Tuesday, January 17, 2012

Forced Sterilization in Sweden????

Forced Sterilization of transgenders in Sweden has been upheld by the Swedish Parliament. Under normal circumstances I would find this so abhorrent that I would be railing against such a travesty against Human Rights.  The problem is it is not a travesty against human rights it is quite simply the result of people believing that women should not have a penis that enables them to get women pregnant and men should be able to get pregnant.

In many ways it is odd that a Socialist Country like Sweden would require one to have surgery in order to change one's sex or gender markers. One would think such a liberal nation would view transsexuals in the same broad light that the transgender community wishes. In other words that being female does not include those men in dresses that wish to maintain their pleasure organ nor does being male include the concept of getting pregnant. After all we would never want to prevent anyone from enjoying themselves in their fantasy world. After all saying that you are female should obviously be all that is required to be documented as female.

This attempt to classify this surgery as sterilization is just another attempt by the Transgendered to force on the world a new world order for what defines female and male. It is of course Political Correctness gone wrong because originally it truly meant getting SRS if MTF and a hysterectomy if FTM. In the world before transgenderism became the holy grail for those that wanted to play girl but not take the necessary steps to become as female as possible or vice-versa for the FTM our holy grail was the absolute need for that surgery to be complete.

Any true MTF transsexual just wants to be rid of that part of her anatomy that defines her as male. Only a man wants a penis and whether you call it a "neo-clit" or whatever it is still a male penis. Why would any FTM transsexual want to get pregnant? They are trying to be men not women. It seems in the modern politically correct world of the transgendered you have the right to claim any sex/gender you want to based on the momentary urges you have.

Those of us born transsexual just want to be as normal was we can be which means just be recognized as either a female or a male and not some third sex/gender that morphs depending on the moment.

The use of the term sterilization is interesting and deliberate. It brings up images of Nazi sterilization and other dark images. It is a classic scare tactic. Is SRS in fact sterilization? I can assure you I do not know a single truly transsexual person that would consider it as such but in reality it is what those born transsexual are more than willing to undertake in order to correct our birth mistake. What female would want penis?  What man would want a vagina and the ability to get pregnant?

The main aim of the transgender supporters is to blur what is female and what is male. It is not for the benefit of those born transsexual but for the transvestites and cross-dressers that dominate the transgender crowd. Those born transsexual truly want to be female or male but the transgendered want to play at it with impunity. Under their world view one could change one's sex marker at will.

Unfortunately I am afraid they will eventually win because political correctness has run amok in the world and in particular in this arena because quite bluntly all transgenderism really comes down to is men playing girls and you can bet they will have documents for both of their alter egos so they can be Jane on Monday and John on Tuesday.

So what is really happening here is transvestites are telling those born transsexual that the SRS we go through in an attempt to make us complete is in actuality just sterilization. I cannot speak for other transsexuals but that is more than insulting but not quite as insulting as when they tell us that women can have a penis but damn close. Welcome to the new world order where men win again and thanks to the GLB idiots for falling prey to this total bullshit and actually supporting it. I guess all those lesbians do not mind men in dresses claiming they are lesbians and socializing with them. It is just another attempt to subvert what being born transsexual means and in the end they will trivialize transsexualism to the point we are all transvestites. After all that is really the goal.


Stacy said...

I agree - 100%. SRS should be a requirement for a change of legal status - especially considering the Swede's socialized medical system.
I think the problem with the legislation is that transsexuals are also barred from storing sperm or eggs for future use.
If other citizens are allowed to do this under their socialized medical system for other reasons, I would expect that it's at least a questionable policy from a eugenics perspective..
If the ban does not extend to them being allowed to privately fund this harvesting and storage through a non-government source - then I don't see a problem with it at all. That's just their government saying "we'll happily pay for treatment and surgery, but not the storage of reproductive tissue - you're on your own for that".

Robyn Nicole said...

Is this serious or is it a comedy? Are you a sheltered transsexual? Is that you in the photo or is it a fake since your really old? I communicate with a lot of TS's daily, and this isn't even a normal conversation piece. Your link was posted on facebook as a wth? You should check this out. You won't believe it.

Anonymous said...

But it's not forced sterilisation is it? I mean as you point out it's an insistence that SRS is performed before the state will recognise their sex. Seems perfectly reasonable to me.

Elizabeth said...


The state should not be in the business of story sperm for MTF transsexuals or eggs for FTM transsexuals.

