Improved opportunities to change gender

Yasmine Bladelius (S)

Mr. Speaker! Sweden was the first country in the world to introduce a gender identity law. The year was 1972. With the new law, it became possible to change gender in a legal sense. But much has changed in 50 years. A modernization of the law has therefore been investigated for over ten years.

Mr. Speaker! Today, there is an age limit of 18 years to change legal gender or to receive genital surgery. But the Legal Council, which is the body within the National Board of Health and Welfare that makes those decisions, also requires that special reasons must exist to approve genital surgery on persons under 23 years of age.

Those who wish to change their legal gender or undergo genital surgery need to fulfill several different requirements today. One needs to have received the diagnosis of transsexualism. One needs to have turned 18 years old and be registered in the population register in Sweden. One needs to have a specific medical certificate. Most often, one also needs to have been in contact with gender-affirming care for over two years for the Legal Council to approve the application. Processing times vary across the country, but they are often incredibly long. It can take five to eight years to change legal gender. It is something that we know hits the individual extremely hard.

Mr. Speaker! Although we have not completely overhauled the law in 50 years, certain changes have nevertheless been made over time. The possibility of changing legal gender was until 2013 even more limited than it is today. Until 2010, one had to be unmarried to change legal gender. Until 2013, one could only change legal gender if one was a Swedish citizen. There was also a requirement that one had to be sterile to be allowed to change legal gender. One was also forbidden from preserving eggs and sperm.

The requirements and the limitations led to many not seeking gender-affirming care or not receiving the care they sought. When the forced sterilizations were abolished, there was also almost a tripling of the number of applications to the Socialstyrelsen's legal council regarding changing legal gender. Many people who were then within the gender-affirming care had probably simply waited with applying for a change of legal gender in anticipation of the forced sterilization requirement being removed.

Mr. Speaker! What then is gender dysphoria? The National Board of Health and Welfare defines gender dysphoria as psychological suffering or a diminished ability to function in everyday life caused by the fact that gender identity simply does not match the gender one was assigned at birth. Gender dysphoria can be physical, for example, discomfort regarding one or more parts of the body. It can involve facial hair growth, the chest, or genitals. It can be social, for example, anxiety or discomfort because other people simply use the wrong pronouns or interpret one as being of the wrong gender.

It is also widely known that many more trans people have experience of mental ill-health compared to the general population. The minority stress that people who break norms regarding gender and sexuality experience naturally has a strong impact. It is also, according to researchers, the single most important explanation for why the mental ill-health among trans people is greater than among the rest of the population. At the same time, the research also shows that the suffering from gender dysphoria in the vast majority of cases decreases with gender-affirming treatment.

Mr. Speaker! Today, 17 countries in the world have a modern gender identity law. Included on that list are all the Nordic countries except Sweden. A broad majority of the parties in the Riksdag have therefore, since 2011, agreed that a modernization of the law is needed. I am therefore very pleased that we Social Democrats, together with the Moderates, the Liberals, the Centre Party, the Left Party, and the Green Party, today stand united behind the new updated bill on improved opportunities to change gender.

The bill that we are now debating is a well-elaborated proposal based on a long series of investigations and two major referral rounds, one in 2018 and one in 2021. The latest referral round concerned the Social Democratic government's draft for a Council on Legislation referral and had a referral list of over 150 actors. After that, an additional proposal was developed which was presented in a Council on Legislation referral in June 2022. The bill that we are debating today is based on that very Council on Legislation referral. In the proposal, the Council on Legislation's views have also been addressed, and thus it was a completely finished product to be presented as a government bill.

Mr. Speaker! After the election, the bill was on the new government's list of propositions. But since the government and the coalition partner Sverigedemokraterna could not reach an agreement internally, the proposal was instead submitted as a committee initiative by Moderaterna and Liberalerna to the Social Affairs Committee.

Since the committee initiative with a broad majority was adopted in the Committee on Social Affairs in September last year, the committee has also taken several additional preparatory measures, given the special circumstance that it was submitted as a committee initiative and not as a government bill. Among other things, hearings have been conducted with the relevant authorities. Furthermore, the Committee on Justice, the Committee on Taxation, and the Committee on Employment have been given the opportunity to comment on the matter.

Mr. Speaker! This is an issue that has been worked on, reworked, and debated many times over. Over the years, it has gone from, in an initial referral to the Council on Legislation in 2018, proposing self-identification for the change of legal gender, lowering the age limit for the change of legal gender to 12 years, that persons in the age group 15-18 years could apply for a change of legal gender without the guardian's consent, and that persons in the age group 15-18 years could undergo certain surgical procedures on the genitals after permission from the National Board of Health and Welfare, to now move forward with a proposal based on compromises and cooperation, which is supported, Mr. Speaker, by a broad majority in the chamber and the LGBTQ+ movement. Even though it is no secret that several parties and parts of the LGBTQ+ movement actually wanted to go further by introducing an arrangement based entirely on the individual's self-determination regarding the change of legal gender, one has nevertheless landed on the conclusion that this is a good proposal and a good step forward.

It is a great show of strength, in my opinion, that we now today gather around this compromise proposal and thereby can also finally modernize an outdated gender identity law as the last country in the Nordic region.

Mr. Speaker! The proposal for a new law on improved opportunities to change gender is an important and long-awaited reform that will strengthen freedom and improve the living conditions for trans people. It is an important reform for those people who today suffer from the long waiting times and the very cumbersome processes to have their legal gender changed.

The proposal means that the legislation regarding the change of legal gender is clearly separated from the issue of genital surgery, that is, that medical sex reassignment is separated from legal sex reassignment in the legislation. The bill also means that a change of legal gender shall continue to require contact with healthcare and that an assessment of the applicant's gender identity shall be carried out. It shall therefore no longer be required to have a gender dysphoria diagnosis to change legal gender, and the investigation prior to a change of legal gender shall be less extensive than today.

To change legal gender, the 18-year age limit fundamentally applies, while 16- and 17-year-olds can be granted a change if the guardian consents and signs and submits the application, and if certificates have been provided after contact with care.

Mr. Speaker! To the bill, we Social Democrats have also submitted proposals for four announcements that the majority has backed and which I will briefly account for.

The first point is that the government should take appropriate initiatives to develop regulations regarding the application procedure itself. This concerns, among other things, which supporting documents should be attached to the application and which professional categories should be authorized to issue certificates. We particularly emphasize here the importance of the regulations meeting the need for a secure identity check.

The second point concerns a national knowledge support. Regarding the medical investigation upon change of legal gender, the bill implies that in the normal case, a simpler medical investigation of gender identity should suffice. We believe that the government should task an appropriate authority with developing a national knowledge support regarding this assessment.

We have also proposed a motion regarding the prevention of criminal activity. We consider it difficult to fully oversee what potential consequences repeated personal identity number changes may entail for authorities and actors and therefore believe that the government should monitor the development closely and, if necessary, return to the Riksdag with legislative proposals.

The fourth and final announcement we propose concerns the implementation. We believe that the government should closely monitor the implementation of the proposed legislation and evaluate its effects within three years of its entry into force.

Mr. Speaker! A modernized gender identity legislation has been investigated, analyzed, and prepared for over ten years. Now, a compromise is on the Riksdag's table. We are ready to proceed to a decision and implement a cautious but nonetheless immensely significant modernization of the Swedish legislation in order to improve the living conditions for trans people.

I hereby move for approval of the committee's proposal.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Mikael Eskilandersson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! It is not entirely new to write laws through a committee. It has happened before. Especially my committee, the Civil Affairs Committee, has distinguished itself by writing laws relatively often. We wrote, for example, the law on accessory buildings as outbuildings. We raised noise regulations. We have also previously handled the law on gender-neutral marriages in the Civil Affairs Committee.

There are, however, problems with writing laws in the committees. In particular, it is a democratic problem. When laws were to be written in the Civil Affairs Committee during the last parliamentary term, the Social Democrats in particular were very clear that it was definitely not good to write laws in committees. They specifically highlighted the fact that one removes the possibility of submitting follow-up motions on the law. One is, therefore, destroying a part of the intended democratic process here in the Riksdag, something that the Committee on the Constitution has also remarked on. In practice, it is only those Members of Parliament who happen to sit in the correct committee who get the opportunity to influence the law. Therefore, it should only be small changes that are carried out in the committees.

Given the Social Democrats' still harsh criticism against using the committees to write laws, it is strange that one now chooses to do exactly that which one has previously criticized. I would like to take the opportunity to ask the Social Democrats if they have changed their opinion regarding writing laws in the committees and, if so, why they have done so.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Yasmine Bladelius (S)

Mr. Speaker! I thank the member for the question.

It is known that the Sweden Democrats do not want to see this legislation and change. I can understand that it is tough when the issue is moved from the government's table to the parliament's table when the government negotiations are not won.

It is clear that legislation is best regulated in and by the government. That is where all resources are and shall be. We have not changed our position on that, Mr. Speaker. But when it comes to just this bill, it has been worked out, investigated, reworked, and referred to the Council on Legislation over a period of several years. It is also the case, Mr. Speaker, that the product we are debating today and will hopefully later decide on is a bill that was completely ready to be placed on the list of government bills but was then withdrawn.

This is not just any bill. It has not been worked out in the Committee on Social Affairs of the Riksdag but in the Government Offices. It has gone through the Council on Legislation, and the Council on Legislation's views have been taken into account. It was a finished product then, and it is a finished product now. Therefore, it is not unreasonable that we have taken it to the Committee on Social Affairs and today, hopefully, also decide to approve it.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Mikael Eskilandersson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I would rather have seen the Social Affairs Committee have allocated significantly more resources to why people do not thrive in their biological sex than to changing legal gender.

The Social Affairs Committee handles healthcare issues, while my committee, the Civil Affairs Committee, handles human conditions. I usually call my lecture on what the Civil Affairs Committee does "From the Cradle to the Grave." It is, therefore, the Civil Affairs Committee that has all the legislation from the time you are born until the time you die, and also how the inheritance after you is to be handled. We have everything from the Names Act, guardianship, housing, social interaction, marriage and cohabitation to compensation rights, over-indebtedness and contract law. We also have consumer law and housing issues.

We in the Committee on Civil Affairs were not even asked by the Committee on Social Affairs how their legislation would work together with the legislation that the Committee on Civil Affairs handles. I contend that it is a scandal in itself.

But even worse is that it turns this new law into highly unclear legislation, which becomes both vague and ambiguous. The legal gender identity risks being overturned by provisions in the Parental Code or other laws governing interpersonal relations.

I wonder why you in the Social Affairs Committee believe that you know better than we in the Civil Affairs Committee how interpersonal legislation is affected. Why else did you think it was unnecessary to even ask the Civil Affairs Committee how it actually affects the interpersonal laws that we handle?

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Yasmine Bladelius (S)

Mr. Speaker! Let me begin by stating and telling the member from the Sweden Democrats what gender dysphoria is. It is nothing that can be treated or cured back to the point where one feels that the gender one was born into feels right. That is not what gender dysphoria is about, for one thing.

Secondly, I want to say again that this bill was on the list of government bills. If it had been submitted as a government bill, as it was intended from the beginning, the Committee on Civil Affairs would not have had more to say than they do today, except that they would vote in this chamber. But that did not happen because the Sweden Democrats and the government did not reach an agreement. Therefore, the bill was withdrawn.

Again: It was a fully investigated proposal. It was a completed proposition that was on the list of propositions, and it ended up on the Social Affairs Committee's table. Today, we will hopefully also approve the proposal.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Liza-Maria Norlin (KD)

Mr. Speaker! From 2008 to 2018, the number of persons with the diagnosis gender dysphoria among young people with registered gender male in the age group 18-24 years increased by 400 percent. The number of new cases of diagnosed gender dysphoria among young people with registered gender female in the age group 13-17 years has increased by nearly 1,500 percent since 2008. Among persons with the diagnosis, it is, according to the National Board of Health and Welfare, common with autism or psychiatric diagnoses such as depression and anxiety disorders.

We hear many critical, worried voices from the profession and research but also from people who themselves have been diagnosed with gender dysphoria. Why, then, have the Socialdemokraterna in that situation chosen to ignore and override the protection of minorities and not allow expert authorities, the profession, and affected organizations three months to make submissions regarding the new bill? Why did the Socialdemokraterna vote against a referral of the committee initiative?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Yasmine Bladelius (S)

Mr. Speaker! It is widely known at this point that the Christian Democrats are opposed to this bill. The Christian Democrats even appear to have invested all resources at their party office to both delay and stop the bill.

Mr. Speaker! I have full respect for the fact that the Christian Democrats and the Social Democrats do not agree on the issue. What I do not have respect for, however, is that the Christian Democrats do not simply say straight out as it is: that they do not want a law that makes it easier for people to change gender in Sweden. They do not want the legal process to be separated from the medical process and have done everything to paint different horror scenarios and delay the process in the committee.

This bill is a well-elaborated proposal that was ready to be submitted as a government bill.

Mr. Speaker! There is no evidence suggesting that there is a connection between it becoming easier to change legal gender and more people seeking gender-affirming care. Nor is this something that has been observed in our neighboring countries, which have more liberal legislation than what we are proposing here in Sweden. The number of people seeking gender-affirming care has increased in those countries, but it has also increased in other countries that do not have the liberal legislation, for example Sweden and the United Kingdom.

The bleak picture that the Christian Democrats are painting is, therefore, fundamentally about the fact that they simply do not want to see this legislation at all, Mr. Speaker.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Liza-Maria Norlin (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I note that the Social Democrats are eager to speak about what it is like to be a Christian Democrat. I take the liberty of describing it myself. For us Christian Democrats, this is about a principle of precaution, not least in light of the increase we have seen in mental ill-health but also the concern that exists among those who work closely with people suffering from gender dysphoria. It is the Swedish profession we are listening to.

I am aware that there is legislation in other countries. I also note that thorough evaluations of how it has turned out have not been carried out.

This is often about a small number of people, which is significant when it comes to those large societal effects. And I have not heard myself being frightened by that; I want that to be noted.

I also want to ask a question regarding the other part of the legislative package. One of the laws that we are to make a decision on today also concerns surgical procedures. The proposal is that for surgical gender reassignment, the Socialstyrelsen's permit review shall be removed.

Much of the criticism that exists today concerns precisely the irreversible interventions, which have far-reaching consequences for the individuals. My question to the Social Democrats is: Why do you want to remove the permit review?

Furthermore, the constitutional comment regarding the removal of gonads at 23 years of age as the main rule is unclear regarding when exceptions can be made from the age of 18. We in KD have in our reservation an addition, for example, that the individual shall be fully physically developed.

My question to the Social Democrats is: What is the reason that you today propose to simplify for surgical gender reassignment?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Yasmine Bladelius (S)

Mr. Speaker! In Europe alone, there are twelve countries that have laws on the change of legal gender that are based entirely on self-identification, which is not what Sweden is now putting forward as a proposal for legislation. Already in 2014, Denmark introduced a gender identity law based on self-identification. In 2016, it was Norway's turn. In 2019, it was Iceland's turn. And in 2023, it was Finland's turn.

We do not need to stand in these speaker's chairs or anywhere else and throw research reports at each other or build up horror scenarios. We only need to glance at our neighboring countries and look at how it has worked there during all the years they have had legislation based entirely on self-identification. The horror scenarios that we hear from the speaker's chair and have heard in the debate from the Kristdemokraterna have not been seen in our neighboring countries at all.

I am therefore not worried, Mr. Speaker. I am pleased that we are now taking steps forward to facilitate the living conditions for trans people in Sweden.

It is also interesting that the member in the speaker's chair points out that it concerns a few people, a small group of people in our society, who will be better off with this legislation. Both from here in the speaker's chair and in the rest of the debate, the Christian Democrats otherwise paint it as if infinitely many young people will easily and effortlessly change their gender and then regret it. It is actually a lie, Mr. Speaker.

When it comes to healthcare, we do not want to simplify the law. We want to change it so that the healthcare profession, the highly specialized care, shall make the decisions on which treatments the patients in Sweden shall receive also in this group, just as everywhere else.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Alexander Christiansson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I thank you for the presentation by Yasmine Bladelius.

I noted in the speech that there was pleasure that the bill is now on the table for voting this afternoon and that a large majority of the Riksdag and of the relevant lobby organizations are in agreement and positive towards the proposal. What one perhaps misses to say, as appears from previous exchanges of remarks, when painting a picture that it is the Sverigedemokraterna and Kristdemokraterna who are skeptical of the proposal, is that it is not only we who are skeptical. Yasmine may have missed the debate over the last few months, but it is a long line from the profession within healthcare who are deeply critical. There is a referral list with a number of different referral bodies that have raised a certain skepticism towards the proposal, and I agree with their principle of caution. This also applies to Svenska Bankföreningen, Skatteverket, Socialstyrelsen, Arbetsförmedlingen, Kronofogdemyndigheten, Polismyndigheten, Åklagarmyndigheten, Ekobrottsmyndigheten and so on.

Demoskop's latest measurement shows that only 20 percent of Sweden's population are positive. Not least among the Social Democrats' own voter base, a majority is against the proposal. It may well be worth noting to those listening to the debate that it is not only the Sweden Democrats and the Christian Democrats who are critical.

I have, of course, also had the discussion at home at the table with friends and others in my circle of acquaintances, and I have promised to ask a question to the Social Democrats from the women I have spoken with, now that we are standing here anyway. What is it to be a woman, when one wants to simplify and be able to identify as one wishes?

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Yasmine Bladelius (S)

Mr. Speaker! How one is a woman is how one feels. If one feels like a woman, one is a woman. It is that simple for me. I think it is not as simple for Member Christiansson.

That is how it is for me. I am also glad that we will now make it possible for more people to more easily change their legal gender to what they feel they are. That is what the law we are now debating is about.

Mr. Speaker! I say again that this legislation exists in all our neighboring countries, and it has existed for quite some time in most of our neighboring countries. The problems that the Sweden Democrats are worried about have not been seen in our neighboring countries. There has been a marginal increase in those who want to change legal gender, but the same increase has also occurred in Sweden. It is not about how one chooses to liberalize the legislation. It is not the case that a large part of those who live in our society will undergo legal gender reassignment. It is not simple in any way.

I can inform the Sweden Democrats and the member in the speaker's chair that in order to change legal gender, one also needs to handle all authorities, healthcare, driver's licenses - everything today is linked to your personal identity number. When you change your personal identity number, you also need to do a hell of a lot of work yourself just to be able to function in society at all.

Despite the fact that we are simplifying the possibility of changing legal gender, it is not something that will be done lightly.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Alexander Christiansson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Yasmine for the answer, and I thank her for the directness and honesty in that it is what one feels as it is.

The member stated that it is about how the member Christiansson defines himself. It is not actually about what I define myself as, but it is a question of the concern that, not least the women's lobby expresses. It is the concern for the long-term gender equality work that has been conducted in this country that lies there and ripples in the background. Even the women I have in my circle of acquaintances highlight that question. It is therefore not so much about what I think.

It is good that it is clear that we should identify as we feel. I will not go down to that level, but I could list a long series of examples of what one can ultimately identify as. It is good that the Social Democrats are nevertheless clear in their opinion. In my view, it is a postmodern relativistic view of society that I absolutely do not share and which I oppose with all my might in every way I can.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Yasmine Bladelius (S)

Mr. Speaker! Likewise, I am grateful for the sincerity from the Sweden Democrats on the issue. I believe many appreciate hearing how the Sweden Democrats view how one identifies oneself.

Mr. Speaker! The referral bodies are something that the Sweden Democrats often highlight. Many of the referral bodies that have been consulted, most recently it was over 150, were positive. Among them are the Gender Equality Authority, the Swedish Medical Association, the Equality Ombudsman, the Children's Ombudsman, and many more.

I fully understand that people are worried about new legislation, changed legislation, and new decisions. But we do not need to stand in this speaker's chair and throw horror scenarios or research reports at one another. We only need to look at our neighboring countries. The worry that is felt in Sweden has in no way been shown to be true in other Nordic and European countries that have introduced much more liberal legislation than the one we are proposing here in Sweden.

I feel calm, Mr. Speaker, and I am also pleased that today we are taking steps to improve the quality of life for trans people in Sweden.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Michael Rubbestad (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I thank you for the floor.

Denmark decided in September 2014 to lower the age limit to 15 years for changing legal gender based on self-identification. Norway did the same in 2016 with an age limit of 16 years. Iceland has had no age limit at all since 2019, but it is the parents who get to decide. In Finland, since April last year, the age limit is 18 years, but now with a removed requirement for a diagnosis. As most surely know, a decision was made in Germany the other day on an age limit of 14 years, based on self-perception and without a diagnosis.

The Social Democrats have on several occasions referred to the fact that Sweden is last in the Nordics. We heard it in the exchange of remarks and, I believe, also in the speech. It is pointed out that our Nordic neighboring countries constitute good examples of how it has been possible to introduce the law. I wonder, however, what the Social Democrats base the statement on, since there is a complete lack of impact assessments, evaluations, and follow-ups on the outcome in all countries where these legislative changes have been implemented.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Yasmine Bladelius (S)

Mr. Speaker! The horror scenarios that have been painted by, among others, Sweden Democrat members here and throughout our country have, with great probability, naturally, been noticed in our neighboring countries and in the European countries that have introduced much more liberal legislation than the one we are proposing here in Sweden. No such indications have appeared in any way. None of those horror scenarios have been seen in the countries that have introduced this law.

Let us look at the horror scenario that a huge number of men will change sex to women to gain access to women's prisons. It is not something that the Prison and Probation Service sees as possible at all because there are well-established procedures for who is placed in which prison. It is also not easy to change legal sex. Even if we simplify this change in legislation, it is not easy to change legal sex, and many authorities and instances must be handled after a personal identity number change. This will not affect the sports movement, changing rooms or the like, which are also arguments we have heard.

Mr. Speaker! This already exists today. It is not new legislation. A person can already today change legal gender. These problems will not arise just because we simplify the legislation. It is an argument invented by the Sverigedemokraterna and the other party that is against this proposal because they simply, frankly, do not want to improve the quality of life for these people.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Michael Rubbestad (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I note that the member and I have received somewhat different signals regarding how it has worked in the different countries. I mean that quite a few examples have emerged where it has not worked well, despite the fact that no formal investigation or evaluation has been conducted.

Norway is often highlighted as a country whose legislation is quite similar to that now being proposed in Sweden, and here are examples of men who have changed their legal gender to gain admission to education programs aimed exclusively at women and then immediately changed back and were allowed to remain in the education. And because no follow-up or statistics have been collected, no one in Norway has any idea how many biological men are placed in women's prisons. No one can answer that because no one has dared to investigate it.

A person who had legally changed gender to woman complained to Norway's equivalent of the Discrimination Ombudsman because others had complained that he, or she, had been in a changing room for women. It ended with the person in question being found correct and that a number of women subsequently do not want to go back to that bathhouse. Statistics are therefore not kept or any follow-up is done on how the situation looks in changing rooms for women. Instead, it is just individual cases that appear in the press and can be distinguished in the legal system, and I want to assert that one example or another appears.

The chairman concluded by asserting that the Sweden Democrats and the Christian Democrats have fabricated arguments in an attempt to drive up the tension, but let me refer back to Norway. There, two professors who research exactly this say: "Our appeal to Swedish politicians is to set aside more time to investigate how a new gender identity law could look and what this could mean in different types of cases. If the law is introduced in its current form, our assessment is that the effects in some cases could be even more far-reaching than in Norway."

Why do the Social Democrats choose not to listen to the profession, and why do they refer to examples that have not been evaluated or do not even exist?

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Yasmine Bladelius (S)

Mr. Speaker! If a person has transitioned to a woman, she is a she, not a he or a they.

The examples that the Sweden Democrats raise in the rostrum and in the debate otherwise will not become a reality just because we, through legislation, slightly improve the possibility for trans people to change their legal gender. Sweden has had a gender identity law for over 50 years, and it is already possible today to change one's legal gender. If one now had wanted to go through the long and complicated process it involves to change legal gender just to be able to enter a changing room for women, one could already do that.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Carita Boulwén (SD)

Mr. Speaker! We are now debating the Social Affairs Committee's report 22 Improved opportunities to change gender. In the first instance, I move, according to Chapter 11, Section 5 of the parliamentary rules, that the report be referred back to the Social Affairs Committee for further preparation. This would give all members who are uncertain whether the proposal is good enough or who do not support the proposal at all a chance to redo it and do it right. In the second instance, I move for approval of the reservation.

Mr. Speaker! Today's bill has received massive criticism, and we believe it should never have been submitted. The approach has been both remarkable, strange, and irresponsible. The Sweden Democrats believe that the proposal is utterly reprehensible and strongly oppose it because it risks having unforeseen and serious consequences, not only for the individual but for society as a whole. The proposal and the report simply belong in the wastebasket.

Mr. Speaker! Let me be clear that I feel great humility before the suffering and the difficult situation that people with gender dysphoria often find themselves in, and I feel genuine concern for all the children and young people who, for various reasons, suffer mentally and do not receive the help and support they need. But with this law, it risks becoming even worse.

The previous government's irresponsible and extremely poor proposal on a new gender identity law landed on the new government's desk after the election. But since an agreement could not be reached on the issue, no bill was submitted. This did not, however, prevent the Moderaterna and Liberalerna from continuing to push the issue. They therefore agreed to disregard the split within the government basis and opened up for support from the left-wing opposition in order to be able to push through their proposal. In the Committee on Social Affairs, a so-called committee initiative was then submitted with a sharp legislative proposal. It was an action that must be considered very remarkable.

The proposal means that it will become easier to undergo a legal gender reassignment. Unlike today, neither a proper medical investigation nor a gender dysphoria diagnosis shall be required. The age limit is lowered from 18 to 16 years to allow children and young people to undergo a legal gender reassignment. In addition to this, permission from Socialstyrelsen shall also not be required for surgical interventions on the genitals in order to fully change gender.

Allowing legal gender reassignment without a proper medical investigation is like opening Pandora's box. We cannot fully foresee what consequences this will have. However, a number of heavy referral bodies warn of a range of consequences. We risk obtaining a completely altered and detached-from-reality picture of what gender is, namely a biological difference between the sexes. The fact is that there are two genders. You are either born a woman or a man. Everyone has the right to identify as they wish, but the state cannot introduce a legal system that rests on gender identity. The trend is also moving towards it being up to you to define who you are, while the concept of gender has been expanded from solely referring to men and women to include trans people with a diversity of identities.

