige Zuordnung im Zusammenleben der Gesellschaft solle gewahrt werden; insbesondere müsse ausgeschlossen werden, dass rechtlich dem männlichen Geschlecht zugehörige Personen Kinder gebären und rechtlich dem weiblichen Geschlecht zugehörige Personen Kinder zeugen. Durch die Voraussetzung der operativen Geschlechtsumwandlung sei es allerdings in der Vergangenheit zu mehr Operationen gekommen, als therapeutisch angezeigt gewesen seien. Daher sollten sich medizinische Eingriffe künftig nach der individuellen Entwicklung und ärztlichen Beurteilung richten.

[...]

Bundesverfassungsgericht.

Quite apart from the charming assertion that this is a "Zwang", as though it's some kind of obstinate delusion that the state is graciously humouring here, I can't even conceive who thought it was a bright idea to come up with that sterility clause.

WHO the fuck do these people think they are that they think that this perverse intrusion into the physical integrity of others is just. WHO made it legal to give them the right to have this kind of crass barbaric influence over the bodies of others.

This is so fucking vile, and I also don't get why this has to be a law. Who's benefitting from it? What's the point of this? And if they're a-changing the laws, anyway, why not lose this nonsense from the eighties, too?

"Im Namen des Volkes"?

Nicht in meinem Namen.

EDIT: looks like they did suspend the sterilization-paragraph entirely? The German article I read on this was fucking confusing. Also, my pidgin-knowledge of legalese doesn't mix well with my headcold. I thought this only applied in cases in which otherwise a registered partnership was not possible, but it looks as though it's suspended until it's been reviewed, which would be incredibly awesome, and also about motherfucking time.

Comments

[lordhellebore]

I have no words. I...can't think.

[mothwing.livejournal.com]

Especially - imagine this law were abolished tomorrow. What would happen? Whom does this serve? Do we all sleep more soundly with the knowledge that people are forced to be sterilised so that our legal (and incredibly limiting) definition of women and men is upheld? Just... Fuck this and everybody who's involved in the making of this.

[ysilme]

*jaw hits floor* *is totally speechless*
And not in mine either.

[mothwing.livejournal.com]

:( Yeah. It's unbelievable that anyone would condone this.

[therealsnape.livejournal.com]

This is ... amazing. In Europe? Today? Dear god.

[mothwing.livejournal.com]

The situation over here is shocking all around - this is required in so many countries, too - seventeen of us (http://www.tgeu.org/FRA-Report_Update2010) do. Seventeen. And even though there's this group of officials investigating the EU laws on this there's not much progress. :(

[lisaquestions.livejournal.com]

This is pretty gross and upsetting.

[mothwing.livejournal.com]

:( Yes.

I had hoped that the '09 review of the law would change more and do away with this eighties inhumane crap, this being the 2000ies and all. Not so.

[mothwing.livejournal.com]

EDIT: It might better than I first thought after reading a rather obtuse article on this and panicking - looks like they DID suspend the article until further notice.

[tetleythesecond]

Damn. I can't even scream and wail because I don't know at what to scream first.

You know what upsets me most about this? That this whole homo-, trans-, younameit-sexuality discourse was invented by severely repressed 19th century men who (incidentally?) happened to live in this severely repressed part of the world, and that their brainfarts, which really reveal more about said men and their time than about their subjects, still serve as the basis for legislation.

[mothwing.livejournal.com]

Yes, the basis for these laws are ridiculous, and with this one I'm particularly confused - who is served by this?? What also bugs me about this is the way that our transactivists over here are continuously being screwed over by LGb activists who completely ignore trans-related issues during awareness events, too.

[dstroyrofworlds.livejournal.com]

God, no.
I wondered about that some time because a friend of mine, Anja, is now Conrad, and I am worried about him. It just CAN'T be legal to force someone to be cut open and taken away the ability to create life.