@Robyn Nicole

You communicate with a lot of TS Daily? Then you would know that most born transsexual are in favor of requiring SRS for legal change of sex on a birth certificate. Short term change on a passport for 2 years is a reasonable position for all. But then those claiming to be transsexual and supporting this are really transgender and not transsexual.

Using the term sterilization by any group in relationship to SRS is both inaccurate and denigrating to those that have had it and to those looking forward to claiming the life they should have been born into.

It is NOT forced sterilization it is simply the requirement that one have SRS before hanging sex documents. I realize that is an inconvenience for those that want to keep their penis or keep their uterus so they can procreate in the gender they claim they no longer are. That by itself is a dichotomy but when one wants to redefine what female is for the men playing girl all os fair isn't it?

Natasha said...

I agree with a lot of what you say, but not in this post I'm afraid.

The issue here is not the requirement for srs, although I do have problems with that, as I will sadly not be at that point for quite a few years, and would therefore (If I lived in Sweden)must have an incorrect passport for that period of time.

No, the main issue is the fact that sperm donation is not allowed. I completely understand that the government themselves will not fund it, but preventing people from doing it privately (Which they do!) is just wrong.

I plan to have a child with my partner one day (I'm a lesbian BTW) and if the government was to try and prevent me from doing so, then I would be furious!

I completely agree that people should have gone through (Or at least should be planning to go through) srs, in order to have their gender recognized legally, and I do not believe that the srs requirement on it's own should ever be treated as "sterilization".

However a requirement of srs, and not allowing the banking of reproductive materials is most definitely sterilization: as it essentially bars transsexual people from ever having children.

Personally I think I'll make a pretty good mum one day, even if I can't give birth to my child myself, and I'll fight like hell against any regime that prevents transsexual people from having children.

Elizabeth said...


That is not sterilization under any circumstances. Why should the public in any medical system have to pay for any transsexual to store sperm or even eggs? That is ludicrous.

Why should the government pay for this? One can publicly pay to store sperm which for someone like me that was born transsexual is something I would never do. Whay would a woman want to father a child?

What this all comes down to is a matter of choice for Swedish transsexuals. If they want to store it they can pay for it themselves which is certainly NOT forced sterilization.

This is typical transgender bullshit. Wrap up something in a sinister package and use connotative phrasing that purveys promotes fear like forced sterilization does and you have a campaign of fear based on half-truths and inaccuracies.

The entire problem is a small part of the law is seemingly unpalatable for some so the entire bill is forced sterilization. It would be a reasonable action to promote removal of the ban on sperm saving paid by the government but that is and never was the intent of this scare campaign.

The transgender crowd wants the need for SRS removed for change of the sex/gender marker. It is just another example of men in dresses wanting to keep their penis and gain the identity of women when they are and always will be men.

Forced sterilization is not what it is. I do not know a single person truly born transsexual that wanted to save sperm but then it is another thing for the transgendered.

Do not fear because in socialist Europe this law will be changed so boys can still be boys while claiming to be girls cause they think it is neat. In their new world order women can have a penis because as men they deserve that right and that is all this is about because most of the screaming idiots have already married women, fathered children, and are staying with the wife so just how many need to save sperm?

chrissieB said...

So because YOU do not wish to take advantage of such a facility, then you believe no one else should be allowed to... That's essentially your argument, and it's a pretty selfish one.

Secondly, this is not a matter of sparing the the Swedish taxpayer the cost of saving sperm or embryos. The ban also applies to doing so on a private basis.

It may interest you to learn something of the actual history of sterilisation in Sweden.

Sweden, for all its liberal credentials and steadfast claims to upholding Human Rights, has a long and sorry history of practising Eugenics, and forcing sterilisation on groups of people it believes it would be undesirable to allow to procreate.

In fact, Sweden is second only to Nazi Germany in the total number of people it has sterilised. Compulsory sterilisation has been going on there since the 'thirties, reaching it's peak in the late 'forties and 'fifties.

The sterilisation of trans people was started during this period, for the same reasons. They were considered to be deviant, and therefore should be stopped from breeding.

From the 'seventies onwards, international and public indignation and pressure forced the Swedish government to drop this inhumane policy, which they did in 1976, FOR ALL BUT TRANSSEXUALS.

The current legislation, which mandates sterilisation for trans people should they wish to attain their correct gender status, was about to be overturned. Public support for such a ban no longer exists in Sweden, or in most of the civilised world for that matter.

