Proposition 54K2403

Projet de loi réformant des régimes relatifs aux personnes transgenres en ce qui concerne la mention d'une modification de l'enregistrement du sexe dans les actes de l'état civil et ses effets .

Summary ¶

(From the official documents)

Le présent projet de loi vise à mettre la loi du 10 mai 2007 relative à la transsexualité en conformité avec les obligations internationales en matière de droits de l’homme. En premier lieu, tous les critères médicaux pour un changement officiel de l’enregistrement du sexe sont supprimés. La nouvelle procédure prévoit une déclaration aisée de la conviction que le sexe mentionné dans l’acte de naissance ne correspond pas à l’identité de genre vécue intimement. Cette déclaration doit être confirmée après avoir été informé de ses conséquences. Dans le même temps, un certain nombre de mécanismes sont inscrits dans le but de prévenir la fraude et les changements irréfléchis.

De plus, la procédure pour un changement de prénom est simplifiée pour les mêmes motifs et les règles de la filiation applicables après un changement de l’enregistrement du sexe sont précisées.

Enfin, il est tenu compte de la protection de la vie privée de la personne concernée en limitant fortement la délivrance de copies et d’extraits d’actes de l’état civil dans lesquels la modification de l’enregistrement du sexe est visible.

General information ¶

Submitted by

MR Swedish coalition

Submission date

April 4, 2017

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

civil law civil status protection of privacy sexual minority

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

Groen CD&V Vooruit Ecolo LE PS | SP DéFI ∉ Open Vld N-VA MR PVDA | PTB PP

Abstained from voting

LDD VB

Party dissidents ¶

• Peter Buysrogge (N-VA) abstained from voting.
• Renate Hufkens (N-VA) abstained from voting.
• Peter Luykx (CD&V) abstained from voting.

Contact form ¶

Do you have a question or request regarding this proposition? Select the most appropriate option for your request and I will get back to you shortly.

Discussion ¶

May 24, 2017 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr. Speaker, Ladies and Gentlemen, Minister and Secretary of State, I will not be too long. But I still thought it was important to make an oral report here in the plenary session regarding this change of the transgender law that they and they have been waiting for more than a decade. Ten years ago, Mr. Minister of Justice, we had passed a 2007 law, which presented some advances but totally incompatible with Belgium’s international obligations.

Indeed, and this is what we have tried to respect in this new bill, no one can be forced to undergo medical procedures, including surgical, gender reassignment, sterilization, hormonal therapies as legal recognition of their gender identity. I believe that this phrase guided the work of both the government and this Parliament. It must be said that many other European countries were already much more advanced than us in relation to transgender people.

There was an extensive consultation of associations on the ground and the government opted for a frameworked self-determination that supports the person concerned in an appropriate way, without losing sight of the fact that in current Belgian law, sex is still an element of a person’s state. It was explained that the will to change the sex record must be expressed seriously, without anyone being able to judge in the place of the interested party. I will return.

The project aims, according to the Secretary of State, to offer each individual the maximum chances to flourish in a way that really corresponds to him, without having to meet excessive demands. It is therefore stated in this bill that all medical criteria, to which the change of the gender registration is subordinated, are removed. It is important.

It is obviously also stated that the change of the gender registration in the birth certificate is in principle irrevocable. Only insofar as the person concerned provides evidence of the existence of exceptional circumstances can a new change in the registration of gender be authorised through the family court.

The King’s Prosecutor – there too, I wonder – will also have to request the nullity of an act of modification of the sex registration for reasons of objection to public order, for example in case of identity fraud.

From now on, a change of surname will be accepted on the basis of a statement on the honor of the belief that the sex indicated in the birth certificate no longer corresponds to the identity of the sex intimately experienced. In addition, a procedure is provided for non-emancipated minors. All of the speakers speaking in the Justice Committee said that it was necessary to revise this 2007 law, highlighting its totally stigmatizing character that goes against the recommendations. Ms. Van Cauter said that we were precursors in many ethical laws. It was time for us to move forward on the topic of trans people. Van Vaerenbergh recalled that a small minority of transgender people decided to go through a medical process and therefore it was important to change the law. Mr Flahaux considered that this was an essential step indicating the path in terms of freedom and humanism, but that it was undeniable that this text still needs to be improved in the future. (M. Flahaux confirms) But the minister has decided to stay there arguing that the best is the enemy of the good.