And, now, very honestly: ONE OF OUR SOCIETY'S F***ING WORST PROBLEMS IS THAT WOMEN BEAR CHILDREN AND MEN DON'T!
HERE are the people who have the oppotunity to choose and change things.
And they are, cold-bloodedly, because it is oh-so-very-important to keep it clear that Men and Men and Women Are Women (because otherwise what will happen? Apocalypse or what?), prevented from their very own personal RIGHTS to create their lifes the way they want.

I taked the opposite side: It's not only that nobody gets hurt when men bear children and women get men pregnant. It would be very GOOD for ALL of us.

(But nooooooooooo, people are frightened and because of that other people will have to suffer. It's always the same.)

Just as reminder to everybody:
Artikel 2 GG:
(1) Jeder hat das Recht auf die freie Entfaltung seiner Persönlichkeit, soweit er nicht die Rechte anderer verletzt und nicht gegen die verfassungsmäßige Ordnung oder das Sittengesetz verstößt.

(2) Jeder hat das Recht auf Leben und körperliche Unversehrtheit. Die Freiheit der Person ist unverletzlich. In diese Rechte darf nur auf Grund eines Gesetzes eingegriffen werden.


und Artikel 3
(1) Alle Menschen sind vor dem Gesetz gleich.

(2) Männer und Frauen sind gleichberechtigt. Der Staat fördert die tatsächliche Durchsetzung der Gleichberechtigung von Frauen und Männern und wirkt auf die Beseitigung bestehender Nachteile hin.

(3) Niemand darf wegen seines Geschlechtes, seiner Abstammung, seiner Rasse, seiner Sprache, seiner Heimat und Herkunft, seines Glaubens, seiner religiösen oder politischen Anschauungen benachteiligt oder bevorzugt werden. Niemand darf wegen seiner Behinderung benachteiligt werden.


Now: Where IS the problem? What IS unclear here?
People lose this right if they don't accept the form of the flesh between their legs, or what?
The must of sterilisation can and could never have been constitutional.
Some people shall better do their law maths right and stop fucking things up on the back of others.

[mothwing.livejournal.com]

And they are, cold-bloodedly, because it is oh-so-very-important to keep it clear that Men and Men and Women Are Women (because otherwise what will happen? Apocalypse or what?), prevented from their very own personal RIGHTS to create their lifes the way they want.
Absolutely agree with this!

And, now, very honestly: ONE OF OUR SOCIETY'S F***ING WORST PROBLEMS IS THAT WOMEN BEAR CHILDREN AND MEN DON'T!
HERE are the people who have the oppotunity to choose and change things.
Don't agree with this - trans people aren't automatically poster children for social change and I doubt they "chose" their gender any more than either of us actively chose our gender and are actively NOT changing things. At least that's not what I'm doing.

Also, I know that you feel for your friend, as I do for friends of mine, but please don't reveal the birth names of trans people - the context makes it clear that Conrad's trans, but I don't need to know what name he was given at birth. I doubt I'll ever meet him, but revealing someone's trans status without their knowledge or consent can be very dangerous and is definitely not ok, so please don't do that.

I'm with you, though, I can't believe that they'd take away the most basic human rights from people for whatever reason, though I suppose that the first articles in our GG are there only for show, I've yet to see them enforced in any meaningful ways for a lot of groups to whom they don't apply.

The fact that people were forced to be sterilized also shocks me into speechlessness and I so hope and pray that I've read correctly and they abolished that utterly inhumane paragraph. D= I can't believe that they kept this thing for this long, it's so incredibly cruel.

[dstroyrofworlds.livejournal.com]

They've got to suspend the article for now and the future asap.
Anything else would be at shame.

[mothwing.livejournal.com]

It would be! I'm appallingly bad at reading legalese and I'm still confused as to whether or not this only applies in cases in which people want to be registered rather than married, but to me it reads as though they're planning to do away with the respective paragraphs entirely until they've got a new trans law entirely. At least that's what I hope it says. D=