Hey isnt Sweden one of those european countries Seattle is always trying to mimic? Whatever it is, if it worked there, should work great in Seattle. Right? Right?

That's fucking absurd.

@1: Even on SLOG, you're in the minor leagues, Kinison. Go back to 4chan and watch the pros a while longer.

Now wait a minute. Sexual reassignment surgery would, by definition, sterilize them. So maybe they're just saying "we won't recognize your changed gender until you have the surgery."

That would make a little more sense.

This is so incredibly fucked. Still, I'm more comfortable calling it "coercive sterilization" than "forced sterilization".

TRYING TO PLACE THE ONUS ON THE ENTIRE SWEDISH GOVERNMENT IS ABSURD. IT'S A SMALL MINORITY OF ULTRA-CONSERVATIVE LEGISLATORS WHO'RE ESSENTIALLY FILLIBUSTERING THE BILL (ESSENTIALLY THE SWEDISH TEA PARTY)

http://www.salon.com/2011/11/02/sweden_t…
http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2012/01/17/swe….

@4 depends on the surgery. MTF is, yes, pretty much the end of the line for your ability to procreate. FTM is a little more thorny: many (most?) FTMs just get top surgery plus hormone therapy and don't bother doing anything down below. While it's difficult (and maybe ill-advised) to conceive a child when on testosterone, it's far from impossible and has happened before.

@4 that's what I'm trying to figure out, too. Is the law that you can't change your legal gender classification without gender reassignment surgery? Or is there some other law stating you can't change your gender unless you become sterilized? I'm assuming it's the former and, if so, it's a little extreme but shouldn't be considered "forced sterilization," when what it really means is "we're not going to recognize you as male if you still have ladybits."

@7: as any breast cancer survivor will tell you, tits aren't what makes you a woman. I've never heard of mastectomy referred to as gender reassignment surgery. Usually that's referring to the stuff what makes one physically male or female, not what goes on in the mammary tissue.

everyone has a hard time and falls on bad luck. why make it worse for the homeless community and who going to pay for it

Yeah, if you still have all the plumbing intact and are capable of having a baby, you're female in my book. Can't say as I blame them.

@4 after reading the Salon article, it's also part of the law that you're not allowed to preserve your sperm/eggs before the surgery, which is definitely all kinds of fucked up.

Hell, I wish they'd do that here. I'd be in the doctor in a heartbeat.

Plus in several jurisdictions (New York? Maryland?) you don't have to have done anything surgical or hormonal to officially change genders.

@9: The whole point is that there is no "stuff what [sic] makes one physically male or female." Using your perception of others' genitals or their genetic make-up to assign gender is just as ridiculous as "what goes on in the mammary tissue." Gender is an experience, not a biological determination.

And now I can't find the NYTimes article where I read that.

@16 Plus, if it exists anywhere, it's in a few brain nuclei. And is determined in-utero. Boobies and genitalia having nothing to do with it.

There is stuff what makes one physically (and biologically) male and female. There is also stuff what makes one emotionally and mentally male or female. I was referring to that stuff which makes up the primary biological difference between "men" and "women," namely, genitalia. I was not even touching on the topic of the experience of gender. Both genders have mammary tissues, and lack of mammary tissue alone does not affect the biological gender of a person. That was my point, I wasn't arguing the mental state of gender in any way, shape or form, simply the physical state of gender.I was trying to say that having breasts removed is not the same thing as gender reassignment, that's all. Gender is both an experience and a biological determination.

@9: this isn't a term with a carved-in-stone legal definition. When transfolks refer to surgery or "reassignment", FTMs especially, they may well be referring to something other than phalloplasty. FYI, etc.

I believe Sweden had sterilization for the mentally impaired up until 1974. They had it for many decades prior. Evidently, eugenic sterilization (forced?) was practiced in W. Europe (most certainly Germany) prior to WWII. It is disturbing that it occurs today anywhere.

@16 Give stirwise a break. Maybe s/he is Dutch.

