TheJournal.ie uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Click here to find out more »
Dublin: 9 °C Saturday 18 May, 2013

Sweden blocks plans to overturn sex-change sterilisation law

Sweden’s government delays proposals to overturn laws which require people undergoing sex changes to be surgically sterilised.

Goran Hagglund, Sweden's social affairs minister, has blocked proposals to overturn Sweden's demand of sterilisation for people undergoing sex-change surgery.
Goran Hagglund, Sweden's social affairs minister, has blocked proposals to overturn Sweden's demand of sterilisation for people undergoing sex-change surgery.
Image: PONTUS LUNDAHL/AP

THE SWEDISH GOVERNMENT has shelved plans to overturn the country’s controversial laws which require people undergoing sex-change surgery to be sterilised.

Opposition parties had tabled plans to scrap the laws, dating from 1972, which require people undergoing gender reassignment surgery in the country to be over 18 years old, unmarried, a Swedish citizen and to have been surgically sterilised.

An official commission had recommended the overturning of the sterilisation requirement in 2010, prompting political moves to have it overturned – but now the government has watered down the proposals being put forward.

Although the government is still proposing reforms to the laws, its proposals are merely to drop the clauses requiring candidates for surgery to be unmarried Swedish citizens.

TheLocal.se reports that the clause requiring candidates to be sterilised, however, is set to remain intact.

It explains that concerns of the Christian Democrats – the smallest of the four parties in Sweden’s ruling centre-right coalition – were enough to sway the government into seeking a full inquiry.

Opposition parties have decried the request for a full inquiry into the proposal’s medical implications as an attempt to fudge the issue and stop it from progressing any further.

The Christian Democrats, whose leader is Sweden’s social affairs minister, described the government’s decision to back an inquiry as a victory.

Social Democrat MP Lena Hallengren, who had backed calls to overturn the clause, said the government had not taken the true wishes of the parliament into account – and told UPI that a majority of members supported scrapping the sterilisation requirement.

The RFSL group, a lobby for LGBT rights in the country, has attacked the Christian Democrats’ stance and is to hold a rally outside the Riksdag building later this week.

“”It’s extremely remarkable that a democracy like Sweden now believes that this must be examined further,” its chairwoman said.

RFSL has organised a global petition, asking prime minister Fredrik Reinfeldt to ignore the demands of “a small conservative party” and to proceed with the removal of the forced sterilisation clause.

Read next:

Comments (25 Comments)

  • An official commission had recommended the overturning of the sterilisation requirement in 2010, prompting

    Something missing?

    Reply
  • It’s sad that there are people who see transgender as such a threat to society that they advocate stopping them from reproducing!

    Reply
    • I don’t see them as a threat, I’m just curious as to how they can actually reproduce. a man changing to a woman doesn’t get a womb or ovaries, so how can she reproduce? …and vice versa.

      Reply
  • Sign the petition. Forced sterilisation? In 2012? Give me strength…

    Reply
  • Eugenics was practiced in sweden until 1975, where the mentally ill and ‘deviant’ were sterilised. Hardly a history to be proud of. Anybody who is in favour of this really needs to read up on trangender and transexual identity because they obviously have no idea what they are talking about and are blindly talking about taking peoples reproductive right away from them without consideration for how they themselves would feel in that situation. There are trans* people in Ireland who have children, children that are as well adjusted as any others. The legal requirements for trans people to divorce (be unmarried) even if they are in a happy and loving relationship is ridiculous.( And yes, for those ignorant people out there, there are many happily married transpersons out there). As is the promotion of forced sterilisation in order to advail of a surgery that is often necessary for the mental health of the trans* people who decide that they wish to undergo surgery. The shape of your genitalia does not decide how good a parent you are. You character and commitment to your children does. This does not change with surgery.

    Well done @ Deirdre Forde. I am in agreement with you 100%

    Reply
  • You can’t have your cake and eat it

    Reply
    • Muc Beag 16/01/12 #

      Meaning?

      Reply
    • Never understood the origins of that saying. Who wants a cake if not for eating???

      Reply
    • I will NOT, repeat, NOT make a banking/government/bondholder analogy here. :-D

      Reply
    • Basically, if you have a cake you can either keep it and look at it, or eat it and it’s gone.

      You can’t have it both ways, and until doctors are able to perform miracles… the Swedes are on the ball on this one

      Reply
    • The point is that they’re taking something away… decisively.. that may otherwise work. They are affectively saying that these people shouldn’t be able to reproduce. Do you really think that’s their decision to make.. or yours?

      Reply
    • hmmm…. if you have a sex change, surely you’ve no use for those bits anyway – unless the plan is to change back at a later date or something.
      So if you’re a man, who changes to a woman, you’re bits aren’t going to be very effective once that happens are they, same for a woman changing to a man.
      Not to mention the fact that if you get this procedure you’d hopefully be having relationships with people of the same sex you were born with, making having kids impossible anyway, kind of a non issue.
      Surely you’d keep some sperm/eggs in a bank for later use if required.
      I’m undecided in my opinion on this topic, but leaning towards “who cares”.

      Reply
    • Obviously the Swedes don’t want to create a society of freaks, for want of a better word. And no-one is forcing them to undergo the procedure. You might say it’s their own business, but it’s not. If you accept transgenders are allowed to reproduce in their style of their natural sex, then I suppose you’d accept if I decided to transplant my arms where my legs are and vice-versa. Because it’s no longer really a sex-change, just a case of extreme body-modification.

