comment: >
  
  It’s nice to see certain countries moving more towards a positive inclusive society. We should all emulate countries like Finland in that regard.
context: Finland has passed a new, progressive rights law which makes it substantially easier for trans people to change their legal gender. >
  
  Also, trans people no longer have to prove that they're sterile in order to do so. >
  
  Pardon me? >
  
  In many countries we are not allowed to change documentation to show the correct gender without meeting certain conditions and being sterile is common. Some countries require gender affirming bottom surgery before you can do anything at all (which implies sterility anyway). And not all trans people can afford or want surgery >
  
  That's interesting, why wouldn't a trans person want the surgery? I thought they want to be the other sex? >
  
  It's a surgery which inherently carries risk to your health, often requires many visits to the doctor after and maintenance you have to perform yourself. On top of that, the current quality of those surgeries doesn't satisfy many people as it isn't the same as being born with the different parts. Some also don't want to be sterile obviously. Healthcare also isn't the same everywhere and places that require sterilisation might be more risky and have a lower quality of healthcare for example.
  ​
  I'm sure there is many more but those are just the first reasons that come to mind. >
  
  Also gender dysphoria doesn’t have to include genital dysphoria. >
  
  Also being trans isn’t contingent on dysphoria. >
  
  True I guess, but I feel like the concept of being trans implies at least some body dysphoria due to being trans. Or if not body, gender? I dunno. >
  
  It need not. Dysphoria is very common for trans people, but it’s often temporary. For trans people who do experience dysphoria, transitioning is really effective. A trans person who transitions and no longer experiences dysphoria is still trans. 
  Also, lots of trans people just never feel dysphoria and they discover their gender by following euphoria. This is perfectly valid
  We have a history of using dysphoria to define trans people because it was more palatable for cis people, but although dysphoria and being trans are highly connected, they are not the same. 
  Despite what the right argues, being trans isn’t a mental illness, it’s just a mode of being >
  
  
  Amendments also abolish a provision that required transgender people to provide a medical certificate proving they were infertile or sterilised before the government would recognise their gender identity
  
  This is the most important part. A lot of European countries' Transgender laws still have this stipulation, and - for example in Germany - there's a law in the making that would pay reparations to trans people that had to be chemically sterilized before being able to change their birth certificate, i.e. name & sex. >
  
  damn, that's really fucked up... why would the laws have this in the first place? like, surely they didn't just come out and say "we don't want trans people to have children"? >
  
  In Germany, the law came into effect after the Constitutional Court judged in favor of a transgender Woman in 1978, to be allowed to change her name. The following law came in 1980, and was since then dragged to the Constitutional Court a handful of times for violating the German Constitution.
  Back then, chemical sterilization & forced divorcement was a requirement to change your name under these laws. Subsequently, almost all of these stipulation have been declared unconstitutional (although, sadly, only in the the year 2005 to 2011) >
  
  I didn't realize it was so widespread - but, why? What is the supposed reasoning for it? >
  
  Sexism, Transphobia & and a sprinkle of 'Conservative' views. >
  
  I don't know, maybe I'm just not putting my question the right way but I'm still confused about it... I'm certain the people who made the laws didn't say "we're doing this because we're sexist and transphobic" so I am just baffled at how they'd have sold this to people >
  
  Here's what this law actually tried to enforce: you had to have THE SURGERY before you were allowed to change legal status.
  Sterilization is just a fancy word to avoid saying genital surgery, really. They were saying you HAD TO HAVE your testicles cut off to legally become a woman and you HAD TO HAVE your womb taken out to legally become a man. >
  
  It was even worse than that. Most of the countries with this law also required trans people to have any banked eggs/sperm destroyed (some trans people bank their eggs or sperm before having surgery in case they want biological children in the future). It was about not wanting them to be parents. >
  