Mr. Speaker! Gender dysphoria among children and young people has increased avalanche-like in our country, not least among young girls, who in many cases have other psychiatric comorbidities. It is very concerning. It is necessary to seriously investigate what this is due to and not try to solve it with a quick fix. The increased prevalence of gender dysphoria among children and young people is alarming and requires a much more deliberate and cautious handling than the Moderaterna, Liberalerna, and the left-wing opposition seem to understand.

A number of representatives for the profession, including pediatricians, specialist doctors in both pediatrics and psychiatry, nurses, and professors from both Sweden and neighboring countries, have warned against pushing through this bill. They emphasize the risk that a legal gender reassignment could mean a first confirming step towards medical measures and irreversible interventions, with hormone treatment and surgical procedures resulting in sterility, lifelong medication, and bodily damage as a consequence.

This is something that the individual in question may later regret as an adult. It is also something that more and more young adults who have undergone gender reassignment testify to, and who are strongly critical of how they, despite current legislation with requirements for medical investigation and diagnosis, did not receive the care they actually needed. Despite this, it is therefore six of eight parties that now want to introduce simpler possibilities to change gender instead of letting the precautionary principle prevail.

Mr. Speaker! There is, from my side and on behalf of the Sweden Democrats, a genuine and sincere concern that more and more children and young people risk not receiving the care they actually need with this proposal.

We have a gender care system that is not working. Agnes Wold - I guess most of you here know who she is - has expressed on social media: "I am slowly beginning to realize that the entire epidemic of gender dysphoria among adolescents may have been caused by the availability of gender care, which was expanded in the early 2000s. It is horrific. A disease created by the healthcare system." If that were a fact, it would be absolutely appalling.

It is quite clear that we need to conduct a thorough review of the transition care. We also need to strengthen psychiatric care, not least at BUP. We need to increase competence and shorten the queues, something that we Tidö parties are now also doing.

Mr. Speaker! We start there. We in the Sweden Democrats believe that irreversible interventions in the form of gender reassignment should be based on evidence and research before interventions are performed on children and young people. And the gender-affirming care, which is already being carried out in Sweden, should be investigated through an independent review.

It has also emerged, among other things from SBU, that the scientific basis is insufficient to assess the effects of hormone treatment in children and adolescents with gender dysphoria. There is also a lack of coherent data describing the course for those who seek and receive the diagnosis of gender dysphoria in Sweden. It is therefore important that the care is deliberate when it comes to interventions and treatment.

The consequences for the children and young people who, during the process, discover that they regret it can, both for the individual and for their parents who had trust in the care, entail lifelong suffering both physically and mentally.

Mr. Speaker! The question of gender identity and gender pedagogy has been high on the agenda for quite a long time. A high-profile debate and campaigns about how gender and questioning of gender identity is positive have been paired with the message that norm-breaking behavior is preferable. At the same time, the number of young people seeking gender-affirming care, as well as for other needs for psychiatric care, has increased. The question is: Is there any connection?

Both within the media and in society's various activities and institutions, children at very young ages have been questioned about their everyday choices, their gender identity, and their identity. All of this has proceeded relatively unchallenged and without clear consequence analyses within medicine and ethics.

It is not the role of politics to influence and guide citizens toward different life choices, clothing choices, philosophical choices, or other choices that naturally rest with the individual. The role of politics is instead to work so that every individual receives the support and the care that they need. Such support and such care must be based on evidence and proven experience.

We in the Sweden Democrats consider that the tone in the public debate has been far too high and one-sided. Here, the government has an opportunity to lead by example and follow Swedish legislation on objectivity and impartiality and to instruct its agencies to neutralize the communication with the public and between agencies in matters concerning such important, fundamental things as medicine and life choices.

Among those who change gender, there are also those who choose to return to their original gender, that is to say, a detransition. They have simply made a decision too quickly and in many cases suffered serious injuries such as scarring, increased mental ill-health, infertility, and nerve problems. It is also not uncommon that those people who choose to detransition are cast out from the community within the LGBT movement.

According to research, the brain is not fully developed until the age of 25. It is only then that a person can assess risks and see things from a holistic perspective. Since there is a lack of evidence for treating children and young people with this type of intervention and treatment, we believe that it should not be permitted until one has reached the age of 25.

Mr. Speaker! Other important aspects are also that the entire work on equality is undermined, as it is biological sex that is the starting point for women's rights, not perceived gender. It will have consequences for statistics, healthcare, women's safety, sports, and other areas where sex actually plays a role - something that even Sweden's women's organizations have been clear about.

In addition to this, there is the risk of identity fraud, as gender reassignment involves receiving a new personal identity number and a new identity document, something that the referral bodies Bolagsverket, Ekobrottsmyndigheten, Migrationsverket and others have also indicated as concerns.

Mr. Speaker! In conclusion: Despite all warnings from the profession, from those affected and their relatives, from women's organizations and from the authorities, the Moderaterna and Liberalerna, with the support of the left-wing opposition, have therefore decided to proceed with this strongly criticized proposal. They do so despite the fact that there is no support from either the coalition partners, their own members, members or voters.

A majority of Sweden's population does not want this law. It is therefore not only a poorly anchored proposal for a decision but also an undemocratic one, something that will unfortunately further fuel the contempt for politicians.

(Applause)

In this speech, Alexander Christiansson, Mikael Eskilandersson, Rashid Farivar, Angelica Lundberg, Mona Olin, Michael Rubbestad, Carina Ståhl Herrstedt, Erik Westroth and Leonid Yurkovskiy (all SD) concurred.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Karin Rågsjö (V)

Mr. Speaker! I intend to go through a few things. It might sound like this proposal has been haphazardly thrown onto our table. That is not the case. It is an extreme journey we have made with the proposal from 2010 onwards.

There have been two major referral processes, the latest in 2021, with 155 referral bodies. It is, therefore, a well-elaborated proposal. All the comments that were present in the referral processes have been addressed in the proposal. The proposal has also been changed significantly, and I will go into that in my speech.

Then I am not surprised that SD in particular has opposed the proposal. The right-wing movement that is against trans, change, and everything related to this is everywhere. One only has to look at what is happening in, for example, the USA. This is a strong movement, and I believe that you belong to it. It is not just about the facts in the case, but it is also about being part of the right-wing extremist wave regarding these issues.

There are some things that are a bit strange. Changing legal gender and gender reassignment has been possible for quite a long time. Has it been a problem in the public baths? Has it been a very big issue in everything that the member is highlighting? It has not. The issue was not even discussed before the proposal landed on the table. Now it is a very big deal under the surface, I must say.

Agnes Wold, excuse me, but she is mostly an expert on bacteriology. It is roughly the same as anyone being able to enter this debate and say just about anything.

My question to the member is: Excuse me, but has this question not been looked at by the 155 referral bodies?

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Carita Boulwén (SD)

Mr. Speaker! It is precisely this that the profession highlights: One has not been able to comment on the issue. The referral bodies, which are referred to, have not been able to take into account changed circumstances, namely the sharp increase when it comes to especially young girls who have received the diagnosis gender dysphoria. During the previous referral round, many referral bodies also felt that they had far too little time to respond to the referrals and therefore chose to abstain. In addition to this, a number of heavy-weight referral bodies have expressed themselves negatively and had fears regarding this proposal.

We therefore wanted to request a new referral round in the Social Affairs Committee, which the other parties rejected. We do not consider this proposal to be sufficiently justified, and neither does the profession.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Karin Rågsjö (V)

Mr. Speaker! It concerns parts of the profession, not the profession as a whole. Who were the ones who thought this was a good proposal from the beginning? It was Socialstyrelsen, Folkhälsomyndigheten, Barnombudsmannen, Sveriges Psykologförbund and Svenska Läkaresällskapet. There were those who were critical of the 12-year limit; their views have been captured in the proposal that is on the table. Those who were critical of gender reassignment being allowed from the age of 12 were Karolinska Institutet, Sveriges nationella nätverk för DSD and Svenska Barnläkarföreningen. This has been addressed.

This debate has been completely wild. We haven't even discussed the Nato issue so thoroughly, and that debate was a breeze in comparison. But this issue has truly dug itself into all possible types of layers.

You speak about this equality. Excuse me, but didn't we meet the Gender Equality Authority together? Or is it just a mirage that I have seen? And what did SCB say? They said that these proposals work very well when it comes to statistics. Or am I wrong? Wasn't that what SCB said? What source does the member have when it comes to this?

This concerns a very limited group of people - we must remember that. I think it sometimes sounds like we are talking about an extremely long queue, that there are 500,000 people standing and knocking on Socialstyrelsen's door. That is not the case.

I sit myself in the Legal Council, and I must say that it is regrettable to see these seven eight-year-old investigations. It concerns people who have fought their way through the healthcare system and at the authorities and have had to wait for a very long time. The small, marginal change we are now making will make things easier for them.

Is it judges and politicians who should be sitting and looking down into people's inner lives? I do not think so.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Carita Boulwén (SD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Karin Rågsjö, for further questions! As I pointed out in my speech and as I answered earlier, a fear has been raised. We have seen a sharp increase, especially in the number of young girls with psychiatric comorbidity who experience gender dysphoria. What we need to do instead is to ensure that they receive the care they need - that we shorten the queues, not exclude them from care. They risk instead being cemented in their gender dysphoria when they do not receive the help and the support from the profession that they actually need.

We have now seen that a number of people who have undergone gender reassignment have regretted it. Should we not instead apply the precautionary principle, listen and see where it falls short, what we have done wrong and what we can do better, instead of rushing this and letting more and more people have the opportunity for legal gender reassignment, which the profession clearly points out risks having children and young people proceed with medical treatments and genital surgery?

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Martina Johansson (C)

Madam Speaker! I have probably never heard the Sweden Democrats talk so much and so favorably about the LGBTQ+ movement. It was completely new to me to hear the member speak so warmly about this group. I want to assert that the Sweden Democrats are not exactly known for working for the rights of LGBTQ+ persons. I am prepared to say that regardless of how long we investigate this issue, the Sweden Democrats would never vote for increased rights for LGBTQ+ persons.

In his speech, Member Boulwén mentions that the proposal implies that children and young people, that is, 16-year-olds, shall be allowed to make decisions about gender identity. I think this is a good way to go. I am completely convinced that 16-year-olds, together with their guardians, can make that decision.

But at the same time as the Sverigedemokraterna are against a 16-year age limit for this decision, they argue in other contexts that 13-year-olds should be able to be judged for crimes as adults. Then children and young people are sufficiently adult to make a decision. I think the member is contradicting themselves.

In the last few days, I have received several comments from parents of children and young people with this feeling. They know that it is serious - it is a matter of life and death for these children and young people.

The question to the member is therefore: Is it really the case that 16-year-olds are not capable of making such a decision?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Carita Boulwén (SD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member Johansson, for the question! To begin with, I want to be clear that we stand for all people's rights. We do not usually divide people into different groups but assume that everyone receives the care and treatment they need, regardless of whether they belong to any movement or not.

What I raised earlier is a major cause for concern. I personally care very much about children and young people who are doing poorly. We have now seen that this has resulted in more children and young people feeling unwell. On the other hand, it has not been possible to show that this change has resulted in enough people feeling mentally better. We see, as I said earlier, alarm reports from individuals who experience that they have been pushed into this within healthcare and then regretted it and are left with serious [consequences] for the rest of their lives.

When we see this, we should instead, as I said earlier, apply a precautionary principle more and not force this through. Instead, we should look at what we have done wrong and how it happens that so many now receive the diagnosis gender dysphoria. Is there anything else we can help these girls, which is what it primarily concerns, with? It has turned out that they many times have a psychiatric comorbidity. They need to receive help and care. You say that just changing a personal identity number is so easy, but there is no statistics showing that this would make them feel better.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Martina Johansson (C)

Madam Speaker! I probably do not have quite the same definition as the member as to what it means to stand up for all people's equal rights and value. But I will leave that, so that each person can reflect on whether we have the same definition of all people's equal rights and value.

People who are unwell and suffer from mental ill-health need care and treatment, and they should, of course, receive the best care and support they can get. Precisely for that reason, I think it is important to distinguish between these two processes. It is about the possibility of legal gender reassignment versus surgical or other medical treatment. We want to make this into two processes so that highly specialized care can focus on care, support, treatment, and investigation of these children and young people to ensure what the cause of the mental ill-health is – a gender dysphoria diagnosis or something else. But as it is now, these children and young people, as we heard earlier, have to wait for many years to get into care and receive the help they need.

So we are improving care and nursing by doing it in this way. That is what is important to me - to distinguish between the two processes.

(Applause)

In this speech, Emelie Nyman (C) agreed.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Carita Boulwén (SD)

Madam Speaker! I want to clarify: I spoke about all people's right to receive the care they need.

Regarding the increased number of children and young people with gender dysphoria, I want to say again that there is still nothing to indicate that a change in the personal identity number would make them feel better. The member points out that there are long queues to care. I agree with that. It is precisely this that we in the Tidö parties are now trying to address. We are improving care. We are shortening the queues. We are providing more money to psychiatry so that we can take care of those people who are truly suffering. They are not helped by being pushed into gender reassignment, but they are helped by care, quite simply.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Ulrika Westerlund (MP)

Madam Speaker! This discussion is becoming more and more confused the longer it continues, I think. It seems as if we are talking about completely different things. I have not heard anyone here in the debate claim that people who are mentally unwell would feel better by having a changed figure in their personal identity number. This is not at all what we are discussing.

It is also strange that healthcare is being brought up so much for discussion, because this amendment is not about healthcare, especially not about any other healthcare than that concerning interventions on the genitals. That is the only thing specified exactly in the legislative text. Other healthcare we have left to the profession to make reasonable assessments about. Who will feel better, and how should the investigations proceed? How should we act so that people who are in need of gender-affirming care shall receive it, and how should it be conducted?

Then there are people who are mentally ill. They should, of course, receive help. Whether they are trans people or not does not matter. But this is not about that.

I also think it is unfortunate that reference is made very vaguely to the profession. It is quite telling that the member uses Agnes Wold as an example of the profession. She is, after all, a typical representative of that part of the profession that has been out in the debate, namely those who do not have specialist knowledge regarding just this type of care but are specialists in another form of care but are now out and debating. I think that they should primarily be described as debaters with strong opinions on the issue.

If one wants to find out what the profession thinks, it is better to look, for example, at what Socialstyrelsen writes on its website regarding what should apply for this care. One can read referral statements from different organizations and so on, as we have discussed here earlier. I am interested in hearing how the member thinks regarding their statements that this does not make people feel better and in what way it helps to refer to actors such as Agnes Wold in this debate.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Carita Boulwén (SD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member Westerlund, for the question! The reason I referred to Agnes Wold is that she raised a question that was very concerning. I did not refer to the profession when I mentioned her.

However, Member Westerlund surely knows that this has been much debated in the media by specialist doctors within both psychiatry and pediatrics. Psychiatrists and many who work specifically with these issues are very critical of this proposal.

I note that the member reacts to me speaking about healthcare. Is that not exactly what it is about? Very many of the people who experience gender dysphoria have other psychiatric comorbidities. Should one not then ensure that the queues are shortened, so that they actually receive the care and help they need? What you do by simplifying so that one does not need a proper medical investigation or a diagnosis to change gender is that you open up for anyone to be able to change gender easily without any problems and without any diagnosis at the base. There I see a problem.

That the member reacts when I speak about healthcare says almost more about the member and the member's party than about my speech and my answers.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Ulrika Westerlund (MP)

Madam Speaker! Today we are debating the Gender Identity Act, which governs the change of legal gender and interventions on the genitals - no other healthcare.

Of course, it is very good to make investments so that care queues can be shortened both within gender-affirming care and within other care. But the thing is that it is not something that has to do with the debate on just this law, but it is other investments.

Then we see that there will be a positive effect for specifically the gender-affirming care. It will be relieved when one avoids doing documentation that only concerns getting through a legal change of gender and has nothing to do with the care. Therefore, the queues will be shortened. It is positive, but it has nothing to do with the care otherwise.

The National Board of Health and Welfare has clarified on its website so that it should be clear. It is written: Regardless of a person's legal gender, a diagnostic investigation will always be conducted before treatment begins. Changing legal gender is not about making it easier to receive this care, but it is about relieving the healthcare staff in their work, so that they can focus on providing care.

Then we can make other investments in healthcare that different people may need because they are mentally unwell. We are probably all quite in agreement that those types of investments are good. It is just a matter of keeping different areas separate and debating what we are to debate here today and not getting into a discussion about what the healthcare should look like.

I am also curious about how the member thinks regarding gender. In the speech, it sounded as if the member thinks that gender identity does not exist. That is quite remarkable, because it is the very basis for the entire existence of this law. We are not debating whether there are essentially two biological sexes, but we are discussing precisely gender identity. That is the reason why we have a gender identity law and why it is possible to change legal gender based on gender identity.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Carita Boulwén (SD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member Westerlund, for the question! I note that a number of members choose a few words and change them slightly and get something completely different from what I actually presented.

I cannot help but return to this that we would not discuss care. The whole idea is, as the member himself says, that these persons should be exempted from care in order to shorten the queues. Our argument is that they need the care that we are talking about.

You make it easier for them, so that they do not need a diagnosis to be able to change legal gender. But the profession warns that precisely this—changing legal gender—is the gateway to other interventions.

I note that the member is shaking his head, but I have, of course, read the report and know what is written there. We also have our reservation. Furthermore, the Socialstyrelsen's statement on genital surgery, which is also questioning, is being removed. We say: These people need more care, not less care.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Daniel Vencu Velasquez Castro (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Carita Boulwén, for the speech, and thank you, Ulrika Westerlund, for a rather smooth transition to my question!

I also reacted to the member mentioning the definition of gender when we are now discussing the gender identity law. But the definition of gender that we have in Sweden today, we have had since 1972. I wonder quite briefly if that argument is based on the Sweden Democrats' ignorance regarding the legislation we are debating in the chamber today, or if it is actually the case that the Sweden Democrats want to change the definition of gender in Sweden – i.e., that they want to change the legislation that exists today.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Carita Boulwén (SD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, member, for the question! What I said was that the fact is that there are two sexes. One is born either a girl or a boy, a woman or a man. Everyone has the right to identify as they wish, but the state shall not introduce a legal system based on gender identity. That was what I said.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Daniel Vencu Velasquez Castro (S)

Madam Speaker! The state already has a system today that rests on gender identity, hence my question. It sounds like the member does not think it is a reasonable order in the legislation. Then the member does not think the existing gender identity law is good legislation, which means that one wants to change the definition of gender in Sweden. In that case, I think one should say that, or that one does not have knowledge of the legislation that is actually written in Sweden's law book today.

It becomes quite strange to stand here and debate a gender identity law that one does not even understand, Madam Speaker.

I believe that this ignorance has contributed to the inaccuracies that we have now heard about for very many months. Now that I have informed the member of what actually stands in Swedish legislation today, I wonder: Are the Sverigedemokraterna open to, and agree that, gender is defined based on people's gender identity, as it stands in the legislation today? Or do the Sverigedemokraterna want to roll back the tape to before 1972 and make massive changes to the existing gender identity law?

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Carita Boulwén (SD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member, for the question! What we are discussing today is a proposal that legal gender reassignment should be able to be carried out more easily, without the requirement for proper medical investigation or a gender dysphoria diagnosis, which is required today. The age limit is lowered from 18 to 16 years when it comes to allowing children and young people to undergo legal gender reassignment. In addition, permission from the National Board of Health and Welfare shall no longer be required for surgical procedures on the genitals in order to fully change gender.

It is this that we are discussing here today, and it is there that I have objections.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Johan Hultberg (M)

Madam Speaker! The debate has now come, here in the Swedish Riksdag, regarding the Social Affairs Committee's report Improved opportunities to change gender. In society at large, however, the debate has been ongoing for a long time, especially and most intensely during the last few weeks.

I fundamentally welcome the debate that has taken place and that is ongoing. It is good that complex issues like this are debated. It is good if debate can both spread knowledge and clarify political dividing lines. It is also extremely welcome if the debate makes more people notice the great vulnerability of trans people. I am convinced that the debate has contributed to all of this.

Unfortunately, the debate has also included elements that are anything but welcome. The debate has at times and in some respects been both heated and hateful. Unfortunately, very many misunderstandings, confusions, and directly incorrect pieces of information have occurred and propagated in the debate. Therefore, it feels urgent for me to now provide a fairly extensive description of the proposal and its background in this debate.

Madam Speaker! Let me start with 1972! It was then that Sweden received the world's first gender identity legislation. Since then, it has been possible to change one's legal gender in Sweden. In the debate that has raged, it has at times sounded as if it is with the proposal now on the Riksdag's table that the possibility of changing gender is being introduced. So that is not the case. What the proposal is about is to modernize a piece of legislation over 50 years old.

An important modernization of the legislation was made in 2013, when the sterilization requirement was abolished. It was a decision that was made following a bill from the then Alliance government. Since the abolition of the sterilization requirement, there are no requirements whatsoever that one must in any way change the body to obtain permission to change legal gender. On the other hand, it is the same legislation that regulates both the change of legal gender and genital surgery, and it is the same investigation and decision-making process. This blurring is unfortunate, and we Moderates have pointed out this for many years.

Already in 2014, proposals were also submitted in a public inquiry to repeal the gender identity legislation from 1972 and replace it with two new laws - one regulating the change of legal gender and one regulating genital surgery.

The proposal that we are debating today means that we make exactly this distinction. Furthermore, the proposal means that we make the process for changing legal gender somewhat simpler. It is not reasonable to set the same investigation requirements for changing the gender that appears in the civil registry as for irreversible genital surgery. And it is not reasonable that it should take many years – perhaps five, six, seven, or eight years – to change legal gender. For those people who do not have a legal gender that matches their own gender identity, the wait to be allowed to change the information in the civil registry often represents a great and unnecessary suffering. Therefore, this reform is important.

But isn't it also important to proceed with caution? That question is heard in the debate. Yes, I and the Moderaterna think so. It is wise to proceed with caution, and that is exactly what we do.

S and MP jointly submitted a very far-reaching proposal in 2018 while in government. It was a proposal that received stinging criticism both in terms of substance and in terms of how it had been prepared. Subsequently, S and MP returned in 2021 with a new draft for a referral to the Council on Legislation. That proposal, too, was significantly more far-reaching than the cautious proposal that we are now six parties aligning behind.

We Moderates have rejected previous far-reaching proposals. We have said no to opening up for genital surgery on minors, no to a system for changing legal gender based entirely on self-identification, no to letting people as young as 12-year-olds change their legal gender, and no to letting minors independently change their legal gender.

But today we say yes to a modernized legislation where we have balanced different interests and viewpoints. Not least, we have weighed the individual's self-determination against the risk of abuse. To ensure that the possibility of changing legal gender is reserved just for those who are in need of changing their legal gender, we think it is still justified with an assessment.

Our proposal means that an investigation of a person's gender identity shall be carried out, as well as a needs assessment. A doctor, normally a psychiatrist, or a psychologist shall assess whether the applicant's perceived gender identity corresponds with the gender that appears in the population register and whether it can be assumed that the applicant will live in this gender identity for a foreseeable period. The assessment and the requirement for contact with health and medical care are also significant for excluding or identifying other issues than gender incongruence.

Part of the proposal for updated legislation that has sparked particular debate concerns the age limit for changing legal gender. For us Moderates, it is a self-evident starting point that those who are of legal age should be able to independently apply to change their legal gender. For us, it has been excluded to let minors apply for a change on their own. Therefore, I am pleased that the committee has agreed on a proposal that is completely in line with the Moderates' starting points.

With the proposal, it will be possible for a 16- or 17-year-old to change their legal gender, but it presupposes that it is the guardians who make the application. Furthermore, the investigation and the assessment that I just described are, of course, required, and then finally a decision from Socialstyrelsen.

Madam Speaker! The report also concerns the issue of genital surgery. For genital surgery, today's age limits remain, as well as, of course, extensive requirements for investigation and diagnosis. There are several referral bodies, including the Swedish Medical Association, which argue that a specific law on genital surgery is not needed. My, the Moderates', and the committee's view, however, is that a specific law is still justified – this is because irreversible procedures must be performed with great caution. Therefore, it is also very good and welcome that large parts of the care for gender dysphoria since the turn of the year are conducted as national highly specialized care.

Madam Speaker! I am from Bohuslän. I live a forty-five-minute journey from the Norwegian border. Therefore, I am often in Norway, and I follow Norwegian politics and social debate fairly closely. It is not without surprise that I have noted that the cautious reform we are now undertaking in Sweden has caused an enormously much more extensive debate than the debate that preceded Norway's reform in 2016.

The Norwegian legislation introduced then, Madam Speaker, is in fact much more far-reaching than the reform that the Riksdag is to take a position on this afternoon. In Norway, the change of legal gender is based entirely on self-identification. In Norway, it is possible to change legal gender as early as the age of 6. A person who is 16 years old in Norway can entirely on their own apply to change their legal gender, without permission from the parents.

Madam Speaker! I mention this to put the proposal we are now debating into context and to remind that the many and extensive concerns that have been raised in the debate, most recently by the Sweden Democrats' Carita Boulwén, have not been shared in the other Nordic countries.

The fact is that all Nordic countries have legislation that is entirely based on self-determination. The rest of the Nordic countries do not impose requirements for contact with healthcare or for an assessment of gender identity. But we will, therefore, continue to do so in Sweden. We lean on the experiences that come from the rest of the Nordic countries, but we nevertheless choose to proceed cautiously.

That is who we Moderates are. We are a liberal party that always starts from the individual and their right to freedom and self-determination. But we are also a conservative party that believes in cautious social change and understands that even freedom can be abused.

Since 2011, the Moderaterna have had a parliamentary decision to modernize the gender identity legislation. Since then, we have been clear that we want to make it easier to change legal gender. Now we are simply doing exactly what we have said we will do.

Madam Speaker! This is the overall background to why we Moderates have landed where we have landed. Today, I am proud that the Moderates are also, in this complex and charged issue, the unifying party in Swedish politics. Six of the Riksdag's eight parties support the balanced proposal that the Riksdag has to take a stand on. The vast majority of Swedes will never notice that the law is changing, but for a number of trans people, the new law makes a big and important difference. In fact, everyone should be able to stand behind it.

I vote in favor of the committee's proposal and against the motion for referral of the matter back to the committee.

(Applause)

In this speech, Malin Höglund, Marie Nicholson, Thomas Ragnarsson and Jesper Skalberg Karlsson (all M) concurred.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Leonid Yurkovskiy (SD)

Madam Speaker! The Swedish right is in many ways a strange creature. It is as if one accepts the left's basic premises and then develops a need to show that one is better than the left itself at fulfilling them and advancing the left's issues.

