DrWELT recently published an article I co-authored, initially titled “How ARD and ZDF are Sexualizing and Re-educating Our Children.” This title was then changed to Public Broadcasting: How ARD and ZDF Teach Our Children. The title chosen by our team of authors was: “A Appeal by Scholars Against False Reporting by Public Service Broadcasters”.
In this text we have referred to this call for signatures. The main theme was the incorrect representation of biological facts about gender dysphoria/sex change topics. We documented our allegations in a 50-page dossier, meanwhile the appeal was signed by hundreds of scientists, including many biologists, doctors and psychologists with university presidents, along with other proponents.
Federal government commissioner Sven Lehmann wants to know better than these stars. In a response to our text, which also appeared in WELT, he wrote: “The authors talk in their text about a ‘confirmed scientific discovery of the intersex.’ Here at the latest, you can actually put the text away and ignore it as a semi-congenital product. I’d still take the trouble to reply: hermaphrodite It exists! The tenderness is there!”
In fact, the authors of the file not only mention the presence of hermaphroditism (a disorder of sexual development) and transsexualism or gender dysphoria—something Lyman should know if he reads it—but also provide clear clinical definitions of these phenomena. However, unlike Lyman, we can also define the concept of gender in the file. From this definition (referring to differentiated types of germ cells) in combination with empirical facts (there are only two such types: egg and sperm cells) correct logical duplication results. Hermaphroditism and sexuality are manifestations inside This split.
A defect (or variant) in sexual development produces a new sex no more than an anatomical evolutionary defect in the form of a short arm or an extra finger that produces a new species in the human race. Similarly: as much as some women might identify as a man and some men as a woman, they do not biologically create a third gender.
If the Federal Constitutional Court, which Lyman is referring to, allows such sexual insertion, it is a legal fiction, but it does not change the biological facts. In short, Lyman certainly did not take his occult ideas from the primary biological literature, but apparently from the public broadcast.
Lehman goes on to explain: “The pamphlet also makes false claims about federal government policy. For example, 14-year-olds should be able in the future to “make a decision about hormonal and surgical adjustments against their parents’ will.” No, this is unplanned. It was never like that.”
The fact that Lyman constantly and brazenly repeats this false claim, which has been pointed out over and over again, does not make it any more true. Readers, especially parents, are advised to check out the Coalition Agreement and previous drafts of the so-called “Self-Determination Act” by the Greens and the FDP for themselves.
For example, the Green Party’s June 10, 2020 draft law on genital change surgery states: “Detained persons refuse [ihre] Consent, family court supersedes consent… “For hormonal therapy, neither parental consent nor family court consent is required, as the draft expressly states under the heading “Regarding sentence 3”.
As far as his main criticism of the current transgender law is concerned, i.e. that “compulsory reports” are “offensive,” it should be noted that the Federal Constitutional Court sees this differently and declared these reports admissible in 2011 and explained them again in detail in 2017. In While the Federal Constitutional Court is not a scientific authority to determine biological facts, it is empowered to determine what is human in the sense of the Constitution.
The planned “self-determination” law would have serious consequences for not only children’s well-being and parental rights, but also for women. The proposed law would make it possible to change the official gender entry with all legal consequences without further ado. Other countries have already suffered the consequences. In what were supposed to be women’s prisons, women were raped by the “passing” men imprisoned with them; And rapes committed by men can be criminally attributed to women (who, of course, in court, contrary to the facts, must refer to their torturers with female pronouns, which again violates freedom of expression and conscience).
In addition, men, whether “transient” or not, have easy access to women’s restrooms, but do not necessarily want to share them with men, as this conflicts with their sense of shame, as evidenced by their security. interests. Finally, in these countries, women easily excel in martial arts, excel in weightlifting and are far behind in swimming competitions by trans women. Talking about indeterminate “gender identities” changes nothing of this injustice based on biological facts. However, Lyman seems indifferent to the interests of women.
This brings us to a topic that Lyman begins with, for the lack of plausible arguments: namely, “group-focused hostility” and “baiting.” He says our article launched a “direct attack on LGBTIQ*” and is “bleeding with homophobia and transphobia.” These statements are baseless, and it is not surprising that Lehman left them unsupported.
Indeed, a transgender network that explicitly distances itself from “gender ideology” reacted favorably to our contribution. The LGB Germany coalition endorsed our article and our appeal and condemned Matthias Dubfner’s departure from it.
Finally, my opening notes should be added. The central theme for us was the incorrect representation of biological facts on the topics of gender dysphoria/sex change. But we also noted that these misrepresentations have very negative effects on children and young people.
We also indicated that sex education – which we advocate – must be age-appropriate. We found in the article and documented in the file that this is definitely not the case. Adults can do whatever they want to each other, but not every adult behavior has to be shown to children and teens in a penetrating and lasting way, not even through the media. If Lyman sees it differently, it is clear that he sees the welfare of young men as little as women.
Our call is to place science over ideology and the common good over partial interests. Lehmann complies with this demand as little as ÖRR. But at least, we hope, the latter is capable of repair.