Connect with us

International

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

Published

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.

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.

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

International

RFK Jr. tells Tucker how Big Pharma uses ‘perverse incentives’ to get vaccines approved

Published on

From LifeSiteNews

By Matt Lamb

Kennedy defended his decision to fire all 17 members of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, which he decried as a tool used to “rubber stamp” vaccines.

The vaccine approval process is a “bundle of perverse incentives” since pharmaceutical companies stand to make billions of dollars in revenue from it, Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr. told Tucker Carlson recently.

Kennedy appeared on Carlson’s show yesterday to discuss a variety of issues, including the potential link between autism and vaccines and his overhauling of the vaccine advisory committee at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention last month.

Kennedy began by explaining that Big Pharma has been targeting academic journals to ensure its products receive favorable reviews.

“The journals won’t publish anything critical of vaccines … there’s so much pressure on them. They’re funded by pharmaceutical companies, and they’ll lose advertising and revenue from reprints,” Kennedy said.

Kennedy then noted that Big Pharma will “pay to get something published in these journals,” before accusing industry leaders of pushing drugs on doctors and of hiring “mercenary scientists” to manipulate data until their product is deemed safe and effective.

The entire complex is broken due to the “perverse incentives,” he lamented.

Later in the interview, Kennedy defended his decision to fire all 17 members of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) in June, which he decried as a mere tool to “rubber stamp” vaccines.

This sort of “agency capture” explains the lucrative nature of vaccines, he added.

Kennedy then summarized the “perverse” process as follows:

First of all, the federal government often times actually designs the vaccine, [the National Institutes of Health] would design it, would hand it over to the pharmaceutical company. The pharmaceutical company then runs it … first through [the] FDA, then through [the] ACIP, and gets it recommended.

If you can get that recommendation you now got a billion dollars in — at least — revenues by the end of the year, every year, forever. So, there was a gold rush to add new vaccines to the schedule and ACIP never turned away a single vaccine … that came to them they recommended, and a lot of these vaccines are for diseases that are not even casually contagious.

Kennedy further pointed to the Hepatitis B shot for newborns as an example of how the industry has been corrupted.

In 1999, the CDC “looked at children who had received the hepatitis vaccine within the first 30 days of life and compared those children to children who had received the vaccine later — or not at all. And they found an 1,135% elevated risk of autism among the vaccinated children. It shocked them. They kept the study secret and manipulated it through five different iterations to try to bury the link,” he said.

“We want to protect public health,” Kennedy explained, but “these vaccines … can cause chronic disease, chronic injuries that last a lifetime.”

Continue Reading

Censorship Industrial Complex

Global media alliance colluded with foreign nations to crush free speech in America: House report

Published on

From LifeSiteNews

By Dan Frieth

The now-defunct ad coalition GARM shared insider data and urged boycotts of Twitter to punish non-compliance with its ‘harmful content’ standards, a US House Judiciary report shows.

A new report from the U.S. House Judiciary Committee has shed light on what it describes as an alarming collaboration between powerful corporations and foreign governments aimed at suppressing lawful American speech.

The investigation focuses on the Global Alliance for Responsible Media (GARM), an initiative founded in 2019 by the World Federation of Advertisers (WFA), which the committee accuses of acting as a censorship cartel.

According to the report, GARM, whose members control about 90 percent of global advertising spending, exploited its market dominance to pressure platforms like Twitter (now X) into compliance with its restrictive content policies.

A copy of the report can be found HERE.

The committee highlighted how GARM sought to “effectively reduce the availability and monetization” of content it deemed harmful, regardless of public demand for free expression.

Documents obtained by the committee reveal direct coordination between GARM and foreign regulators, including the European Commission and Australia’s eSafety commissioner.

In one exchange, a European bureaucrat encouraged advertisers to leverage their influence to “push Twitter to deliver on GARM asks.”

Similarly, Australia’s eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman Grant praised GARM’s “significant collective power in helping to hold the platforms to account” and sought updates to “take into account in our engagement and regulatory decisions.”

Partial email from Julie Inman Grant to Rob Rakowitz dated November 9, 2022, expressing interest in GARM's collective power to hold platforms accountable and emphasizing the importance of brand and platform safety, with email addresses partially redacted.

Robert Rakowitz, GARM’s co-founder and initiative lead, expressed a chilling goal in private correspondence, stating that silencing President Donald Trump was his “main thing” and likening the president’s speech to a “contagion” he aimed to contain “to protect infection overall.”

Email from Rob Rakowitz dated Tuesday, November 1, 2022, discussing plans approved by the Steer Team to influence Twitter and Elon Musk regarding advertising standards, mentioning collaboration with WPP and outlining transparency and remediation plans for advertisers; includes blacked-out and redacted email addresses and ends with his title as Initiative Lead at the Global Alliance for Responsible Media and mentions WFA locations in Brussels, London, New York, and Singapore.

The report outlines how GARM distributed previously unavailable non-public information about Twitter’s adherence to its standards, fully aware this would prompt advertisers to boycott the platform if it failed to conform. According to the House report, Rakowitz admitted that this information sharing was designed to encourage members not to advertise on Twitter.

He went as far as to draft statements urging GARM members to halt advertising on the platform, telling colleagues he had gone “as close as possible” to saying Twitter “is unsafe, cease and desist.”

Despite the widespread impact of GARM’s actions, including what the committee describes as coerced “concessions” from platforms, internal polling circulated within GARM showed that “66 percent of American consumers valued free expression over protection from harmful content.”

Still, GARM pressed ahead with efforts to “eliminate all categories of harmful content in the fastest possible timing,” ignoring consumer preferences.

Even after GARM dissolved in 2024 amid legal challenges, similar efforts persisted.

A new coalition led by Dentsu and The 614 Group briefly attempted to revive GARM’s mission before disbanding under scrutiny. Gerry D’Angelo, a former GARM leader, reflected on the initiative’s overreach, stating, “Did we go too far in those first rounds of exclusionary restrictions? I would say yes.”

The Judiciary Committee warns that despite GARM’s downfall, the threat of collusion to stifle free expression remains.

It pledged to continue oversight to defend “the fundamental principles” of the Constitution and ensure that markets, not coordinated censorship efforts, shape the flow of information in the digital age.

Reprinted with permission from Reclaim The Net.

Continue Reading

Trending

X