In my main speech, I will go into a bit and speak about how I perceive the members of the committee in this issue. I consider the member Hultberg to be well-read and reasoning and takes these issues seriously – a genuine interest. A long series of problems have been raised from other parties, from the profession and from referral bodies.

That is why I think it is strange that one chooses to proceed with the proposal. The proposal is not even popular among its own voters or its own party group. The original proposal came, unsurprisingly, from the left. Then I wonder: How is a moderate voter to interpret this? With the Moderates, one therefore gets more left-progressive gender laws than before. The Moderates are completing what the Social Democrats started.

I therefore have a few questions, Madam Speaker. Have the Moderates made an actual analysis of the potentially negative consequences that the proposal could entail? I did not hear anything about that in the member's speech. Why does one not want to work further with the proposal?

Speaking of basic premises, the Social Democrats raised an important point. The question arose as to what it is that determines whether one is a man or a woman. They argued that it is how one feels. I would like to direct that question also to the Moderates: Does Johan Hultberg agree with the Social Democrats that it is up to oneself to decide?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Johan Hultberg (M)

Madam Speaker! It is a strange piece of historiography. I can state that there are few questions that have been so investigated, debated, and subject to such a thorough process and treatment as the question we are now discussing. I have full respect for the fact that we, as parties and individual members, land in different positions. It is quite obvious that the Sweden Democrats and the Moderates land very differently in this question, as well as in many other questions concerning the rights of LGBTQI persons.

As a Moderate, it is always important to uphold the individual's right to be themselves, to be who he or she is. I note that this issue has been investigated most since the sterilization requirement ceased in 2013, something that the Sweden Democrats unfortunately could not even stand behind.

Since then, the need to modernize this legislation has been great. It was the Reinfeldt government that appointed an inquiry in 2014, and now, ten years later, we are finally here and ready to proceed to a decision. This is a well-elaborated proposal, where we have, therefore, listened to the referral bodies' criticism.

I thank the member for perceiving me as balanced, well-prepared, and so on. We have truly tried to approach the issue in a serious manner and listened to the referral bodies. I and the Moderaterna note that the proposal receives extensive criticism from the LGBTQ+ movement, which feels that the proposal is not far-reaching enough. At the same time, we receive criticism from the Sverigedemokraterna and others from a completely different perspective. This leads me to believe that we have, in some way, landed quite correctly.

The question back to the Sweden Democrats is whether it is actually the case that one wants to abolish today's gender identity legislation. I find it difficult to draw any other conclusion from the posts that have been submitted so far from the Sweden Democrats' representatives, including Yurkovskiy's here.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Leonid Yurkovskiy (SD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you for the answer, member! I note, however, that I did not receive an answer to my last question.

If we start with the problems that have arisen: Yes, the issue has been investigated very much, but there is still much that remains, and that is why this debate is so long.

I did not, therefore, get an answer to the last question. I quote my party leader who said a few years ago: "If I take the subway in Tokyo, am I then Japanese?"

This is actually a relevant comparison, because the basic premise that one can change sex and that it is entirely up to self-identification opens a door for a lot of other questions that also need to be addressed. There are people who identify as animals, another age, etcetera. We also have people who perhaps perceive themselves as overweight even though they are actually underweight. It would be strange to try to handle that in the same very one-sided way as one handles this issue.

With that, I give the member the opportunity to answer the question again: Does he stand behind what the Social Democrats stated, that is, the basic premise that it is up to the individual themselves to decide whether they are a man or a woman?

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Johan Hultberg (M)

Madam Speaker! I stand here searching for the words for what I think about the member's way of arguing. I do not quite know how I should comment on it. I think that it somewhere testifies to the nonchalance that the Sverigedemokraterna show for this small, but vulnerable, group of people. I actually think that we in this chamber must take these people's life situation more seriously than to mock that someone might feel overweight. I think it is objectionable to argue in the way the member just did.

Now I shall try to come back to the matter. I want to remind once again that Sweden, as the first country in the world in 1972, had gender identity legislation put in place.

The proposal does not change the view on what gender is. There are two biological sexes, and then it is obvious that people have other gender identities. To help people, improve their living conditions and respect their way of being who they are, we have this legislation - which does not concern many of us but actually very few. For the people it affects, it is important legislation, but legislation that has become outdated. Therefore, this small, cautious but still important modernization of a more than 50-year-old piece of legislation is now being made.

The Sweden Democrats are still responsible if one even wants to acknowledge people's possibility to change their legal gender. So far, only questioning of the basic idea itself has come from the Sweden Democrats. In that case, I think they should take responsibility for it, and then I also understand why they wanted a follow-up motion, because in that follow-up motion, the proposal would have been that today's legislation should be repealed.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Liza-Maria Norlin (KD)

Madam Speaker! Member Johan Hultberg describes the proposal for new legislation as something simpler and as a small, cautious change.

Today, one needs to be 18 years old to change legal gender, and a gender dysphoria diagnosis is required. This means that a rather extensive investigation needs to be carried out, which we have spoken about here earlier today. In that investigation, there is a team of different professions who shall provide support and contribute with different perspectives. I believe we are in agreement that the waiting times are far too long, that the care is unequal around the country and that the investigations need to go faster. I am glad that we are working on that together in the government.

In the Moderaternas and Liberalernas proposal for a committee initiative, it states that there should be a simplified assessment of gender identity and that it should be less extensive than today and, as far as possible, be based on the individual's own perception of themselves. Furthermore, the age for changing legal gender shall be lowered to 16 years. I wonder, Madam Speaker, in what way the member means that it is a cautious change.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Johan Hultberg (M)

Madam Speaker! I mean that this is a cautious change given that, even though we are making this liberalization and making the legislation somewhat simpler and that it will become somewhat easier to change one's legal gender, we can still state that in a Nordic perspective we will have the most restrictive legislation. In no other Nordic country will it be as difficult to change one's legal gender as in Sweden. I think that makes it a striking and correct description. I want to be honest with the voters.

This is not the major reform that RFSL and many other organizations have requested. Amnesty and other organizations point out that the proposal might not quite be in line with what the Council of Europe or the UN have required. It is therefore a cautious modernization, but it is nonetheless important.

We have taken note of the many views that have emerged in the referral process. We have, as I mentioned in my speech, weighed the individual's self-determination against the risk of abuse. I believe that the risk of abuse is quite small, but I take it very seriously. Therefore, I believe it is justified to have a review, but it is not reasonable that one should have the same high requirements for changing an entry in the population register as for undergoing irreversible genital surgery.

I regret that the Christian Democrats no longer stand up for what they previously said about the importance of separating the legal from the medical. A cautious modernization is exactly what this is, Madam Speaker.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Liza-Maria Norlin (KD)

Madam Speaker! Karolinska Institutet refers to international studies which show that 80-90 percent of children and adolescents later regret their desire for gender reassignment. It is one of the reasons why the age issue in particular is so important for us Christian Democrats.

Professors and specialist doctors warn – it is not I who is doing so – that there is a probability that is quite large that if one has changed their legal gender, medical treatment will also be initiated earlier. We know, not least from recent years, that more caution is urged when it comes to, for example, hormone treatment. We also hear voices from people who regret it and who have undergone irreversible treatments.

What is it that makes the Moderaterna come to the conclusion that exactly 16 years is the best age to change legal gender? If this matter of changing legal gender, as it sounds from the member's side, does not entail any major risks and is a fairly simple legal decision and if self-identification is central – why then does age play such a large role?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Johan Hultberg (M)

Madam Speaker! I have been clear throughout this chamber debate, through the entire committee process and in the public debate, that this is a complex issue. It is important to include different aspects in the preparation.

When it comes to the age limit specifically, I think it is important to emphasize the importance of the individual having a maturity and an understanding of what it means to change one's legal gender. This has also emerged in the referral process earlier. Several referral bodies directed criticism toward the previous proposals where the age limit was 12 years and argued that it is rather reasonable to raise that limit. Several pointed to 15 or 16 years, and it is against that background that we have revised or rather fundamentally reworked the proposal. Now we have submitted a proposal which concerns that only those who are of legal age, i.e., 18 years, shall be able to apply to have their legal gender changed on their own, and that those who are 16 or 17 years old shall be able to change their legal gender if it is the guardians who make the application.

This is a trade-off. I understand that many young trans people are incredibly disappointed with our proposal and wish that one could change their legal gender earlier, but it still becomes an important opportunity for a few. I received a letter from a mother who underlined why it was important for her child and pointed out the fact that when you are 16 years old, you suddenly become searchable in all registers, for example Ratsit. It is important for a person to be able to be the person he or she is.

This is a balanced proposal where we have listened to different aspects, made a trade-off, and landed on the age limit of 16 years. Now we receive criticism both for it being too high and for it being too low, but I take responsibility for the balanced proposal that six of the eight parties stand behind.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Mikael Eskilandersson (SD)

Madam Speaker! I thought I would start by asking Johan Hultberg how it is that the government parties take it so lightly to bypass the law and create legislation in the committee.

I previously asked a similar question to the Social Democrats. They had no major concerns when it came to bypassing the government, which I interpret as being mostly due to the fact that they themselves are no longer part of the government.

But it is truly to tie a noose around one's own neck for a government party to present new legislative proposals via the committee. One removes the entire possibility that exists to submit follow-up motions on the law, a possibility that I lack and which I believe everyone who does not sit in the Social Affairs Committee lacks in connection with the handling of this law.

One also chose not to consult the Committee on Civil Affairs, in which I serve as vice chairman, on how this law would affect the laws that we handle. It is the case that the Committee on Social Affairs handles primarily matters of guardianship. Interpersonal relations are handled by the Committee on Civil Affairs. It is the Committee on Civil Affairs that has the Name Act and all laws regarding guardianship, housing, visitation, marriage, cohabitation, inheritance rights, and so on. It is actually not the Committee on Social Affairs that handles particularly much of what occurs between people. I can therefore wonder why the Committee on Civil Affairs is excluded when the proposal is sent out for consultation.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Johan Hultberg (M)

Madam Speaker! We have been very responsive in the work of the committee when proposals have been received, for example regarding letting other committees express their views.

It has been important for me and for the Moderaterna to acknowledge the fact that we may disagree on the substance, but that we have nevertheless strived to reach as much consensus as possible in the committee on how the process itself, the preparation, should proceed.

From the Moderates' side, we felt there was no reason to give particularly many different committees the opportunity to comment. But we approved all motions to let other committees comment.

It was requested that the Committee on Employment, the Committee on Taxation, and the Committee on Justice should be allowed to comment. Then we said: Approved! That is good. Let these committees be allowed to comment. No Sverigedemokrat or any other member in the committee raised that there should be any comment from the Committee on Civil Affairs, so that is the background to it.

I do not take lightly the fact that we are to enact legislation in the Riksdag. This is absolutely an exceptional handling. But it is in that way that the issue has been investigated since 2007. It has been difficult for different governments to produce a finished proposal.

I was proud and happy when the Christian Democrats, as responsible for the Ministry of Social Affairs, placed the bill on the list of bills. But unfortunately, they backed out of it. Then we took what was a finished, investigated product that had been with the Council on Legislation and submitted it as a committee initiative because we believe that after 10, 15, yes, 17 years of investigation and debate, it is actually time to move to a decision.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Mikael Eskilandersson (SD)

Madam Speaker! It is easy to stand here and assert things, but I perceive it as that the Sweden Democrats have actually raised the issue of sending the matter for consultation to the Committee on Civil Affairs.

Regardless of this, the fact is that there is a long line of laws that we handle where you yourself, Johan Hultberg, should be able to think of that we might need some expert help with. Not just our members, but all members who sit in the Social Affairs Committee should react to this.

How is the right to change names affected?

How are custody, residence, and access affected by the law?

Can the inheritance rights in any way be affected when the wrong personal identity number and perhaps the wrong name are stated in the will?

What happens with sole proprietorships that have a personal identity number as an organization number?

How do consumers' rights function in relation to the law when it becomes easier to change a personal identity number? Will all agreements follow automatically, or are there agreements that can be considered terminated? And how does one ensure that agreements are actually upheld?

What happens with the rules regarding corporate guardians and principals for limited companies? Which assignments follow? Is a new motion needed, or can one simply change?

What is happening with business bans, and how do you get them to comply?

All these are things that we could have looked into more closely if we had received a request. But now, one chose to completely ignore that the Committee on Civil Affairs handles interpersonal relations. Instead, the Committee on Social Affairs considered itself to be above it and knew that there would not be any problems, even though one should think a bit further and reflect a bit on what happens if one makes it simpler.

We have seen in our neighboring countries that it has increased sharply in the countries that have introduced it. Finland had an increase that was much larger than had been expected when it came to how many who applied to change gender identity, so that there will be an increase we can quite easily predict.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Johan Hultberg (M)

Madam Speaker! Of course, in that sense, all legislation affects other legislation and other sectors of society. That is why it has been so important that this product has been preceded by a solid process and that there has been a referral process.

I feel very secure with this proposal. It is, therefore, not something that we have written together in some party office here in the Swedish Riksdag, but it is a government bill that lacks one thing: the government's signature. It is a well-founded proposal that I feel very secure with.

Then I want to remind once again that we are not introducing any new opportunity with this legislation. We are changing a 50-year-old piece of legislation. All the challenges and concerns that potentially affect the Committee on Civil Affairs are things that we also have to deal with today.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Alexander Christiansson (SD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Johan Hultberg, for the speech!

In previous exchanges here, the question arose regarding what the Sweden Democrats consider regarding the issue linked to age and so on. It is certainly known to most that we mean and advocate in our reservation that the age of 25 is reasonable. Then one should be able to make decisions that in the long run become irrevocable. Then we are not talking about legal gender but about medical.

But also there, to return to parts of the research and the profession, it is argued that this opening and simplification will make it difficult for doctors who work with these issues to do their work and conduct a thorough analysis. They will feel forced to go with the self-confirming part of the experience of who one is.

I actually just want to ask a short question to Johan Hultberg.

We have talked about various consequences of this proposal, which the member of parliament claims is well-elaborated and so on. But there is also a concern, not least within sports, which I myself work with as a cultural politician. That concern exists even today, as we can read about, all around the world where these simplifications have been made. Even in Norway, that discussion actually exists, even if it is not being raised here. What happens when biological men compete against biological women?

It becomes a question of equality. Sport in Sweden is based on the principle that one should compete on equal terms, and that is not the case in these instances.

The day before yesterday, I read about a basketball team in the USA with young girls who chose to walk over in the quarterfinals because they were going to play against biological boys.

I think this is problematic, and it is something that needs to be raised in this debate.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Johan Hultberg (M)

Madam Speaker! There were many different aspects and questions in Member Christiansson's reply. I shall see if I have time to address everything.

We begin with the recurring point that if we make it easier to change legal gender, more people will seek out gender-affirming care and so on. There is simply no evidence for that. I think it is important to emphasize that.

What is also incredibly important for the Moderates - there we are perhaps somewhat more in agreement, Moderates and Sweden Democrats - is that irreversible treatments are administered with very great caution. That is why it is so good and so important that this care has moved from being allowed to be practiced everywhere, in all of Sweden, to the National Board of Health and Welfare now having regulated it.

Now it is national highly specialized care. That is because the patient group is small and it is important to concentrate expertise in a few places in order to be able to carry out good investigations and manage the healthcare needs that this small patient group has.

Madam Speaker! Currently, it is only at three units in Sweden that the lion's share of care for gender dysphoria can be provided. That is where investigations are conducted and genital surgery is performed. This is important to ensure that only those who have a real need and who are truly helped by this treatment shall receive it.

How the sport should be conducted and how the competition classes should be divided is not something we regulate by law today. I have also never heard that the athletes have requested that we, from the legislative side, should step in and direct which competition classes there should be in, for example, in athletics. I also think it remains reasonable that the sports movement, just as today, gets to decide how the competition classes should be designed.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Alexander Christiansson (SD)

Madam Speaker! I thank Johan Hultberg for the answer. I understand the member's approach to this issue. I choose not to state the Moderaternas approach, because when I discuss with other Moderate MPs, they are not quite of the same opinion. This perhaps testifies to the split within the Moderaterna on the issue. I find this fascinating. In Demoskops' latest survey, we see that a large proportion of the Moderate voters are against the proposal as it is designed today, actually an almost exactly equal proportion as of our Sverigedemokratiska voters. I think it is regrettable that one chooses to proceed with this in this way.

With the legislation we have today, it is actually the same problem. But we have seen an incredible increase in gender dysphoria, not least from 2010 onwards. The issue has been debated in the media insanely much. We have professors who talk about social contagion and such things; there are trends within social media and so on that it is not possible to ignore. I mean that this will become all more common.

I also mean that in other countries, it will be enough for one instance when, for example, a football club or a volleyball club ends up in this situation and is reported for discrimination. It will become projecting, and it will become a norm in Sweden. I mean that it is a dangerous development. I believe that many young girls who want to commit to sports will be exposed to this and that it will happen in exactly the same way as in other countries. It is very regrettable that the Moderaterna are taking a stand against that development.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Johan Hultberg (M)

Mr. Speaker! Social contagion - that brings to mind a bygone era when the debate was about homosexuality.

I think it is still reasonable that it is the sport itself that decides. It is also not as simple as it would just be about biological sex. An example within athletics is Caster Semenya, a successful runner who is a biological woman but has very high levels of testosterone. From the athletics side, it has been said that it then does not become competition on the same level and on equal terms. Therefore, they have regulated the testosterone levels. If we had only gone by biological sex, that type of regulation would not have been possible. I believe that we as legislators should be careful about stepping in and regulating how the sport should be conducted.

I am concerned that so many trans people do not feel welcome within sports, do not participate in leisure activities, do not play sports and do not move, and that they have significantly poorer both mental and physical health than the population at large. I have not heard any member from Sverigedemokraterna raise this.

I believe it is important that we are able to see different interests, balance them, and take concerns seriously and not make a mountain out of a molehill. I think that the proposal we have submitted represents a cautious modernization. We have clearly stated from the committee that we will carefully monitor the legislation to ensure that the implementation is good and that the various concerns are not realized. I take all these concerns and risks very seriously. But I also think it is important that we see the living conditions for trans people.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

TALMANNEN

Questions have been submitted to me and the Chamber Office regarding what happens if this debate is not finished by 16:00, when we are intended to make a decision. The answer is that if the debate continues past 16:00, the decision will be made at the next vote, which will be tomorrow at 15:20.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Magnus Jacobsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I would first like to make a small clarification. I have not heard any party say that gender dysphoria does not exist or that one should not have the right to change gender. But in the debate, it sometimes appears as if there are some who believe so. It becomes a bit interesting.

We Christian Democrats have landed on a no to the lowered age limit. We have also said no to the decoupling between legal and physical sex and said that we want to maintain the requirement for a diagnosis. Furthermore, we have said that we want increased and improved evidence-based care, and that is what we are working for together in the government.

It is said in the debate by several speakers, including Johan Hultberg, that this is a minor change. One can already change gender today - that is correct. Nor is anyone saying that we should not be allowed to change gender. But it is no minor change. It is a very large change where one decouples the physical sex from the legal sex. Even if it is not said in the debate, the small phenomenon actually arises, at least for a period, that one has two sexes.

We humans are not isolated islands. This is a very exciting discussion even in a philosophical sense. Listening to the debate is ideologically and philosophically very interesting. To say that I myself, only I, can value only myself is extreme individualism. We also live in relation to others.

It is here that the profession has been concerned. It has been signaled that this could be used in an incorrect way in the criminal justice system. It has been signaled that research on male and female healthcare is physically needed.

Then my question to the Moderates is: If it turns out that the profession, the sports movement, the women's movement and many others are right, what do you do then?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Johan Hultberg (M)

Mr. Speaker! The inaccuracies continue in the debate. Now, Member Jacobsson said that he objects to decoupling the legal from the medical. There are no requirements to make any changes to one's body in order to be allowed to change legal gender. But there is a conflation in the legislation. The Kristdemokraterna have previously been against that conflation. I have listened to Acko Ankarberg Johansson when she, in this speaker's chair, described the need to separate the legislation into two as necessary. I regret that Kristdemokraterna have given up that idea.

Speaking of the correctional services, I note that our proposal means that we make important improvements to handle the challenges that may exist. Our proposal means that we make important changes to the detention act and the prison act to ensure that the correctional services will have a better legal framework to be able to make wise placements.

Mr. Speaker! In light of the experiences from other countries and of how it has functioned in Sweden so far, I feel confident that this legislation will work well. The possibility to change legal gender we have had since 1972. It is every year a number of hundreds of people who make that change. I mean that it is not a revolution that we are doing now but a reforming of an old legislation.

We make it somewhat easier to change the legal gender, but we remain more restrictive than in the rest of the Nordic countries. We still require an assessment and that the individual must have contact with healthcare, not least in order to be able to identify if there is other mental ill-health or anything else that is the cause of feeling suffering and a need to change one's legal gender.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Magnus Jacobsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I am glad that Johan Hultberg feels secure. It is good if we are secure. Unfortunately, I do not feel as secure.

We are now undergoing a change where we already see that a large number, an increasing number, of people experience gender dysphoria. We also see that research, among other things at Karolinska Institutet, indicates that 80-90 percent do not experience the same situation when they have come out of the teenage period and puberty.

That concern is what is being signaled. That is, among other things, why we have said that we do not want to touch the age limit. It is not that Christian Democrats in general go around being mean to people, but we feel a concern based on the reports that have come in, above all from what the profession signals.

Mr. Speaker! This raises a relevant question. We certainly have different party cultures, but in our party, many conversations have been held. We have a common government, and in the government camp, every minister is supposed to stand for exactly what the government stands for. But then the government happens to consist of parties – it is such an exciting, fascinating situation that can exist in at least living democracies with many parties.

For us, this resulted in long conversations where we in our group said: No, we do not feel secure with this legislation; we do not feel secure with what is moving forward. That is, among other things, why it is going through the Riksdag instead.

On the other hand, a dilemma arises here. Are there more issues where the governing party Moderaterna intends to go through the Riksdag if they do not reach an agreement in the government? Are there more issues where we are to handle our relationship in that way? I personally think it is questionable that we are standing here today. It is unfortunate. I understand that we are doing it, and I have all respect for the fact that we are here. But I do not feel secure, and I think it is unfortunate.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Johan Hultberg (M)

Mr. Speaker! Let me start with the last point. It was in such a way that there was a fully investigated proposal at the Ministry of Social Affairs which the responsible minister, the Christian Democrat Acko Ankarberg Johansson, placed on the government's list of propositions. I have respect for the fact that opinions change within a party. The proposal was ready. Two of the three government parties wanted it to become a proposition. The Christian Democrats said no.

That is the background to why we are standing here today. Then the agreement was that we disagree - the Moderates and the Liberals may take the finished proposal as a committee initiative, and the Christian Democrats will say no. Fair and square! But it is not the case that we are the ones who have opened up to going via another way.

I feel firmly convinced that it is still within the government and within the Tidö cooperation that we will address the many and great societal challenges that we face and where we also agree. This is indeed an odd bird. We are usually able to reach agreements. In this issue, we have not. I regret that. But I am also proud that we can finally reach a decision now.

We disagree. There are different perceptions. That is good in a democracy, but it is also important to be able to reach a decision. We will hopefully do that this afternoon, or possibly tomorrow, but I say nonetheless: Finally!

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Eric Westroth (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I sit on the Committee on Taxation. We were indeed given the opportunity to comment on the committee initiative, but we still believe that the issue is insufficiently prepared and that far too many question marks remain.

When it comes to just the population registry and the identity management, with its current shortcomings, the Sverigedemokraterna and Moderaterna have fought like eagles side by side to get order on the deficiencies in just this. We know that there are individuals out in society who have succeeded in obtaining several identities, and we can assume that this is used both for criminal purposes and to improperly extract funds from our common welfare systems.

Now, with this committee initiative, a proposal is put on the table where, in addition to the persons that one intends to help, it also opens the door for individuals with dishonest intentions to obtain legitimate identity documents. It also creates difficulties, especially for private companies that use the Sparregistret to check up on persons, as the connection between individuals' different personal identity numbers is missing there. This can apply to credit reporting companies and banks, but also to foreign authorities that lack control possibilities against Swedish authorities.

That is why I want to ask the member why the new law is being forced through before the views pointed out by many major referral bodies regarding specifically the change of personal identity numbers have been investigated and resolved.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Johan Hultberg (M)

Mr. Speaker! A proposal that has been investigated and debated for fifteen years perhaps I would not describe as forced. Regardless, we have taken these legitimate and relevant objections very seriously. The referral comments referred to were presented against earlier, more far-reaching proposals. That referral round concerned a proposal that was based entirely on self-identification, where one could change their legal gender without contact with health and medical care and without assessment. It was only to be a simple administrative measure.

Then it was a couple of referral bodies - Bankföreningen and Brå - who raised concerns regarding that. They said that they cannot oversee the consequences of such an arrangement. We have agreed with that. Therefore, we think it is reasonable to continue to require an assessment. It raises a high threshold for this law to be misused. It has been important for me and Moderaterna.

Yes, it means that it will become more difficult for those who are in real need of changing their legal gender. It means that it will be more time-consuming and more scrutinizing for the small vulnerable group, but we think it is justified to address just those challenges that Member Westroth raises.

Taking into account the views of the referral bodies, we have reworked the proposal fundamentally and placed a different proposal before the Riksdag that has taken these concerns into account.

Then I think it is important to emphasize that Moderates, Christian Democrats, Sweden Democrats and Liberals must continue to work side by side to combat welfare crime and ensure that Sweden has a good population registration system. That work needs to continue regardless of this legislation, because these problems exist today and need to be addressed, and in that, we look forward to continued good cooperation.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Eric Westroth (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Member Hultberg for the answer.

We can still state that there will be a simplification of the change of legal gender. Given the influx of people who say they suffer from gender dysphoria, it will naturally be more who are granted a change of legal gender and thereby get to change their personal identity number. Given that, instead of only self-perception, one is to have a healthcare contact with a statement from a healthcare facility, it will indeed be difficult with the stigma that is built up for a healthcare facility to deny a person who experiences this dysphoria.

I had intended to take a number of the referral bodies, but in order to shorten the debate, I have skipped them.

