Mandatory sterilization for legal sez-change. Yea or nay?

Some places--Sweden included--require people to undergo permanent sterilization before permitting them to legally change sex. I'm not sure if this only applies to people who actually want to go all the way with physical sex change.

In Sweden, this requirement has been interpreted as meaning that the person cannot preserve any viable sex cells either. From what I can tell this has never been tried in the higher courts. The law itself is not worded in such a way as to make this requirement clear. Moreover, there's a strong possibility this requirement is in violation of the ECHR.

What do things look like on your end? And what do you reckon might be good and/or bad about such laws?

I don't know of any rules on the books in the US wrt this. I can't see why it should be a requirement though. Don't know if it is an actual HR issue, but definitely a laws I would find distasteful.

Seems like a carry over from the eugenics era.

I'm guessing it must have been explained to me at some point, but I honestly don't know what the purpose of that part of the process actually is. Legal bunga bunga about how different degrees of rape are defined? I don't even know how exactly rape is defined in Nordic law.

I mean, sure, I can see the eugenics aspect, but I'm also guessing there had to have been a more PC reasoning presented when the legislation was drafted, given that tranny-acceptance in society is most definitely post-Holocaust development.

I fail to see the need for sterilization of people who want a sex-change.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wiggin

I don't know of any rules on the books in the US wrt this. I can't see why it should be a requirement though. Don't know if it is an actual HR issue, but definitely a laws I would find distasteful.

---

I think in Europe it could be brought before the courts as an article 3 ECHR violation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nessus

I'm guessing it must have been explained to me at some point, but I honestly don't know what the purpose of that part of the process actually is. Legal bunga bunga about how different degrees of rape are defined? I don't even know how exactly rape is defined in Nordic law.

I mean, sure, I can see the eugenics aspect, but I'm also guessing there had to have been a more PC reasoning presented when the legislation was drafted, given that tranny-acceptance in society is most definitely post-Holocaust development.

---

I would hope that a law with consequences as serious as this one would have a rationale so clear that an idiot could understand it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hazir

I fail to see the need for sterilization of people who want a sex-change.

---

Right. If we're going to pass laws on the topic, frankly, we outta make labels mandatory for transgendered folks. Biological sex/"born a [x]" matters.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

I would hope that a law with consequences as serious as this one would have a rationale so clear that an idiot could understand it.

---

Wait, are you calling me an idiot?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nessus

Wait, are you calling me an idiot?

---

:p My point was that this law is incredibly unethical. Such a severe penalty can only be justified by an incredible benefit, and I fail to see any benefit at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

:p My point was that this law is incredibly unethical. Such a severe penalty can only be justified by an incredible benefit, and I fail to see any benefit at all.

---

Fair enough. I'm personally not against eugenics in principle, but I too would like to see scientific backing for removing trannies from the reproduction pool. Never mind that many opt for the process only later in life, although this might be less of a thing that it is today as society becomes more accepting. (Which might be an unlikely scenario altogether depending on how poorly the global economic crisis develops, but that's a bit too broad for this thread!) So they could already have children, which makes the whole eugenics angle moot.

Considering that we don't remove people with serious genetic defects from the gene pool, I don't see how any study can justify this law.

Well obviously a eugenics-minded society would start by removing the cases that're known to be, uh, useful to remove from the eugenics POV. But my point was, the current legislation doesn't even serve eugenics considerations given that trannies can breed willy-nilly prior to the process.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nessus

Well obviously a eugenics-minded society would start by removing the cases that're known to be, uh, useful to remove from the eugenics POV. But my point was, the current legislation doesn't even serve eugenics considerations given that trannies can breed willy-nilly prior to the process.

---

Easily rectified. "Retroactive abortions." :p

I'm finding it difficult to get more info on this. The Swedish wikipedia article mentions in passing that the requirement is common in other European countries as well as in North America. So far I've only seen a clear mention of sterilization in reference to German law.

I am also not entirely sure how much of this has to do with publicly funded sex reassignment surgery etc, and how much of it has to do with legal sex change in general.

Btw, England changed their law wrt this in 2005. Surprisingly tenacious law

At the moment, that just sounds retarded to me. However, if there is a valid reason for it (other than we're trying to lower the population of said groups) I could be willing to accept it as a pre-requisit before doing the operation.

Kind of like if there's a "valid reason" to not accept gay blood or let them serve in the military.

Yeah, I love it when the blood drives come through, and I get asked to donate...I have to say I can't. :( Then get to explain why...

I used to donate in high school...oh well.

Quote:

---

Kind of like if there's a "valid reason" to not accept gay blood or let them serve in the military.

---

If there was then yes. Would you not agree if there was a valid reason?

No, I would not, because "validity" is far too low a standard to deprive someone of a fundamental right. I would require "severely undermines the ability of society to function" instead, and I can't think of any reason that could be put forth that would meet this standard.

Quote:

---

No, I would not, because "validity" is far too low a standard to deprive someone of a fundamental right. I would require "severely undermines the ability of society to function" instead, and I can't think of any reason that could be put forth that would meet this standard.

---

We have a semantic difference in what validity entails. At least you didn't have a strawman this time, you're improving.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

No, I would not, because "validity" is far too low a standard to deprive someone of a fundamental right.

---

Playing semantics here, or what? A valid reason is sufficient, provided we use the standard of an actually valid reason, rather than a "valid" reason, which seems to mean something like "any flimsy pretense."

We deprive people of their fundamental rights as a matter of SOP in the civilized world (criminal justice system), and there's nothing wrong with that... it's when we go from having a valid reason (like locking up rapists and killers and thieves and the like) to having a "valid" reason (like it being politically advantageous to outlaw certain completely consensual, victimless behaviors) that there's a problem.

The way I see it, a valid reason is a legitimate reason, but not necessarily a sufficient one. For example, what if there was evidence that this would lead to a reduction in crime? Plenty of people would think that's a valid reason to pass a law, but it wouldn't be a sufficient one.

So, yeah, semantics. Alright.