Ms Winckel recalled two fundamental principles to guide the committee’s work: self-determination and the need to remediate the situation of transgender persons, which had been emphasized in the hearings. We thank the majority for accepting the hearings, as these were important, allowing some groups to submit amendments, some of which will be detailed to you by Ms Winckel soon.

One amendment was submitted by the majority and supported by the whole, namely the certificate issued by transgender associations. It was accepted what was important, because the associations did not want to carry this type of certificates and decisions.

Two elements were discussed: The problem of people between the ages of 16 and 18 who still need the certificate of a pediatric psychiatrist. Mr. Hellings and Mrs. Giroflée considered that the law on the protection of minors should be considered. Mr. Brotcorne said it was unfavorable to remove the opinion of this specialist.

What matters in decisions is that the minor’s discernment ability is evaluated and not his or her will or not to change gender. Therefore, the assessment should not address this gender change. I think it is good to repeat it here, of course.

It is true that there was all the discussion about gender and gender. Amendments were submitted by our colleague Hellings but they were not approved by the majority. One last discussion – and I conclude, dear colleagues – concerned the problem of the discretionary power left by the civil state officer. The amendment has been submitted, Mr. Minister. Indeed, we sincerely believe that the civil status officer should not be able to refuse the change of gender when someone appears before him, while that person has had the permission of the King’s Prosecutor and has already performed other types of actions.

It is true that this is not shared in particular by Ms. Van Cauter who will probably say it in a moment since she makes the parallel with white marriages, where the civil state officer has a power of appreciation. We challenge this discretion in the context of a gender change but the amendment was not approved by the majority. The minister stressed that the person who would be denied the change of sex by the civil status officer could still go before the court of first instance. I simply recall that given the congestion of the courts, she risks seeing her application postponed for many months.

Mr. Brotcorne also highlighted the fact that this possibility of assessment of the civil status officer was contrary to the philosophy contained in that law. We still think so. Per ⁇ Ms. Winckel, who will talk about this in a moment, will convince you to vote on the amendment that we are re-deposing to say that this subjective possibility of appreciation by the civil status officer is no longer necessary. In any case, the bill was adopted by a very large majority in the Justice Committee. We can only congratulate.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, I will give my presentation very briefly from my bench.

I would like to point out that the draft law implements the government agreement and the European legal obligations. Other countries such as Malta, Argentina, Ireland, Denmark, Sweden, Spain, the Netherlands and Norway went ahead of us.

The existing, current regulation, which, meanwhile, dates back to 2007, brings with it that the legal recognition of gender creates many problems. Under existing legislation, persons who wish to change gender are obliged to physically adapt to the opposite gender. The current scheme thus includes medical conditions, which means that the transgender must undergo an extensive and very expensive medical process that takes three to four years. However, not every transgender needs this. Only a minority chooses to allow the body to also physically adjust through one or more procedures or treatments.

The bill disconnects the legal aspect of transgenderism from the medical aspect. The medical conditions for changing gender have also been assessed in the past by international courts as a violation of the right to respect for private life.

Also important in the fight against transfobic violence and transfobic discrimination is that the new regulation allows transgender persons to carry out their daily activities without fear of involuntary outing.

Furthermore, the bill translates the right to self-determination and at the same time provides for a number of safeguards against lenient acts, not because transgender persons are to be protected from lenient decisions, but to prevent non-transgender persons from using the procedure for any reason.

Let me put the guarantees up. First, the applicant must go through a waiting period of three lunar days. Second, the Prosecutor of the King may advise on the conflict of the application with public order. Thirdly, the prosecutor may also claim the cancellation after the drafting of the act if it has been established that it is contrary to public order.

In addition, a judicial procedure shall provide for a possible return to the birth gender. This is done before the Family Court. This judicial procedure provides a guarantee against abuse by others.

Finally, for the minor transgender persons, who can change their gender on their identity papers, this will be possible from the age of sixteen. This requires both the consent of the parents and a certificate from the child psychiatrist.

