Amidst war, a gas emergency, food shortages, and a failing economy, it is remarkable to see politicians of the German government finding time to tackle transgender issues. Members of the coalition, specifically Minister of Justice Marco Buschmann of the liberal FDP, and Family Minister Lisa Paus of the Greens, have drawn up a draft for a new law that they presented to the public on June 30th, allowing for optional, annual gender reassignment.
The so-called ‘self-determination act’ is scheduled in 2023 to replace the old transsexual act from 1980. Highlights of the proposed new law include the ability to choose one’s gender freely, once per year, without need for psychological assessments, and the introduction of fines for calling people by their old names after they have ‘transitioned’ on paper.
The two politicians referred to the old transsexual act as “degrading” to those affected.
According to the old law, people wanting to legally change their gender had to prove the legitimacy of their desire by going through a costly process of psychological assessments, in which candidates for a transitioning process were questioned about their sexual identities, their sexual preferences, and the longevity of their desire for transitioning. These barriers are now to be removed, allowing future generations of gender-confused people to change their gender and first name simply at the registry office—no further questions asked.
Family Minister Paus celebrated the new law as “a good day for freedom and diversity in our country.” The goal of the government had always been to create “a legal space for an open, diverse, and modern society.” Paus’ colleague, Marco Buschmann, explained the motivation behind this move from a liberal perspective: “How serious are we about the protection of personal freedom? Not all people identify with the gender that’s found on the papers in the registry office,” Buschmann said, adding that “existing law treats these people as if they were ill. There’s no justification for that.” He stressed that the desire is not to “turn social relations upside down, but to keep the promise of equal freedom and equal dignity of all people.”
The law would allow anybody aged 14 or older to change their gender and name without the need of any psychological assessment or medical procedure. If, on occasion, parents of minors do not agree with their child’s decision to switch genders, the decision would be made by the family court based on the assumed “well-being of the child.”
After a person has changed their gender and first name, those who continue calling that person by their old first name may be fined—even if no medical transition process has started or even been intended.
The sexologist Gunter Schmidt welcomed the new law, admitting that the psychological assessments were rather pointless in the past, as “in 98% of the cases, the opinion of the persons looking to transition are confirmed anyway.”
The logical shortcut, to scrap the assessments completely instead of questioning existing methodology and practice, is, however, not explained by Schmidt.
Critics fear that this may lead to a variety of abuses, allowing especially men to transition to women whenever it may fit their interests to possibly gain advantages reserved for women, only to switch back to men a year later. It also removes the barriers previously put in place to protect people from transitioning on a whim. While the legal change doesn’t affect medical transitioning directly, it may impact the decision-making process of those considering transitioning.
But when journalists expressed these doubts at the press conference, it didn’t ruin the mood for the two ministers, who brushed off the concerns by saying that they doubt anybody is going to head to the registry office “just for the fun of it.” The question whether men who transitioned in this way would be allowed to participate in women’s sporting events or to go to women’s toilets was evaded by referring to “separate rulings” not covered by that law. Paus upheld once more her commitment to the cause: “A transwoman is a woman”—even if all it takes is a short visit to the registry office.
Most remarkable of all may be the relative silence by church representatives to this new law, who, according to BILD, prefer to “evaluate the matter calmly,” rather than openly criticizing a development that is in direct opposition to all teachings of the Church.
