Double standard: Difference between revisions

(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)

Line 19:

|date=2020-06

|accessdate=2020-06-04

}}</ref> that is intended to strengthen the rights of intersex/transsexuals. Among other things, it is formulated in § 3 (ban on genital-altering surgical interventions): "Parents cannot consent to a genital-altering surgical intervention on the internal or external sexual characteristics of the child. [...]" The last sentence of this paragraph has it all: "§ 1631d BGB remains unaffected." This not only leaves the discriminatory and obviously unconstitutional [[German Circumcision Act|circumcision law]] untouched, but also the protection of intersexual and transsexual people has led to an absurdity whose legal conflict can hardly be resolved in this way. How, for example, is genital mutilation in a boy to be assessed from a legal point of view if the person concerned later decides that the classification "male" did not correspond to their feelings? According to the [[German Circumcision Act]], it might have happened legally, but not according to the [[~~GREEN~~]]N's draft self-determination law.

}}</ref> that is intended to strengthen the rights of intersex/transsexuals. Among other things, it is formulated in § 3 (ban on genital-altering surgical interventions): "Parents cannot consent to a genital-altering surgical intervention on the internal or external sexual characteristics of the child. [...]" The last sentence of this paragraph has it all: "§ 1631d BGB remains unaffected." This not only leaves the discriminatory and obviously unconstitutional [[German Circumcision Act|circumcision law]] untouched, but also the protection of intersexual and transsexual people has led to an absurdity whose legal conflict can hardly be resolved in this way. How, for example, is genital mutilation in a boy to be assessed from a legal point of view if the person concerned later decides that the classification "male" did not correspond to their feelings? According to the [[German Circumcision Act]], it might have happened legally, but not according to the [[GREENS]]' draft self-determination law.

A commenter on Sven Lehmann's Facebook page commented appropriately: "Especially intersexual and transsexual children are dependent on their foreskin, since this is urgently needed for later self-determined operations. [...] Whoever, like the Greens, sees gender as a freely selectable continuum, but at the same time completely binary and independent of the concrete one characteristics of the sexual organs that legalize genital mutilation makes itself completely implausible."<ref>{{REFweb

Line 138:

|accessdate=2021-06-24

}}</ref> All of the arguments in the motion at the time would also apply to give boys the same protection. Ms. Roth does not seem to see it that way to this day (2022).

=== [[FDP]] ===

==== Sabine Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger ====

[[File:Sabine Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger.jpg|thumb|100px|Sabine Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger 2013]]

The former FDP Minister of Justice (1992-1996 and 2009-2013) was in charge of the [[German Circumcision Act]]. In a ''Deutschlandfunk'' report in May 2019, ignoring the double standard between her request and her actions in 2012, she demands:

{{Citation

|Text='''The constitution must make it absolutely clear: "Children and young people are bearers of all fundamental rights from birth," says former Federal Minister of Justice Sabine Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger.'''

|Author=Sabine Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger

|Source=Deutschlandfunk

|ref=<ref>{{REFnews

|url=https://www.deutschlandfunkkultur.de/verfassungsrecht-kinderrechte-ins-grundgesetz.1005.de.html?dram%3Aarticle_id=449047

|title=Kinderrechte ins Grundgesetz, Eine Forderung von Sabine Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger

}}</ref>

}}

=== Central Council of Jews in Germany ===

@@ Line 19: / Line 19: @@
   |date=2020-06
   |accessdate=2020-06-04
-}}</ref> that is intended to strengthen the rights of intersex/transsexuals. Among other things, it is formulated in § 3 (ban on genital-altering surgical interventions): "Parents cannot consent to a genital-altering surgical intervention on the internal or external sexual characteristics of the child. [...]" The last sentence of this paragraph has it all: "§ 1631d BGB remains unaffected." This not only leaves the discriminatory and obviously unconstitutional [[German Circumcision Act|circumcision law]] untouched, but also the protection of intersexual and transsexual people has led to an absurdity whose legal conflict can hardly be resolved in this way. How, for example, is genital mutilation in a boy to be assessed from a legal point of view if the person concerned later decides that the classification "male" did not correspond to their feelings? According to the [[German Circumcision Act]], it might have happened legally, but not according to the [[GREEN]]N's draft self-determination law.
+}}</ref> that is intended to strengthen the rights of intersex/transsexuals. Among other things, it is formulated in § 3 (ban on genital-altering surgical interventions): "Parents cannot consent to a genital-altering surgical intervention on the internal or external sexual characteristics of the child. [...]" The last sentence of this paragraph has it all: "§ 1631d BGB remains unaffected." This not only leaves the discriminatory and obviously unconstitutional [[German Circumcision Act|circumcision law]] untouched, but also the protection of intersexual and transsexual people has led to an absurdity whose legal conflict can hardly be resolved in this way. How, for example, is genital mutilation in a boy to be assessed from a legal point of view if the person concerned later decides that the classification "male" did not correspond to their feelings? According to the [[German Circumcision Act]], it might have happened legally, but not according to the [[GREENS]]' draft self-determination law.
 A commenter on Sven Lehmann's Facebook page commented appropriately: "Especially intersexual and transsexual children are dependent on their foreskin, since this is urgently needed for later self-determined operations. [...] Whoever, like the Greens, sees gender as a freely selectable continuum, but at the same time completely binary and independent of the concrete one characteristics of the sexual organs that legalize genital mutilation makes itself completely implausible."<ref>{{REFweb
@@ Line 138: / Line 138: @@
   |accessdate=2021-06-24
 }}</ref> All of the arguments in the motion at the time would also apply to give boys the same protection. Ms. Roth does not seem to see it that way to this day (2022).
+=== [[FDP]] ===
+==== Sabine Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger ====
+[[File:Sabine Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger.jpg|thumb|100px|Sabine Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger 2013]]
+The former FDP Minister of Justice (1992-1996 and 2009-2013) was in charge of the [[German Circumcision Act]]. In a ''Deutschlandfunk'' report in May 2019, ignoring the double standard between her request and her actions in 2012, she demands:
+{{Citation
+ |Text='''The constitution must make it absolutely clear: "Children and young people are bearers of all fundamental rights from birth," says former Federal Minister of Justice Sabine Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger.'''
+ |Author=Sabine Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger
+ |Source=Deutschlandfunk
+ |ref=<ref>{{REFnews
+ |url=https://www.deutschlandfunkkultur.de/verfassungsrecht-kinderrechte-ins-grundgesetz.1005.de.html?dram%3Aarticle_id=449047
+ |title=Kinderrechte ins Grundgesetz, Eine Forderung von Sabine Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger
+}}</ref>
+}}
 === Central Council of Jews in Germany ===