However, the latter should not judge on whether the person has a gender identity but on the discretion of the minor.

For these reasons, since the bill is very balanced and means progress for a very small but also very vulnerable group, we will approve this bill.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Secretary of State, Mr. Minister, the right to self-determination of trans people was clearly the goal of this bill. My group has long called this project his wishes and will support it, as he has supported it in committee. There is no suspense!

We will do so despite some regrets. We hope to be able to change your mind following our intervention.

Ten years ago, our assembly voted a law concerning what was then called “transgender.” At that time, this law constituted, in the eyes of many, a real advance in recognition of trans people within our society.

What could appear to be an advance ten years ago, and which was really, because it is necessary to recover in the spirit of the time, can now appear to be totally outdated and archaic. Society has evolved. The issues of sexual identity and gender identity have also, fortunately, continued to progress. The stigmatizing character of the 2007 law, as well as the inadequacy of its title, no longer make any doubt in the minds of anyone today.

Ten years later, talking about psychiatric follow-up, sexual reassignment, or hormone treatment to be able to change a registered surname or gender seems totally unthinkable. It was necessary to review our legislation which, at present, does not meet international standards and recommendations on human rights, sexual orientation and gender identity. In fact, it conditiones recognition of gender identity to the follow-up of strict medical procedures. That’s why my group and myself had submitted a resolution to correct, improve this legislation and make it non-stigmatizing. We can only look forward to seeing this bill come to our banks.

But, if we were able to point out some advances, it quickly became apparent that improvements could be made to this text. I thank the majority for accepting the holding of hearings, as these were very valuable and confirmed to us that it was still necessary to propose some amendments to this text.

For my group, two elements remain problematic because they always go against the right to self-determination of everyone, which is the very object of this bill.

The first gap in the text concerns the situation of minors aged 16 to 18. Indeed, the hearings highlighted the fact that very early (the age of 12 was even mentioned), a child is quite able to determine the gender to which he belongs. However, in the bill, a certificate from a pediatric psychiatrist is still required at 16-18 years of age to be able to change their registered gender. Therefore, the text continues undoubtedly to medicalise the procedure for these minors. This was also denounced by the people heard during our hearings.

The second gap appeared somewhat secondary, even accessory, in commission. This is the discretion left to the King’s prosecutor, but also to the civil status officer, as part of the registered gender change procedure. For if the conditions related to the possibility of changing the registered gender have been removed, it appears that the procedure is unfortunately lengthy and even complex. The King’s Attorney may issue a negative opinion for “contradiction to public order”. This notion remains, in our opinion, too vague, leaving room for various interpretations and therefore for legal uncertainty.

Furthermore, if his opinion is then considered favourable, the civil status officer will not necessarily have to confirm it. It is for us, on the one hand, the dedication of a broad discretionary power to the civil status officer, which was not provided for in the 2007 law; on the other hand, an insufficiently framed power that could, in many cases, oppose the right to self-determination of trans persons.

It is true that we had a long debate at the last commission, returning the ball. I allowed myself to do a search. My Van Gysel and Lépinois, lawyers at the Brussels Bar, come back very clearly, in their article, on the role of the civil status officer in the spirit of the 2007 law. I quote them: "The civil status officer can only verify whether the statement is formally in accordance with the law, but not its sincerity or its content, while the prosecutor, he, can object in case of fraud or substantial defect that would undermine the medical reason produced." We are deceiving.

We have highlighted these shortcomings, these imperfections on several occasions in committees, and we have tried to remedy them by submitting various amendments that we will also re-submit today, hoping that they will be voted.

The reason for our insistence is that it has taken ten years to bring about these important new legislative changes and that we therefore fear that discussions on this issue can be reopened only in a decade. We are convinced that this is only one stage, that there will be others in the future, the notion of gender itself will, without a doubt, continue to evolve.

Despite what we consider as imperfections, it is undeniable that we are taking, with this bill, a new important step in favour of the recognition and inclusion of trans persons in matters of civil status, but only in this matter. It is important to clarify this because a whole field of action has yet to be completed. For my group, the work does not stop at this one dimension. Problems related to access to care, healthcare, the fight against discrimination, but also the specific situation of intersex persons will also need to be the object of our full attention, and this very quickly.

