Connect with us

International

German parliament passes law allowing minors to change their legal gender once a year

Published

1 year ago

6 minute read

Olaf Scholz

From LifeSiteNews

By Andreas Wailzer

“An exception to the unrestricted change of gender entry applies to men if the request for change is obviously in connection with an impending conscription in case of national defense,” the NZZ article states. “In such a case, the gender entry cannot be changed. Men must then remain men.”

The German parliament has passed the so-called “self-identification law,” which allows people confused about their sex, including minors, to change their legal gender once per year.

A vote in the Bundestag (German federal parliament) on April 12 saw the law passed as 374 MPs voted in favor, 251 voted against, and eleven MPs abstained.

The new legislation, proposed by Germany’s left-wing government coalition, will allow anyone to change his or her legal gender entry once per year by simply stating their desire to do so to the registry office. Parents can decide to change the legal gender of their children under the age of 14 with their offspring’s “consent.”

Minors between the ages of 14 and 18 can apply to change their gender entry themselves but will need their parents’ consent. However, in the case of a disagreement between parents and their children, a family court can make a decision based on the “best interests of the child.”

Leaked communications of top pro-LGBT doctors have shown that so-called “gender-affirming care” can cause severe mental and physical disease and that it is impossible for minors to give “informed consent” to it.

These doctors “indicate repeatedly that they know that many children and their parents don’t understand the effects that puberty blockers, hormones, and surgeries will have on their bodies,” journalist Michael Shellenberger wrote in his summary of the leaked files. “And yet, they continue to perform and advocate for gender medicine.”

While the “self-identification law” does not include any provisions on medical interventions such as gender surgeries or puberty blockers, a website established by the German government has promoted blockers and hormone injections for gender-confused children.

The head and co-founder of the German pro-family organization DemoFürAlle, Hedwig von Beverfoerde, criticized the new law and pointed out that “socially transitioning” by changing one’s name and legal gender increases the likelihood that minors will go down the path of medical “transition,” even though most children and adolescents grow out of their gender-confusion once they hit adulthood.

“Even if the [German] government claims that the SBGG [self-determination law] has nothing to do with trans-medical measures, this law removes all protective barriers.”

“This is happening at a time when more and more countries are banning the use of puberty blockers, and the evidence from studies is becoming increasingly clear. Most recently, for example, a comprehensive study commissioned by the British Health Service (‘Cass Review’) shows that social transition with name and pronoun changes fuels medical transition and that most young people reconcile with their biological gender if they are given sufficient time to think about it,” she continued.

Von Beverfoerde concluded by calling on the German government to ban puberty blockers, cross-sex hormone injections, and surgical interventions for minors.

READ: UK’s National Health Service to stop prescribing puberty blockers to gender-confused children

Chancellor Olaf Scholz from the Social Democratic Party (SPD) welcomed the law: “We show respect for transgender, intersex and non-binary people – without taking anything away from others.”

“This is how we continue to drive forward the modernization of our country,” he added.

The law was criticized by the politicians from the Christian Democrats (CDU/CSU), the Alternative for Germany (AfD), and the Bünsdnis Sarah Wagenknect (BSW).

AfD MP Martin Reichardt said the law was “ideological nonsense” promoted by “trans-extremists” and that his party rejected the “ludicrous law” in its entirety.

Under the new law, anyone who reveals the former name or true gender of someone who changed their legal registry can be fined up to € 10,000 ($ 10,672) if they share this information “with the intent to harm.”

However, as a report by the newspaper NZZ points out, in the case of war, gender ideology has to take a back seat.

“An exception to the unrestricted change of gender entry applies to men if the request for change is obviously in connection with an impending conscription in case of national defense,” the NZZ article states. “In such a case, the gender entry cannot be changed. Men must then remain men.”

The Self-Determination law is due to come into force on November 1, 2024.

Related Topics:

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

More from this author
Business / 10 hours ago

The Digital Services Tax Q&A: “It was going to be complicated and messy”

Alberta / 10 hours ago

Pierre Poilievre – Per Capita, Hardisty, Alberta Is the Most Important Little Town In Canada

International / 10 hours ago

Elon Musk forms America Party after split with Trump

International

Elon Musk forms America Party after split with Trump

Published on July 6, 2025

By

MXM logo MxM News

Quick Hit:

Elon Musk announced Saturday he is forming the “America Party,” claiming it will challenge what he calls the “one-party system” in Washington. The move follows his public split with President Trump and appears aimed at targeting Republicans who supported the president’s domestic agenda.