Only the actions of a very small, far-right religious political party (the Christian Democrats), who have a place in the coalition government, kept the ban in place.

So in agreeing with the ban you are in dodgy company, pet, agreeing with a bunch of far-right religious nut-jobs who would not piss on the likes of us if we were on fire.


Anonymous said...

To those of you who seem to have it all backwards and want to force it on the rest of the world.

Women don't father children and men don't have eggs implanted in a host to bear children.

Calli9ng this forced sterilization is simply more Tee-Gee doubletalk.

Natasha said...

You seem to have misunderstood my comment... let me reiterate my points in case I wasn't clear enough:

That is not sterilization under any circumstances

It it sterilization, because they require SRS, and refuse to allow you to store reproductive material: either publicly, or privately.

Why should the public in any medical system have to pay for any transsexual to store sperm or even eggs?

I at no point suggested that the public or the government should be paying for it. to quote my original comment: "I completely understand that the government themselves will not fund it, but preventing people from doing it privately (Which they do!) is just wrong."

What this all comes down to is a matter of choice for Swedish transsexuals. If they want to store it they can pay for it themselves which is certainly NOT forced sterilization.

If my understanding of the situation over there is correct, before you can get your gender recognized legally, you are required to destroy any sperm that you may previously have banked.

That's just not right: If it's not costing them any money then why do they insist on it's destruction? It's at attempt to prevent transsexuals from passing on their DNA, which in my books, counts as sterilization.

someone like me that was born transsexual is something I would never do. Whay would a woman want to father a child?

Why would a woman want a child? Do you really need to ask that question? I would love a baby in my life someday, and while I won't be able to bring it in to the word myself, I would still like to have that biological tie.

Being a lesbian, means I'm in the situation where me and my partner are considering either IVF, or adoption. If we are to go down the IVF route, then why not use genetic material that came from both of us?

I do not know a single person truly born transsexual that wanted to save sperm but then it is another thing for the transgendered.

Whilst I very often agree with your comments on the difference between transsexuals and the transgendered, I feel in this case you've gone a little too far.

I don't see how wanting to raise a child with my partner pushes me from transsexual, to transgender? Plenty of lesbians raise children together (Which I assume is something you don't take issue with?), so I don't see why the rules should be any different for us, just because I'm transsexual.

because most of the screaming idiots have already married women, fathered children, and are staying with the wife so just how many need to save sperm?

For the record, and just to put my comments in to perspective. I'm 20, and my partner was aware that I was transsexual before we began dating.

I know that a lot of transsexual people who identify as lesbian are really just trying to avoid breaking up their families, and are not truly lesbians, so perhaps it is okay for you to spout such rubbish at them (I almost agree with you)

But I don't see why in my situation, I would be denied the right in Sweden to raise a child with my partner. We'd do it anyway, and just have to use a random sperm donation... so why not use material that came from me?

Anonymous said...

Save my sperm !!! ewwwww

The absolute last thing I wanted to do before SRS was to save sperm. Oh there were those that suggested I should do it, family and friends, but they just didn't get it .. then or now ...and it's been a long time since then and now.

True transsexuals have zero interest in becoming fathers, thats a transgender thing done by men who want to game both sides of the system.

Anonymous said...

I agree that framing the requirement as sterilization rather than SRS is total spin. I've seen it done before. Sterilization is a side effect, not the main event. As you say, a transsexual needs SRS, whatever the cost, and part of that cost is the loss of reproductive ability.

I also think, however, that forbidding the storing of reproductive material, even privately, is draconian. I personally would never have wanted to father a child, but I think it goes too far to forbid such a thing. Since I'm mainly concerned that SRS be a requirement for legal change of sex, I really don't care if someone stores sperm or eggs. That's peripheral.

From what I've read so far, this law gets reviewed only every 40 years, and the right wing parties are preventing a change.


Stephanie said...

Un fricking believable, Elizabeth!

And what happens to the 14yr old transsexual "boy" going to school who looks so much like a girl that nobody would know "he" was a boy if "his" records didn't out "him"? "He" would get the shit beat out of "him" daily. Forcing this child to be sterilized before allowing a record change is ludicrous. Suppose that after years of therapy he decides he's not transsexual and may desire to have children someday. Oops, too bad?
Your way off in your thinking. NOBODY for any reason should be forced to have a medical procedure done to them.

Anonymous said...