Even though the Minister of Health has just announced that a budget will soon be released to allow psychosocial support for trans people, I would like to remind you that the needs of these people are sometimes and often different and that it is necessary to keep from bringing their questioning back to just disorders or needs of psychological help.

This is why our group has submitted a fairly broad resolution dedicating the right to health of trans people so that the rights of these patients are respected and considered within the framework of everyone’s right to self-determination. We hope to be able to discuss this quickly and with the support of all groups.

I will conclude my speech by reminding that Belgium has often been a pioneering country in terms of access to LGBT rights and combating discrimination. This was no longer the case with our legislation on trans people. Let us therefore, today, make every effort to develop a truly comprehensive and inclusive approach to enable the recognition and defence of the rights of LGBT persons and to remain an example at European and international level.

For example, Mr. Speaker, like other institutions, the rainbow flag could be lifted in the future on the International Day Against Homophobia.

Mr. Speaker, Ladies and Gentlemen, I am speaking with great emotion this afternoon. Indeed, for me, today, it is not the visit to Brussels of so many high global personalities that matters, even if I consider that we are, in some way, also on the move.

Wednesday, May 24th is an important day for our democracy. This is an important day for the freedom of our fellow citizens, whether they are Belgians or of foreign origin. This is an important day for what our Prime Minister Charles Michel reaffirmed at the Belgian Pride last Saturday. He talked about the freedom to love. For us, liberals, the state and public authorities are there to allow citizens to stand up, autonomous and free. They are free to love, but also free from their bodies.

In this march toward freedom, we have worked for education and teaching for all. We have worked for the freedom of women and in particular of their choice of life, career, couple and body. We have worked for the freedom of gay people, whether they are men or women. Indeed, all these struggles have as a constant and increasingly wider goal the inclusion of all our fellow citizens in the national community, whatever they are. This also applies to our fellow citizens living abroad, with whom we want to establish increasingly close ties.

Today, our work of inclusion concerns the transgender issue. This problem is extremely poorly known, beyond even the Parliament, by our fellow citizens.

However, this concerns 30 to 35 thousand people in Belgium. This may not be an impressive figure, but there are 30 to 35,000 people who are not currently included in our community. They are poorly known and some, sometimes even in parliament, confuse them with transsexuals or transformers, which has nothing to do with. They live – and I would like to strongly recall – in a multiple confinement, a confinement of their bodies, as my colleague and friend Fabienne Winckel said. In fact, sometimes it is from a young age that they feel in the body of another, sometimes from the age of 8, 10 or 12 years. They were condemned for a long time to live their whole life in the body of another, and therefore to be ⁇ unhappy. This is one of the reasons why the suicide rate among transgender people is among the highest in the country, even higher than in the gay community where young people and girls, not feeling recognized as such by their family or their social environment, unfortunately arrive at this extreme. It is also important that society and families are better aware of the situation of this multiple confinement of their bodies from an early age.

I know a few examples of people, some of whom are even present here, for whom this goes very well with their families. However, in many families, we are witnessing a rejection of this situation. Added to this a legal closure. In fact, if the legislation had evolved in 2007 compared to the previous one, it had even created new problems. To benefit from a change, it was necessary to face all psychiatry, all medication, and even, forcibly, a physical change of persons from one sex to another. Since Belgium had signed agreements, ⁇ in Jakarta, we have found ourselves in default.

Legislation had to be changed. I recall that this was the fundamental claim for several years of the Belgian Pride, the bill on transgender persons.

I would like here to publicly thank Minister of Justice Koen Geens, former Secretary of State Elke Sleurs and his successor Zuhal Demir, who brought the draft and presented it to the Justice Committee. I would also like to emphasize the contribution of our Prime Minister and his cabinet, who also helped to move things forward. This is how we move forward in life. “The Union makes strength,” says the Belgian motto behind me. This is also a formula that worked.

I would like to say that we have been waiting for this bill for three years. This was regularly discussed in the opinion committee for social emancipation. Fabienne Winckel, who is the president, can confirm this. We regularly recalled this bill, which was also envisaged in the government agreement.

