comment: >
  
  
  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 part of the existing law was intended to keep transgender individuals from having children, and had been widely condemned by human rights groups for many years. 
  
  Jesus. I can see why some people are opposed to this bill.
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. >
  
  It’s nice to see certain countries moving more towards a positive inclusive society. We should all emulate countries like Finland in that regard. >
  
  This seems like great news. I wonder if “gender” and “sex” are separate items on the official documentation, for the times when it’s important to know for medical emergencies, etc. Or maybe there’s not enough of a difference for that to be an issue? >
  
  For medical emergencies you need to know more than what was assigned at birth. Trans person on HRT can't be medically treated like cis people of their assigned sex. >
  
  I'm curious. What's the difference?  Besides the sexual organs, everything is pretty much the same between the two sexes.
  If it were a matter of medications, doctors usually look at the height and weight to administer the correct amount.
  EDIT:  After you start HRT, your body and metabolism would be more aligned with your gender. >
  
  Years ago my then-boyfriend, who is a trans man, got routine bloodwork done. His doctor’s clinic called to say his results looked a bit wonky, and he needed to book an appointment to discuss this and be referred for further testing. He spent a couple days before the appointment worrying that he could have cancer. 
  Turns out the reading doc was looking at his lab results using female reference values, and that’s why his results looked funky. They switched to male values and his bloodwork was normal after all. 
  This is just one example, but yeah, you can’t treat a trans person on HRT as though they are medically identical to their birth sex. >
  
  Exactly!  I say this from the experience >
  
  Oh, I think I misunderstood your post. I thought you were asking what’s the difference medically between a trans person and a cis person of the same birth sex. This is a very common argument from the anti-trans crowd, who say “biologically you’re the same as what you were born as” without understanding just how much HRT changes biology. >
  
  Don't worry!
  After many months of being on HRT, your body and metabolism indeed change to align with your gender.  (Which is amazing!) >
  
  Hurray! Respect to Finland. >
  
  You can now change your gender once a year. >
  
  Meanwhile in Florida ... >
  
  I think it’s fine. You shouldn’t have to prove you’re sterile to change your gender. You’re not changing your sex which is biological and concrete in nature. You’re changing your gender which is socially constructed. Correct? >
  
  Sex isn't just biological though. It's also a legal classification and tbh gender and legal sex are used interchangeably in pretty much all legal and social contexts. >
  
  Well that’s an issue. Sex and gender are not interchangeable terms whatsoever. Sex is concrete, gender is abstract. >
  
  They're different things, but people use them interchangeably all the time and legally there is only legal sex. Your driver's license, birth certificate, passport, ect, doesn't have gender on it. Also sure they're separate, but many trans folks are biologically somewhere in the middle, having secondary sex characteristics of both puberties and from bottom surgery so both are relevant to change for trans people. >
  
  I’m completely open to trans-people identifying as the gender they see fit. I’m also open to make society more accepting of individuals of all gender (or agender). The aspect where you lose me and many others is the genetic sex aspect. Science has proven there is: male sex, female sex and intersex (a genetic anomaly and medically recognized condition accounting for a small percentage of the population). >
  
  Trans people are well aware that their gender identity doesn't match their chromosomal* sex, that's pretty much the essence of being trans.
  *it's actually more complex than that. If you take "sex" to mean the observable, physical biology then there is male and female sex chromosomes, but sometimes they have the wrong bits so someone can be chromosomally male but genetically female and vice versa. Then the genes might not activate to trigger the hormones, or the hormones might trigger without those genes, so you can be genetically male but hormonally female and vice versa. Then the hormones might not effect the body as expected so you might be hormonally male but physiologically female and vice versa. Finally even if all these things align and you get a chromosomally male person with male genes releasing male hormones to grow a male body their brain (also part of the body) might develop neurochemical processes associated with being female... >
  
  “Trans people are well aware that their gender identity doesn't match their chromosomal* sex, that's pretty much the essence of being trans.”
  If only that view was consistent throughout the trans community. All I’ve stated is their chromosomal sex* which I improperly noted it as biological sex( learn something new every day) is concrete and unchangeable. I’ve been called a bigot , disgusting etc due to acknowledging this scientific fact. There seems to be an instant labelling out of pure emotion that is counterproductive. >
  
  First up as you note yourself you have been incorrectly referring to it as biological sex. Secondly the idea of bigotry comes form you suddenly bringing chromosomes into the conversation. What does it matter, what business of yours is it what they keep in the nuclei of their cells? Do you bring up sex chromosomes with cis-gendered people too?
  Also I'm being charitable here and assuming you're just a bit socially awkward when you blurt out about chromosomes, but some people try to use things like chromosomes and hormones and wotnot to imply that a trans-woman is somehow less of a woman, so if that isn't your intent just stop bringing in aspects of their biology that are none of your business. >
  