Finally some common sense in this debate. Thank you for this.
There is no forced sterilization going on in Sweden. Not a single person is being forced to be sterilised. And it is insulting towards real transsexuals to assume that the SRS they are getting as an informed and entirely voluntary decision, is something they would be flaky about.
This whole thing is just a manipulation from the parties in power in order to fish for new voters, modernise their image, and make people pay less attention to the actual human rights violations going on in the country, ie mass deportations of refugees to war zones, cancellations of health coverage resulting in thousands of deaths and suicides, etc.

Elizabeth said...


It is not forced sterilization because nobody is forced to have the state pay for SRS. It is the choice of the individual. Forced sterilization actually means you are forced to be sterilized. Nobody is forcing ANYBODY to have the state pay for SRS and there are facilities elsewhere where you MEN can store your sperm.

The state denying to pay sperm and egg storage IS NOT forced sterilization. But do not worry I am sure socialist Sweden will bow and all you men will be able to jack off one last time and store it for future's sake.


As usual you are a complete wrong. Again nobody is forced to have anything done to them. They deny them the right to have the state pay for sperm storage if the state pays for SRS. Try a reading comprehension class.

@Natasha and Sagebrush

I have no issue with fighting that part of the bill that prevents private storage of sperm and eggs if that is what it does do. It is draconian as Sagebrush says but if you want state funded SRS then you play by their rules.

Anonymous said...

The sterilisation of trans people was started during this period, for the same reasons. They were considered to be deviant, and therefore should be stopped from breeding.

Are you really sure that is the real reason, and not just some transgender propaganda? Because we have the same sterilization requirement here in the Netherlands, and it's there because that law would otherwise have caused problems with already existing family law. Today homosexual couples can adopt children, but back then that wasn't an option and kids couldn't have two fathers or two mothers.

I personally also have major problems with the way transgender organizations are framing this as "forced sterilization". It is *not*.

My passport also mentions my length, and if I would undergo surgery to shorten my legs, I could have that length changed on my passport. But it would be silly to acccuse the government of "forced length reduction" because they won't change it if I tell them that I feel shorter then I really am.


Anonymous said...

chrissieB, you're mixing everything up. Romas, Sames, mentally-ill people and homosexuals were indeed sterilised by force in Sweden, up until the 70's. But this has nothing to do with the law in question (have you even read it?), which does not by any means require forced sterilisation of transexuals. Noone is being mutilated, noone is being forced surgery on against their will. SRS is completely voluntary and makes a massively positive impact on the life of people who have it. To compare the two cases is ridiculous and insulting to those who have truly had sterilisation forced on them back then.

Stephanie said...

For those who say it is not forced sterilization. If you had cancer and the government said, "Yes you can have surgery to cure you but first you have to be sterilized because we don't want any of your off-spring to get cancer, you would be up in arms about it. Likewise dangling the cure for transsexualism in someone's face and then saying, "Oh, but you have to be sterilized first", is the same thing as forcing someone to make a decision that they may not want.

And besides, who does it hurt if the birth certificate is changed without sterilization?


Anonymous said...

Here's a more troubling question. If the combination of the genetic/epigenetic markers for transsexuality are ever found and a test is created to see if the fetus is transsexual, then it is quite obvious most of them will be aborted.

Is that a good thing or a bad thing?

I would argue it's a good thing because there isn't a single damn silver lining to being born this way. Humans tend to rationalize their painful experiences to give them meaning, but that doesn't make the experience particularly meaningful. You might say that the car crash or a bomb blast caused a memento mori moment and it lead to XYZ, but that doesn't make those events desirable despite the fork on the road conjecture. If the person could change it and didn't need to rationalize the pain then I bet most of them would within a second.

The same goes for me. If I wanted to I could assign some sort of elaborate meaning to pop out some contrived benefit of being born this way, but to be honest it's torture and I don't wish it on anyone.

It's also torturous for the parents involved and if they have the choice to abort a child like me and if they make that choice, then I don't blame them.

No one should be born this way, so it is a good thing if no child is ever born with this pain.

At the same time I do feel a stab of uneasiness and wonder if I've signed someone's death warrant.

Anonymous said...

The disingenuousness of calling SRS "sterilization" is mind-boggling. Sterilization is when the purpose of the procedure is to remove reproductive capability. If you need SRS, the fact that you will become infertile is of little or no consequence. If remaining fertile is that important to you, then I guess having the right organs for your sex isn't, so please don't have SRS. And thus don't ask the state to change your sex legally when you haven't done so anatomically -- by choice.

Anonymous said...