I would tend to say – in a somewhat more political than general approach – that once again, in this field as in other, the government has kept its promises since it was included in the government agreement. We finally arrived there. In this context, I would also like to highlight the extremely positive and constructive aspect of all the groups represented in the Justice Committee. Honestly, everyone has contributed their stone positively to something that – this is normal in the absolute – must be above the concerns of each of the parties. There was in the head of all a desire for rapidity, for true hearings and to advance in consensus.

I would like to thank Karine Lalieux, our rapporteur, for her report.

This bill contains a whole series of extremely positive things. The question is whether it responds to all requests. I will be honest: no, indeed, it does not respond to all the requests we have heard. I have always had the formula – and Karine Lalieux has repeated it recently – that you should not overload the boat for fear that it will crash. Given what happened in France with the law of marriage for all, the demonstrations and all the horrors that it has caused, with the rise of homophobia and all the unhealthy acts, I think that we must advance the boat, what we are doing today; we must make it happen, what we are going to do today. Certainly, there will be improvements to be made later on. We will be able to contribute even more to the experience of the new law proposed to the vote today. This is not – I have also said it to the associative community – a will not to accept other things, but it is to make sure that the law succeeds, because the big work will now be the pedagogy towards the whole population of our country. It is not enough to make a law pass, it is also necessary that it pervades, if I dare to say, in the population.

The same thing happened with same-sex marriage. As a mayor, I have celebrated many gay marriages. My most complete delight was to see in the wedding room the elderly, sometimes the elderly, children running in the room, and all this seemed normal. The goal is to make a law perch in the population, so that it will be considered after a certain time as natural, if I dare to say. Beyond the vote of the law, our goal will be to make sure that after a certain time – sometimes it takes time – it appears to be something quite normal.

Pedagogy goes through examples. In this sense, I would like to thank Olivier Chastel personally and Denis Ducarme. They did so that I could have for collaborator someone who was a man before. It is by showing such concrete examples that we can change the situation. I didn’t know about transgender people. Some little minds may think that the one who is gay – I am gay – necessarily knows the situation of transgender people. Not at all! For me, this is something completely new. I have learned a lot and will learn again.

In this context, I think to show exemplaryness. I would like that other parliamentarians, mayors or chefs, can engage transgender people in their town and that this will soon be considered purely banal.

My goal is clear and I’ll end with that because I realize I’ve been a bit long, as I’ve always done. As I said a few days ago to the press, my goal is not even the right to difference, it is the right to indifference. This must be our struggle. I am really very proud to be part of a Parliament where respect for the other, whatever it is, is fundamental.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, Mrs. Secretary of State, colleagues, last weekend the 22nd edition of the Belgian Pride was held. Tens of thousands of people marched through the streets of Brussels with one central message: holebies, transgender, transgender, transgender and gender fluids unite in their desire to be considered equal.

The vote on the present bill could not have been better. Today, Parliament is taking an important step by finally working on the necessary amendments to the transgender law.

Why necessary? Due to a recent ruling of the European Court of Justice. Also necessary because we have endorsed the Yogya Carta Principles, according to which one cannot force people to medical acts or surgeries as a legal condition for recognition of their gender identity.

From ⁇ the most dated legislation in Europe, we are now evolving to the most progressive legislation on the subject.

The CD&V Group fully supports the objectives of this law and the simplified mode of gender adaptation, both for adults and minors from the age of 16.

In the present draft law, we remove all medical criteria. A declaration of honour will suffice. The law makes it possible for every transgender according to the polite identity to build up his private life without the gender fixed at birth having to reappear every time and play the party concerned.

The current legislation should ensure that no more lives or families are destroyed, or that there are no more despair acts, for that is still a reality today. This legislation will increase the social acceptance of transgender people and will no longer force them to undergo both highly risky and very costly operations.

We continue demedicalization and go beyond other countries such as Hungary, the United Kingdom or the Netherlands where a certificate of a psychologist, a general physician or expert is still required.