I wonder if the member believes that the possibility of - as is done in Norway - eventually introducing gender-neutral personal identity numbers instead of having individual persons have to go about changing their personal identity numbers has been sufficiently investigated.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Johan Hultberg (M)

Mr. Speaker! To answer the last question briefly and concisely, I think it would have been absolutely excellent if we could have had gender-neutral personal identity numbers. It would have simplified this question enormously.

There are also major problems with that. For one thing, not least the Swedish Tax Agency has been very clear that it would involve enormous costs to establish such a new system. It would also be problematic since many of our other systems are built around the connection to personal identity numbers, for research and other purposes.

If we had started from scratch, it might have been a good way forward, but now we have the system we have. In that case, it is important that we make it somewhat easier to change one's legal gender, but not just how easy as possible, because it is important to ensure that the possibility of changing legal gender is only reserved for those who truly are in need of it.

We have therefore thought it justified to continue the review, in order to ensure that the possibility cannot be abused. For M and SD, it is incredibly important that we can combat crime and not play any criminals into the hands through this opportunity. Therefore, the review is important.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Michael Rubbestad (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, the member, for your opening remarks and for putting up with all the interjections that will come now!

The Moderates or the member refers to the fact that parents need to give their consent when their children want to change their legal gender, if the child is under 18 years old. The question that arises for me is: Which parents will actually dare to say no? There are already signs that parents who have expressed concern and wanted to say no have been reported to social services for having denied their child "necessary treatment", as it is expressed. I wonder first and foremost: How does the member view this risk?

Then I would like to quote an editorial writer in Dagens Nyheter, who writes: "To confirm an incorrect self-diagnosis and offer children a new legal gender instead of adequate treatment for their suffering is no small matter. It is a legal step towards a medical failure." I think it is a sentence that captures the whole thing very well.

The Chairman also mentioned that there shall be an assessment to ensure that there is indeed a need. We are, of course, completely in agreement on this, but I see a risk. When we now remove the diagnosis, how do we ensure that there is indeed a need when we instead shift the whole thing over to the individual's self-determination and the 16-year-old's parents do not dare to say no?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Johan Hultberg (M)

Mr. Speaker! Let me begin by reminding why diagnoses are set. There are doctors in the chamber now who can describe this better, but fundamentally it is about the fact that diagnoses form the basis for medical treatments. Changing the information in the population register is not a medical treatment, so therefore I think it is reasonable that we remove the requirement.

As we touched upon in the previous exchange, the assessment is nevertheless justified to ensure that it is only those individuals who are in need of changing their legal gender who are permitted to do so, and so that we have the opportunity to identify if there is any other ill-health. We are clear in the legislative commentary that the assessment also concerns excluding other issues.

Then I think it is somewhat remarkable for a party like the Sverigedemokraterna to downplay parental responsibility and the parents' ability to take responsibility for their children and for their decisions. I want to start by reminding that changing legal gender is not a treatment, so it would be very strange if one were criticized for that. I think it is important to emphasize parental responsibility.

I think we have made a reasonable balance when we say that, fundamentally, it is only those who are 18 years old who should be able to apply to change their legal gender, but that under certain circumstances it should be possible to change the legal gender for those who are 16 or 17 years old. In that case, the parents should not only give their consent, but the guardians must also make the application themselves.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Michael Rubbestad (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Johan Hultberg, for the answer!

I had actually intended to ask a different question on this theme, but I feel that I need to go back to an earlier exchange where social contagion was raised. I could think that the member from the Moderaterna somewhat mockingly referred to an old type of rhetoric linked to when one once upon a time discussed homosexuality and such things.

The concept of social contagion is a term used within psychiatry today. It is nothing strange at all, but it concerns how behaviors, feelings, or states spread spontaneously within a group or a network. There are many positive examples of this. It is well-established that young people who live with students who have good grades often tend to emulate that and also get better grades. It thus yields positive consequences.

This is something that many doctors and psychologists have raised in this context. In the book Ånger, which was released in early 2024, investigative journalists from among others Uppdrag granskning have looked at the transition care, and there social contagion is raised repeatedly.

We have an increase of 2,300 percent in received gender dysphoria diagnoses since the year 2000, if I remember correctly, and one does not know why. It is also primarily girls who suffer or seek [help]. Social contagion is highlighted, as in that we have smartphones and social media - it is TikTok, it is Instagram and it is influencers.

All people who come out and show that they are born in the wrong body and seek support for this receive likes, praise, and much love. It turns out then that many, especially girls, recognize themselves in having this need and therefore are drawn to it as part of the social contagion.

This is something that many psychologists are very concerned about, because when people come and seek help, it is the same stories they hear. Regardless of who it is, it is the same stories, and it is precisely those stories that have been received from social media. One does not always say what one feels, but rather says what has been spread, thanks to the so-called social contagion.

I wonder a bit how the member views these risks.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Johan Hultberg (M)

Mr. Speaker! What made me react to the concept of social contagion was that in my world, contagion is not directly a positively charged word. If one uses it in the same sense as where people who are trans are discussed, I think it gives a rather unpleasant taste and feeling.

I think it is very important that we have good transition care in Sweden, and that is why it is so incredibly welcome that this care has become national highly specialized care.

As we agree in this chamber, from right to left, it is incredibly important that this small patient group, which needs proper care, is met by a multidisciplinary team where there are different competencies in order to both be able to conduct a proper and good investigation and be able to assess which care interventions are adequate, which truly reduce suffering and which can be justified from side effect aspects and other factors.

I think it is incredibly good and important that this care has become nationally specialized care. It is important that this also creates conditions for better follow-up and research. Here, the government has taken several important initiatives and given a government mandate to Socialstyrelsen to continue following up, for example, on hormone treatment, which has been a debated issue but which, I want to emphasize, is not treated at all in the proposal.

When it comes to the causes of the increase, we know too little about them. One cause can, for example, be that we abolished the requirement for forced sterilization in 2013. Then we saw an enormous increase in applications to have one's legal gender changed. Another cause is hopefully that the norms in society have become more permissive. The member mentioned that one gets likes and hearts, but unfortunately, many trans people are also constantly met with hate and threats.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Hans Eklind (KD)

Mr. Speaker! First and foremost, I want to say that I truly respect the Moderate Member of Parliament. You are objective, Johan Hultberg, and I believe we benefit very much from the tone in which this discussion is conducted.

I do not intend to use my two minutes as I believe we have already used quite a lot of time, but I requested a reply when the member in the speaker's chair said that one proceeds cautiously. This contrasts with what Mikael Landén, professor of psychiatry and chief physician at Sahlgrenska University Hospital, says, namely that we are facing the century's greatest medical scandal. My question is short: Is he wrong?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Johan Hultberg (M)

Mr. Speaker! Yes, that is my firm opinion.

I truly think we are proceeding cautiously. Of course, there are critical doctors in the debate, and of course, there are different opinions. But the proposal that is now on the Riksdag's table, ready for a vote, has indeed been developed taking into account what the various referral bodies have raised.

There is strong support for this reform among the various professional associations, for example, among Läkarförbundet and Sveriges Psykologförbund. Different regions have also endorsed the proposal, and support exists from Socialstyrelsen and Folkhälsomyndigheten. That being said, I really think we are proceeding cautiously.

It is also important to remind again that the proposal primarily concerns making it somewhat easier to change one's legal gender. It therefore has nothing to do with medicine. I believe, on the contrary, that it is good that we separate today's legislation, Mr. Speaker, and today's process. Today, it is the same process to change one's legal gender as it is to receive genital surgery. It is on the same form to Socialstyrelsen that one ticks that one is applying to change one's legal gender and that one is applying for genital surgery.

I believe this is incredibly unfortunate, because if anything, it risks leading people into treatment. I believe it is important that we separate these issues. For many, it can help to only be able to change their legal gender, so that when they arrive at their post office or are about to book a trip, they can be perceived and identify themselves as who they are. It is also about ensuring that people cannot perform searches online and question who you are. Today, someone appearing as a woman can be questioned by someone saying: "No, indeed – I have read online, on ratsit.se, that you are a man!" Therefore, this change is important.

We are proceeding cautiously, however, and we will continue to have the most restrictive legislation in the Nordic region.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Hans Eklind (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Johan Hultberg for the answer.

The point is that pediatricians and specialists believe that a change of legal gender identity reinforces the feeling of gender dysphoria that these individuals express. Karolinska Institutet notes that it grows out of it in 80-90 percent of cases.

I have a new question. The professor in psychiatry is therefore not correct, and then my question is: Is Johan Hultberg's own party leader, also Prime Minister, also wrong when he says that he would rather have an 18-year-old age limit for changing legal gender?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Johan Hultberg (M)

Mr. Speaker! The age limit has been the subject of an extensive debate, and that question is difficult. I think it is good that we have been heard on the basic starting points that the Moderaterna have had in this issue, namely that 18 years is the basis. That is what the proposal is about. It is only those who are of legal age who shall be able to apply on their own to have their legal gender changed.

Since then, the Moderates have been clear that under certain circumstances and conditions we are prepared to lower that age limit, and that is what we are doing with this proposal. Now we are saying that the person who is 16 or 17 and who is in contact with healthcare - who undergoes an assessment where the healthcare provider tests the person's gender identity, performs a needs assessment and excludes other issues - shall be able to change their legal gender if the guardians submit an application and Socialstyrelsen grants it. I also understand that this is what the Prime Minister has fundamentally expressed.

I am, therefore, proud that after all these years we have nevertheless been able to gather a broad majority to carry out what I truly consider to be a cautious but important modernization of legislation over 50 years old.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Carina Ståhl Herrstedt (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I would like to take the opportunity to thank Hultberg for his patience with the many interjections.

The replies are prompted by the fact that there has been no other platform to ask questions on. We have not been able to discuss the questions anywhere else, as time and again ministers during question periods and so on have ducked the question and referred to it being in the Social Affairs Committee. There, no substantive discussion has occurred at all, and it has not been possible for us to get answers to the questions that have been raised regarding the proposal. Therefore, there will be many replies today.

Not least, we have been denied the opportunity to send the matter out for a new referral round, even though the conditions have actually existed. Since the previous referral round was conducted, Socialstyrelsen has provided new advice regarding hormone treatment of children, and the previous referral bodies did not have the opportunity to take this into account in their referral responses.

In almost all other contexts, there is much talk—which is naturally good and is rightly so—about decisions being made based on proven science, knowledge, and scientific evidence. What is it that makes one here and now ready to make decisions that are actually not based on any of this? The target group is not that large; it appears from the member's contribution. There is no majority in the own party, and there is no majority for the issue among the Swedish people.

What is it that makes the issue so important to drive forward before everyone has had a chance to speak out based on the new scientific evidence that has emerged?

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Johan Hultberg (M)

Mr. Speaker! The issue of hormone treatment is not addressed at all by this proposal. It is also not addressed by today's legislation. I therefore consider it to be a rather weak argument for carrying out a new referral round.

This legislation, just like the existing legislation, regulates the framework for the possibility of changing one's legal gender. There is also specific protective legislation regarding explicit, and exclusively, genital surgery - and we are retaining that protective legislation. As I said in my speech, we think it is important that we continue to be very cautious with providing that type of treatment, and therefore we have continued a specific legislation that regulates it, with age limits.

Since then, it is the National Board of Health and Welfare that provides knowledge support and guidance regarding how care should be conducted. Just as Member Carina Ståhl Herrstedt mentions, the National Board of Health and Welfare has changed those guidelines and that knowledge support, and I welcome that. I think it is positive that a more cautious stance is taken regarding these types of treatments. But it is a matter for the expert authority and ultimately for the healthcare system. It is not we in the Riksdag who are to make decisions on exactly which different treatments should be conducted.

Of course, care in Sweden shall be provided based on evidence and proven experience. I want to emphasize that the legislation we are now talking about regarding genital surgery does not, so to speak, trump other legislation regulating health and medical care. It is instead an extra precautionary legislation that raises an extra threshold for obtaining this type of treatment.

At the foundation lies the general legislation, namely the Health and Medical Services Act and the Patient Safety Act, which clearly prescribe that all care shall be based on evidence and proven experience. Care shall be provided by licensed personnel - who may have their license revoked if they do not meet the requirements.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Carina Ståhl Herrstedt (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Johan Hultberg for the answers.

Of course, it is the case that hormone treatments are not discussed in this proposal. But we are still talking about lowering the age limit for when one can change a legal gender, that is to say, making it easier. This entails that more and more people will proceed to some form of treatment – that is obvious – and that it will involve hormone treatment in those treatments. That was somewhat why I raised it.

However, we argue that the purely constitutional problem is that the proposal should have gone out for a new referral round now that new evidence has emerged and things have been changed. We were not allowed to use the minority protection; instead, it was rejected in the committee. There is an exception in the parliamentary rules to deviate from this, and that is if the measure would delay the processing of the matter so that a significant harm would occur. The significant harm must then be justified. I read and read, and I cannot see anywhere that this is justified. What is it that would constitute a significant harm in this matter?

Delaying the bill would absolutely not mean anything significant. On the contrary, it would likely increase the risk of damages that can never be restored if the Riksdag makes this decision. It would increase the risk that people proceed with their application and undergo an actual gender reassignment at far too early an age. It cannot be undone, and we see very many who regret it.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Johan Hultberg (M)

Mr. Speaker! Now Member Ståhl Herrstedt said that it is obvious that more people will seek gender-affirming care if we make it easier to change legal gender. There is no evidence for this claim.

Something that there is, however, some research on is that it is important for this group to be able to obtain a legal gender that corresponds with self-identification in order to reduce psychological suffering and improve health. There is research that clearly shows that this reduces anxiety, improves mental health, and can even have positive effects when it comes to reducing the risk of suicide. This is, unfortunately, a group that is heavily overrepresented in the suicide statistics.

It is the case, Mr. Speaker, that the Sweden Democrats and the Moderates differ on this issue. I have respect for that. When we laid this committee initiative before the Riksdag, the Sweden Democrats did not want a preparation of the matter to be started at all. After five months of preparation in the committee, a proposal for a new referral round was submitted. I think it is quite obvious what this is about. It is about delaying a decision.

I think one should be honest and say that one is against the proposal but that one wants us to vote on it. It has been investigated, debated, and referred for consultation in rounds since 2007. Now it is 2024, Mr. Speaker. Is the Chamber ready to proceed to a decision? The answer is yes.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Liza-Maria Norlin (KD)

Mr. Speaker! We are debating today proposals for new legislation concerning issues that require humility, reflection, and respect. It is about people, often young people, who are in need of support. It is therefore important to proceed carefully out of consideration for the people who are affected.

Unfortunately, the proposal on the table is a poorly conceived proposal with several unanswered questions. It is a proposal that risks worsening the situation instead of helping vulnerable people. Mikael Landén, professor of psychiatry and chief physician at Sahlgrenska University Hospital, describes it as the scandal of the century.

Mr. Speaker! In the first instance, I would like to move for approval of the referral of report SoU22, which is based on the initiative of the Moderates and the Liberals, back to the Social Affairs Committee. If it is not referred back, I move for approval of the Christian Democrats' reservation in the report.

Swedish transgender care has major deficiencies with great human suffering as a result, not least for children and young people. We Christian Democrats are therefore working, among other things, to strengthen school health and for a school health guarantee. We are working for better and more equal care for persons with gender dysphoria. Young people who suffer from gender dysphoria need to be able to quickly begin an investigation, be offered good care, and receive support based on the healthcare's assessments.

Together with the government, we are working to reduce queues and increase equality within healthcare. We in KD are convinced that a nationalization of Swedish healthcare would provide the conditions for better primary care. The government has also given assignments aimed at increasing knowledge and counteracting deficiencies in the treatment from healthcare and care personnel.

In January, the transplant care was transferred to the highly specialized care, which we welcome. It is important for more equal care, greater patient benefit, and improved quality. The concentration of care also provides better conditions for research and development.

Today, Mr. Speaker, we Kristdemokrater say no to lowering the age limit for legal gender reassignment from 18 to 16 years. We say no to removing Socialstyrelsen's permit review for surgical gender reassignment. All healthcare measures must be medically justified and in accordance with science and proven experience. We say no to simplifying the review for legal gender reassignment. It is fundamentally based on self-identification because the requirement for a gender dysphoria diagnosis is removed. Doctors are also not given the opportunity to attach weight to the time aspect, that is, how long the experience of gender incongruence has existed.

Do you remember how it was when you were 15-16 years old? I have worked in both lower secondary school and upper secondary school for several years and, in addition to my regular subjects, have taught the subject life skills. I have met many young people in need of adults who have time, who listen and see, who are there and whom one can hold hands with, be angry at, question, scrutinize or love. It is about the encounter with the body and one's own expectations. It is perhaps the first time one questions the values of one's parents and society. Here, the own identity is built, more or less consciously.

In my parenting, with teenagers, I have told the children when they are about to enter the teenage years: Hold on now - now comes one of life's more difficult times. It is fantastic in many ways, but going from child to adult hurts. I usually say that you come out on the other side, and there it is a bit easier to breathe. The heart's roller coaster calms down. That is roughly how it is for the vast majority of teenagers.

Over the last ten years, we have seen a noticeable increase in the number of new cases of diagnosed gender dysphoria. The increase is greatest among children between 13 and 17 years old, particularly among girls. Furthermore, we know from, among other sources, the National Board of Health and Welfare that many people diagnosed with gender dysphoria also have a high prevalence of several other psychiatric diagnoses. It is common with autism, depression, and anxiety disorders. The question we should ask ourselves is why we see this increase.

At the same time, we have had a development in Sweden during the 2000s where mental health issues have increased among children and young people. Serious mental distress is most common among young women - over a quarter of them between 16 and 29 years old suffer from this. 43,000 new children sought help from BUP during 2023. This is an increase of 40 percent over ten years. What is it that we are missing? I know that this is not the theme of today's debate, but it reinforces the need to apply the precautionary principle when we make decisions here today.

Today the question is: What do we do specifically for the young who are seeking who they are, the young who wonder about their gender identity, and the young who are born in the wrong body? Is the answer to let a 16-year-old take responsibility for the decision? I know that a doctor or psychologist must continue to be involved, that the guardian's consent is needed, and that Socialstyrelsen shall make the decision. What I wonder is on what basis and with what documentation this is to be done. Just this is unclear in the new bill.

What is clear is that one should not be able to demand a gender dysphoria diagnosis. Nor should one take into account how long the child has experienced that the birth sex does not correspond with the gender identity.

The proposal states that a change of the gender appearing in the population register shall be preceded by a simplified assessment of gender identity, which shall be less extensive than today and, as far as possible, be based on the individual's own perception of themselves. How can it be right to remove the multifunctional support that healthcare currently offers when it concerns a 16-year-old who wants or is considering changing gender in the sense of the law? What should this support look like?

It sometimes sounds in the debate as if changing legal gender is something quite uncomplicated. It also sounds as if just this is what is decisive for the person's well-being. But it is more complex than that. And to realize the complexity is to be careful.

The profession warns of the risks and consequences of someone as young as 16 being allowed to change legal gender without a diagnosis, and that it could lead to irreversible treatments being started sooner than today and for more people who will subsequently regret it. When the bill now also entails that one abolishes Socialstyrelsen's permit review for surgical interventions on the genitals, the warning flags should be clear.

It is incomprehensible that Social Democrats, Moderates, Centre Party members, Liberals, Left Party members and Green Party members do not see the risks and do not want to handle this with greater caution. It is incomprehensible that you could not allow a referral process of three months so that these very proposals can be reviewed and commented on by professionals, researchers, expert agencies and organizations. Why is there such a hurry that it is not even possible to give this three months?

Why is this important? Yes, it is important because we know that the state of knowledge has changed since December 2022, not least by Socialstyrelsen revising its recommendations and advocating for greater caution.

Let us refer the bills back, listen to the different voices affected by the laws, listen to the profession, expert authorities, and science. That is how we can do what we can so that society can provide the best support and care for people who are in a vulnerable situation. Let us listen before we make decisions. We cannot turn a blind eye to the risks and the anxiety that exist. When new laws also concern children, the precautionary principle should truly be self-evident. The proposal for a new gender identity law is hasty and not democratically anchored. Today, it is up to each Member of Parliament to make their choice. I know how I will vote. Do it again and do it right! Find a better solution forward that puts the children's best interests in focus and that truly improves transgender care in Sweden!

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Anders W Jonsson (C)

Mr. Speaker! When listening to this debate, one gets déjà vu feelings from when we discussed partnerships for same-sex couples and when we discussed gender-neutral marriage legislation. In these issues, KD has been strong opponents. I remember with what emphasis the Christian Democrats ten years ago fought for the requirement for compulsory castration to remain for those who wanted to change gender. It is therefore not surprising to hear this argumentation. One can wonder if there is a single example where the Riksdag has made a decision on legislation that would increase freedom for this group and which KD has actually voted for.

The second thing we hear from the rostrum is that one is born a man or a woman. But that is not always the case. There are a number of children born every year where, during the birth, one cannot determine if it is a person of male or female sex.

There is a somewhat larger number of individuals who do not feel they were born with the correct gender identity. One might ask if KD stands behind the statement that we have heard several times now, that one is born male or female. How difficult can it be?

The third thing I would like to bring up is that we repeatedly hear: The profession thinks, and the profession believes. Most recently, it was some professor in psychiatry who apparently lives in Gothenburg. There are 50,000 doctors in Sweden. There are doctors who think pretty much anything about any given issue. If you want to know what the profession thinks, isn't it better for you Christian Democrats to listen to what Läkarförbundet says? Läkarförbundet is positive towards the proposals in the memorandum, and Läkarförbundet is positive towards changes regarding separating surgical procedures from others. Svenska Läkaresällskapet even thinks that one should have gone further. One should not question doctors' decisions.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Liza-Maria Norlin (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I wonder then what in my argumentation you, Anders W Jonsson, so strongly turn against. Today we are debating a specific bill, and I intend to devote this debate to just that.

The Christian Democrats' starting point in all politics is to safeguard human dignity, to be a strong voice for children and also to be a strong voice for elderly people in our society, but especially for those people who do not have such a strong voice, i.e., the smaller groups in society. Therefore, we have taken on this issue in a very serious manner. My colleague in the committee, Christian Carlsson, has worked in a solid way and quite a bit in good dialogue with those of you who have placed another proposal here on the table. We have highlighted that there is a need for hearings and to listen to the profession in this process, which the committee has also listened to. But the committee has not listened to that this proposal, which in its entirety has not been sent out for consultation, should be sent out for consultation.

But I think it would be interesting to hear what in my argumentation you, Anders W Jonsson, so strongly oppose. The Christian Democrats are behind now regarding the legislation. I still want to be clear about that in this room.

What is one born into? It is not the Christian Democrats who decide what chromosome combinations look like. I know that there are children who are born where it is difficult to determine what gender they are born into. We have specific legislation for that. As I understand it, there is no proposal for changes in the proposal we have today. It is handled in a special way. What applies now is about where we stand today.

But my question to you, Anders W Jonsson, is: How can you stand behind the proposal that is on the table today when you are actually for full self-identification as the basis for changing legal gender?

(TALMANNEN: I remind you that we do not say "you" to each other in the chamber but speak via the Speaker.)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Anders W Jonsson (C)

Mr. Speaker! I am only drawing the historical parallels. Every time there has been a current issue concerning the rights of hbtqi persons, KD has always been on the sidelines and fought for that a preservation should apply and that they should not be expanded. But then it is so, just as the member says, that when a year or so has passed, KD is usually in favor of the changes that have been made. That is why the member now says that when it comes to all previous changes that have been made and which one has always been against, including removing the compulsory castration, one has changed one's mind. I believe it will be so even in this issue.

The second point is that I once again hear the member reduce this regarding gender identity to a question of chromosomes. It is not as simple as that one can just see whether it is a Y-chromosome or not. Gender identity is about something completely different. Not even in situations at the delivery room is it as simple as some have said that one is born into a male or female gender. I understand that if one has this in mind, one can end up in these types of rather strange positions.

The third point is about how one constantly returns to the highly esteemed profession. I would like there, at least among the Christian Democrats, to be an ability to distinguish between what an individual doctor or bacteriologist thinks in a parliamentary matter and actually listen to the bodies that represent, for example, Sweden's doctors. In that regard, the Swedish Medical Association is very clear in its referral response. They support these changes. And the Swedish Medical Association, which is the profession's organization, is prepared to go further. They do not believe that politicians should question the decisions made by doctors at all. So why is it not listened to the profession in these cases?

This is a compromise, and we stand behind the compromise - six out of eight parties. And in a year's time, I believe that KD will also say that they stand behind the changes that we are going to make today.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Liza-Maria Norlin (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Let me begin by clarifying. I may have been unclear, for which I apologize if that is the case.

When it comes to gender, I believe we agree - we have previously spoken here about legislation - that there is a biological sex and that it is determined by chromosomes. In some cases when children are born, it can be difficult to define. Then we can talk about gender identity - the perceived one. Some suffer from gender dysphoria. Here we have legislation where we are today discussing how it should proceed when one wants to change legal gender.

Here, the Christian Democrats are clear. If one is to be able to change legal gender, one should be 18 years old. There should also be a gender dysphoria diagnosis as a basis. Here we obviously disagree. My question to the member is nevertheless: Does the member not view with concern that when one is as young as 16 years old, one is to make this type of decision?

When it comes to the profession, it is not entirely unambiguous. That is what makes it complex. That is what made us in the committee want to send it out for consultation. Regarding several of those who are spoken of here who have expressed themselves on the issue, it was before Socialstyrelsen changed its recommendations. That came in December 2022. Lagrådets opinion came in June 2022.

Something has happened regarding the state of knowledge here. It is not just individual professors we are talking about or individual doctors. It is also Karolinska Institutet. When they were given the opportunity to comment on this in connection with the 2022 amendment, they did not suggest 16 years but 18 years of age.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Daniel Vencu Velasquez Castro (S)

Madam Speaker! I am reflecting a bit on the Christian Democrats' engagement in specifically LGBTQ+ issues. I can also note that the Christian Democrats' Minister Acko Ankarberg Johansson herself has stood in this chamber and said that a proposition will be submitted regarding a modernized gender identity law.

One chose to place it on the list of bills when taking office. I assume that in any case, one then considered it to be finalized and that one was ready to proceed to a decision. Actually, one can well argue that what the Social Affairs Committee is doing is to realize what Acko Ankarberg Johansson has said that one should do.

Madam Speaker! It is difficult to understand where the Christian Democrats stand when it comes to the rights of LGBTQI people. It is as Anders W Jonsson also noted. Every time we have discussed an issue that could improve the lives of LGBTQI people in Sweden but also in the world, the Christian Democrats have sat across the way. It has been claimed that they have not had enough grounds and that it will affect the rest of society's citizens.

