August 8, 2022 - 7:00am
Germany’s plans to allow children as young as 14 to change their legal gender should ring alarm bells across Europe. The proposed self-identification reform abandons any need for medical evidence or assessment, while parental consent was only added during the drafting of the bill.
If biological sex is an important characteristic to record and protect — and I think it is — then children will be left vulnerable. Those drafting the bill might have convinced themselves that they were de-medicalising the process, but instead they are replacing fact with fantasy.
Even the language is confused — certainly in translation. Lisa Paus, the German minister for family affairs announced “a straightforward official process for everyone whose officially registered gender doesn’t correspond to their gender identity”. Whatever happened to the word sex? If I don’t even need a gender identity to explain my own transsexualism, why should it be enshrined in law? Legislation might create legal fictions, but magical thinking can never supplant reality.
Meanwhile anyone who tries to point out historical truths may find themselves on the wrong side of the law. Referring to a trans person’s birth name – “deadnaming” – will be criminalised. Paus talked about living in “a liberal and diverse society”, but these plans sound distinctly authoritarian.
This matters for children because behind the sparkles and rainbows, transsexualism is a medical process involving powerful drugs and mutilating surgeries. But it’s surely much harder for doctors to first do no harm, and refer a child for psychotherapy when their legal papers indicate that they are the opposite sex already.
Even if children are convinced today, heartfelt testimony from de-transitioners suggests that they might not always feel that way. My view is clear: children must not be allowed to make uninformed and potentially catastrophic decisions before they grow up. Only then can they understand what it means to be an adult.
It matters for Europe because there is an ongoing concerted attempt to change society, and not in a good way. The November 2019 report co-written by law firm Dentons and the Thomson Reuters Foundation, Only adults? Good practices in legal gender recognition for youth, set out the tactics. A key focus was children and the weakening of parental rights. On extending gender recognition to children, the authors were unapologetic: ‘It is recognised that the requirement for parental consent or the consent of a legal guardian can be restrictive and problematic for minors.’
By branding these methods ‘good practice’, the unwary can be fooled into believing that it is a good thing to tell children that they can change their legal sex. And the more countries that give in to it, the harder it is for others to hold out against what becomes so-called international best practice. But for the sake of children, we mustn’t let this happen.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeAcknowledging Putin’s intelligence, or agreeing with him that wokeness is the disease of a decaying civilisation, is not the same as an indication of support for his alternatives or his methods.
Agreed. There is a class of Western journalist (most of them) who honestly can’t see this distinction.
Ukraine is Putin’s fault and the consequences will be to his eternal disgrace. Russia had no business invading Ukraine.
The West is a decadent and morally adrift society and Putin recognizes this and seeks to prevent its adoption by his own country.
Both of these can be (and are) true simultaneously.
Ukraine is PARTLY Putin’s fault. And partly the US’s for pushing NATO eastward relentlessly.
Ordinary people in the Ukraine, Russia and even western countries will suffer the consequences of these geopolitical shenanigans, as ordinary people always do, and reap few or none of the benefits.
…unfortunately, the concept of consciously holding two ostensibly contradictory ideas in one’s mind at the same time is beyond the leftist brain.
Can’t you people see that Putin simply uses issues such as ‘wokeism’ to help divide the West? (Actually he is completely opposed to gay rights; it has nothing to do with ‘wokeism’ as such. As a gay man, I’d likely be in prison or killed if I lived in Russia.
If it comes to wokeness versus Hitlerite aggression and tyranny (why should it?), I’d choose the former. The complete inability of much of the Right to agree, while rather impotently admiring various completely unsavoury pretty old-fashioned tyrants, means that they are nowhere near as influential or powerful as they perhaps could/ should be.
As for Putin’s much-vaunted intelligence, this in any case seems to have deserted him as he ignores and humiliates his advisors, crashes the Russian economy and unites his fractious Western adversaries in launching an unprovoked attack on a neighbour, which is both evil and stupid.
“As a gay man, I’d likely be in prison or killed if I lived in Russia.”
No. You may be advised to keep it to yourself but not much more and you’d soon find many ‘similar’ people who lead perfectly happy lives. However, there ARE many countries where you WOULD be in prison or killed; all are countries salivated over by the Left. For the sake of ‘community’ relations presumably.
Russia has no laws banning homosexuality nor does it jail homosexuals. US ally Saudi on the other hand…..
Putin’s intelligence – is that still being spoken of, even after this?
History doesn’t have sides. History is just a bunch of stuff that happened. If the west can shed itself of such Marxist claptrap, it may yet be saved.
The introductory chapter of John Gray’s Straw Dogs, explains how the belief that there are sides to history is rooted in Christian theology. Hegel and Marx were aware of this, but, many have now forgotten where it originated.