It is important for us here that the person concerned makes the declaration himself, in accordance with his innerly experienced identity, without having to decide in any way in his place, but also that the person concerned is fully aware of the consequences of this declaration and of the fact that the adjustment is also in principle irrevocable. Therefore, we attach importance to a sufficiently large range of organizations specialising in the accompaniment of non-medical nature and in the inform-matie delivery to transgender persons, especially also to children who already at a young age experience an internal gender identity that differs from the slaughter indicated in the birth certificate.

From the establishment that children are aware of their gender identity at an early age, we provide two important steps for minors. First, the change of first name due to a different gender identity is allowed from the age of 12 years. An adjustment of the entry of the gender in the registers of the civil status is made possible from the age of 16 years.

Secondly, however, we opt for the introduction of a guarantee for the assessment of the discernment capacity in which the child and youth psychiatrist is not asked to establish the gender identity of the person concerned but rather to verify whether the minor has sufficient discernment capacity to have the conviction that the gender from the birth certificate does not correspond with his innerly experienced gender identity. Here too, we advocate for a further expansion of the support of these young people, their parents and other family members, again non-medical in nature.

Mr. Minister, Mrs. Secretary of State, colleagues, as I said at the beginning of my speech, today we are taking a major step towards the full recognition of transgender persons in our society through this important adjustment in the field of civil law with which we are putting ourselves back in the boundary on the international level.

Ladies and gentlemen, I have come to my decision. The message from the tens of thousands of people last weekend was beautiful, common and clear. Human equality is not only everyone’s desire, but also everyone’s right.

This bill is the formal, legal confirmation of this. I would therefore like to thank in particular the Minister of Justice and the two State Secretaries for Equal Opportunities, both Ms. Sleurs and her successor, for the delivered, groundbreaking work.

I also express my sincere thanks and appreciation for the constructive cooperation in the committee and to the organisations that have accompanied us in formulating our position.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, it is not only our wish, but it is also up to our country and this Parliament to develop a procedure in which we move to the legal recognition of a person’s sexual identity, without letting that person meet conditions which he himself rejects.

Since 2007, we have developed such a procedure through the Transsexuality Act. However, the current legislative framework still provides for mandatory sterilization, which, according to a judgment of 6 April 2017, is considered to be a disproportionate interference in the private life and thus contrary to the European Convention on Human Rights.

In the current draft, this condition has been removed. However, the design is not only limited to removing this condition, in other words the gradual progress, but has also immediately made a leap toward the complete demedicalization of the gender re-gastration.

As a symbol, it can count. Being trans is not a medical condition, not even in respect of the minor who exercises his rights, which have a strictly individual character, if he possesses, of course, sufficient discernment.

That is the sole purpose of the medical certificate in the design. Colleagues, it was and is extremely important for our group that the design also paid sufficient attention to privacy. We appreciate that the not-so-simple issue of descent has yet been carefully arranged in the design.

Ladies and gentlemen, I have come to my decision. Our country has always been a pioneer in the recognition of individual fundamental rights. It was time for trans people to follow this trend. My whole group will approve this draft.

Mr. Speaker, in her tenure, the Government has promised to implement a legislative amendment in relation to transgender people in our country. Today it is so far away and we are especially pleased about it.

The present draft links the name change separately from any medical treatment. The design allows transgender people to take an important step in their lives in all dignity. In addition, the draft refers to the fact that Belgium has violated European regulations.

This is a huge step forward. First of all, I would like to congratulate Minister Geens and Secretary of State Demir with this.

One side note is that the work, although it was written with much goodwill, does not yet fully testify to a broad emancipatory vision. A number of passages still breathe a protective vision, some bitterness, if I can say so.

Therefore, we also from the sp.a. group re-submit our amendment that wants to exclude any medical intervention, of any kind, even for 16- and 17-year-olds. The hearing was ⁇ interesting. I must honestly say that I had my concerns at the beginning and wondered whether we should not abide by the precautionary principle as we are underage. During the hearing it became very clear, also to us, that all experts in the matter are in favour. Therefore, we are presenting the amendment again in the plenary session today.

Again, the bill as a whole means a giant step, a giant step, which, as far as we know, highly values the transgender movement and which we will approve with conviction.

