During the past week, several actors have debated whether a new gender equality law in Sweden would mean a necessary modernization or whether it would do more harm than good. The NATO issue has also remained on the agenda.
The proposal to redo the Gender Equality Act would threaten the legal security of detainees and risk that young people become dependent on care for life, with hormone treatments, surgical aftercare and complications such as sterility, says Linn Saarinen, chairman of the LHB association, which works to promote the rights of homosexuals and bisexuals.
Professors from the University of Gothenburg and various experts claim in a reply that it is contradictory that the trans movement today "strives to reintroduce a medicalization of identity and sexuality through demands for medical and surgical interventions to 'fix' it all". Furthermore, the debaters believe that the attention the issue has received shows shortcomings throughout society, its basic laws and values.
- The work with gender dysphoria can not be handled on the basis of an ideological basis or as a question of rights. New legislation must be in line with medical science, and its overall effects well investigated, the debaters write.
The criticism directed at the bill is misleading and the arguments obsolete, several debaters from, among others, RFSL, Feminist Initiative and Uppsala University write in a reply to DN Debatt. An update of the Gender Equality Act would mean that the process is simplified and that those who want to change their gender can have this reflected in their identity documents - something the debaters believe reduces the risk of suicide among trans young people.
- We want to clarify that a change in the law does not change the care's guidelines for treatment. It simply enables transgender people right to decide over one's own identity, something like today is possible in a number of other EU countries, they write.
NATO: right or wrong way to go?
While DN's editorial board believes that NATO is the right way for Sweden several peace organizations in Sweden and Finland point to going the risks. The Norwegian left-wing politician Ingrid Fiskaa has also raised the risks of a NATO membership and believes that Sweden should learn from Norway's path choice.
- Being a NATO member means a lot of pressure to adapt to new changes as you go along. What is said today is not at all necessary to join NATO, will be presented tomorrow as an obvious step to take because we are members, Fiiska writes in a debate article.
Daniel Färm (S) claims in Aftonbladet that NATO will rather come secure the folk home.
- "The safe people's home" can strive for long-term disarmament, but only when the security of our own and other freedom-loving states is secured, he writes.
"Misleading Criticism of the New Gender Act"
Vee and Sidus Gibson and others, Dagens Nyheter
"The bill does more harm than good to LGBTQ people"
Linn Saarinen, Dagens Nyheter
"Legislation needs to be in tune with science"
Elisabeth Fernell et al., Dagens Nyheter
Leader: Therefore, it is right for Sweden to step into NATO - DN.SE
DN's editorial staff, Dagens Nyheter
The NATO issue
NATO membership involves great risks
Agnes Hellström, Laura Lodenius, Malin Nilsson, Sirkku Järvelä and Lotta Sjöström Becker, Svenska Dagbladet
NATO has made Norway more vulnerable as a country
Ingrid Fiiska (Norwegian Left Party SV), Aftonbladet
With NATO, we secure the Swedish people's home
Daniel Färm (S), Aftonbladet
Is there something in the text that is not correct? Contact us at opinion@fuf.se