@22 and Canada... and USA I think. Look up cold spring harbour lab and its history. Eugenics was all the rage in the 20th century.

@4 Many trans people do not have any surgery. Many indigenous cultures have traditionally recognized a "third gender" or "third sex" and for some trans people, it's fine to live as their experienced gender without the need for any sexual reassignment surgery (some as male or female, some as a third gender).

And as an aside, I'm not sure if the guy in the video usually prefers to identify as a guy or a transman or FTM trans person, but he is *hot*. Hope he gets to keep his ovaries and womb and still get the legal change on his passport.

@28

Not that I disagree in spirit with your premise, but I have never heard of any culture, aboriginal or otherwise, that conceived a third gender rather than the neutral--and even that mostly grammatically.

Citation requested. Also, this would be interesting reading for me.

Goodness, I meant the neuter, not the neutral.

In Australia, (and most other english speaking countries), we differentiate more between gender and sex, whereas I find Americans use the word "gender" interchangably to mean both gender and sex. But they're different. Gender is identity and sex is biology. On the census form, it doesn't ask you your gender, it asks you your sex. And then it's assumed you'll go by the matching pronoun.

Could we just have two checkboxes on license forms? One for gender and one for sex?

@29 lmgtfy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-Spirit

@11 there are any number of transmasculine folk out there who would disagree *strongly*. And does your closed-minded definition also exclude all MTFs? What about cisgendered women who are infertile for any number of other reasons?

(and before anyone reads half a sentence and fails at comprehension: yes, the term is modern, but the concept is historical.)

It would be perfectly okay to ask transpeople to have their original gonads removed, if medicine was currently capable of constructing artificial gonads to replace them.

@13: You'd be in the doctor? I distinctly remember you indicating that you do not have a penis.

@4 and 8:
That's what I was thinking as well.

@22:
The US was one of the countries in the West who continued until the late 70ies to force "undesirable" (read: poor, black and/ or analphabetic) people to get sterilised. North Carolina finally considers to pay damages to them.

@31:
That sounds like a good suggestion.

I wonder why we need to put sex / gender on passports, licenses etc anyway. As long as it has an up-to-date photo and DOB shouldn't that be enough for identification purposes?

@36:
Actually, the last forced sterilization in the US occurred in 1981, in Oregon, where forced sterilization was legal until 1983.

The US was also the first country to perform forced sterilization for eugenics purposes (the first state to legalize it was Indiana, in 1907), and the American eugenics program was actually the inspiration for Nazis'.

@29 @30 -- Eats Shoots & Leaves your favorite book?

By "gender" I'm referring to current usage, shorthand for gender identity AND/OR biological sex.

The "third" gender/sex category varies by culture. In some cultures it's similar to trans, in others it's used for highly gender role non-conforming people with congruent gender identity (effeminate males / masculine females), in some cultures only applied to biological males, in others to intersex individuals, in others to what we'd call gay males and lesbians, in others to all of the above, etc. Some cultures have multiple categories.

If you do want a single cite, Wikipedia "third gender" has a pretty good page on this. Having studied this for years at the graduate level, my professional assessment is that Wikipedia is actually rather good on gender / sexuality entries for a quick one-point summary, especially if you know what entries to look up.

But yes, goodness, for grammarians, you are right, pronouns are either he/she or neuter. Interestingly, some highly patriarchal cultures also have neuter pronouns (many east Asian languages), where status signifiers are more important.

@35 No it would NOT "be perfectly okay to ask transpeople to have their original gonads removed, if medicine was currently capable of constructing artificial gonads to replace them."

OMG. Why are you so rigid?

There are MANY ways to be "trans" and many felt experiences, some of which involve full sexual reassignment surgery. Even if future technology were able to magically make a complete surgical change there would still be some individuals for whom that would not be the best fit.

The whole problem with the Swedish law is that it's based on this type of absolutist thinking (which is also the case in some US states).

Way-way-waaaitaminute...

