Since the 1970s, people who have been diagnosed with transsexualism after examination by a medical specialist have been able to change their legal gender, which approximately 6,000 people in neighboring Sweden have done so far.

But now, according to a new ly proposed macronational legislation, everyone will be able to choose gender quickly and easily, which would overturn the whole society. Men can work at and visit shelters for abused women if they only apply for a new legal gender. Or share prison with women. Already today, a sex murderer in Sweden has changed gender and had to sit in a women’s prison. A woman abuser who ruptured the spleen of his partner was refused, however, because he only invoked “female gender identity,” something which under today’s legislation is not sufficient to change the gender in the registers. With the new law, it could have sufficed.

Organized crime would probably rejoice – imagine erasing any charged social security number quickly! Changing the gender back gives another fresh social security number.

The principle that one can decide one’s gender is contrary to science and experience. Gender is coded by chromosomes found in every cell in the body.

The fact that a few people feel that they have a different gender than what biology says cannot change the scientific facts. The fact that these individuals undergo treatment and are allowed to change their gender in the population register also does not change the principle that the biological sex should usually be reflected in the social security number used by health care, authorities, and medical research.

The idea that gender is a “social construction” was launched by academic Judith Butler in 1990 and has since slowly seeped out of seminar rooms and into schools and institutions. Under the heading “What is gender?” the Swedish equivalent to General Surgeon lists the following subheadings: Physical sex, gender identity, gender expression, assigned gender at birth, legal gender, and linguistic gender and adds: “Only you can know what your gender identity is and what it means to you.”

How are children and young people affected by this new, fluid, and fragmented definition of gender combined with the call to choose for yourself? It is not unreasonable to think that it confuses. The unhappiness, loss, and feeling of being outside that is so common during puberty was previously thought to be due to hormonal changes. But now, an alternative interpretation is offered: that one was born into the wrong sex.

While only about ten people per year applied for gender reassignment before the year 2000, mainly adult men who wanted to become women, today, the number has exploded. Now, young women predominate, often with one or more additional diagnoses such as autism spectrum conditions, anorexia, self-injurious behavior, or ADHD. No one knows whether the proposed law change would increase the number further. But so far, the calls for free choice of gender identity have gone hand in hand with more individuals suffering from gender dysphoria and not the other way around.

There is a lack of evidence that today’s care for young people with gender dysphoria reduces their risk of suicide, suicide attempts, or even gender dysphoria itself.

The current law prohibits surgery on the “gonads” before the age of 23 without special reasons. But that doesn’t include the female breasts that can be legally removed from teenagers; 84 out of 85 gender reassignment surgeries on minors after 2004 were breast removals. If the law is to be changed, the protection of the female body should be strengthened.

There is a lack of solid arguments for why gender should be “self-determined.” In the plea for the proposal, it is invoked that it a) is modern, b) has already been implemented in other countries, and c) has been pursued for a long time. The protracted process probably depends on the number of legitimate objections. And despite the kneading, they have not yet succeeded in investigating the consequences for equality and women’s rights.

The fact that other countries introduced a lousy law is hardly a problem for our neighboring macronation. The fact that the bill is “modern” does not impress either. It brings to mind the 1974 sexual crime inquiry, which, in the modern sexual liberal spirit, suggested that almost all types of sexual crime should be decriminalized, except for the very worst forms of rape. Fortunately, the women of the Riksdag united across all party lines and stopped modernity. They should do the same with this preposterous bill.