It is a huge step, which I hoped we could put that room wide today. Unfortunately, last week I heard through the media that this may not be the case, and I am addressing the colleagues of the N-VA. I regret that enormously and hope, together with the movement, that you have seen the light in the last few days, and later during the mood you can go with that positive evolution. I have already understood from one of the explanations there-after that my hope is justified.

There are still a few loose endings on the design, which we will ⁇ discuss in the future. Again, it is a big step and we are very pleased with it. We will approve the bill with confidence.

Mr. Speaker, first of all, like my colleagues, I would like to join the congratulations addressed to the two ministers, Mrs. Demir and Mr. Geens, for their excellent work and the excellent work of their collaborators who have delivered a true positive cleansing, a substantial work they have begun with the associations and a whole series of professionals.

The text, although partly amended, was a very good text and a real evolution compared to the legislation in force for now ten years. I would like to thank the majority parties who agreed to organize extremely interesting hearings, but above all made it possible to hear the people concerned by the law that will be voted in a few minutes.

The end of medication and psychiatry is declared and self-determination is promoted. You can change gender in the municipality without even actually changing gender, which is very positive. This is what was requested by those concerned, transgender persons.

There is, of course, this exception that we have long discussed in the committee, the exception that concerns minors aged 16 to 18. This is the meaning of the two amendments 17 and 18 that Mrs. Gerkens, Mr. Van Hecke and myself have now re-submitted the amendments. Amendment 17 is a maximumist amendment, which aims to bind the law that we will vote with the Act of 22 August 2002 on the Rights of Patients. This law recognizes to the person who is sixteen or seventeen years old the same right as a person who is now adult. This person can decide for himself, even if he is a minor. What is valid for a gender change, which is not a medical act, must be valid for any other medical dimension or not.

The role of the pediatrician remains in the law. This is why we submitted a second amendment, which is a compromise amendment. It aims to make either the treating doctor or the pediatric psychiatrist play the same role. This means that a transgender person of sixteen and seventeen years of age will be able to go to their doctor to give this opinion, but without having to go through a pediatric psychiatrist because there, we think it is going a step too far than having to play this role to the pediatric psychiatrist.

It is still worth noting that this period of adolescence or the end of adolescence, i.e. sixteen and seventeen years, is a period ⁇ favorable for gender change and sometimes for hormone blocking treatments, since it is a period when undoubtedly, the transgender person has already well formed his sexual identity. It would be interesting that even without surgery, transgender people aged sixteen and seventeen can begin a process of transformation and change of gender already in the municipality, but also that they can change gender physically.

We highlight the fact that the law has been amended so that gender change is no longer a standardized and law-imposed process! This refers to the violence that represented, at the time, sterilization and compulsory hormonal treatments. Today, medical or non-medical partners (who are not necessarily doctors) will be able to offer transgender people the opportunity to follow a personalized process based on their needs, desires and specifics, which represents a major advance.

I think that Mrs. Gerkens, our health lady at Ecolo, will be very attentive to whether the state intervenes in certain operations, surgical or non-surgical interventions: social security will have to play a role in accompanying transgender people undergoing various operations no longer standardized but personalized.

With the exception of minors aged 16 to 18, the fate of transgender persons is significantly improved and becomes consistent with the fundamental rights recognised in the European Convention on Human Rights, which is primary. Auditions are an element and a need. The one to which we do not respond by law today, namely, the right of intersex persons who do not feel either man or woman and who do not wish to become either and that, regardless of the gender that has been imposed on them. Our society and our language, French or Dutch, are today very violent towards them. This violence will require another job: that of modifying the laws on civil status allowing these persons, in the long run, to eventually find, on their identity cards, another letter than M for man or V for vrouw or M for male and F for female.

We can be proud, as Democrats, both of the background achieved by our parliamentary work and the political work carried out in advance by ministers, of the democratic process through the hearings that have taken place and of offering a new status to people who so far were separate people. Today we will make them full-fledged citizens, and for that I can only congratulate ourselves.

Ten years after the transgender law of 10 May 2007, it was time to address the problems posed by this law, such as the compliance with international law of compulsory sterilization as a condition for changing gender.