It is an incredible injustice that I am well aware of. Hbtqi people must always wait for heterosexual people and the majority society to say yes. Then one is allowed to exist under the same conditions as everyone else. It is an incredible injustice that I believe many are well aware of.

I would like to hear: What is the Christian Democrats' proposal? I know, Madam Speaker, that we are discussing exactly this proposal. But it is relevant in context. The Christian Democrats have, for example, boasted about various pride parades around the country. It is clearly relevant to know: What hbtqi proposals do the Christian Democrats have to strengthen the situation for Sweden's trans people today?

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Liza-Maria Norlin (KD)

Madam Speaker! There are many important issues that we would need to debate here in the chamber today. I choose to primarily focus on the bill that we are to make a decision on. It is enough to spend time on that now. But I appreciate the commitment to issues concerning the LGBTQ+ movement. I will have to return to those types of debates in the future.

What one must know regarding the Christian Democrats' commitment to people, regardless of how they identify in terms of sexual orientation, religious affiliation, or whatever, is that it is human dignity that comes first. We can debate other debates that we have had previously, but I do not think it belongs in today's debate. Today, we have important legislation to discuss.

It concerns a few, as we have spoken about, in society today. How can we support and help there in the best way? We stand behind now regarding legislation. What we have opposed in the proposal - and I repeat it again - is to lower from 18 to 16 years of age and to remove the requirement that there must also be an investigation for gender dysphoria.

Both lowering the age for young people and removing the requirement means that one removes part of the support that exists around the person who is to make a decision on legal gender, which is the order we have today. Here we differ as parties. There is nothing strange about that.

It is clear that the Social Democrats want a larger part of self-identification. We think that there should be support when decisions are to be made regarding legal gender. That is what we are voting on today.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Daniel Vencu Velasquez Castro (S)

Madam Speaker! There were also parts in my contribution regarding the procedure that I also wished to receive answers to. It is a Christian Democratic minister who has promised that the legislation would proceed as the Social Affairs Committee is now doing instead. The member may be welcome to answer that.

With that said, I can also state that Ebba Busch has said the same thing at Stockholm Pride. She has said that the gender identity law should be modernized. It is absolutely the legislation we are discussing here in the chamber today. It is absolutely an issue that is relevant when it comes to hbtqi persons' rights today. It is a relevant issue based on what is on the Riksdag's table to discuss. It is a piece of legislation that we are to discuss. It is a piece of legislation that is important to change. That is what we are doing now.

I would like to have answers to: What has changed for the Christian Democrats since you took office and placed the law on the bill list? We were to make a decision on it on February 24, 2023. It has been over a year. It was a Christian Democrat minister who chose to put it on the bill list. What has changed for the Christian Democrats during that time?

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Liza-Maria Norlin (KD)

Madam Speaker! When it comes to the procedure, a representative picture is given. There is a commitment from Minister Acko Ankarberg Johansson and a strong commitment from the Kristdemokraterna party leader Ebba Busch in these issues.

It has also been expressed in various contexts. When our party leader Ebba Busch spoke and debated in connection with Pride, it was she who said that she wanted to see changes and a modernized legislation.

When it came to negotiations in the government, the Christian Democrats continued to think that a reduction to the age of 16 is not a path we envision, given that the knowledge base has changed, and therefore the government was not in agreement. Since then, it has been up to the committee to act in this matter, and therefore we have the debate today.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Karin Rågsjö (V)

Madam Speaker! It has been a very long journey regarding these issues. Some believe that it has gone far too fast. I cannot think so when one looks at the starting point about 17 years ago.

Will this become a revolution, or will it become something else? Will we stand out very much in the Nordic region? We have already discussed that. We will of course not do that. This is still a rather modest change.

There has been enormous attention surrounding the proposal in comparison to, for example, the Nato issue, which I think is a bit larger than this marginal change. I thought I would provide a small historical exposé for everyone's sake, so that we know what we are talking about.

Sweden introduced the world's first gender identity law in 1972. We can be proud of that. Now, a number of years have passed, 52 years, and now we are going to change it. One could say that it hasn't been very quick actions, right?

The assessment we have had of gender identification today is a process just as extensive as that before genital surgery. I have been able to sit and listen to and watch this in the Legal Council, which has made the decision on it.

Our Nordic neighboring countries distinguish between legal gender and medical interventions and have separate legislation for this. Their experiences indicate that the concerns raised in the debate in Sweden have not been realized. With the new gender identity law lying on the Riksdag's table, Sweden actually becomes the last in the Nordics to make this distinction.

In 2013, the requirement for sterilization for changing gender was abolished. Do you understand? It is not that long ago. There were quite a few who held back and did not attempt to change gender during that period.

The question of separating legal gender has been discussed for a very long time. The Alliance government appointed an inquiry to review the gender identity law in February 2014, ten years ago. The report Legal gender and medical gender reassignment was handed over to the then minister Gabriel Wikström in January 2015 - you understand. There were proposals here to split the law into two parts, introduce self-determination, lower the age limit for genital surgery, and have a 12-year limit for changing legal gender. That was then.

In 2018, the new S-MP government presented a direction for a modern gender identity legislation. The proposals came from 2014 and received very strong criticism, and the issue disappeared from our table for a period.

In 2021, the Löfven Government returned with a new proposal, which was sent out for consultation. The proposals in the draft for the Council on Legislation referral meant that all proposals regarding surgery on minors were struck out. Also, all proposals that minors should be able to apply themselves, i.e., without a guardian, were struck out. The age limit was, however, still set at 12 years for change of legal gender, and the primary authority responsibility was still moved from Socialstyrelsen to Skatteverket at the first application. The proposal was then reworked after criticism.

Then we come to July 2, 2022. On that date, the Andersson government submitted its finished bill in a Council on Legislation referral - Council on Legislation referral number two in this matter. The proposal meant that previous proposals to move the responsibility from Socialstyrelsen to Skatteverket were scrapped, but today's order with authority review and requirements for a medical statement was maintained. Self-determination had thus been removed. The age limit for changing one's legal gender was moved up to 16 years instead of 12.

The proposal that is now on the table and that we are now discussing is precisely that proposal.

As has been said, it has been a very long process. In the latest referral round, which was issued in 2021, 150 actors of various kinds participated. After that, the proposal was reworked, and in the bill that is on the table, the Council of Legislation's views have also been taken into account.

So, what is the situation? The bill means that the person who wants to change their legal gender must apply for it. A certificate from a licensed physician, normally a psychiatrist, or a licensed psychologist must be submitted with the application. The age limit is 16 years, and parental consent is required. The application shall then be sent to Socialstyrelsen, which makes the decision.

In order for the application to be approved, it is required that the gender appearing in the population register does not correspond with the person's perceived gender identity and that it can be assumed that the person will live in this gender identity for a foreseeable period. If these criteria are not met, the application shall not be approved by Socialstyrelsen. It must, therefore, be well-founded.

Can anyone have their legal gender changed? No, according to the bill, it is required that the applicant experiences that the gender appearing in the population register does not correspond with the gender identity and that it can be assumed that the applicant will live in this gender identity "for a foreseeable period", just as I said earlier.

Does this mean that persons can change their legal gender without undergoing treatment to change their body? That is already the case today. The person who is granted a change of legal gender according to today's legislation can receive it at the first application regardless of whether the person undergoes medical or surgical treatment or not.

Many ideas have been proposed regarding how this should proceed. For example, can young people themselves decide to change their gender medically? No, for medical and surgical treatment, the same age limits as before apply: 18 or 23 years depending on the type of treatment. All medical and surgical treatment is highly specialized care. We therefore hand over the responsibility to those who are to take care of this, that is, the profession.

Can young people go to the school nurse or a counselor at the youth clinic and get a certificate? No.

Is there a risk that the legislative change will result in more people being subjected to medical treatment or surgical procedures even though they do not need them? We must remember that under the current regulations, one applies on the same line, so to speak, or the same queue. This is a very long process, and with the new legislative proposal, it is naturally simplified for those who wish to change their legal gender.

Does it have an impact on changing rooms? That is a question that comes up. Then I wonder: How much of that had you heard before the debate on this bill started? How much of such problems have we heard about in the media or in the Riksdag? One can already now change one's legal gender and one's identity. We have neither seen nor heard this.

Then we have the question of protected housing. Both KD and SD have now shown a great reluctance towards the women's movement and towards women in general, and that is well and good. Access to protected housing for women is granted based on need. Is gender then the big question here? Or is it that the women's shelters in general are on their knees due to a lack of resources and that so many women are murdered by their partners? This, I think, is the big question. The other has been a non-issue, from what I have seen, but then parts of the women's movement have raised it.

One can worryingly ask if there is a risk that the law will be used by criminals who want to acquire a new identity. A review of medical or psychological expertise must be conducted before an application is granted. Here we go much further than Denmark and Norway. We have additional reviews by doctors and psychologists.

Will hordes of gang criminals now change their legal gender? I don't see that coming, but we shall have to investigate the matter. I don't think so. I believe that if that were the case, it would have been seen earlier.

What have the expert agencies and the professions said in their referral responses to the proposal that was sent out to 155 referral bodies? Socialstyrelsen, Folkhälsomyndigheten, Barnombudsmannen and Sveriges psykologförbund have said yes to the bill generally. Even Svenska Läkaresällskapet has said yes but wants to go one step further, so to speak.

There is referral criticism that has been taken into account in the referral to the Council of State. Karolinska Institutet, Sweden's national network for DSD, and the Swedish Pediatric Society have said no to a 12-year limit. Now we have addressed that and landed on 16 years, as you know. I mean that what came up in the large referral round has been handled.

Has a gender equality analysis been conducted? I am very happy that so many more parties are now interested in gender equality issues. That bodes well for the future.

What applies regarding the effects on gender-disaggregated statistics? The referral to the Council on Legislation has, in a specific section, analyzed the effects from a gender equality perspective. Statistics Sweden assesses that the proposed rules entail no or very limited impact on SCB's operations. The Gender Equality Authority shares that assessment. I believe that one should listen to those who know instead of to what is floating around in the air.

What does the National Board of Health and Welfare say about there being so many people who regret it? They see an increase in young people who refuse contact when they reach the front of the queue and state that they no longer have a need. For those who are in our queue and begin an investigation, the National Board of Health and Welfare says, it has often been many years since they came out or landed in their gender identity. The absolute majority of them remain in their identity, says the National Board of Health and Welfare.

Sitting in the Legal Council, one can follow these individuals. It is tragic to see how long they have to stand in line. It also concerns many elderly people – 40-50-year-olds are not entirely uncommon. The issue has also been very much about stigma previously.

We in Vänsterpartiet have had a somewhat different starting point in our work with the issue, roughly as C and MP have had. But we stand behind the proposal. It is a step forward, and we do not want to go backward. That would be very strange. Now we have the opportunity.

Being able to express one's gender identity on one's own terms is a fundamental human right, Vänsterpartiet believes. It is a right that is not always respected in Sweden. Many trans people must fight not only against prejudice, stigmatization, discrimination and strong transphobia but also against authorities and healthcare.

A fundamental problem has been that the laws have been combined, that there has been a common law. We are very positive about now changing that, so that there will be two separate laws.

Gender-affirming care is a part of healthcare and shall now be placed under highly specialized care. That is very good. But our basic position is that this shall be governed by the individual's needs. Individuals are individuals, not just an age. We think that it is generally problematic to set an age limit.

On the other hand, it is good that the profession should make the decision and not different judges, magistrates, and others, or we who are called public representatives in the Judicial Council. It is a very special experience to sit and read 20 applications from people with incredibly long investigations, and then we are to decide whether or not it is okay for them to proceed.

Many years have passed. The profession will take care of this with a warm hand. I promise that.

The care of trans people is very unequal - many from different camps have mentioned this here - and has looked different across the country. By placing it in highly specialized care and simplifying it, we hope that it will be made a bit easier.

Respect for human rights and the right to the best possible health for everyone is fundamental. Therefore, access to and the quality of gender-affirming care must also be strengthened throughout the country. That is not the case now. As usual when it comes to Swedish healthcare, it depends on where you live and whom you meet.

Vänsterpartiet also considers it relevant that the healthcare contact should regularly follow up on the person undergoing a medical gender reassignment also in terms of mental well-being, just as is the case with major surgeries. It is a matter of course.

It is good that we can now pass this in great consensus. We naturally stand behind the bill. That has become clear. And we reject the referral of the bill – it almost sounds like one could send it across the borders; the gang on the other side usually thinks that is good.

I must say that we have had a fantastic cooperation in the small group that has formed between six parties with completely different starting points. It has worked perfectly. I want to take this opportunity to say thank you. I may not get to do it any other time, other than face to face. I want to thank the Moderaterna, Liberalerna, Socialdemokraterna, Miljöpartiet, Centerpartiet and ourselves, Vänsterpartiet, who have fought for this for several years. To make a difference and to do it together is great.

It is a question that concerns such a small group, but it is a group that is discriminated against in various ways and has suffered greatly for decades.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

TREDJE VICE TALMANNEN

I want to remind you that expressions of opinion in the gallery are not permitted.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Martina Johansson (C)

Madam Speaker! Reported hate crimes against trans people have increased by 50 percent. In Europe, LGBTQ-free zones are being introduced. RFSL Ungdom has been forced to withdraw from participating in Almedalen because they cannot guarantee the safety of their participants. Homophobic comments are flooding social media. Camps for children who are transsexual are being cancelled for safety reasons. Young trans people do not seek education to avoid receiving the wrong personal identity number in their grades. Young trans people do not seek work to avoid showing that the digit in the personal identity number does not correspond with the gender expression they have.

Why is the hatred increasing? Why is the fear increasing among hbtqi people? One reason, I believe, is that far too many in Sweden and in the world are afraid of what is different. It is not understood that a person's choices or way of being creates fear in that person. On social media, people dare to throw out various comments, and in political contexts, it leads to countering the rights of different groups, for example, hbtqi people's rights.

But why should one become so afraid because a person does not feel they belong to the gender they were born into? It doesn't affect anyone else if a person, because the person has a different gender identity, changes their personal identity number.

Madam Speaker! For me and the Center Party, it is a human right to be who one is. No one should be discriminated against on the basis of gender, gender expression, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, age, or disability. But there are parties that do not place the equal value of all people as highly.

I am positive about the process for establishing legal gender being separated from the surgical process. It is a big and important step in the right to self-identification. I therefore stand behind the bill that is on the table today.

I would, however, like to clarify in this context that the Centre Party actually wants something more than the bill that exists today. For that reason, we have submitted a special statement. The Centre Party considers that Sweden should have followed the same path as the other Nordic countries: that legal gender reassignment should be based entirely on self-determination.

As members of the Centre Party, we believe in the individual and the individual's ability to make decisions in their own life. We want the application procedure to be removed and instead replaced by a notification to Skatteverket. After a fixed period, the notifier shall be able to make changes at their own request.

But the proposal that is on the table today is, as said, a compromise that six parties stand behind, and it is a proposal that improves things for this group of people today. We can continue to work for other things further ahead.

Madam Speaker! It is claimed that this proposal has not been sufficiently investigated, that it should have been sent out for consultation after the responsibility landed on the Social Affairs Committee, after the Christian Democrats and the Sweden Democrats failed to stand up for the rights of hbtqi persons.

It is a question that has been investigated at length and in various directions for many years. It is a proposal that has been referred and changed along the way. Some have considered that previous proposals have gone too far; that is addressed in this proposal. It has almost been watered down, and the biggest change is that one does not need to wait until they are 18 years old to be able to change legal gender. With their parents' consent, one shall be able to do so at 16 years old.

I want to make a comparison with how the government handles other legislation. The Riksdag has recently voted through a legislative change that affects our rights according to the constitution. Introducing visitation zones took three months from proposal to decision. That law is about removing the protection against body searches, about removing a right.

Here we have a law that has been investigated for over ten years and which is about adding rights. Still, the Christian Democrats and the Sweden Democrats argue that it has not been sufficiently investigated. Should I interpret that as the law on visitation zones being insufficiently investigated? Or is it actually about something else, about that one politically does not want to implement this change?

Madam Speaker! This bill represents an important change for a small group of people, but the law is no less important for that. That as a minority in society, one has the right to live the life one wants is one of the reasons why I became a member of the Center Party as a 15-year-old. It is also one of the biggest reasons why I stand in this chamber today and continue to work for those issues.

Transgender people constantly live with threats and hate because they do not fit into the norm for how we view men and women. Openly showing one's ID when picking up a package or going on a trip means that one risks being subjected to direct threats. It means that these people cannot live the life they want to live. It is something that I and Centerpartiet consider to be a human right.

Distinguishing and making it easier to change legal gender constitutes an improvement, primarily for the individuals but also for highly specialized care. It will now be able to devote more time to care and treatment for those who need it instead of spending time on administration and certificates.

Madam Speaker! I trust that the healthcare system can provide the right treatment to those who need it. As a legislator, I do not usually have opinions on which treatment should be given for different diagnoses; that is up to the profession. Therefore, I want the highly specialized care to be able to devote itself to just care and treatment, not administration.

Madam Speaker! Here at the end of my speech, I would like to address some of the arguments and prejudices that have been raised in the debate here in the chamber and outside the chamber.

It is among other things about the fact that the legislative change would radically increase the number of applications. If we look at our Nordic neighboring countries, we can see that the number of applications initially increased in connection with the changes. It is clear that there were people who were waiting for a legislative change and who could then proceed with their application. After that, the number of applications has decreased and leveled off. In Norway, it concerns about 1,500 people and in Denmark about 2,000 people.

It is said that changing legal gender will be used so that men can enter changing rooms for women. I do not think it is a huge risk. It can already happen today because it is possible to change legal gender without operating on the body. But it is not the case that you automatically get access to gender-segregated spaces. It does not work that way today, nor does it in other countries.

But if I change my personal identity number to get into another dressing room, I have to live with that personal identity number even when I am going to pick up a package at the post office, when I am going to apply for a job, or if it says something else in my grades. I do not think that person will see that as something positive, but that person would immediately be affected by the threat and hate that trans people are subjected to today.

Madam Speaker! Will we get biologically born men in women's prisons? That possibility already exists today for the same reasons, namely that it is possible to make this change today. But the Prison and Probation Service says that one is used to placing people in different ways, and this legislative change makes it easier for the Prison and Probation Service to place in other ways than based on gender.

The gender-disaggregated statistics and the equality work will be negatively affected from a women's perspective. That is also something we may hear. But according to SCB, it is not considered that this will affect the statistics because we are talking about a small group. The Gender Equality Authority does not either consider that this will affect their work for equality.

Then there was the question of changing personal identity numbers for criminal purposes. Speakers before me have spoken about personal identity numbers being searchable, and so on. Even here, I want to remind that if I change my personal identity number for criminal purposes, the personal identity number follows when I am going to pick up a package at the post office. I believe many would consider not using the personal identity number in that way. But it is important that the government follows up that the legislation is used for the right purpose, just like all other legislation.

Madam Speaker! I perceive that most of the arguments against the law point more towards prejudices, ignorance, and suspicions that the healthcare system cannot provide the correct care and treatment. Above all, it is about not granting increased rights to LGBTQ+ persons.

I and the Center Party consider that the bill which we, together with five other parties, submit in the committee's proposal for a decision and in the announcements is a good way in the right direction. It is to take a step forward. We need to take a step forward to give these people an opportunity to live the life they want to live, provide space for improved care and treatment, and strengthen hbtqi persons' rights. We must counter what is happening today where hbtqi persons have to defend their rights instead of driving them forward. It is a human right.

I therefore move for approval of the committee's proposal for a decision, and I move for the rejection of the proposal for referral back.

(Applause)

In this speech, Ulrika Heie, Emelie Nyman and Anders W Jonsson (all C) concurred.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Mona Olin (SD)

Madam Speaker! I thank Member Martina Johansson for her speech.

I have some questions to ask regarding the bill. Many today believe that it is about a law that we are taking a position on, but there are quite a few laws that are to be changed as a result of this bill. One law is to be removed, and it shall be replaced by two new laws. This also applies to the Sterilization Act, the Patient Data Act, the Discrimination Act, the Public Access to Information and Secrecy Act, the Prison Act, and the Detention Act. There are many laws affected in the proposal being presented today. Just as my colleague Mikael Eskilandersson pointed out, many other laws are also affected, but they are not included in today's proposal.

Member of the Board Martina Johansson pointed out that it is probably few who will utilize the right to gain access to the new changing room. I do not even know which is the right or wrong changing room. But the person who has changed gender, regardless of whether it is surgically or legally, can report denied access to the opposite sex's changing room as discrimination. Problems must be solved on a case-by-case basis.

Member Martina Johansson says that it is such an extremely small group of women who are affected by this and that it is negligible. But the small group that is going to change sex and who are going to be granted access to changing rooms, how does Member Martina Johansson view that matter?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Martina Johansson (C)

Madam Speaker! There are many laws affected at different stages when we make decisions in the chamber. Sometimes they are smaller and sometimes they are larger changes. It is the same thing in this proposal, that is to say that larger or smaller changes are made in the various laws that are decided in one and the same stroke, even if the main point today is that a law that handles two things in one law shall be divided into two laws.

I remember from the previous parliamentary term when we made the decision to raise the target age for the retirement age. There were incredibly many laws included in that decision, even though we only discussed a small part of the whole. For me, this is an important change from a legal perspective for hbtqi people's rights and all people's equal rights and value.

Then it was the question of changing rooms and gender-segregated spaces. There is actually no legislation today on how this should be handled, instead, this has been built up according to tradition. For example, more and more toilets today are not divided between men and women, but one can use the same toilet. There is nothing that is governed by law in that way.

What has emerged from other countries regarding access to gender-segregated spaces is that appeals concerning discrimination have not been won. It has been fully sufficient that one has been referred to a specific space.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Mona Olin (SD)

Madam Speaker! I thank Martina Johansson for the answer.

All women's organizations requested an equality investigation the last time the issue was referred. The current section is essentially identical to the original text. What received criticism concerned the predominant protection during body searches and body inspections.

In the new Discrimination Act, it is written that the ground of discrimination gender also includes those who intend to change or have changed the gender that appears in the civil registration or who have undergone surgical procedures.

Let me remind Member Martina Johansson that even if men, women and non-binary people use the same toilets, it does not happen at the same time in any case. In a changing room, one stays with people, furthermore in a rather vulnerable position.

In the bill, there is talk about the person who intends to change sex. How long does this "intends" last? When there are two people left in the changing room, a 13-year-old girl, that is, a child, and a woman with a penis, who is it that is being discriminated against then?

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Martina Johansson (C)

Madam Speaker! I find it somewhat difficult to find words in response to the member's contribution. What is being presented reflects more a view that all people who are not like oneself will exploit everyone else in their path. It is a very harsh view of other people. If a person incorrectly enters a changing room and subjects another person to threats, it is a crime, and in that case, we can call the police.

When it comes to an equality investigation, the Gender Equality Authority does not see that this affects its work with equality. There is therefore no reason to further delay this legislation.

I cannot help but bring up issues that the Sweden Democrats otherwise drive. In my speech, I raised the issue of the search zones, where they managed to go from proposal to decision in the Riksdag in three months. If we go through all the details, that proposal can truly be questioned. Will all police officers act completely correctly and never search anyone based on a prejudice? If not, that proposal should also have been placed in an investigation bag for over ten years.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Ulrika Westerlund (MP)

Madam Speaker! Let me begin my speech with a few quotes: "A greater chance of obtaining my bachelor's degree with the correct legal gender." "That the staff within the transgender care are relieved of unnecessary complicated administrative work and that the time in the care queues decreases." "With a new gender identity law, I could show my ID without fear of discrimination."

I thought it was time that some of those who are actually affected by this legislative change were heard in the debate, and these were some quotes from trans people in a post that RFSL and RFSU made on Instagram earlier this week.

We are now debating legislation that many have pointed out dates back to 1972 - the world's oldest of its kind and then a source of pride, but very much shaped by the perceptions and ideas of that time. For over 15 years now, the law has also been the subject of various inquiries, and a good deal of changes have also been implemented.

The most significant change to date was made in 2013, when the requirement that a person changing their legal gender should lack reproductive capacity was removed. It was, in practice, a requirement for forced sterilization that was written into Swedish law until ten years ago. Before the decision passed in the Riksdag, a judgment had also already been issued by the Administrative Court of Appeal in Stockholm with the meaning that the sterilization requirement, among other things, violated the Instrument of Government and the European Convention. Unfortunately, the Riksdag's sluggishness, where the Christian Democrats were the governing party that most strongly opposed the change, led to at least one more person being forcibly sterilized in the beginning of 2013, after the judgment had entered into force, because they were not informed that the legal requirement had been struck down by the court.

The current law is thus a somewhat improved version of a 50-year-old law, and the traces of the starting points that shaped the design of the law back then still remain. The requirements placed on those who wish to change legal gender have been somewhat reformulated and mitigated, and the requirements to lack reproductive capacity or be unmarried have been removed.

If one compares with laws in other countries that have been enacted significantly later than the Swedish law, the difference in approach to this issue is very clear. Where the Swedish law sets requirements on the person who wishes to change legal gender, more recent laws emphasize these persons' rights.

When Argentina's law on this area came in 2012, parts of the first paragraph read, in free translation: All people have the right to recognition of their gender identity, to freely develop their personality in accordance with their gender identity, to be treated in accordance with their gender identity and, in particular, to be identified in such a way in documents showing a person's name, image and gender. It is also specifically stated that no requirements will ever be placed on a person to have undergone any form of psychological or medical treatment in order to change legal gender.

In 2005, Malta's equivalent law on the subject was introduced, and here it is specified, among other things, that the change of legal gender and name shall be able to be made based on self-determination.

In the Swedish government investigation that first proposed an amendment to the Gender Identity Act in the direction we are now debating here, SOU 2014:91 Juridiskt kön och medicinsk könskorrigering, it was proposed, among other things, that the old law should be divided into two laws and that the change of legal gender should be based on self-determination. The investigator also noted that the legal part and the medical part remained closely linked despite the fact that the sterilization requirement had been abolished.

Since this investigation submitted its proposal, almost ten years have passed. During this time, among others, all other Nordic countries except the Faroe Islands have implemented changes to their counterparts to our gender identity law so that change of legal gender can be made based on self-determination. Other European countries that, according to a 2020 compilation from the European Commission, have laws in this area based on self-determination are Belgium, Ireland, Iceland, Luxembourg, Malta, and Portugal.