      Reply
    • @Imran Ali – You show your true nature by referring to Transpeople as ‘freaks’. There is a better term but you chose the offensive one. Transpeople are no more likely to have children that are transgender than homosexuals are to have homosexual children so you comment is completelty misguided and offensive.
      As for the choice to have surgery, for many that is the only way for them to achieve complete happiness with their physical form and/or mental health. Not all transpeople undergo surgery. But those that do go through a painful painful process in order to reflect the person that they are. You obviously no very little about Trans identity and I would presume do not know any trans identified individuals. If you do then I feel sorry for them for having you even on the periphery of their lives. It is their business. It is their body and their womb/sperm. I could hardly start a campaign to have Imran Ali sterilised because I don’t believe in his abhorrent transphobia and ignorance.

      @ Paul Mannon
      “Not to mention the fact that if you get this procedure you’d hopefully be having relationships with people of the same sex you were born with, making having kids impossible anyway, kind of a non issue.”

      You comments in regards to the gender of the people transpeople enter into relationships with is shortsighted. Sexuality and gender are seperate things. A transwomen (male to female) or transman (female to male) has just as much chance of being straight, gay, bi or asexual as any other person and so you cannot assume you know who they will be with at all. As for ‘bits’ as you put it, their internalised reproductive organs are still in use. Also being in a same sex relationship doesn’t preclude children as the reproductive system is hardly compromised by homosexuality. The source of the sperm/womb is another story.

      Reply
    • Imran, you are projecting your own mores and personal prejudices on people that you have shown yourself to know nothing about.

      I’m sure that when the issue is debated further in Sweden, by informed people, the argument that they “don’t want a society of freaks” won’t be taken very seriously

      Reply
    • enn, you have completely missed my point and have decided to go on the offensive. I didn’t call transgenders freaks. I said you can’t expect society to accept a transgender person having offspring in the style of their natural sex. I didn’t want to use the word ‘freak’ and I was trying to portray how the general public would feel on the matter. I gather the general consensus would be that you can have your sex-change, but “men” giving birth is a bit much to swallow.

      Now, I have no power to make any laws on this matter and I’m merely expressing an opinion. You ultra-liberals think you can make a case for absolutely anything and justify anybody’s choices just because they feel a certain way. Living in a society, people have a certain duty to their peers to uphold fundamental values and when a transexual talks about bringing a child into the world in the manner discussed here, that’s no longer just their own business

      Reply
    • *Jenn

      Reply
    • Imran, do you think it’s right that the state should be able to choose who can and can’t have children?

      Because in this case, that’s what’s happening. From what I gather, the general public, and indeed much of the parliament aren’t actually advocating this law… a lot of people are actually appalled by it.

      Reply
    • I don’t think they’re preventing transexuals from adopting, are they?

      I can’t believe people some people actually accept a transexual man giving birth to a child is a perfectly normal and reasonable thing to be allowed to do. If that’s the way we’re going, so be it… Nothing surprises me anymore.

      I don’t really have strong feelings on this issue to be honest

      Now, I’m off to try and get that arm/leg transplant…. Because that’s the way I feel I should have been born

      Reply
    • am I missing something?
      How are transpeople able to get pregnant, or impregnate?

      Reply
    • OK, so this clears things up a bit:

      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joanne-herman/can-transgender-people-be_b_839703.html

      they can’t, yet.
      So the issue is the governments right to stop the person choosing.
      Should they have that right, probably not.
      But at the same time there’s an ethical responsibility on the part of the transperson to decide one way or the other.
      Should you be allowed to manipulate your body in such a way without fully committing?
      “I want to be a man but I want to keep my women’s genitals” it’s a bit fucked up.
      Reading that article I linked suggests that for the time being this is not the best, or safest way to go for anyone availing of this type of operation.
      Now that’s it’s all clear for me I’m still undecided how I feel about it. But my gut feeling is they should decide one way or the other, and freeze their sperm/eggs for future use.
      Hopefully it won’t be too long before the medical community can solve this problem fully and give transpeople the ability to reproduce properly.

      Reply
    • The thing is Imran (putting aside how irrelevant the analogy is ), if you did decide to do that, I doubt anyone would force sterilization on you.

      Paul, yes, the most unsettling thing for me is the fact that the decision is being taken out of their hands either way. Who is this law protecting? The potential child? There’s nothing to suggest that the child of a transgender person would be f*cked up (see my below comment about same sex couples), and like Jenn said, many trangender people are already parents.

      So is it protecting people like Imran who just can’t see logic in it? The people who consider Transgender people freaks? Is it right that laws should be formed that take away basic human rights to protect the sensibilities of others?

      I don’t actually know any transgender people but laws like this based on people’s prejudices do not sit well with me at all.

      Reply
  • Hang on a second. The way I read this is, and correct me if I’m wrong, is that if a woman wants to become a man, but still wants to become a Mammy or visa versa, they won’t be allowed to reproduce.

    At the risk of being red thumbed into next week, but I’m in favour of that. Imagine your mammy was a man, or your daddy was a woman. How confusing would that be for a child?

    As one person has already said here, you can’t have your cake and eat it too.

    Incidentally, here is an explanation for that particular idiom:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Have_one’s_cake_and_eat_it_too

    Reply
    • Muc Beag 16/01/12 #

      It’s the coercive nature of it that bothers me over anything else. That must be in breach of some basic human right.

      Reply
    • People say the same thing about gay couples who want children but in reality, the children of gay couples tend to be as well adjusted, on average, as children of heterosexual couples.

      The main problem here however, is the fact that the state is deciding for these people. They state is deciding who they see fit to be able to reproduce in their society. Do you really think that’s right?

      Reply

Add New Comment