I haven't read the Swedish law on this; I only listened carefully to what Mr Elfvelin said in his appeal (and I hereby respectfully afford him the courtesy that the Swedish government feels it cannot). While in his view, the law could be interpreted as 'forced sterilization', but it could also be interpreted as something much more banal.

I would first argue that 'forced' is much too strong a word. If he chooses to present himself as a male, but remain legally a female, then no 'forced' sterilization will occur. This is admittedly and awkward state of affairs, as it would inevitably lead to confusion and doubts wherever the identity card is involved. (For the American readers: The identity card or passport is used like the drivers license is in the States as the definitive form of verification, in domestic and intranational transactions both official and commercial.) Mr Elfvelin understandably feels uncomfortable with this arrangement, and wants to be able to legally identify as a male.

He says that in order to legally change his gender on his identity card, he'll need to have an operation. I don't imagine this operation is merely a sterilization procedure, but I could be wrong. It could be that, in order to be legally considered a man, he will have to undergo sexual reassignment surgery; and at present, this surgery will leave him an infertile male.

Again, I haven't read the Swedish law, but I doubt that the thrust of the law is to force sterilization upon anyone seeking to change their legal gender status. (Then again, given their history as Nazi sympathizers, and after seeing the recent film about dragon tattoos, I wouldn't necessarily put it past them.)

But given Sweden's reputation for progressive sensibility in many other societal matters, I have to wonder whether this has more to do with legal definitions than abominable eugenics projects. I would tend to presume that, if gender reassignment surgery were capable of leaving him a fertile male, the state would happily accept this; though at present, this is not possible, given the current technology. At the same time, even the progressive Swedish government apparently cannot accept mere self-identification as grounds for legal gender status. While not wanting to sound all santorum-y, what if someone requested to be legally identified as a plant, or (dare I say it?) a dog? The state, while it may be more than willing to indulge, would probably want to be able to verify this claim factually, in order to support it legally.

The question seems to be: How does the state define a person's gender if not by their physiology?

The simplest solution would be for the Swedish government to devise an approval process for gender self-identification. They could then issue an auxiliary card stating something like, 'Gender: Female, (Male Self-identification: Approved)'.

[begins]

[Love] Hi, my name is Love, I'm from Sweden and I'm trans. That means I am born in a female body but my heart says I'm a man.

I'm speaking out today because the Swedish government is forcing thousands of people like me to make an impossible choice.

If I need to change the gender on my identity card to reflect my true self - just a small change from an F to an M - my country will force me to be sterilized. I can either be represented correctly or have my basic human rights violated. That is not a fair choice.

I'm at a protest today, in front of the parliament to ask for the law to be changed and this barbaric practice to end. Your support is making a difference. Please join us by signing the petition and telling your friends to do the same.

Thank you.

[allout.org/stop_forced_sterilization]

[ends]

@4 summed up this whole thing.

Dan and that woman(yes she is a woman) in the video misrepresented it. If you just thought for a second you would realize how stupid forced sterilization would be in a country like Sweden.

Reading so much ignorance and failure of empathy in this comment thread, I regret all the times I've felt exasperated by the stridency of so many trans activists. I understand it a lot more now.

Many commenters are missing what the problem is here. It's perfectly possible for a trans person to identify with and live as whichever gender without having to undergo genital reconstructive surgery. Imagine someone born as a man who transitions to female except for the genital surgery. She can live a happy life as a woman that is unremarkable in every respect except for romance, which may be more complicated but still potentially happy and fulfilling. If, however, her official identification reveals her transgendered status, she is more susceptible to discrimination. Thus there is an obvious reason why offical reassignment of her gender identification is desirable. What, and who, is served by denying it over the condition of her genitals?

Consider further that she may want to have children and is thus postponing genital reconstruction until after she has done so? What is the purpose of requiring her to be officially identified as a man in the interim?