  Holy shit that is even beyond what I knew about this. That is just monstrous. >
  
  It looks to be about the same law as in Belgium ; you go to your town hall, fill some form for gender, another one for name, boom, boom, it returns and you're happy with your ID.
  I think it's probably the best you can do it. >
  
  No, sadly you have to wait 3 months before you get the change done. But still, it's one of the best possible solutions. >
  
  By modern bureaucratic standards 3 months feels basically instantaneous. >
  
  Especially for fucking Belgium. I was a student there (outside the EU) and as a student, you have to register with the town hall and get an ID card. For my year I was there in Brussels, I registered in October (because I had to stay in an Airbnb for the month of September) and didn’t get an ID card until mid March. And it was only two months before I ended up leaving. So many trips to the town hall and having to make appointments just to turn in documents. They emphasize making an appointment as if you aren’t gonna be sitting there in an hour long queue anyway. >
  
  For a USA example, a passport renewal takes between 4 and 6 months just to print the book and send it to you. Not a brand new one. Just updating the photo, printing the book and sending it off. I'm not sure how much faster folks should reasonably expect something as big as a name change. I'm sure there's some checks that have to be done to make sure you aren't trying to like... avoid debt or a warrant or something. Shrug. >
  
  Wait 4-6 months? I just looked it up online and it’s saying passport renewal (well all passport services according to travel.state.gov) is 6-9 weeks, and 3-5 expedited. Still too long in my opinion, but the max being 2 months and a week. >
  
  I renewed mine early last year, so it might have still been partially from the COVID backlog, but was told 4 - 6 months and it took 3.5. >
  
  It’s mind boggling knowing that you can change your sex just like that. Just imagine having your daughter/mother/sister going to bathroom and then a man goes after her because he’s a woman. 
  This is going too far. >
  
  Good :) im glad trans folks there are gonna have an easier time living with dignity. >
  
  why not conscript both male and female ? >
  
  Finnish Defence Forces is actually planning to call up letter both men and women. Through as I understand at least in this stage actual service is still voluntary for women. However everyone will get call up letter. However for women it will be invite to volunteer and for men order to report for duty.
  Part of it is traditional sexism. However also it isn't a thing one can change over night. For example Finnish Defence Forces could not conscript both women and men as whole at the moment. They wouldn't have the barrack space for so many people, not enough trainers and so on.
  Which means to move to equal conscription changes to the actual conscription system and training would be needed. limit the call up to set number by year and go by volunteers and then lottery?  expand civil service? However that also would need preparations. Civil service either wouldn't be geared up to handle such large sudden increase.
  This is a thing actually debated rather considerably here in Finland. Outside of maybe fringes of "Womens conscription is bearing children" (personally position I find to be very toxic) everyone probably agrees "it's not ideal and it's not equal". Problem then comes to what to do about it. Tolerate it, despite it not being optimal? equalize the situation, both how? Full volunteer professional military instead of conscription? That would be national economy crippling expensive on the scale we would need. equalize the conscription? but how? Increasing the war strength of the reserve? Expensive. More conscripts per year? More barrack, more trainers. More civilian service to the conscription of national defence duty? How exactly. Expand the current civil service? Not very good, it has always been bit of an "well but we have to offer alternative" path and not really very tied to actual national defence duty. Civil service people generally often being used as free interns at public sector and in NGO's and so on. Turn civil service to more actual civil defence and protection service, more meaningfully integrated and being usefull to train in larger number for in case of crisis and needing rescue, medical and so on people. Well we would need to build actual training regimes, training capability and reserve system for said civil defence reserve.
  As said it's a subject of lot of debate and also lot of "it's so hard problem, lets but the yet another panel committee on job to make yet another study. Oh would you look at that the election term ended. Guess we didn't have time to do anything about that thing during this term. Maybe we look into that again after the election (say hello to yet another study committee). So much more urgent problems to handle." >
  
  It must be so nice living in a country that values the lives and wellbeing of its citizens.