In this context, it is incomprehensible and unworthy to me that we in Sweden have had such a debate about the proposal that is now on the table. It is not even about self-determination, which is what Miljöpartiet would prefer to see, but it is a question of a compromise proposal with a change that will make life a little easier for trans people who want to change their legal gender. A diagnosis will not be required, the age limit will be lowered, and non-binary people who want to change to a legal gender that fits better of the two that exist will be given the opportunity to do so. Miljöpartiet hopes that this simplified process will also mean a significantly less extensive review. All of this is positive changes, but they are not changes that are in line with international best practice, and they are definitely not changes that in any way justify the many strange debate points we have witnessed over the past few weeks.

Madam Speaker! It is also strange to take note of claims that the now proposed change is not sufficiently investigated. It concerns a number of investigations over a period of ten years. Following SOU 2014:91, further investigations have been conducted at the departments, and two referrals to the Council on Legislation have been presented.

After the first Council on Legislation referral in 2018, the proposal was reworked. A draft of the Council on Legislation referral was sent out for external consultation during the autumn and winter of 2021 to a very large number of referral bodies. After this, comments were incorporated, and the final Council on Legislation referral, which is thus the proposal that the now presented proposal is based on, was completed in the summer of 2022. However, it is not identical to the draft of the Council on Legislation referral because comments from various referral bodies have been incorporated – among other things, self-determination has been removed – but it is a proposal where various opinions have been taken into account. Since these considerations have been taken, the proposal is also significantly less far-reaching than the draft's proposal was. The now presented proposal is therefore more similar to current law.

In the at least fierce public debate, it has been expressed, among other things, that this legislative change would mean a transition to a completely new view on what gender is. Some debaters seem to be completely unfamiliar with the entire existence of gender identity, but a view on gender where gender identity lies at the basis for legal gender, we have had since 1972 when this law was first introduced. The point of the law itself is to enable the change of legal gender based on the individual's own gender identity. Otherwise, one does not have such a law. The new thing with the bill is precisely that certain requirements are removed. The view on gender is the same.

Other concerns raised in the debate have included, among other things, that the legislative change should be used by persons who have other reasons to change legal gender than that they want to have their gender identity legally recognized. Here, it may be interesting to take part in experiences from other countries.

In my assignment, the Riksdag's investigation service has looked at what has happened in the other Nordic countries. The investigations have gained momentum. There are some who do not believe that it is I who have submitted them, as they have angrily emailed me and asked me to read them. I have, therefore, done so.

In the summary, the Riksdag's investigation service writes: No evidence has been found showing that the legislation would have been misused by criminals or otherwise by persons with malicious intent or with the aim of bypassing, for example, obligations under other legislation in any of the relevant countries, i.e., all other Nordic countries except the Faroe Islands.

I also want to say something about the international context. In the public debate, which we have all followed over the last few weeks, it has sometimes sounded as if the view on rights behind the proposal we are now debating is something completely new and incomprehensible. Therefore, I want to remind [you] of some of the documents that have been significant for many countries in their processes to change their laws in this area.

As early as 2010, a ministerial recommendation from the Council of Europe was issued, which had been signed by the ministers of all member states. It stated that the countries should ensure that their processes for changing legal gender would be fast, transparent, and accessible. The states were also urged to remove "offensive requirements." The document was useful for those of us who worked to remove forced sterilizations of persons who wish to change their legal gender, because forced sterilization must undeniably be described as an offensive requirement.

In 2015, a resolution was adopted in the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. Here, they go a bit further and explicitly state that the processes for changing names and legal gender on all relevant documents shall be based on self-determination. The resolution states that the processes shall be accessible to everyone "regardless of age, medical status, financial situation, or status in the criminal record." All the Swedish members present from S and M voted in favor of this in 2015. As you have understood, we are not quite there yet. That is not the proposal that is on the table.

The proposal on the table is a compromise, where consideration has been taken of different interests and the views of different parties. The issue has been investigated for a very long time, and comments from referral bodies and the Council on Legislation have been incorporated.

Today, I hope that a majority in the Riksdag votes yes to the proposal, even though Miljöpartiet would have preferred to see a law based on self-determination. Transgender people in Sweden deserve better than to continue living with a gender identity law with clear traces of a 50-year-old mindset. Transgender people in Sweden deserve respect and human rights.

I vote in favor of the committee's proposal.

(Applause)

In this speech, Annika Hirvonen and Jan Riise (both MP) concurred.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Leonid Yurkovskiy (SD)

Madam Speaker! A large part of the Green Party's speech has dealt with self-determination, and the law itself also deals largely with that, to say what one wants. It is even mentioned.

Initially, my question to the representative of the Green Party, precisely on the grounds of self-determination: What is a woman?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Ulrika Westerlund (MP)

Madam Speaker! A large part of my speech was precisely about the fact that in Swedish law, as it is currently designed, we take gender identity into account. For me, it is something that lies at the foundation of what a woman is.

We would not have the legislation that we have in this area if one did not recognize gender identity. It is based entirely on the fact that it is possible to change legal gender.

Gender has several parts. There is biological sex, legal sex, gender identity, and gender expression, i.e., how one expresses their gender identity. The person who identifies as a woman is a woman.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Leonid Yurkovskiy (SD)

Madam Speaker! I thank you very much for the clear answer that the one who identifies as a woman is a woman. I then have the following follow-up questions: Does the Green Party acknowledge that the reality that women experience in society is also, in some way, based on the biological reality that applies? In other words: Is it reasonable for biological men to represent women in various equality statistics because they feel that way? Is it reasonable for men to take up space in female spaces and organizations because they feel that way? Is it reasonable for men to receive a fair share in sports at the expense of women? Because that is precisely what this bill and also the Green Party's so-called feminist policy are gradually leading to.

I think these are relevant questions.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Ulrika Westerlund (MP)

Madam Speaker! I thank the member for the questions.

This is not what this bill is about. The question has been on the table here several times before.

Women are subjected to gender-based oppression. It would be completely idiotic to try to deny it. Of course, there is an oppression of women. Women are subjected to violence, discrimination, offensive treatment, and so on.

The kind of oppression and discrimination that women are subjected to depends somewhat on how the person is perceived. Many trans women are also discriminated against because they are women and are perceived as women. They are treated condescendingly just as other women can be. Then there can be different situations where there are certain diseases that one cannot get, for example if one is not born with a uterus. In that case, it becomes a question for people who are born with a uterus and is nothing that affects trans women.

The question of discrimination in sports, which has been raised previously, is something that the sports movement must regulate. I think that is reasonable. There can be advantages from, for example, high testosterone levels. In that case, one must look at in which sports it matters. It does not matter in, for example, chess. Despite that, the Chess Federation has regulated this, which is only due to transphobia.

There are, however, sports where it matters. In those cases, it is up to the sports movement to regulate and assess what is reasonable. The same applies to access to spaces. A judgment must also be made there. It is not at all the case that the presence of trans people should generally be portrayed as some kind of frightening threat. Trans people also have the right to be in changing rooms and other common areas. If someone behaves badly, it is of course unacceptable, whether they are trans or not.

The statistics have also been discussed previously. Statistics Sweden says that it will not affect their work to any significant extent if we make this legislative change, and I agree with that.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Lina Nordquist (L)

Madam Speaker! It has now been possible to change gender identity in Sweden for half a century. Ten years ago, in 2014, the modernization investigation was appointed, which has led to our proposal for a decision here today.

I think it is nice to be involved when the Riksdag examines a law that will make everyday life freer and less threatening for a small number of people in our country. It is also a sad day for me, because some inaccuracies and misunderstandings regarding this reform have spread so much fear. But I will begin with the joy, Madam Speaker.

For under 50 years, trans people have been able to apply to have their ID documents match the person they are inside. We call this a legal change of gender. Today, this takes up to six years, and every time the person shows their ID, they risk confusion, raised eyebrows, mockery, or threats.

Large studies, for example the one in The Lancet Public Health which concerns more than 20,000 trans people, show that those who have difficulty getting to change their identity documents fare worse. They have more dark thoughts and symptoms of depression than those who escape showing the wrong ID or passport at the bank, at concerts, on train journeys, when they pick up packages, and when they are going to stay at hotels or hostels. Yes, you understand that it is clearly incredibly tough when it happens time and again, day after day and year after year.

Changing identity documents takes, as mentioned, up to six years. That is because today's legislation sets the same requirements for changing the legal gender, Madam Speaker, as for changing the body, that is, medical change of sex.

The purpose of the legislative change, which I hope we will be able to vote on later today, is to separate the care's assessment before a new leg from the long investigation process before any changes to the body.

It shall become easier to obtain a legal gender and personal identity number that matches who one is. It shall require a healthcare assessment, but it shall not require a diagnosis. From the age of 16, guardians, in consultation with the teenager, will be able to apply for such an assessment, in accordance with the Swedish Pediatric Society's recommendation in their referral response. A psychologist or doctor shall then determine if the person has "insight into what the change will entail." A psychologist or doctor shall also comment on the future, that is, whether the person can be expected to live in the gender identity "for the foreseeable future." We want Socialstyrelsen to then make the decision based on these assessments.

This is a cautious change, one might think, but it is significant. It saves years of fear, mockery, threats, and hate. It is not many people who are affected, but they deserve thoughtful legislation. And that is what we shall give them.

Madam Speaker! There is another thing to be happy about, which is not affected by the legislation we are debating today but has a close connection. It is that the psychiatric investigation prior to any changes to the body has been quality-assured since the turn of the year. Investigation and diagnostics have since January 1 constituted national highly specialized care in Sweden and may only be conducted at three university hospitals. This is incredibly important to ensure that the right people receive the right care and that diagnostics and treatment within a difficult area are truly provided with the starting point of all the collective knowledge that exists.

I assess that the medical and psychiatric rigor that has now been introduced is incredibly significant – and perhaps extra significant for the ever-increasing number of teenagers and young women who perceive themselves to suffer from gender dysphoria. We have seen this increase in the entire Western world over the last two decades. It requires heavy expertise to determine which of these young women suffer from gender dysphoria and which need other help. That their care now constitutes national highly specialized care is important for their health and for their future.

In summary, there are two things that I am very happy about in this area. One is this bill, which makes it somewhat easier for trans people to change their passports and IDs and have a safer, more peaceful and free everyday life. The other is the already introduced more careful and more knowledge-intensive investigation before diagnosis and potential physical treatment.

But I did say, Madam Speaker, that there were also sad things here today. I am referring to the fact that misleading information, misunderstandings, and pure inaccuracies have circulated regarding this legislative change since the debate gained momentum a couple of months ago.

One of the misunderstandings is that this is a hastily drafted proposal, but the fact is that the Reinfeldt government commissioned this investigation ten years ago. The proposal has been on consultation with over 150 actors, of which 96 responded in February 2022. All government parties promised this legislative change before the election. The Council on Legislation has spoken on the proposal we are debating today, and the bill was on its way to the Riksdag in exactly this form last spring. It was the same preparatory works and the same paragraphs from all three of our government parties.

Today's proposal is the same thoroughly worked out, referred, and Council on Legislation-reviewed proposal as then. The difference is that KD changed its mind and withdrew the bill from the government's priority list. Instead, an agreement was reached with the Moderates and the Liberals that we would carry the papers across the Strömmen to the Riksdag, and that is also what we have done.

Another incorrect statement that occurs is that a few hundred changed personal identity numbers would worsen our gender-segregated statistics in Sweden, which we are proud of and have invaluable help from in gender equality issues. Experience from our neighboring countries shows that they have not had any impact on their statistics. The Council on Legislation referral even has its own section on gender equality, where it is stated that Statistics Sweden and the Gender Equality Authority do not see any problems.

So to a serious question. It concerns, Madam Speaker, reduced access to safe rooms for women, for example changing rooms. This is a real problem, but not because of the bill. The bill introduces nothing new, and furthermore, there are no laws that automatically grant access to a changing room or any other spaces just because one changes gender.

However, it is unsafe to be a woman in our country today, and it must be taken most seriously. That our society does not guarantee women's safety is completely unacceptable. My colleagues and I do not intend to let that question go.

But back to the freedom of trans people and the legislative matter here and now, Madam Speaker. When we in the Liberals began to push for this reform, Sweden was the first country in the Nordics that could implement this. When this law soon becomes a reality, we are last.

Today we will vote for an opportunity to make a change in ID cards and passes, if a doctor, psychologist, or the National Board of Health and Welfare judges that the decision is well-founded and will remain in effect for a foreseeable period. We hope that a small group of people will soon be able to live their lives a bit more freely and less anxiously and will be able to show their ID on the train, at the bank, and at the hotel just as naturally as millions of other people in Sweden do today.

I vote in favor of the committee's proposal.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Janine Alm Ericson (MP)

Madam Speaker! It is an important issue being debated here today, and I have therefore signed up to briefly say a few words. Most of it has already been said by my colleagues who have stood behind the committee's proposal and the update of this legislation. It is time, and has actually long been time, to take this step.

I want to say finally - because it is truly high time that this legislation, which has over 50 years on its back, is now updated. It is an important reform to improve the living conditions and strengthen the freedom for trans people.

But this is also a very sad debate, where so much disinformation still gets such a large space. The questions and concerns that have been raised here today have previously been answered by referral bodies, in the general debate, and by very patient members in this chamber. Still, the questioning continues. Those who do not want better conditions for trans people continue to repeat the questions and the incorrect claims.

Many members have also raised and answered the questions and concerns, so I will not raise them again. But I want to say that I feel completely confident that the assessments that society's various actors have to make will be made well, just as they are today.

I do not understand why it should be so difficult and meet such great resistance to simplify and improve for a group that we know feels vulnerable in society, which has also been raised today – something that also often leads to great mental ill-health.

I just wanted to bring up a couple of terms that I have heard in the debate and react strongly to.

The first is the precautionary principle. This is something that often sounds good and which is good to take into account in very many cases, perhaps even in this debate. But for whom do we want a precautionary principle? Yes, not for those people who today feel that they cannot live their lives fully without being hindered in so much as for us others is completely natural – something that often leads to anxiety and mental ill-health. Why should we be cautious about giving people a chance to more easily change their legal gender, when we now know that the major negative consequences that there have been fears for simply have not been seen in other countries? Why will it be different in Sweden, which furthermore will not have as far-reaching legislation?

I also heard that human dignity was mentioned. It is also a very important concept. We often talk about human rights, but it is clear that human dignity is an important concept. But whose dignity? There is no one whose dignity is violated by this new legislation. But those who are affected by the update will probably only get from this debate a feeling that their human dignity is not so great. I think that is sad. If we are to talk about human dignity, it is most natural to vote for this proposal.

The updated legislation is very welcome for those affected. It is a step in the right direction. It should simply become easier to live as the one one feels as.

I am proud of the proposal, and I look forward to voting for it. I also look forward to fighting for further improvements, more human rights, and more human dignity.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Jakob Olofsgård (L)

Madam Speaker! Who am I as a politician to deny someone else the right to say for themselves who they are? Who am I as a non-trans person to believe that it is not important or that it would not be possible to share legal and medical gender without at least six years of investigation?

Madam Speaker! Who am I, who was not born in the wrong body, to tell someone who was, who perhaps has known since they were five years old, that what is up here does not correspond with what is down here, that the last four digits in the personal identity number or whatever it says in the passport are not one of the most important things on earth?

Madam Speaker! Who am I, who does not need to carry thoughts that it would be best if I did not exist and that this life is not worth living, to say that the years between 16 and 18 years old are years when you are only expected to grit your teeth and wait - wait until the state says that you yourself are allowed to have an opinion on who you are? Who am I to consign two of perhaps the most decisive years in a teenager's life, which will never come back again, to the perhaps six years that an investigation for a diagnosis can take today?

Madam Speaker! Who am I to say that this is not an incredibly difficult question, a complex question where nothing is black or white and where we as human beings have such completely different both feelings and experiences of a childhood filled with mental illness and people's ill-treatment?

Madam Speaker! Who am I to say that the increasing number of young girls who experience an immense confusion in their sexuality and identity, influenced by everything from an insecure upbringing to the algorithms' never-ending stream of scrolling hour out and hour in, to then be left in a total confusion - who am I to say that they would not need the absolute best highly specialized care in our country?

Madam Speaker! Who am I to wave away people's insecurity and anxiety that today there is an increasing lack of safe spaces for women that used to be a given but today are becoming an increasing shortage and a rarity?

Who am I?

Madam Speaker! I am someone who will not abandon these people. I am someone who will not let myself be bowed down by political games or by forces that for 17 years have consistently and systematically opposed the small group whose only wish is to decide for themselves who they are.

I am someone who has walked alongside these people in conversation and support for almost 20 years and has seen their struggle all along, and therefore I will not stop helping them until we have crossed the finish line.

Madam Speaker! I am someone who belongs to a party where many have gone before me since 1972, before I was born, and now, when these fighters have handed over the baton, I get to be part of bringing it across the finish line together with many others.

I am someone whose party will not stop caring about these issues even when today's debate is over and everyone has gone home to their own. I am someone who will not stop fighting for both trans people's and women's equal rights and will perhaps rather lift up everyone's right to freedom even more, because this debate shows that we still have great things to tackle and settle.

Madam Speaker! I am someone who wishes to approve the committee's proposal in this report and at today's vote will vote for a law where we finally move the power from the state to where it belongs, into people's own hands, to together with the care decide who they are in their own hearts.

I am someone whose party color today is all the colors of the rainbow - colors of respect and freedom - and I am immensely proud of that.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Dan Hovskär (KD)

Madam Speaker! I want to begin by moving for a referral of the report SoU22, which is based on the initiative of the Moderates and the Liberals, to the Social Affairs Committee.

The bill that we are now to take a position on has many flaws and threatens to worsen the situation for children and young people. The bill means in practice that one allows all persons to decide their own gender. Kristdemokraterna say a firm no to this. It is unreasonable that a child who is only 16 years old should be able to choose gender identity despite there being no diagnosis of gender dysphoria at the base. Professors and specialist doctors in psychiatry warn that the perceived gender dysphoria is worsened by the bill that a majority in the Social Affairs Committee now wants to realize.

My background is that I have worked in psychiatry for more than 25 years. I have worked with children and adolescents between 16 and 25 years of age for more than twelve years. I have met many in the group we are talking about today – children and adolescents who are mentally unwell for various reasons. In my professional practice, I have met many who struggle with their identity at these ages. We can probably all recognize ourselves in that from when we were teenagers ourselves. It belongs to a normal development.

That adults today have such difficulty accommodating the emotional problems of young people is part of the problem. When we cannot endure it, we want to be able to remedy it. That is why this proposal is not good. It is as if we instead hand over the responsibility to the young people to resolve a questioning of their identity.

At all times there have been "tomboy" girls and vice versa. It is not really a political issue. It is an emotional issue, and one should receive help with that from different places, perhaps primarily through one's parents, but when necessary also from child and adolescent psychiatry.

Madam Speaker! In the new proposal, it states that for persons under 18 years of age, although parental consent and a healthcare contact will be required, the current multifunctional care team with several professions that conduct a thorough investigation is removed, and the requirement for a diagnosis of gender dysphoria is removed.

Why then do we not want to lower the age limit when it comes to legal gender? We are in a situation where more and more children are seeking care due to gender dysphoria, but we do not know why. At the same time, professors and specialist doctors in psychiatry warn that the possibility of more easily changing legal gender could lead to the perceived gender dysphoria worsening and that it becomes a first step towards irreversible hormone treatments and gender reassignment surgeries that perhaps did not need to be performed, as the gender dysphoria can heal out with puberty, and which many may come to regret in adulthood.

The knowledge base regarding when this type of hormone treatment should be initiated has also changed since the issue was last referred to expert authorities. Socialstyrelsen's knowledge support now states that this should only be offered to persons as young as 16 years old in exceptional cases. Socialstyrelsen now considers that the risks outweigh the expected benefits of hormone treatments for persons as young as 16 years old. The main argument for lowering the age limit is therefore no longer there. We must then take responsibility and let the precautionary principle prevail.

But then we must be clear that we Christian Democrats see that the situation for persons who receive the diagnosis gender dysphoria and the care must be improved. Mental ill-health among trans people is widespread, and many have to wait far too long to receive the support they need. Swedish transgender care suffers from serious deficiencies - we see this not least in today's care - regarding accessibility. And there is a lack of knowledge about the care's results. But if we truly want to improve the care and increase the support and help for this vulnerable group, of which many are young, this law is not the right way to go.

The precautionary principle has not characterized how the proposal was pushed through in the Riksdag. The proposal for a new gender identity law should have been subject to a referral process. The majority within the Committee on Social Affairs should have respected the protection of the minority and sent the proposal out for referral. This was not done.

This is a new proposal that differs from the one that the referral bodies last commented on. Healthcare staff should be allowed to comment on how it affects their ability to conduct an investigation if they are not allowed to consider how long someone has had their experience and if they are also not allowed to demand a gender dysphoria diagnosis.

The National Board of Health and Welfare has changed the knowledge base regarding young people with gender dysphoria since the referral bodies gave their opinions. It is difficult to justify a lowering of the age limit for legal gender reassignment to 16 years, given the new state of knowledge. We would have liked to hear from the profession even on this issue.

It is also about the risk of abuse. There are fears that criminals could use this opportunity for easier identity switching through legal gender reassignment. That is also something we wanted to ask questions about - in the area of the Economic Crime Authority and the Swedish Bankers' Association.

That it did not become a referral process is a betrayal of the citizens' right to proper legislation. Add to that that the time for public review was only 13 days! It is not good.

The National Board of Health and Welfare published new guidelines in December 2022. In them, caution was urged regarding hormonal and surgical treatment for gender dysphoria. The National Board of Health and Welfare established that healthcare measures must be provided based on science and proven experience and based on the principle of doing good and not harming. It is a sharp reversal compared to the authority's guidelines from 2015.

Karolinska Institutet, KI, refers to international studies showing that 80 to 90 percent of children and adolescents regret it and that they instead need to be offered help and psychological support. KI also claims that there is no evidence that a change of legal gender would be perceived as anything other than a first step towards a transition to another gender.

It is one of the century's biggest scandals. That is the statement made by Mikael Landén, who is a professor and senior physician in psychiatry at Sahlgrenska University Hospital. Evidence, safety, and security are three keywords that one works towards in healthcare and also when enacting laws. Here, it is different parts that are missing, we believe.

A majority of the Swedish people are against it, and a large number of professors and specialist doctors in psychiatry warn against the bill. There are many deficiencies, and this thus threatens to worsen the situation for children and young people.

Every member of Parliament now has a responsibility. I hope that one takes it and that one listens to one's heart and also listens to what the profession says. Above all, this is important for our children and youth in our country.

It is important that we revise and refer the proposal back to the Committee on Social Affairs. If this is not done, the Christian Democrats will vote no. The Christian Democrats strive to improve primary care and recognize the need for improvements. But the current bill is not the right way to go, on the contrary. Do it over! Do it right!

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Martina Johansson (C)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Dan Hovskär, for the speech! The Christian Democrats are not known for standing up for the rights of LGBTQ+ people. Previously, the Christian Democrats have opposed proposals regarding same-sex marriages and the opportunities for same-sex people to adopt – this even in a joint government with the Centre Party. I think it shows a history of your party not standing up for the rights of LGBTQ+ people.

From the member's statement, I understand that the Christian Democrats will not vote for this proposal, regardless of the arguments, because the Christian Democrats do not want to give these people this opportunity.

In the speech, the member speaks about hormone treatment from age 16, but that is nothing that is regulated in this legislation. What we say can occur from age 16 is a change of legal gender - this shall then be done together with the guardians. It is not about unilaterally deciding for oneself what treatment it shall be. Just as in the case of all other care and treatment, the joint decision is made between doctors, psychologists, psychiatrists, and the patient.

The question is: Is there any argument regarding this proposal that could make the Christian Democrats change their minds and take the side of hbtqi persons and grant them increased rights?

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Dan Hovskär (KD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member Martina Johansson, for the questions! We always have a commitment, that we stand on the side of the weak. We naturally want to look at: What are the questions that are important?

Here we have used the perspective of children and young people, those who perhaps do not speak for themselves. I myself have worked with that very group for many years. They feel that they have difficulty with their identity and suffer mentally. Then we shall provide the best support for them based on this.

We think that we should provide investigation opportunities. One should be able to have a gender dysphoria investigated by a team, which also investigates it a bit more deeply. Those who come to this conclusion should, of course, be allowed to do so, we think. We think that today's legislation is good.

We have the children's and the young people's perspectives as a starting point. The government is also developing the transition care further, and there we have now taken a larger grip and made it highly specialized care that will be specialized even further in three locations in the country.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Martina Johansson (C)

Madam Speaker! To stand on the side of the vulnerable people, that these are important issues and that it is about a perspective for children and young people – one can turn and twist the arguments in both directions, and it is precisely for that reason I think that this change is important. I take the side of the weak, of the minority. I take the side of children and young people, those who now, earlier than with today's legislation, get to advocate for themselves together with their guardians.

This change in the legislation provides exactly what the member is requesting: a greater focus on care and treatment and highly specialized care, because we give them the opportunity to focus on this instead of devoting themselves to administration. Based on how the bill looks, I would therefore like to assert that the member's argument contradicts itself.

I do not think it matters how long we investigate the issue or how we change the proposal. The Christian Democrats will still never stand behind it. The Christian Democrats say that they do not want to lower the age to 16 for this, but they are in agreement with the other parties in the Tidö Agreement on reviewing whether the age of criminal responsibility can be lowered. In that case, 16-year-olds are suddenly old enough to face the full consequences of a decision, more or less consciously. But that does not apply to the issue of confirming one's own gender identity.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Dan Hovskär (KD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you to Member Martina Johansson for the questions!

I do not want to discuss criminals together with a question of this magnitude. I see them as two different parts.

That we say no to lowering the age limit now is because there are so many question marks. There are many signals from the profession saying that the research situation is unclear. Many, including KI themselves, say that 80-90 percent regret their gender transition after their teens when they reach a more adult age.

We must be afraid for each other, and therefore we must have a precautionary principle. We need to look more at all parts, and then we shall, of course, help them on the way forward. That is why we are expanding psychiatric care in an attempt to achieve a holistic view of the issues.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Johan Hultberg (M)

Madam Speaker! Regarding what KD says no to, an example was given about the age limit. I still think it is important, Madam Speaker, to be clear that what KD says no to is to move forward at all.