Consider further still a point that has been mentioned but ignored here: the law as it is forbids her from banking sperm prior to genital reconstruction for reproductive use later. Therefore, in order to fully identify as a woman, genitals and all, she must choose also to be an infertile woman. Those who dispute that this qualifies as "forced sterilization" are relying on the same logic as marriage equality opponents who insist gay people already have the right to marry, because they can marry the opposite sex. Just as this logic requires gay people to choose between the legal status of state-recognized marriage or the emotional truth of romantic partnership, the Swedish law as it is requires trans people to choose between legal recognition of their identity, and their capacity to reproduce. It's not gun-to-the-head forced sterilization, but it's trade-your-civil-equality-for-your-reproductive capacity forced sterilziation. That still counts in my book.

This isn't an issue of what we each feel constitutes true sex or gender; that's a philosophical and scientific point we can differ on. It's an issue of policy merit, about the relationship between the state and its citizens. For all of you that feel that if you "really" identify as a man, you should have a penis and should not want to birth babies, fine, (I mean, I think it's dumb, but for the purpose of argument, fine) but what interest do you think the state has in enforcing this?

While I don't think this is right -- it isn't "forced sterilization". It's an absurd requirement to change your driver's license -- and I don't think it should be there. But it's not comparable to Sweden going after trans people and trying to sterilize them.

I am sort of put off by the overly dire rhetoric used: (from AllOut) "That's right: in 2012, Swedish law still mandates forced sterilization in order to do something as simple as changing the gender on your driver's license."

Changing your legal gender shouldn't be a "simple process" even if it shouldn't be prohibitively difficult. Like the entire transition process (whether that includes GRS or not), it should be somewhat drawn out to make sure that the person is truly suffering from gender dysphoria.

How on earth is this "shocking"?

Sweden is the land of state feminism, though its more typical target is sex workers. It shouldn't surprise anyone that plenty of feminists are still virulently anti-trans, especially feminists of the generation old enough to be in charge of the country.

Not everyone suffering from GID can have SRS, perhaps due to medical history or other reasons, but they still have, say, a female core identity and may need to live full time as a woman but without having surgery. The nasty part of the Swedish law as I understand it is that it prevents them from freezing sperm or eggs prior to orchidectomy/SRS which obviously means they can't procreate. That doesn't seem right.

This isn't shocking. It isn't necessarily right or wrong either. I think that how we choose to identify the concept of M or F is what really needs to change. If anyone can identify as a gender other than their biological gender then everything in our society that operates gender has to change. The prison system, sports, affirmative action style initiatives. All of this needs to be a part of the discussion.

Hi, Swede here.

Yeah, our trans law is all kinds of fucked up. Not only is sterilization a requirement when going through the gender reassignment process but, as someone mentioned, you are prohibited from preserving your sperm or eggs as well. Most people who can afford it usually go to a private clinic in Denmark and freeze their would be babies.

I love Sweden, we have awesome stuff like health care, free school, free university, student loans at 1.5% interest, help for the disabled etc etc etc. Also, I'm a girl and I can marry another girl, no problem. But things like trans issues and surrogacy are still very problematic. That sucks.

@48
Yeah, feminism is a big part of Swedish culture but it's not the feminists that are holding this bill up, a bill that almost everyone wants btw, it's our weak ass christian right (that managed to suck enough dick during the last couple of elections and win the prize of minister of social issues) that are fucking this up. Get your facts straight.

Furry Girl, I appreciate your blog, but your weird loathing of, not to mention lack of appreciation for, feminists is disturbing. You think just because someone champions women's right they must necessarily hate trans people? And want them sterilized!?! What are you smoking?

@48, I understand where you're coming from (Maggie McNeill has an intriguing article about "state feminism" in Sweden, and so does Laura Agustín, who puts it in a much more moderate way, though), but in this case this is an exaggeration. First because indeed not everyone who is in favor of women's rights hates trans people; not even every 'politically active / activist feminist' does. (There are many more non-feminists who are against trans people than feminists, at least if my personal life experience serves me right.). Second, because Sweden is not simply a case of 'state feminism'; it's more second-wave, sociology/lefty-marxist-philosophical feminism (where the current anti-sex-worker attitude results more from 'the need to send men a message' -- i.e., theory -- than from the practical aspect of whether or not their legislation actually impacts trafficking in any way, and how bad this legislation is for non-trafficked, honest, dedicated sex workers in Sweden.)

