Did German Court Just Break “Hate Speech” Law in Transgender Snub?
By Joe Jarvis - January 05, 2018

A couple weeks ago, we discussed the mental gymnastics involved in the transgender movement.

I think people should be free to do whatever they want if it doesn’t harm others. This includes getting surgery and taking pills which make their physical appearance mimic the opposite sex.

But what many transgender activists want is akin to doublethink–they want you and I to actually believe that they are the opposite sex.

A court case in Germany is a perfect example.

A few years ago, a man froze his sperm for later use. Then, this man changed his physical appearance to that of a woman. Later his sperm was used to fertilize an egg, which produced a baby. The German authorities listed the man, who now wishes to be called a woman, as the father on the child’s birth certificate.

When the father brought this to court, wishing to incorrectly be labeled the child’s mother, the German court denied the appeal.

Words have meanings. Male means you have male reproductive organs which produce sperm. When you supply the male ingredients necessary for the miracle of life, you are called a father. This is pretty basic biology and linguistics.

These sciences, however, conflict with the worldview of many transgender advocates. They want to redefine what words have always meant in order to fit their belief that sex can be chosen.

They have already redefined the word “gender” by divorcing it from the term, “sex,” which used to be a synonym. Then they attempted to carry over words that denote sex, such as father and woman, to instead denote gender.

Personally, I don’t understand what the big deal is. I assume Germany has some reason for issuing birth certificates which list the father. If this term on the birth certificate is divorced from its actual biological meaning, I assume this would in some way degrade the document. It would not include certain biological information, or such information would correspond incorrectly to the parents.

I think most of what the government does is a pointless show, so the whole situation seems silly to me. I don’t understand why this transgender person cares about the German government’s label on documentation.

I can sympathize slightly more with the German government’s position, assuming they think their documents’ integrity is based on accurate information, which requires words to have definitions.

“She” is the father because the definition of a biological father is the parent that provides the sperm.

The language in these articles is always confusing because they attempt to explain what is going on while attempting to use the politically correct pronouns.

Germany’s top court has ruled that a transsexual woman whose frozen sperm was used to fertilize an egg can only be registered as the child’s father.

The Federal Court said Thursday it rejected the woman’s appeal against a lower court ruling preventing her from being legally listed as the child’s mother.

The woman changed sex in 2012 and her partner gave birth to a child three years later, having used the plaintiff’s sperm.

The registry office refused to list the sperm donor as the mother.

The Federal Court said judges concluded “the transsexual person’s fundamental rights aren’t breached by the fact that existing ancestry law assigns her the legal status of parent according to her former sex and the specific contribution to procreation that resulted from this.”

If we take the language of this article under the actual definitions of the words, apparently women can produce sperm.

You cannot biologically change sex. Assuming of course that we are still using the actual scientific definition of the word sex, which involves the unchanging chromosomes in your cells.

Since the definition of gender has apparently been divorced from biological sex and redefined as a social construct… sure, you can be whatever gender you want.

I make these arguments out of genuine concern for transgender people. I am afraid they are being used, and taken advantage of, for political purposes. It seems that politicians appease them in order to take the moral high ground to gain votes among certain demographics.

And I am skeptical of the media’s motivations. As I’ve pointed out in the past, this all seems like a test to see how well their propaganda works on the unwitting masses.

And because of the media’s dishonesty, transgender people, including children, will make life-altering decisions which leave them no happier, and sometimes deformed and mutilated. The long-term physical health risks of hormone therapy, not to mention the mental and emotional health risks, are not well understood.

New “Hate Speech” Law Complicates Matters

Ironically, a new German law on “hate speech” seems to support this doublethink. The law forces websites like Facebook and Youtube to remove “hate speech” or other “illegal content” or face a 50 million Euro fine.

But as I’ve been hinting at, authoritarians hate well-defined words. They want words to mean whatever they want them to mean at a given time. Later, perhaps they will mean something else when they say the word. “Hate Speech” and “Offensive Speech” is in the eye of the beholder.

And failing to refer to a transgender person by their preferred pronoun could constitute “hate speech.” So by the referring to this transgender person by the biologically and linguistically correct term “father,” you could make the case that the German authorities are violating their own newly minted law by failing to remove the “hate speech” on this birth certificate.

Boy, doublethink sure takes a lot of energy!

You don’t have to play by the rules of the corrupt politicians, manipulative media, and brainwashed peers.

When you subscribe to The Daily Bell, you also get a free guide:

How to Craft a Two Year Plan to Reclaim 3 Specific Freedoms.

This guide will show you exactly how to plan your next two years to build the free life of your dreams. It’s not as hard as you think…

Identify. Plan. Execute.

Yes, deliver THE DAILY BELL to my inbox!


Biggest Currency Reboot in 100 Years?
In less than 3 months, the biggest reboot to the U.S. dollar in 100 years could sweep America.
It has to do with a quiet potential government agreement you’ve never heard about.

Tagged with: , , , ,
  • James Clander

    This article deserves NO comment

    • Paul Prichard

      In the hope of bringing sanity to a world gone insane, how about the labels ‘gestating parent’ and ‘non-gestating parent’ ?

      • Col. Edward H. R. Green

        A male gender-identifying as a female would accuse you of “hate speech” and being “oppressive” if you referred to him as “non-gestating”. He would also likely accuse you of being “racist”.

        There is no way to satisfy a mentally-disordered person.

  • Flicker

    “Gender” was never synonymous with “sex”.

    “gender” (my 1971 Oxford English
    Dictionary defines “gender” as specifically not referring to “sex”
    … “except humorously”).

    Gender is, or has always been, a linguistic descriptor (a boat or a table or a pencil can be “masculine”, “feminine” or “neuter”) without any consideration of sex or of the sexuality of the thing.

    And otherwise “gender” refers to a categorical type or kind of a thing. Gender never meant sex; that’s part of the brain-washing, thinking it ever did.

    • Col. Edward H. R. Green

      From the Oxford English Dictionary concerning the usage of the term “gender”:

      “The word gender has been used since the 14th century as a grammatical term, referring to classes of noun designated as masculine, feminine, or neuter in some languages. The sense denoting biological sex has also been used since the 14th century, but this did not become common until the mid 20th century.”

      “Although the words gender and sex are often used interchangeably, they have slightly different connotations; sex tends to refer to biological differences, while gender more often refers to cultural and social differences and sometimes encompasses a broader range of identities than the binary of male and female.”

    • 1971 is far too late for a dictionary to have not been influenced by popular cultural usage. I have a 1828 Noah Webster’s original and it IS synonymous according to Webster himself. Here is the definition that is relevant and does not have to do with grammar which is another definitional use.

      “Gender – A sex. Male of Female.”

      Pretty straightforward.