I had a great hope that we, together in a government position, could have submitted a bill on modernized legislation. I note that when Acko Ankarberg Johansson from Kristdemokraterna stood in the speaker's chair here in the Riksdag and had an interpellation debate last year, she said that it has taken a long time to get new legislation in place: "It should have been finished and submitted to the Riksdag several years ago."

I really agree. It has taken far too long, but now we are finally here.

I don't really intend to have much discussion on the merits with Member Hovskär, because I think the debate is going a bit on repeat. But it is still important to clarify some things about the process, because I honestly think, Madam Speaker, that the Christian Democrats are not being honest.

The Christian Democrats said no to even starting a preparatory work in the committee. After five months, they then say that they want a referral. Why, Member of Parliament Hovskär, did this motion not come directly, if it is indeed a matter of being so interested in truly taking in new perspectives? That is my first question.

Madam Speaker! I further think it becomes quite interesting and strange that, on the one hand, all the points that have been put forward in the referral process are raised, and on the other hand, in some sense, we are criticized for having listened to the referral bodies and changed the proposal. Then the argument becomes that the proposal has been changed and therefore must be sent out for a new referral.

Madam Speaker! The normal procedure is to have a referral process, gather comments, revise the proposal, and then present it and vote on it. Why is that not a reasonable order, Member Hovskär?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Dan Hovskär (KD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you for the questions, Johan Hultberg!

That is what it is about: One builds a bill on different parts. We took it as a self-evident matter that we should have a referral process when several parts have been changed and one, as you yourself said in your speech, has reworked the proposal fundamentally. To then not put it out for referral, I see as a major deficiency.

Since the previous consultation round was conducted, the National Board of Health and Welfare has, among other things, changed its knowledge support regarding young people with gender dysphoria. For us, it is obvious that when a legislative proposal is made, one wants to work through it and let experts be involved and speak about it. We were actually very surprised by this, and this also applies to many in the profession.

We must also address the parts that we do not consider to be good or compatible with a legislative proposal. It is for this reason, of course, that we raise these arguments.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Johan Hultberg (M)

Madam Speaker! My point was, therefore, that the Christian Democrats opposed us even starting work on trying to modernize this legislation. That is still the starting point for the Christian Democrats. I believe it will become quite obvious to everyone following the debate that it is actually about nothing other than an attempt to filibuster from the Christian Democrats' side.

I regret this. I think it would have been more straightforward and honest to say no to the proposal because one thinks differently. That was where we landed in the government: We were three parties who, in this issue, unfortunately could not reach an agreement. We have a fantastically good cooperation in a government position between Moderaterna, Kristdemokraterna and Sverigedemokraterna to make Sweden better and safer, to re-establish the work line, to get the energy crisis in order and to re-establish the knowledge school. But in this issue, we could not agree.

I think it is regrettable, and I think the Christian Democrats should have settled there and not acted as they have. We have, as said, listened to the referral bodies and taken their responses into consideration. With the Christian Democrats' and Member of Parliament Hovskär's reasoning, it becomes an eternity machine. We would never be able to reach a decision, because as soon as we tweak the proposal based on what the referral bodies might have for views, we would have a new referral round and then another.

It is also strange that one argues based on what the knowledge support is for healthcare and that this is what should determine whether we should have a new referral round in the Riksdag linked to this legislation. We do not regulate in detail what healthcare should be provided. This proposal is first and foremost not at all about healthcare but about the legal gender. It becomes very strangely argued: Now the Socialstyrelsen has changed its knowledge support for gender dysphoria care, so then we must have a new referral round on the legislation that regulates the legal gender.

Madam Speaker! The argument simply does not hold.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Dan Hovskär (KD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Johan Hultberg! I think the argumentation becomes a bit hollow from your side. We must listen when the argumentation changes from different experts' perspectives, when, among others, the National Board of Health and Welfare changes its knowledge support and so on, and when the development changes. It is seen in other places as well.

You spoke about filibustering, but we dare to take the difficult questions, dig a little deeper and see that many in the growing group of young girls we are talking about have a comorbidity. They have autism, depression and anxiety disorders. In that case, the precautionary principle must prevail, we believe. That is why we say no to a lowered age limit.

We turn against the idea that legal gender is something that everyone should be able to decide for themselves even if there is no underlying diagnosis of gender dysphoria. It is those questions we want to highlight and what we want to point out. It is about research and evidence that we want to prevail.

(ANDRE VICE TALMANNEN: I just want to remind that a member in a debate should use the speaker's first and last name and for example not say you. It is easy to miss, so it was just a reminder.)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Ulrika Westerlund (MP)

Madam Speaker! The claim that 80 percent regret have appeared several times in the discussion. I thought I would read out a bit of what is stated on the Socialstyrelsen website regarding exactly this. There is, in fact, no really simple way to measure regret. The studies included in the claim of 80 percent are based on very mixed methods. It is also very different which individuals are included in the underlying data.

The National Board of Health and Welfare writes on its website: "The National Board of Health and Welfare assesses that there are no uniform data on how many people outgrow their gender incongruence. In the studies that exist, different things have been investigated; some have investigated children who sought care but did not receive a diagnosis, others who sought care and received a diagnosis after investigation, or children who answered questions in population surveys."

It is, therefore, something else. It is not among the 16-year-olds we are primarily discussing here today - in connection with this being linked to the lowering of the age limit - that we see some kind of consensus in some large studies that 80 percent would somehow regret it. That type of data comes from studies that are partly quite old - some are even from the 80s -, and partly concern a very broad group of children and adolescents. There is a big difference between small children, i.e., those who are pre-pubertal and seven or eight years old, and teenagers, who are those affected by the legislative change we are discussing here today.

I wonder how the member views this and how the member links it to the investigation conducted by SBU, where they looked at all existing studies on regret or so-called detransition. They concluded that, with a very broad definition, it concerns 0-13 percent. This included all types of regret and detransition, even persons who perhaps regret a certain intervention but not the entire process and so on. I would like to hear a reflection regarding that.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Dan Hovskär (KD)

Madam Speaker! There are many parts to this, and one must always be cautious with certain figures. One can look at various investigations, but one must take them for what they are. Karolinska Institutet nevertheless refers to international studies which show that 80-90 percent of children and adolescents regret it. However, one must always take that with a grain of salt. It is about the fact that many others also emphasize this.

Many doctors specialized in child and adolescent psychiatry argue that the bill on the table here increases the risk that minors will begin their gender treatment far too early. These doctors see that a risk exists that many will regret it in the future. There are also a number of people who have undergone these procedures who now regret it and warn against this law. There are therefore quite a few more people who should also be listened to in this matter.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Ulrika Westerlund (MP)

Madam Speaker! I absolutely believe that one should listen to different experiences, and I am naturally opposed to people being mistreated. It is important, when it comes to all types of care, that the care is given based on evidence and knowledge to ensure that it maintains high quality and that everyone receives the care they need, neither more nor less.

It came up in the previous exchange that Socialstyrelsen has changed its guidelines after new knowledge has been acquired. They have become a bit more restrained. That is very good, and the healthcare system has done this itself based on research in exactly the way it is intended to function.

There is no support for the claims that a change of legal gender would in some way be a harmful social transition that would lead into treatment. Most recently this weekend, I believe it was, Godmorgon världen did a small investigation. They had spoken with the Directorate of Health, Norway's equivalent to the National Board of Health and Welfare. There, a person said that if one makes it easier to change legal gender, it means that fewer people will need treatment, and if one can identify with the gender one feels they have, it means very much and has very many practical consequences. That one can get this in place can for many alleviate the gender dysphoria they feel, says this person.

Akademiska sjukhuset replied in its referral statement that they think it is good if one is given the opportunity to change legal gender and that social transition is something they encourage before one undergoes treatments that in some cases can be irreversible, because one can then change one's mind.

It is therefore important to take in all these pieces of information and listen to a breadth of opinions and knowledge, preferably from authorities both in Sweden and in our neighboring countries where there are experiences and knowledge and where one has tried to gather the expertise, not just what individual representatives for different professions say in the debate. I would also like to hear a reflection on that.

(Applause)

In this speech, Annika Hirvonen (MP) agreed.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Dan Hovskär (KD)

Madam Speaker! We Christian Democrats dare to listen to a wide range of perspectives. That is why we have concluded that there are a great deal of concerns regarding the bill. We have heard that many have raised their voices regarding the doubts. Therefore, we say that when one has now not gone out and conducted a referral process where the professionals were listened to and allowed to speak their minds, it is warning signs that are flashing. We would have gladly liked to take another round to have this more illuminated. We want research and evidence to prevail when we make decisions on proposals that affect our children and young people. That is why we say no, among other things, to lowering the age limit to 16 years.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Mona Olin (SD)

Madam Speaker! Today we are debating SoU22. Much has been said in the debate regarding the committee initiative Improved opportunities to change sex. This issue spans so many areas that there is still a lot to be said. According to us Sverigedemokrater, there is also much left to take a position on and investigate before a law is to be enacted.

I also said in a previous reply that it is not just one but several laws that are at issue. Two of them are the law on certain surgical interventions on the genitals and the law on the determination of sex in certain cases.

What has been discussed most here today is the legal definition of gender, but I thought I would say a few words about the surgical interventions on the genitals. The scope of application is that this law applies to such surgical interventions on a person's genitals performed within healthcare to ensure that the body corresponds with the gender identity.

The proposal states that surgical intervention may be performed on a person who has reached the age of 18 if the person is registered in the Swedish population register, has for a long time experienced that the body does not correspond with the gender identity, and must be assumed to live in this gender identity for a foreseeable period. There is an addition that for a person under the age of 23, the gonads may however be removed only if there are compelling reasons.

We have a sterilization law in Sweden, and according to it, one must apply to Socialstyrelsen to be allowed to undergo a sterilization.

According to the proposal, permission shall no longer be required for surgical interventions on a person's genitals and gonads.

So, first legal gender is changed, with simplified grounds, and then gender reassignment surgery is permitted without any application or permission from the Legal Council. This genital surgery shall instead be preceded by the assessments made by the health and medical care services without any formal decision being made by the National Board of Health and Welfare.

The previous permit review has ensured a uniform application of the legislation and resulted in a quality control of the investigations that form the basis for the assessment of whether genital surgery shall be performed. It is thus the safety aspect that is highlighted. A decision on genital surgery is of great importance for the individual, and it is irreversible.

According to the current Gender Recognition Act, one of the prerequisites for undergoing genital surgery is that the person has for a long time "experienced that he or she belongs to the other gender." Genital surgery according to the Gender Recognition Act is thus only possible for persons whose gender identity is either man or woman.

The new law is, however, proposed to be applicable when a person has for a long time experienced that the body does not correspond with the gender identity. The scope of the law is thus not limited to those whose gender identity is either man or woman, but the interventions regulated in the new law shall aim to make so that the body corresponds with the gender identity. Good care of adults with gender dysphoria, that is, gender-affirming care including genital surgery, shall be provided to all with gender dysphoria even if the gender identity is neither woman nor man.

The idea that surgery should be performed on a healthy body to create a non-binary body is alien. One wonders what science and proven experience this leans on. But that question is evaded from the health and medical care sector without any formal decisions from Socialstyrelsen, which states that care should do good and not cause harm.

I vote in favor of the reservation.

(Applause)

In this speech, Leonid Yurkovskiy (SD) agreed.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Leonid Yurkovskiy (SD)

Madam Speaker! Improved opportunities to change gender, self-determination as far as possible and, as the previous speaker touched upon, gender surgery for non-binary individuals - these are many topics that this bill touches upon that one must let sink in properly.

I have, as I mentioned earlier, great respect for our Tidö colleagues in the Social Affairs Committee, regardless of their position on this issue, and also for the opposition parties. They have shown a genuine interest and solid knowledge in several subjects. It makes it difficult for me to understand that one is ready to move forward when there are so many questions that are still hanging in the air.

The debate has been ongoing for a long time, as you have noticed. Much of what needs to be said has already been said, so I just want to say the following.

When it comes to lowering the age limit, it is not particularly far-fetched to imagine that when 16-year-olds are allowed to change gender in passports and documents, it becomes harder to deny treatment when they seek further action at the age of 18 – which, it should be added, is also very young in this context. Society has then already, as they say, "confirmed" the person's perception of their correct gender. And even if doctors later find other plausible explanations for the gender dysphoria, it may become harder to say no to procedures.

Combined with the lack of a diagnostic requirement for legal gender reassignment, it becomes even easier for young people with mental ill-health to fall into this track. It also entails a risk that those young people who would have needed some kind of diagnosis right then and there do not get it – that they do not receive the care they actually would have needed.

We also have this that there should be no requirement for Socialstyrelsen's approval for surgery. If one is to cut into minors, burn away breast tissue on girls, or de facto mutilate healthy genitals, it should reasonably be more instances that need to review and give their approval, not fewer?

One more thing. What should take up more space for this entire policy area – perhaps not exactly in this debate but for the policy area – is not the question of how we should make it easier to change personal identity numbers or remove tissue in young people. The question should be why we see such a drastic increase in people with gender dysphoria.

According to the Socialstyrelsen statistics database, we have had an increase of approximately 2,300 percent over ten years, up to 2019. It is certainly even higher now. A large part of the concern, for my part, regarding what we have talked about is of course not about those for whom this is a success story, but the concern is about those who regret it.

I am unfortunately quite convinced that in a few decades, if not sooner, we will look back at parts of the Western healthcare system and be seized by horror at what was allowed to happen. We will see everyone who regretted it in our eyes. They will ask you how it could be allowed to happen that almost the entire establishment cheered while care and politics that were in many ways experimental were carried out on them.

Now we are voting on a small but important part of this policy. Even though the law itself does not concern exactly this, it is an important part of the policy, and today we have the opportunity to choose whether we want to have this on our conscience or not.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Eric Westroth (SD)

Madam Speaker! With respect for the House and considering how long the debate has become, I choose to waive my speech so that we will hopefully have time to vote during the day today.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Alexander Christiansson (SD)

Madam Speaker! A long debate is perhaps coming to an end. I would nevertheless like to raise a few aspects that I consider relevant in this context.

There is a lot of statistics and many opinions and feelings circulating in this debate. I think it is a sorrow, actually, that we have ended up where we have ended up. I would like to lay out the text a bit regarding how I see the development we have, because I mean that it is not always about the factual issues but that it is perhaps rather ideology and the way we see our contemporary time and our society that lays the foundation for many of the opinions we have.

The statistics from Karolinska Institutet were raised in previous exchanges. It is spoken of that it is 80 or 90 percent of the young people who experience gender dysphoria at an early age who then grow out of that perception of themselves. Someone said that the statistics are not correct. But Karolinska Institutet has conducted this investigation based on scientific articles and international studies.

There is, in any case, a large group of young people who are growing out of their perception of themselves. It is not just about gender dysphoria but also about other perceptions one has of oneself. I have four sons myself, and I know what kind of discussions one can have at home about all sorts of things. One changes one's perception. One follows different influencers and takes part in different perceptions online on the internet. We see a clear increase in this dysphoria, not least since 2010. Since 2000, it has increased by 2,300 percent.

The ideological development that we see in the Western world in this debate is not isolated to Sweden. We see it everywhere: in the USA, in Canada, in the UK and all around Europe. It is based on a postmodern idea of relativism: There is no objective truth, but what you feel is right for you. I turn against that. I mean that liberalism often has a tendency to run into a dark room headfirst and hope that nothing stands in the way. As a conservative, I mean that it is wiser to walk slowly into the room, feel around, and look for a light switch that allows one to make realistic and rational decisions.

This proposal does not have support among the population. It is completely obvious. Demoskop's latest survey showed that 20 percent are in favor of the proposal in its current form. One must take into account that the debate also often creates a certain amount of disinformation or misinformation. But I believe that the Swedish people, overall, see this as unreasonable in many ways. There is strong lobbying behind these proposals, and we see that in Europe as well. I sit in the Council of Europe myself and am running into exactly the same tendencies there. It is regrettable. They hide behind buzzwords like human rights, social justice, and so on to push an ideological agenda. I think it is very problematic.

I am the cultural policy spokesperson and have been asked to raise the issues regarding sports. It is said in this debate that this is up to the sports themselves and that it is not something that politics should interfere with. It is also said that there will not be any influx of young people who want to change their legal gender. But then it is said in the same sentence that the proposal opens up for more to precisely change their legal gender. There is, therefore, a certain paradox in the reasoning.

I mean that the development we are seeing needs to be taken seriously. We have female athletes who must compete against biological men in all kinds of sports: combat sports, swimming, weightlifting, running - I could rattle off a whole list of examples. Perhaps the most deplorable one I mentioned in an exchange. A basketball team with young girls chose to forfeit in the quarter-finals because they felt it was completely unreasonable conditions when they were to face biological boys. I think it is terribly tragic.

I mean that it is not about the trans issue at all, but about these 80-90 percent - or whether it is 60, 70 or 50; it doesn't matter. It is about a number of young people who experience themselves to be in the wrong body but who then grow out of that perception. If this bill passes and one facilitates for these young people to change legal gender, it will also facilitate for medical interventions, and it is doctors and child psychologists who say that it is so.

I think it is regrettable that the adult world is pushing for that development with the force they are using in this chamber. As a human being and as a Sverigedemokrater, I mean that it is completely unreasonable. I will absolutely move that we refer this back to the Social Affairs Committee, because I think it needs to be reviewed once more.

It is also regrettable with the split occurring within the Moderaterna. I think it is a pity that the liberal wing is given so much space in this issue, when there are also so many within that party who stand up for conservative views and values.

(Applause)

In this speech, Mona Olin, Michael Rubbestad, Eric Westroth and Leonid Yurkovskiy (all SD) concurred.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Ulrika Westerlund (MP)

Madam Speaker! Several of the recent speakers have highlighted this regarding genital surgery. I want to draw attention to a certain page in the report which explains a bit what it is actually about. On page 153, it states that with the proposed legislative amendment, it will be possible to undergo genital surgery even for non-binary persons. That is not the wording used, but it is the group that is intended. "There is, however, not sufficient evidence for genital surgery that does not aim to make the genitals more similar to the other gender's."

So, there is no evidence for performing operations aimed at creating some kind of intermediate state or nothing, but rather it is about giving a group of people who, with the current wording, cannot undergo genital surgery access to such. It is not that healthcare in Sweden will start operating just however someone wants, but it is guided as usual by the Swedish National Board of Health and Welfare's knowledge support, which I am glad there are so many here pointing out the importance of. The evidence will come from there. Responsible authorities produce knowledge bases, and healthcare must follow them.

There is no one who really knows how many people who do not identify as men or women and who will want to undergo genital surgery. But there is now, however, a possibility, though only to one of two options, so to speak. It is not a free choice, so that one can operate on oneself however they please – even though there are such guidelines in countries with completely different healthcare systems than the one we have here in Sweden.

I will have to return a bit more to this regarding sports, but I think it is interesting to consider that the Swedish Sports Confederation (Riksidrottsförbundet) thought the more far-reaching proposal from 2001 was good. The Swedish Sports Confederation has a great deal of experience in organizing sports for children and youth, including grassroots sports. We can return to that, but first I wonder what Alexander Christiansson thinks about this matter of surgery and the Socialstyrelsen's role in all of this.

(Applause)

In this speech, Annika Hirvonen (MP) agreed.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Alexander Christiansson (SD)

Madam Speaker! I thank you for the question. I am not a doctor or a child psychologist, but I am proceeding from the opinions that have been forcefully directed against this proposal by the individuals within those professions. I completely agree with the member's reasoning; as the proposal is designed, it will not automatically lead to that type of genital surgery. What is meant among these voices is that there is a clear stigma in these issues, something that is sometimes perhaps called deplatforming and so on. There is also a strong lobbying behind this.

If it is the case that a legal gender reassignment has been approved in the first stage, it becomes difficult for people working in healthcare to subsequently deny such a measure, even if one perceives that it is not the right path to take for a young person who has not finished growing in their consequence thinking. According to all science, one does not land in one's consequence thinking until one is 25. What I perceive as concerning is that the science in this area is not always considered so relevant; it is the ideological starting points that one hears being raised, and I find that to be problematic.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Ulrika Westerlund (MP)

Madam Speaker! If a doctor cannot say no to a person who wants a certain treatment that the doctor judges is not beneficial for that individual, I do not think one should be a doctor. I think one should follow the knowledge base and follow the guidelines that exist for providing certain care. Socialstyrelsen emphasizes, as I have mentioned earlier in the discussion, that regardless of a person's legal gender, a diagnostic investigation is always carried out before treatment is initiated. So that will continue to be the case.

We have heard comments here that parents will not be able to stand up to their 16-year-olds' demands and now, apparently, also that doctors will not be able to stand up to what different individuals wish to have for treatments.

In Sweden, we have a system where the doctors are responsible for the care that is given. We do not have a system with informed consent, as some other countries do. The responsibility therefore falls heavily on the doctor who believes that a certain care should not have been given but has nevertheless given it. In that case, I do not think one should work as a doctor. It is very serious. The care given must be based on evidence and the latest knowledge.

Back to this matter of sports, which I find interesting. Now, several of us have pointed out that the sports movement itself decides how the divisions into categories are made. Riksidrottsförbundet is very radical in its general guidelines and argues that all children's and youth sports should actually not be divided by gender. They believe that it should be the level of ambition, knowledge, and how skilled one is in their sport that should govern the division.

That can also be truly discussed, but I still think that the power lies with the sports movement to judge that, for example, high testosterone levels in a certain sport constitute an unfair advantage and that one therefore implements a regulation based on that. If one wants to make such an assessment, one should be able to do so and not because we have decided here that it shall or shall not be governed by legal gender.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Alexander Christiansson (SD)

Madam Speaker! I shall answer generally, because I believe my answer covers all of these questions. It concerns exactly what I raised in my speech, namely that I believe we have quite different worldviews, Miljöpartiet and Sverigedemokraterna. This has emerged in many discussions in this chamber during the years we have been in the Riksdag, and so it will also be this time.

When it comes to the denial of "deplatforming" - being accused of discrimination - it will, regardless of whether you are a doctor or a small football club in a municipality, become a very hard pressure. It already is, because there is a strong lobbying in these issues that works very actively. Member Ulrika Westerlund herself has sat as vice-chairperson in one of perhaps the more activist lobbying organizations when it comes to these issues. It is precisely for that reason I mean that we will have different views on this.

But the signals one receives in all the emails we Members of Parliament receive daily on this issue - but also in many other issues, such as gender issues or migration issues or whatever it is about - are that there is a stigmatization that makes one feel a hard pressure on oneself to stand up for ideological political steering within these fields in a way that I think is very serious.

I hope that we in our government will be able to resolve this. It is something I will work hard for as an individual member, and it is also one of the main reasons why I became politically engaged. I mean that the left-liberal ideology that influences many of the decisions taken in this country is problematic. Therefore, we will have completely different views on it.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Michael Rubbestad (SD)

Madam Speaker! During the previous parliamentary term, I had the privilege of sitting as a member of the Education Committee, where I primarily worked with preschool and other pedagogical care. During that time, I had the opportunity to meet a person whom we can call Kalle, but who is actually named something else.

He told me about when he arrived at preschool one morning as a little boy and had already decided in advance that he would be Superman that day – or Stålmannen, for those of us who have a few more years on our backs. "But Kalle, wouldn't you like to try being a princess today instead?" "No, I want to be Superman." "But look, we'll do this: Try being a princess, and if it really doesn't feel fun, you can change into Superman." "Okay." Said and done – Kalle puts on a pink dress in this case; he has a crown on his head, and in his hand, he has a stick with a star. After a few minutes, he changes into Superman anyway.

A few days later, Kalle comes to the preschool and says: "Today I'm going to be Batman!" "But Kalle, what would you say to being a pony instead?" It becomes the same thing again: Kalle is a pony for a while, and when the staff seems satisfied, he gets to change into Batman.

One day when Kalle arrives at the preschool, both the Superman and Batman costumes are already taken. Kalle gets an idea. He could be a western hero. He puts on the horse costume and sets off to hunt bandits in the corridors when the preschool staff catch him. "But Kalle, oh my god, how fun! You want to be a pony; you dare to try something new - how proud I am of you!"

Now, the situation is that Kalle comes from a home with a total lack of love and care. There is violence, alcohol, and drugs. Kalle is in extreme need of love and care. The question then is whether he will continue to do what he actually wants to do and what comes naturally to him at preschool, when that always leads to him being questioned. Or will he perhaps do what might not come naturally to him but leads to him receiving praise, being seen, and receiving love?

Kalle continues on this path. He grows up and makes conscious choices that make him stand out and deviate from social norms. The more he stands out, the more praise he receives from his friends for his courage. But Kalle is not doing well. Something feels wrong.

Kalle is getting a bit older, and eventually he needs psychological help. It can be established quite quickly that the only times he has truly felt seen and experienced love is when he has deviated from society's gender norms and been very feminine. Could it perhaps be that he was born in the wrong gender and that is why he feels best when he does what is femininely coded?

Kalle is trying to be more and more feminine, and it is certainly true that friends, the number of likes on social media, and the validation become stronger the clearer he is in his identity. But he still does not feel well. Maybe he actually needs to fully take the step to become a woman in order to finally feel well and be happy with himself?

The contact with the healthcare continues, and there is no doubt that it concerns gender dysphoria. The keyword is confirmation. But Kalle is still feeling worse. Everything possible is being tried to be expedited, but however, a diagnosis was needed to begin the final journey.

Then suddenly something unexpected happens. The doctor does not want to give that diagnosis to Kalle at all, even though all the psychologists, teachers, and all the other adults he has met have confirmed it. Quite quickly, the doctor states that it is not at all a matter of gender dysphoria. The reason why Kalle suffers from mental ill-health is his traumatic upbringing with violence, drugs, and a lack of love. Furthermore, the doctor can state that Kalle suffers from ADHD, and that contributes significantly to him feeling uncomfortable in his own body.

Today, Kalle is feeling significantly better and is content with himself. He receives medication for his ADHD and counseling to manage his traumatic upbringing. The confirmations and praises on social media, however, have completely disappeared, as no one wants to be associated with a "penitenter".

Then the question is: What would have happened if the law we are now debating had already been in place? What would have happened if the doctor who made the diagnosis had not been needed, and Kalle himself, based on self-identification, had been allowed to determine his gender identity?

The consequences of removing the requirement for a diagnosis and also lowering the age limit to 16 years pose a very clear question. Kalle is the answer to that question. I therefore wish to move for approval of the joint reservation by Sverigedemokraterna and Kristdemokraterna.