@52 Translation of your bitching: "I know Furry Girl has written hundreds of thousands of words on this subject, but I'm going to pretend I have no means of understanding why she believes any of the things she believes. It's easier to feign ignorance and throw out straw man arguments than it is to read and rebut her actual points."

Dan, they do this in the United States, too. You can't have your legal gender changed in many states until you've had some kind of surgery (top or bottom). For people who don't want surgery or can't afford it, the government basically says, well, too bad.

It gets even worse. If you're born intersex & assigned a gender at birth & it turns out they guessed wrongly, then you're "transexual" -- and face yet MORE potentially unwanted surgery!

It's pretty nasty overall. And yes, bottom surgery required in many states in this country as well. At least there's the potential option of moving somewhere more sane. In Sweden, not so much.

@13: "Hell, I wish they'd do that here. I'd be in the doctor in a heartbeat."

Siding against fellow transpersons, is there any subject that you DON'T take the anti civil rights side on?

Your beloved Ron Paul would just make sure you're arrested http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/We_the_Peop… for "deviant" behavior, you incredible dimwit.

Besides that you'd have to pay out of pocket, and you're anti-UHC.

@48: "Sweden is the land of state feminism, though its more typical target is sex workers. It shouldn't surprise anyone that plenty of feminists are still virulently anti-trans, especially feminists of the generation old enough to be in charge of the country."

You seem to lump all feminists together because it conveniently suits your pre-existing view of them all being antisex work/worker.

Oh wow, this is so wrong and inhuman.

Aside from sounding like it should be a gross and blatant human rights violation to begin with, it doesn't allow for all the potential cases where a transperson might want to keep their existing reproductive system in tact. You only need to look as far as Thomas Beatie (the the transguy who, when his wife turned out to be sterile, carried and gave birth to their two kids himself - surprised nobody had mentioned him yet) for an illustration of why. And the part about not being able to preserve sperm or eggs just comes across as malicious.

Just like @51 Kontur, I live in (and was born and grew up in-) Sweden.

@55 The state feminism that Furry Girl quotes... yeah the extreme right bitch about that allot here too. But thats besides the issue, the feminists (which is people like me, amongst other types) have very different kinds of opinions. Its a broad spectrum of ideologies that make up feminism but please please please do yourself a favour and either go all out and just say "bitches should stay in the kitchen" or shut the fuck up about something you just have no knowledge of. Just stop repeating extreme rightwing propaganda.

Swedens history of Forced Sterilization is something very very dark, we started the first Racial Hygiene center in the world and ours closed last. But thats also besides the point.

Concerning the political climate in Sweden:
The right wing block have by basicly picking up the ideological language of the left managed to get elected. After almost consistent left wing rule for 50 years they managed to get themselves to power. The thing is that every single party seems to be against forced sterilization of transgendered EXCEPT a small party of the right wing (the ones in power now) called Kristdemokraterna (Christian Democrats) who are by US standard fairly liberal but by Swedish standards horribly conservative.

The protests here will change the situation, but please keep writing our government - every little help is needed to make absolutely sure they change this law.

In a way I wish the left in the US wouldn't use as an example because whenever you claim you want to change something they can always whip that out as a example of how wonderful it is here...

@48

Get over yourself. Just because you've been burned or shamed by feminists (more likely society?) for being a sex worker does not mean that all feminists are anti-sex worker, or anti-trans, or evil, as you imply.

It's true feminism has come along way in being inclusive -- in the beginning, feminists didn't even want to acknowledge the fact that there were lesbians among its ranks, lest men decry feminism as being about hating men or advocating separation from men. It's true that feminism could probably do more to include transpeople -- as could, in fact, everybody. That is not a problem unique to feminism though, and feminists do not hate transwomen or transmen.