@Stephanie: Since when is having your birth certificate changed a cure for transsexualism?


Anonymous said...

@Stephanie: do you even know what you're talking about? Apparently not. People are not being told they need to be sterilized to get SRS surgery. They are being told that if they want their official papers to reflect their sex change, then they need to have had a sex change. That's what the law says. Point blank. Stop imagining things.
And there's nothing wrong with this law. You are not officially married unless you actually get married now are you? You can't ask to change your official age because you feel younger/older than your years. You can't add "Dr." title in front of your name without being an actual doctor or having a PhD. Same thing here.

Anonymous said...

@Stephanie: the 14yr old transsexual boy example doesn't hold. Kids at school don't have access to such information. If parents bring a kid to school and tell the school the kid is a girl, the school is obligated see the kid as such. None of the classmates or their parents will ever be able to know that the kid is anatomically a boy. Swedish security numbers have to parts: the first is date of birth, the second is four numbers, one of which indicates your gender. The last four numbers are confidential, so there's no way people would find out. It seems quite reasonable to me that someone would need to be 18 before officially changing gender on their records, you don't want parents who wanted a boy to force a girl to become one against her will for example.
Besides, in general Swedes are pretty laid-back about these things. You're much more likely to get bullied at school because you're overweight or not ethnically of swedish origins than for not looking or acting like your official gender.

Deena said...

OK so I know very little about Sweden and had to search the web for actual facts about the current law. Interestingly I found an article from 1972 which goes into some detail about how it operates and praises it. The law was adopted in 1972 and was touted as being on the leading edge amongst the international community. Here is the link. Go to the last page but the entire article is a good read. ...> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1878949/pdf/canmedaj01497-0098.pdf

One of the mechanics of the Swedish law is that changing ones sex is irreversible once approved.

I don't particularly care for some of the gate-keeping mechanics of the Swedish law but I have to admit that their law seems very functional in the sense that the rules are clear and full legal recognition for all purposes is the end result for a transsexual who is granted the changed status.

All law is a compromise. The goal is to have a functioning society and as times change laws do also but typically with a significant lag. I think it rather pompous for anyone other than a Swede to speak to what is right for Sweden in 2012.

Anonymous said...

What I don't understand here is why any woman would wish to father children? It simply makes no sense. Calling SRS "sterilisation" is another example of male transgender hysteria at the idea of losing their penis. For a transsexual the horror and hysteria lays in the fact there is a penis between their legs and not a vagina. By presenting an argument such as SRS is forced sterilisation TG's are simply exposing themselves as the men they are and therefore clearly have no right to think of themselves as women.

@Stephanie; your specious argument is "reductio absurdum" and as such is not an argument you need to try harder or get an and education mister!


Stephanie said...

Saving sperm to "Father" a child would not be the goal of a M-F transsexual. Mothering one is. And the sterilization is prior to SRS not after. I want that 14yr.old to be protected from any bigoted teacher/administrative person who would out this child. Do you believe there are no bigots in Sweden? I ask again. Who would it hurt?

Elizabeth said...


Wow!. There simply is no form of sterilization in this process unless you consider SRS sterilization. Forced Sterilization was once used to prevent people from procreating by preventing men from producing viable sperm, vasectomy or worse, and a women having eggs that could be fertilized with a hysterectomy. Some people are "sterile" based on how they were born.

This is none of these. The Swedish position is they will not pay for the storage of either sperm or eggs for transsexuals if they are having government funded SRS. They prohibit storage in Sweden. They have no authority to prevent storage at the SRS patients expense in other Euro nations. There are ways to subvert things. You could have a friend store it under his or her name in Sweden.

This is simply a case of the government paying for SRS but denying sperm/egg storage. It is not sterilization. It does not occur before SRS but at the point when you decide to allow the Swedish government pay for your SRS. Considering the capabilities of the Swedish Medical System sometimes Joe the butcher might be as good.

No 14 year old transsexual is affected by this position because they do not allow SRS in Sweden until 18 at the earliest.

It is basically a denial of a service by a socialized medical system. This was just a scare tactic by the transgender men you yourself are associated with that want to be able to procreate as men after they get their little peckers cut off and play ultimate girl.

Anonymous said...

One datapoint: I know of a case where a young MtF married a man who had a vasectomy. They used sperm the MtF had banked to conceive a child with the husband's sister as the surrogate. The couple raises the child as theirs. Genetically the child is 3/4 theirs.

- an old aunty