Key Details:

  • Musk announced the America Party on X, declaring that Americans are living under a “one-party system” and need a new political alternative.
  • The launch followed his criticism of Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill.
  • On Independence Day, Musk posted a poll asking if Americans wanted “independence from the two-party (some would say uniparty) system,” which he cited as support for forming the party.

Diving Deeper:

Elon Musk formally announced the launch of his new political outfit — the “America Party” — on Saturday, marking a new chapter in his increasingly public clash with Republican leadership.

“When it comes to bankrupting our country with waste & graft, we live in a one-party system, not a democracy,” Musk wrote on his platform, X. “Today, the America Party is formed to give you back your freedom.”

The announcement comes as tensions between Musk and President Trump have escalated. While Musk previously worked closely with the administration as head of the Department of Government Efficiency, the relationship has deteriorated in the wake of Trump’s push for the One Big Beautiful Bill, a major domestic package that Musk now openly criticizes.

In a series of recent posts, Musk vowed to help primary Republican lawmakers who backed the bill. “They will lose their primary next year if it is the last thing I do on this Earth,” he posted earlier this week.

He’s offered few specifics beyond that, other than suggesting the party will “laser-focus” on a handful of Senate and House races in 2026. So far, there’s been no indication of a formal party structure, candidate recruitment, or funding plan.

Critics were quick to compare Musk’s move to Ross Perot’s 1992 presidential bid, which many credit with splitting the conservative vote and aiding Bill Clinton’s election. “You are pulling a Ross Perot, and I don’t like it,” one user reportedly responded on X.

Meanwhile, Trump has reportedly explored options to retaliate. According to multiple reports, the president has discussed whether to revoke federal contracts connected to Musk’s companies and even floated questions about his citizenship. “We’ll have to take a look,” Trump told reporters when asked directly.

While it’s too early to tell whether the America Party will amount to more than a personal platform, the political message is clear: Musk is now openly working against Republicans he once aligned with, and doing so under his own banner.

Continue Reading

International

CBS settles with Trump over doctored 60 Minutes Harris interview

Published on July 6, 2025

By

MXM logo MxM News

CBS will pay Donald Trump more than $30 million to settle a lawsuit over a 2024 60 Minutes interview with Kamala Harris. The deal also includes a new rule requiring unedited transcripts of future candidate interviews.

Key Details:

  • Trump will receive $16 million immediately to cover legal costs, with remaining funds earmarked for pro-conservative messaging and future causes, including his presidential library.
  • CBS agreed to release full, unedited transcripts of all future presidential candidate interviews—a policy insiders are calling the “Trump Rule.”
  • Trump’s lawsuit accused CBS of deceptively editing a 60 Minutes interview with Harris in 2024 to protect her ahead of the election; the FCC later obtained the full transcript after a complaint was filed.

Diving Deeper:

CBS and Paramount Global have agreed to pay President Donald Trump more than $30 million to settle a lawsuit over a 2024 60 Minutes interview with then–Vice President Kamala Harris, Fox News Digital reported Tuesday. Trump accused the network of election interference, saying CBS selectively edited Harris to shield her from backlash in the final stretch of the campaign.

The settlement includes a $16 million upfront payment to cover legal expenses and other discretionary uses, including funding for Trump’s future presidential library. Additional funds—expected to push the total package well above $30 million—will support conservative-aligned messaging such as advertisements and public service announcements.

As part of the deal, CBS also agreed to a new editorial policy mandating the public release of full, unedited transcripts of any future interviews with presidential candidates. The internal nickname for the new rule is reportedly the “Trump Rule.”

Trump initially sought $20 billion in damages, citing a Face the Nation preview that aired Harris’s rambling response to a question about Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. That portion of the interview was widely mocked. A more polished answer was aired separately during a primetime 60 Minutes special, prompting allegations that CBS intentionally split Harris’s answer to minimize political fallout.

The FCC later ordered CBS to release the full transcript and raw footage after a complaint was filed. The materials confirmed that both versions came from the same response—cut in half across different broadcasts.

CBS denied wrongdoing but the fallout rocked the network. 60 Minutes executive producer Bill Owens resigned in April after losing control over editorial decisions. CBS News President Wendy McMahon also stepped down in May, saying the company’s direction no longer aligned with her own.

Several CBS veterans strongly opposed any settlement. “The unanimous view at 60 Minutes is that there should be no settlement, and no money paid, because the lawsuit is complete bulls***,” one producer told Fox News Digital. Correspondent Scott Pelley had warned that settling would be “very damaging” to the network’s reputation.

The final agreement includes no admission of guilt and no direct personal payment to Trump—but it locks in a substantial cash payout and forces a new standard for transparency in how networks handle presidential interviews.

Continue Reading

Trending

X