I miss John Gray writing for UnHerd. It was through searching for his work online I found this site in the first place.
Yup. He was my intellectual hero in the 2000s. My nagging doubt about him then, though, was why he thought that religion – or some form of ideology in its absence – was a fundamental human need yet he himself seemed to exempt himself from that condition. His response to Covid explained things for me; it turns out he wasn’t exempt at all. Just one of the many, many disappointments and revelations of the last couple of years. I’d still like to read more of his work though.
It’s not only Marxist, it’s also the Whig theory of history, which was thoroughly discredited by the events of the 20th century.
I think the author is letting their devotion to liberalism and democracy blind them on this point. The last two years have shown that many in the west want neither of these things. They want to be ruled and abused by an authoritarian illiberal state masquerading as as a progressive technocracy.
Classical liberalism and even functioning democracy itself are arguably relics of the pre pandemic years. Even the public’s response to Ukraine involves preaching about Russian authoriarianism while Britain brings in anti-protest laws and Canada uses war powers against truckers.
That’s true. And ironically, after preaching tirelessly for two years that we should not abandon liberalism and human rights, I now find myself on the side of arguing for peace – which for some makes me a Putin ‘apologist’.
Truckers’ freedom or the freedom to go about your business freely? The current rant of ‘freedom’ is code for my freedom to stop others being free to go about their lives.
I am not convinced that the ever increasing dislike of woke politics in Europe and the US has anything whatsoever to do with ” Support for Putin” any more than a support for efficient roads and railways indicated support for Hitler and Mussolini?
There’s is nothing more grating on the nerves than reading or hearing the phrase ‘right side of history’. It’s an utterly worthless phrase; most people who actually understand history know there is no ‘right side’ only THE side written by the victors.
Another dispatch from the Re-elect Macron Support Group
Maybe this just underlines how dangerous our ad hominem approach to politics has become. We seem to focus almost entirely on personalities rather than debate the issues. Maybe it was ever thus and has some value ( of course the trustworthiness of an individual is of some importance) but that doesn’t make a simple ad hominem approach right. Even “bad” people can occasionally have good ideas and “good” people can certainly stray from the straight and narrow. To condemn someone because they have espoused a “good” idea which has also been mentioned by a “bad” person is not constructive in my view. Address the issue on the basis of its merits, not on the personality of the last person who expressed a view on it.
There is some glossing over going on in this article about Macron and his performance and attitude over the course of this crisis.
Just hours before Russian guns opened up Macron was still pursuing, with Germany, a policy of presenting the Anglo-Saxons (their term for the USA and UK) as warmongers for releasing detailed intelligence and acting on it.
He announced a diplomatic coup in setting up a conference almost as the Russian Helicopters were taking off.
Germany clung to Nordstream2 and the EU (Macron’s chosen vehicle for his political career)was paralysed and, with Poles and the Baltic states and others taking their own actions, in danger of splitting.
For this reason only Germany finally announced the suspension of Nordstream2 and the whole panoply of actions by themselves, France and then the EU.
I find it astonishing that many progressive, or *anywhere* type, writers are often simply rewriting history, even before it HAS become history, these days.
They seem to feel just saying things make them so as if non of the rest of us have been watching everything they write about happening in real time..almost video and photo op by video and photo op.
If the performance by Macron over the last few months as the crisis around Ukraine has moved towards it’s grim climax is supposed to have sealed the deal on success in the Presidential election for him, then all I can say is God help France…because somebody will need to over the following five years.
Macron tried to negotiate a deal with Putin – I didn’t see him denying the intel.
Great post.
It was Germany followed by France who were main appeasers of Putin in EU (Italy and Greece as well, but who cares) refusing to contribute enough to NATO.
At least Germany business first Russian policy was consistent because they did not try to replace NATO with European army like France.
However Macron idiotic DeGaulle “mini me” posturing regarding military matters weekend NATO and delivered no benefits.
Strangely enough some people still regard Merkel as great politician?
Macron may be the favourite but i have 50/1 on Valerie Pecresse from a year ago and if Le Pen ,Zemmour and Melenchon are out then a sizeable section of their support may chose to vote for Pecresse in a head to head.
Macron is the incumbert and that can go both ways. Not least it is possible that the 3 extremists may not get into this years race as they have not got yet the required 500 signatory votes.The rules were changed under Macron removing the vote being anonymous.If Le Pen,Zemmour and Melenchon cannot enter the race then the election may become about democracy in France and angry far right and far left voters may look to vote against Macron
Zemmour and MLP now have their parrainages so they can stand.
The writer correctly states that Macron will benefit in the election. But what’s far more important to Macron is that Germany’s rejuvenation as an active military player, at last, will mean France will no longer be seen as the leader of EU discussions on developing military etc.