The principles of Yogyakarta, to which the government agreement refers, are indeed clear. No one may be forced to undergo medical procedures, including gender reassignment surgery, sterilization or hormone therapy, as a condition for legal recognition of his gender identity. The United Nations and the Council of Europe have also adopted positions in this regard. As for the European Court of Human Rights, its case-law has evolved since the early 2000s to eventually consider that the condition of sterilization for transgender persons was contrary to human rights.

It was therefore our responsibility to follow this development, to recognize full self-determination for transgender persons, to no longer perceive trans identity as a disease, and to regard transgender persons as persons capable of discernment and no longer as “excluded from the excluded” – to recall the words of Françoise Tulkens, former Vice-President of the European Court of Human Rights and current Co-President of the Federal Commission for the Evaluation of Anti-Discrimination Laws.

Subject to certain imperfections, on which I will return, this bill is part of this perspective by bringing several changes long-awaited by civil society, heard in the Justice Committee on 25 April last. By choosing to remove the medical criteria for the official change of gender registration and name change, and to further protect the privacy of the affected persons, clear answers are finally given to end the social, economic and political exclusion of trans people.

My group is therefore pleased to support this bill for the principle it defends but also for the adaptation it has been able to make as a result of these different hearings.

The draft law, first mouth, was, for example, criticized because by conditioning the change of gender of transgender minors over sixteen years of age to an attestation issued by a pediatric psychiatrist, the draft law did not fulfill its promise to no longer submit them to a medical and psychiatric report. Not to mention that, in practice, this attestation will add to the long list of obstacles that trans people must overcome to be recognized first by their surroundings and then by society as a whole.

Following the hearings, a compromise was found in that this attestation should no longer refer to the lasting belief that the sex mentioned in the birth certificate does not correspond to the gender identity intimately experienced by the person but to the ability to discern sufficiently to have that lasting belief.

The possibility was also given to minors, whose representatives refuse to assist, to address the family court with the assistance of an ad hoc guardian.

Of course, the project still suffers imperfections. The project imposes, for example, a reflection time of three to six months, during which the person must repeat his request to "fight unthinkable changes". The project thus contradicts its good intention to recognize transgender people with full self-determination and to no longer consider them as people with a mental illness or, at least, who need to be protected. Indeed, it grants what more resembles conditional powers than genuine rights, while it is not up to the legislator to interfere in such an intimate choice that persons endowed with legal capacity can perfectly take with full knowledge of cause.

Problematic formulations in the eyes of the Genres Pluriels association have also remained in the project, such as the notion of transgender or gender change. The issue of minors under the age of sixteen is also not addressed except the question of changing the first name and this, while many young people may become aware very early of their intersex or transgender identity. Through their so-called “out of the norm” situation, these young people are thus endowed with a great maturity that the project could have recognized.

I therefore consider that if the project fails to fully liberate transgender people from the psychiatry of their identity and to allow them an optimal inclusion in society, it does, nevertheless, take a huge step that we can only support.

Mr. Speaker, I am very happy that by approving this bill we are enabling people who are transgender to become themselves without having one or many medical problems.

I would like to emphasize that the article concerning the case of a 16-year-old boy contains a total demedicalization of the problem. The only thing that the psychiatrist must testify is that the young person in question is able to make such a decision. The psychiatrist should not judge by whether you are dealing with someone who is transgender.

The issue of civil status was discussed extensively in the committee. The cases in which the civil stand official can independently, without a negative opinion of the prosecutor, thus, still decide to temporarily not allow the decision, are ample listed in the preparatory works. Wilson’s capacity at the time of appearance to the official of the civil status, mental illness or drunkenness or anything of such nature give rise to the non-honour of the decision requested to the official of the civil status. Those are, therefore, exceptional cases which claim the responsibility of the official, but for all cases in which the official makes such decisions, it must and must remain the normal rule.

Ladies and gentlemen, I can be brief. As colleague Geens has already said, this law has been thoroughly and carefully dealt with in the committee, and also before that. I would like to thank everyone, especially my predecessor Elke Sleurs, who has put a lot of time and energy into this.

I also thank the civil society organisations, some of whom are present here, for their input.

This law is about who one is, without having to satisfy many absurd and painful demands. It is about self-determination. This may be a small step for Parliament, but a big one for those involved. I thank you.