Madam Speaker! Today I am no longer working with preschool and pedagogical care but focusing on equality and discrimination. From the perspective of equality, I view with great concern what this proposal entails.

I want to be very clear, however, that we have a great deal of understanding that more needs to be done to improve the situation for trans people in Sweden. But the fact is that no analysis has been made of how the new law will affect the rights of girls and women and, in the long run, the entire work on equality. There is a clear concern in Sweden regarding what consequences a new view on what gender is can have for equality.

I mean that the proponents of the proposal need to set aside their pride and refer the proposal back to the Committee on Social Affairs so that a normal referral process can be held and views from all sectors of society can be gathered.

Transgender people are a protected group in our society, but there are also other protected groups to take into account, such as women and children. We owe these groups a thorough investigation before we make decisions.

I therefore also, just like my colleague Carita Boulwén, move for the matter to be referred back to the committee in the first instance for further preparation - in addition to my motion for approval of the joint reservation.

Madam Speaker! I mean that this bill puts all of Sweden's equality work at stake. The experts warn, and the entire women's movement warns. It leads to further questions. There will be more questions than there are answers.

How will this affect how we define gender in the future? How is the gender statistics affected? How is the work on men's violence against women affected? How is parental leave or female entrepreneurship affected? Should we call biological men to breast cancer screening? Should we offer biological women prostate checks? How is women's protected public spaces affected? Do personal number changes enable pedophiles at the preschool?

If we reject the proposal, we are not the last in the Nordic countries to make the wrong decision, but the first to make the right one.

(Applause)

In this speech, Jonas Andersson, Alexander Christiansson, Mona Olin, Eric Westroth and Leonid Yurkovskiy (all SD) concurred.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Madam Speaker! Between October 1, 2022, and September 30, 2023, 320 trans people were murdered in the world. The underreporting is likely greater. The majority of the murdered trans people were between 19 and 25 years old.

Harassment, stalking, and violence are experienced by many trans people even in Sweden as something that is part of everyday life, something that is normal. It is something one takes into account in the risk assessment when planning one's daily life and making daily life choices, such as choosing to book a trip abroad, identifying oneself at Systembolaget, or going out to a pub as a young person.

It is a small group of people who are harmed by today's outdated gender identity law. I mean that the debate that has been conducted in politics over the last few weeks is a low watermark. Transphobic ideas have rained down, and fake news has taken on a completely new face.

Today we have the chance to modernize the legislation and reduce the number of times that trans people nervously need to tremble with their ID in hand because they do not know whether they should identify themselves to a person who will subject them to hate crimes as a result of every identification also being a coming out as just a trans person.

That the Gender Identity Act is perhaps already being modernized today is important, perhaps life-saving, for a small group of people. It is a step towards more freedom and the realization of human rights for some of society's most vulnerable - a group of people who are found among those who have the highest suicide statistics and the greatest mental ill-health in our country.

Madam Speaker! So much nonsense is claimed in this debate, such as that this should be about us now calling men for prostate screening regardless of whether they are born with a prostate or not, or calling trans women for breast cancer screening even if they run no risk at all of getting breast cancer. Of course, it would be best if the healthcare system stopped this and if the IT systems were modernized a bit and updated according to the system that we have actually had for changing legal gender for 50 years and which is now becoming a bit more modern.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Hans Eklind (KD)

Madam Speaker! Over the past year, I have traveled to all of Sweden's districts. Before each visit, I have asked the local Christian Democrats to arrange a meeting with the child and adolescent psychiatry in the area. All the conversations I have had have made it crystal clear, but above all, they have made me more determined: We must prioritize the well-being of children and young people, and the precautionary principle shall guide us. It is against this background that I believe we Christian Democrats have landed completely correctly in our position: Do it again, do it right!

Madam Speaker! When Karolinska Institutet, in its referral response from 2022, emphasizes that several international studies show that 80-90 percent of the children and adolescents who experience gender dysphoria no longer want to change gender in adulthood, it rings alarm bells for me in any case.

One can point out that more and more specialist doctors within psychiatry are warning against what we saw in, for example, the SVT documentary Transkriget - T änk om ni har fel. They mean that a change of a legal gender reinforces gender dysphoria and means that it becomes a first step towards hormone treatment and so on. In that case, I mean that we as the Riksdag must think things through.

My conclusion is that children who have gender dysphoria should be offered help. They should be offered support and psychological support, because if we care about these children, that is where we should focus our efforts and, for example, shorten the queues to child and adolescent psychiatry, BUP, which the government is doing. The answer is not to simplify legal gender reassignment.

Madam Speaker! Yesterday, we received an email from the group Nordic Network of Professionals for Evidence-Based Care of Young People with Gender Dysphoria. Among those who signed the email to us were Christopher Gillberg, professor of child and adolescent psychiatry, and Sven Román, specialist physician in child and adolescent psychiatry.

I mention these two because I have had the privilege of sitting down and talking with them, listening, problematizing, and asking critical questions. I mean that these two persons' solid knowledge and experience weigh many times heavier, at least for me, than the political contributions that the proponents of the law change have delivered.

They conclude their email with the following words: The basic mission for us in healthcare is to offer care that is as safe and secure as possible. The proposal risks harming and not helping children and young people, but also young adults. It should not be rushed through but instead go back to the Government Offices and be referred in the usual order.

Madam Speaker! The proposal does not have support among the Swedish people. Based on all the conversations I have had, I will go as far as to say that I doubt there is even support here in the Riksdag, if the members sitting here vote based on their own opinion.

I conclude with an appeal to those sitting in here but above all to all members of parliament who I know are sitting in their offices and following the debate via the TV screen: Vote in accordance with your conviction! There is still a chance to redo and do right.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Magnus Jacobsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! During the debate, I have sat and rewritten my speech several times. This is primarily because it makes me quite sad when people put words into each other's mouths. I note in some newspaper articles and elsewhere that there seems to be an irritation regarding Christian Democracy and the Christian Democrats. I have all respect for that, but I and many with me can feel irritation.

For example, we changed our view on abortion policy in 1988, and we stand behind the Swedish abortion legislation. Nevertheless, above all, people on the left claim that we have not changed our minds. Even more interesting is that parties that we have previously sat in government with, and parties that we currently sit in government with at times, are trying to imply that we did not change our view in 1988. The same thing has happened here in the room today when it is generally attempted to assert that Kristdemokraterna are always against in LGBTQ issues.

I take it quite personally, for the simple reason that I sat in the Riksdag from 98-02 and was involved in working out the law that was proposed in 1998/99:AU4 based on proposition 1997/98:180. It is legislation concerning sexual harassment and LGBTQ issues in the working life. If I remember correctly, it was M, C and FP who reserved themselves, while the Kristdemokraterna reached an agreement with S regarding the legislation we have today.

Somewhat later, in motion 2001/02:A227, we in Kristdemokraterna pushed for that the legislation we introduced should also apply to students at universities and colleges. We thought, namely, that it was very strange that one has protection in working life but not when one is studying.

Later during the same parliamentary term, we did indeed vote on same-sex adoptions, and you can check the minutes – I, who was responsible for these issues, was outvoted. At that time, I did not share my party's view regarding same-sex adoptions. I argued, in fact, that everyone should have the right to be assessed.

Hans Eklind, a good friend of mine and otherwise the union chairman of KDU before me, was one of the first to visit RFSU in the role of KDU's union chairman. When I was KDU's union chairman, I was the first to visit RFSL.

The image one tries to create that we Christian Democrats are generally opposed to LGBTQ people is simply not true. I can continue; someone brought up the marriage legislation. There, we Christian Democrats wanted a completely different legislation – a civil law legislation similar to the one they have in, among other places, France. That proposal received support from, among others, RFSU. We wanted, therefore, to separate the civil from the religious. It may perhaps be a bit surprising that it was precisely the Christian Democrats who wanted that, but it was out of respect for both the church and the state.

I think that this debate has unfortunately been tedious, as things are implied and words are put into our mouths that are simply not true. That we feel concern and anxiety regarding this specific legislation, Madam Speaker, is about the actual proposals. We are hesitant to go down to 16 years because we see that adolescents who are in puberty tend to change their minds. We are also hesitant about the distinction that arises.

I therefore move that the legislative proposal shall, in the first instance, be referred back and, in the second instance, be rejected.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Daniel Vencu Velasquez Castro (S)

Madam Speaker! I thank Magnus Jacobsson for the speech.

I do not doubt that there are Christian Democrats who think that LGBTQ+ issues are important, but the problem is that it is never the Christian Democrats who press the right button when it actually matters. Afterwards, people say: "I have always been for this, Madam Speaker! I have always thought that this is good!" But it is now that LGBTQ+ people need Christian Democrats who press the right button, and I can only state that they will not do so.

A number of inaccuracies have been raised in this debate. One of them is something that has been claimed several times, namely how many people would regret a gender reassignment. Reference has been made to Karolinska Institutet and others. I am reading verbatim from the Socialstyrelsen website, where they refer to SBU - Statens beredning för medicinsk och social utvärdering, for those who do not know - and write:

"Socialstyrelsen assesses that there are no uniform data on how many people outgrow their gender incongruence. In the studies that exist, different things have been investigated; some have investigated children who have sought care but not received a diagnosis, others who have sought care and received a diagnosis after investigation, or children who have answered questions in population surveys."

I would say that the National Board of Health and Welfare has, quite well-founded, addressed the arguments. All members and observers can take part in that, and yet this is asserted. I would like to say that it is being done to mislead the voters and the listeners, Madam Speaker. It is unworthy, I think.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Magnus Jacobsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! Then we witnessed once again exactly what I am trying to describe.

So: It was I who held the debate on 1998/99:AU4. I did it as a representative for the Christian Democrats, and as representatives for the Christian Democrats, we voted, completely unanimously, for the legislation that was introduced. It was I who held the debate in 2001/02 on the fact that students should also have a legal protection, and we voted for our proposal - unanimously, as Christian Democrats.

The description that Christian Democracy is always, by definition, against lawsuits is therefore not true. It is a caricature. First, one paints this caricature, and then one attacks it. Is it not better that we try to listen to each other? Can we not have that respect for one another to listen to each other's arguments?

I have the greatest respect for those who feel that they want to make things easier for young people who find themselves in a difficult situation. I respect that argument. But I also have respect for those in the care sector who say: "Wait a bit now – young people are going through puberty. Give them some time! Many of them will land in a different way after puberty." Can we not just have that respect for one another that we see each other's arguments?

Based on a precautionary principle, based on the arguments we have taken in and based on the listening we have done, we have landed on asking for – even pleading for – another referral round. Let it go for another three months! Can we not get the new documents in? Previous speakers have even said that it is a quite large change, while it has been argued that it is a small change. How one reconciles the two arguments, I do not really know, but they have in any case been uttered from the rostrum.

Could you not give us a referral back so that we get the final arguments, Daniel Vencu Velasquez Castro?

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Daniel Vencu Velasquez Castro (S)

Madam Speaker! I make the assessment that many here have addressed the arguments coming from, among others, KD. The problem is that they are inaccuracies.

Even when I read out what Socialstyrelsen has landed on and concluded - not based on what they think but based on evidence - it is said that several regret it later in life, even though there is no evidence for that claim. I think that is serious. To counter arguments is exactly what we do, and that one then continues to spread inaccuracies, I have very little respect for, Madam Speaker.

Regarding the Christian Democrats' great commitment to LGBTQ+ issues, which I am quite convinced that very few within the LGBTQ+ movement feel, I noted that the member in question stated that he was the first to visit RFSL and RFSU. I do not believe the member was the first human being to visit RFSL and RFSU, but he perhaps was referring to the fact that he was the first Christian Democrat. Many others, however, have had a dialogue with these organizations for several years. Furthermore, people from other parties have been involved and taken the initiative to start these types of organizations.

With that said, Madam Speaker, the Christian Democrats' commitment to the rights of LGBTQI people is very questionable. It is clear that one can cherry-pick certain debates and certain legislative proposals, but in the big picture: Where did the Christian Democrats stand when same-sex marriages were debated in this chamber? Now they are for same-sex marriages, and I can imagine that in about ten years' time they will say that they have always thought a modernized gender identity law was necessary.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Magnus Jacobsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! Rhetoric is something I find fantastically fun. It is amusing. But sometimes the rhetoric becomes like this: The times the Christian Democrats possibly do the right thing, according to one's own perception, one does not care about it. That is because it disturbs one's perception of the Christian Democrats. Therefore, one ignores these facts because one wants to maintain one's image of the Christian Democrats not caring. To engage in that type of rhetoric and to have that attitude is actually not honest, Madam Speaker.

Then we come back to what I was trying to say. Can we not try to listen to each other's arguments? I share the view that the National Board of Health and Welfare has said what the National Board of Health and Welfare has said. It is surely quite fantastic that the National Board of Health and Welfare has said what the National Board of Health and Welfare has said. But I also share the view that the Karolinska Institute has said what the Karolinska Institute has said.

That is how it is in politics sometimes. One listens and takes it in. One takes different arguments and tests and weighs them against each other. In this case, we have landed on different opinions.

I can only appeal to this chamber when we are so in disagreement on one thing that we are nevertheless in agreement on. I think everyone in here has tried to say that this is important. It is about individual people who have a deep inner feeling. We must have respect for that.

Could we then not get these three months? Could one not just give us time to listen a bit more?

Imagine if it had landed that we could find some further compromise, for example regarding age. Imagine if this chamber could be even more united after such a referral process.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Daniel Vencu Velasquez Castro (S)

Madam Speaker! We are a country that has a strong democracy. This democracy has been strengthened, not least by all the rights that have come to people through the hard work performed by many who dared to lead the way.

My strong conviction is that all people should be free to dictate the terms of their lives and to be who they are. The state shall not limit people's freedom to dictate the terms of their own lives. On the contrary, the state shall be an enabler of freedom, and we as politicians have the task of creating a state that embraces people's freedom.

In Sweden, trans people were sterilized until 2013. They were not even allowed to save sperm or eggs. In different ways, LGBTQI people have always been treated as sick people that society needs to cure, not as people with equal rights as everyone else.

Madam Speaker! Finally, a majority in this chamber is coming together and correcting the injustice that trans people, in particular, have had to endure for many years. It is a right that politics has denied them. Despite the fact that the Council of Europe has established that one should facilitate trans people's opportunity for self-identification through a simple administrative process, this has not been decided by this chamber.

One of the consequences of the failure of politics to strengthen trans people's rights, I believe, is most clearly exemplified by former Minister for Education Lina Axelsson Kihlblom. She says that for several years she risked her life by having to show ID documents that did not show what others or she herself saw. Threats, hate, and fear of the misunderstanding mob were there daily. She further says that these traumas give her an "experience" that she reluctantly harbors within her daily, despite the fact that she has passed 50 and that no one else should have to deal with.

Madam Speaker! Every time a question concerning LGBTQI people is discussed, the public debate seems to be about everyone else except for them. It reveals the incredible injustice that LGBTQI people in general, and trans people in particular, have to endure. One needs the majority society's approval to be allowed to live a full life. It is not worthy of a democracy and a just society like Sweden.

Madam Speaker! I am glad that we can move forward with a modernized gender identity law that has broad support in this chamber. This is a day of joy. It is a day when Sweden becomes freer and fairer, above all for everyone affected by this legislation. But there are years of struggle behind this legislation, like all other legislations concerning LGBTQI persons, and I truly want to thank everyone who went before for decades so that we could reach the point we are at today.

I am a democratic socialist. I am part of a movement that has liberated workers from inhumane working conditions, has been part of the women's struggle against the patriarchy's oppression, and has supported freedom movements all over the world. Now I am part of a movement that will make Sweden a slightly freer and fairer society for trans people. It is fantastic, Madam Speaker.

I vote in favor of the proposal in the report.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Sofia Amloh (S)

Madam Speaker! Sweden has the world's first, and thus also the world's oldest, gender identity law. A modernization of the law has been investigated for more than ten years, and it is good that we can now implement the legislative change.

The proposed legislation evokes many emotions, which I have great respect for. When the legislation was first introduced in 1972, it was not done without opposition either. Myths are being spread that it would become more dangerous for women if it becomes easier to change legal gender. This lacks evidence and is unrealistic. To cast suspicion on vulnerable groups by linking them with crime is unfortunate and risky. Twelve member countries in the Council of Europe, including all Nordic neighboring countries, and nine countries outside of Europe have introduced self-determination. No country has reported the problems that are being painted.

The legislative changes being made now concern a small group but are very important for the few people they affect. Many trans people need to live and be perceived in accordance with their gender identity rather than the biological sex they were born with. In order to do this without risking harassment, threats, and violence, many of them need to change the legal gender assigned to them at birth. It is important in order to be able to identify themselves correctly and participate in democratic society.

We mean that it is important that trans people are given the opportunity to change their legal gender more quickly and more easily. They should have the same opportunity as everyone else to participate in democratic society and be seen as themselves by the state without a diagnosis, or a label of illness, being required for that reason. Furthermore, it currently takes many years to receive a diagnosis.

Diagnoses are for healthcare - they should not be required for changes in population registration. The right to change legal gender is a human right established at the European level. All people should have the right to live in accordance with their inner identity and be respected as themselves by the state. Therefore, it is also highly reasonable that the proposal is based on an age limit of 16 years, with the consent of a guardian.

Madam Speaker! One of the things that the Riksdag is now deciding is that the government must instruct Socialstyrelsen to develop a new knowledge support for healthcare. This knowledge support shall be in place by the time the new law enters into force at the latest. In order for there to be time to produce such a knowledge support, the law will not enter into force until next summer.

I think it is good that we Social Democrats, Left Party members, Green Party members, Centre Party members, Liberals and Moderates manage to take responsibility for a modernization of the law, and there is nothing radical in this. The law has been investigated several times since 2006, with two government public inquiries and two department memoranda. It gives trans people the same right as others to be seen and respected as themselves.

Madam Speaker! Trans rights are human rights. Trans rights are feminism. No human is free until all humans are free.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Ilona Szatmári Waldau (V)

Madam Speaker! In this debate, many have expressed fears that the possibility of changing one's legal gender would lead to more people also seeking gender-affirming treatment. Yet, the experience from our neighboring countries is the opposite. When one can easily change one's legal gender, the need for care has decreased.

I also want to remember how it was before free abortion. Counselors, social workers, doctors and psychologists would then scrutinize the woman's situation and decide on her life. It is time that counselors, doctors and psychologists no longer have to scrutinize the trans woman's situation and decide on her life.

I also remember the debate about gender-neutral marriages. Heterosexual people were horrified by same-sex couples' right to formalize their love through marriage. The cries of warning were many, but the cries of warning came in vain and few today are against gender-neutral marriages.

Today it is cis people who are opposed to and warn against what could happen if trans people could more easily change their legal gender, even though a large majority - virtually all of those affected - want this law to be introduced. It is women and men who for a long time, perhaps during their entire lives, have had a legal gender that does not correspond with their own perception of their gender and neither with how they are perceived in society. It is women and men who have an identification document that says they are a different gender than the one they are perceived as, simply because they now have to wait several years to be able to change their legal gender.

It is politicians and debaters who do not want to facilitate things for trans people and who paint a lot of problems if the law is introduced. These are problems that countries with self-identification do not experience.

I would wish that the Riksdag could decide on self-determination. But today there is no majority for it. What six parties have now agreed upon does not go all the way in the matter of self-determination. I regret that. But I still stand behind the committee's proposal.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Mikael Oscarsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! It has been a long discussion that has been ongoing for six hours. I myself have been sitting in a completely different discussion in the Defence Preparation Committee. But I still wanted to come here and say something.

I think this is an important issue and an issue that engages people. We have all noticed that as well. It is also a special issue where Göteborgs-Posten, Expressen, Svenska Dagbladet, S-kvinnor and many doctors call for caution and reflection. They think that this should be investigated more.

Therefore, I hope that there are enough members of Parliament here who, at the vote in a moment, will either move for a rejection or move for a re-referral. There are, in fact, aspects of this issue that have not been investigated.

We want, especially when it concerns children and young people, for it to be best practice, that is to say, we want to be sure that this is well-substantiated.

There is something, which I understand has been said several times here in the debate, that we call the precautionary principle. And if there is any time when we should use it, it is now. If there are question marks and if there is reason to listen when experts warn about things, then we should wait.

It has been said previously that gender dysphoria has increased, not by 100 percent, not by 1,000 percent but by 2,300 percent over the last ten years. There is a comorbidity with different types of mental conditions and diagnoses such as autism, anxiety, and eating disorders. We are therefore talking about the most vulnerable among our children and young people.

It has been stated in several different SVT programs, for example Transkriget - T änk om ni har fel, that changing the legal gender for children can reinforce gender dysphoria and represent a first step towards hormone treatment, irreversible consequences, and irrevocable interventions in the genitals.

Many doctors have pointed out several risks with removing the diagnostic criterion and that it could create a fast track for medical treatment, as it would become difficult to deny those who have changed legal gender the completion of the transition.

Expressens editorial page has also warned that this is something that could be a problem when it comes to crime fighting. It is an additional aspect. It has been mentioned here earlier that women have a right to safety and privacy. They have a right to gender separation in toilets, in changing rooms, and not least in women's prisons. This is something that would naturally be investigated. This should be sent for consultation. This should be carefully looked into so that we build on facts.

There is also a strong opinion against this. Among those who support the government base, only 6 percent support this proposal. Hopefully, Annika Strandhäll, who was one of those who initially led this proposal, now warns that gender will no longer be seen as biological but will be built on feelings and self-identification. She wants to pause and wait on this until further research is presented that can explain this increase of girls who have gender dysphoria.

Many have reached out. I just want to point out what Per-Erik Hallin wrote to all members last night. He wrote: I want to encourage you, in the question of changing age limits for changing legal gender, to follow your inner compass and conviction over the party whip.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Madam Speaker! Now, Mikael Oscarsson did indeed begin his speech by admitting that he has not listened to the debate that has been ongoing here in the chamber for six hours. It is then not strange that Mikael Oscarsson has taken in much of the fake news that has circulated in the debate and has not heard when we, systematically from six parties, have dismantled these arguments and instead presented facts. Mikael Oscarsson repeated so many of these misconceptions that I did not have time to write them all down. I will also not have time during these minutes of reply to address them all.

But let us still state one thing, namely that this bill is about modernizing a law that Sweden has had for 50 years. It is about making it a bit simpler to change legal gender. It is, therefore, about changing the numbers in the passport and a letter. It is, therefore, not about making it easier to undergo different types of surgical procedures – on the contrary. If one listens to, for example, the experiences from Norway, one hears that this change can actually lead to more people who have gender dysphoria feeling better without needing as many surgical procedures as they would have needed if they had not been granted the correct legal gender early on.

I hope therefore that we can now stick to the facts and that the large majority that now exists in the chamber can proceed to a decision and vote yes to the proposal in the social affairs committee's report.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Mikael Oscarsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! The member is upset. One can be sensitive; that is completely okay. But the important thing that I have tried to demonstrate is that there are so many objective reasons to be cautious and to think things through. And I know that there are many members here who are precisely cautious and thoughtful. I want to appeal to these members to listen to this: Refer this back to the committee and look at it one more time! There are so many questions.

What I referred to was what was raised in SVT's documentary Transkriget - T änk if you are mistaken. There, it is stated that a changed legal gender for children can reinforce gender dysphoria and represent a first step towards hormone treatment.

The Member of Parliament surely knows that there is no research in the world that supports that it helps children's well-being to initiate that process. The Member of Parliament also knows that there is comorbidity. I think the Member of Parliament should be mindful of being cautious given that so many have comorbidity.

If there is a reason, and the experts point it out, why not listen to Annika Strandhäll? It was a member, Madam Speaker, who first raised this very strongly. But now she warns and says that there is a new state of knowledge. In this chamber, I believe we are interested in a state of knowledge. She says that we must wait until further research has been presented showing why it is increasing so much.

There are now many who point out that it is the wrong path to take. Let us embrace the precautionary principle. Let us also vote according to conviction. We have seen in many articles that there are many, not least among the bourgeois parties, who think this way. I hope that they also vote with their conviction in a moment, just as Per-Erik Hallin, whom I quoted just now, urged everyone to do.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Madam Speaker! In Norway, a gender identity law has been introduced that is based entirely on self-identification. Now, the result, according to Norway's Directorate of Health, indicates that the fact that you can obtain the legal gender corresponding to your gender identity can actually reduce gender dysphoria.

I think it is interesting that the Christian Democrats are happy to refer to the so-called precautionary principle when it comes to being cautious with human rights for hbtqi persons.

If we had had the same logic regarding listening to individual debaters as the Christian Democrats want in the question of the gender identity law, for example, in climate policy, we would not have gotten anywhere.

We listen to what the profession as a whole has said through, for example, the Swedish Medical Association. We take note of the reports that the National Board of Health and Welfare has presented. We listen to all the countries in the Nordic region and Europe that have led the way.

We have also requested a review through Ulrika Westerlund. Have any of the concerns that are referred to, and which make one want to be cautious, been addressed elsewhere? The answer is a resounding no.

Now it is time to give trans people access to human rights. It is a small change. We in Miljöpartiet will want to go further. But it is an important change, even life-saving for a small and vulnerable group of people. I move for approval of the proposal.

(Applause)

In this speech, Jacob Risberg (MP) agreed.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Mikael Oscarsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! There is a reason why the editorials of the newspapers Expressen, Svenska Dagbladet, Göteborgs-Posten, and S-kvinnor are doing this and calling for reflection. The precautionary principle is always important.

But if it concerns children and young people, Madam Speaker, I feel in any case that it is twice as important. There is a reason why the Prime Minister himself says: This is where it goes wrong; 18 years would be a reasonable limit. This is nothing that minors should have to take a stand on.

That was why, Madam Speaker, I stepped away from the defense negotiations for a short while. I think it is so important that we take this responsibility. It is not dangerous if we take another look at it, let it go for consultation, and let the questions that exist be answered.

Then we can perhaps achieve a greater consensus. In such an important issue, it is very important to get to the bottom of it. There is also a reason – welcome, Mr. Speaker – to listen to the strong opinion that exists.

Mr. Speaker! I believe it is because there has been so much attention. So many people have stepped forward in many protests, from all possible social groups and also experts. This applies, for example, to Margot Wallström and many others. It is because it is important. They do not do it just in general. It engages, and it is important.

Improved opportunities to change gender

Mr. Speaker! I therefore hope for the precautionary principle and that there are enough who vote for this.

(Applause)

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(Decisions were made under § 7.)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)