  Of course I use the same concept for cis-gendered people. This isn’t an attack on any person exclusively. It’s a matter of science. Also, it’s everyone’s business as it’s a conversation on Reddit. Leave your Cape at the door, you don’t need it here. >
  
  The anti-Florida and anti-Arizona >
  
  What exactly are you trying to say? >
  
  No need to explain further. Deliberately being facile isn't suiting you. >
  
  I wish I lived in a country that was moving forward instead of racing F1 cars in reverse (American) >
  
  I wish I lived in a world without religion >
  
  ruling class would just use some other method to influence 35 IQ citizens >
  
  World is going to shit
  There's no need to recognize men as women snd vice versa.
  You're born a man?deal with it,we dont have to pretend together with you >
  
  A tesla fanboy being a massive bigot? Who would've thunk.
  The thing is, it's none of your business. You don't get to look at anybody's private parts and will never be aware of the majority of transgender people in your life.
  Other people's genitals are none of your business, creep. >
  
  Meanwhile in America… >
  
  But aren't you guys who started this whole movement? >
  
  Great, respect to Finnland!
  Just don't tell Erdogan though, he might get his panties twisted, and start demanding that you adopt en more Muslim-friendly position on Gender-rights. >
  
  Turkey's gonna be pissed. >
  
  Turkey allowed legal gender reassignment before Finland did (2001 vs 2002). 
  What you are doing is called bigotry. >
  
  Definitely read, trains rights laws >
  
  Youre a geniune L for society. >
  
  I’m a unicorn. >
  
  And notice how little impact you've had on the people around you by asserting that. Almost like......it's not a big deal...... >
  
  What you described is not a commonly experienced or widespread phenomenon. Trans people obviously exist all over the world in noteworthy numbers, but “transracial” people do not. >
  
  This is madness. >
  
  Geez, the rest of the civilized world is doing what America should do. How embarrassing for us. Live and let live. Such a shame, all of this hate republicans spew is ruining our country. I can’t wait for all of these geriatric fucks do go away so we can start progressing, rather than regressing. >
  
  It is, however, very important to understand that the predecessor laws of these new laws were incredibly transphobic, if not akin to Eugenics. Forced chemical sterilization, forced annulment of marriages, abusive medical & legal requirements and the list goes on and on. >
  
  So you're saying they learned from their mistakes and have modified their behavior to be more acceptable. If only every country were capable of such. >
  
  True, but it took 'us' decades. And it took 'you' decades as well. The US had gay marriage years earlier than, for example, most of continental Europe. You struck down your Sodomy laws, and so did 'we' - but the last sodomy law in Europe was struck down in 2014, while the last one in the US was repealed in 2003. >
  
  You won't believe this I'm sure, but the U.S. is moving full circle BACK to the sodomy laws that civilized perception and behavior should preclude. 
  So here we are. All progressive and shit. Progressing right back to lynching people that other people don't agree with, regardless if they have a right to be a part of the conversation or not. >
  
  
  You won't believe this I'm sure, but the U.S. is moving full circle BACK to the sodomy laws that civilized perception and behavior should preclude. 
  
  I do, in fact, believe that. I've read enough about the most likely GQP Presidential candidate DeSantis. I know that he's as close to Nazism as they come. >
  
  I guess we should have seen this coming since Reagan, but damn. I don't want to live in nazi U.S.A. - I was just getting used to the old U.S.A. >
  
  If you hear an anguished screech in the distance, that's J.K. Rowling, pay no attention. >
  
  Given that this makes it much easier to legally change your gender in Finland, I'm curious if this would allow people to get into a men's/women's prison without a medical diagnosis >
  
  There are thousands of rapes by wardens in women prisons. No transphobe ever tries talking about it. They only want to make trans women stay in men prison and be raped to death. >
  
  The problem isn't that trans people could change prisons, it's that people who aren't trans could more easily abuse the system to change prisons >
  
  Proposed laws affect mostly trans people though. >
  
  hey im a guy and i dont wanna see other mens pepes, what about me? >
  
  What's so hard to understand about it? One is biology, the other is sociology. >
  
  They’re both biology, actually. There are developmental differences in trans people’s brains that can’t be explained away by socialization. >
  
  I mean, sociology is just applied biology anyways. >
  
  Only possible because Christianity is dying in the west. Keep it up! >
  
  I don't think that's the case lmao, but whatever helps you sleep at night.
  Edit: I don't dispute that Christianity is dying out in the West, but I do not think that the change in Finland's legislation is possible due to that :) >
  
  Ok? You don't think it is the case. Congrats on this. >
  
  Just get rid of gender from documents and replace it with sex if it's even needed >
  
  Spoilers, it's not needed >
  
  Turkey no longer supports Finland’s bid to NATO >
  
  She hot >
  
  He*