Nesodden Sp wanted to organize a seminar on sex. Then there was a disturbance.

Nesodden Sp wanted to organize a seminar on sex.  Then there was a disturbance.

A local team withdrew in protest, and Senterungdommen in Oslo held a counter-symposium when Nesodden Sp called for a symposium with speakers who believed there were only two genders.

Several party colleagues boycotted the webinar organized by the Nesodden Center on gender.

– We were very close to hitting the red button and canceling the entire event. The leader of the Nesodden Sp, Paul Simmons, told Aftenposten that there are many who have tried to stop it beforehand.

There was a fever in some local SP teams in Oslo and Viken after Nesodden’s party invited to a webinar titled « Webinar on Gender, with Ground Connection » Thursday night last week.

The topic of the webinar enters into one of the hottest debates today: the question of whether there are more than two species, and how sex should be determined. It is also a very objective political issue. The government has announced that it will now investigate whether Norway should introduce a third legal gender.

Refuses more than one gender

Among those who responded were Senterungdommen in Oslo.

– I saw it was a very political agenda to promote the bisexual model, says county leader Dorothea Inger.

She says that she replied that all sponsors supported this view. They included artist and lesbian activist Toni Jevjohn, public endoscope Peter Richholm and biotechnologist Christina Ellingsen. They have all positioned themselves in the public debate as sharp opponents of the introduction of more legal races.

The symposium was opened by the MP for Sp, Jenny Kling, who also made it clear that she believed it was completely wrong, both biologically and scientifically, to speak of the existence of races other than females and males.

See also  Did you get the job because you're pretty? - letter

The introductions reflect one point of view, and I think it’s foolish that they spend so much time and effort looking back instead of seeing how the justice system has developed for ordinary people, says Inger.

In response, the Senterungdommen in Oslo organized their counter-symposium earlier in the day with voices from the other side of the debate.

Local teams withdrew

Oslo’s local Center Party team Vistre Aker also reacted to the event. They originally had a unanimous decision from the board of directors that they should participate as co-organizers, but chose to resign in mid-December.

We pulled out because we didn’t think this was something we were involved in. After a closer look, we decided not to come and co-organised the meeting. “We think it was counterproductive for us,” says local captain Ron Svendsen.

What do you mean by counterproductive?

“When we went in and looked at some of the initiators, we felt that they did not support what we stand for in the party platform about diversity, and we didn’t want to get involved,” he says.

One side was put too much pressure

Nesodden Sp leader Paul Simmons says he was one of the speakers, Tonje Gjevjon, also a member of Nesodden Sp, who was behind the event.

– It was a topic she was very excited about, and we both agreed she could take the case. This does not mean that we at Nesodden Sp stand behind everything that has been said. Simmons says there are divided opinions on this, too.

See also  Debate, turning green | There is no room for an aluminum plant in the green rose

– Why were the two parties not allowed to be represented in the debate?

– It was not intended to be a debate, but rather a political position on one side. It’s a page that has been pushed down a lot, as I see it, Simmons says.

– But does it provide a webinar if only one page is shared?

– It can be discussed, I also asked questions about it. This time, Gjevjon said she will give her views on the issue, he said.

Tonje Gjevjon says she believes that most of the discussions on this topic that have been arranged before, have not made room for the opinion that she and the other speakers represent.

Our aim was to highlight these points of view. Then we’d like to see more discussions with more perspectives, says Jevjohn.

Blade: Assessing the Gender Exchange Law

Simmons says the local team in connection with the event has put a lot of pressure on them to cancel.

– I think it’s a pity not to be allowed to talk about this at a low political level without hate messages and hard fronts, he says.

Jenny Kling of the Center Party believes that the change to the legal sex change law has not been studied well enough and has many problematic consequences.

Representative Jenny Kling opened the webinar. It’s been in heated discussions since then A proposal by a committee to make Child Law terminology gender-neutral was criticized.

– She said that people in this debate are accused of throwing trans people under the bus if they say that only women can give birth to children.

See also  "i did it!" Conflict board

Kling tells Aftenposten that she believes legislative changes that came in 2016, which made it possible to change legal sex without medical treatment requirements, should be evaluated.

There are a number of problematic aspects that we have not discussed well enough. This applies, among other things, to who should have access to women’s lockers and rooms, and to the consequences with which the male body can participate in women’s sports classes. We have to keep this issue in mind, says Kling, or else we’re going to let the women down.

The Center Party has not yet taken a position on the introduction of the third legal type. Kling says she will wait for the report to come.

“But we just said we’d investigate, not necessarily show it,” she points out.

Friday Leader – Society for Sexual and Gender Diversity, Inge Alexander Gesvang reacts to Kling’s remarks.

Transgender women found and used women’s wardrobes and women’s restrooms long before the legal gender reassignment act came into effect in 2016, when the law did not affect the right to use facilities associated with an individual’s gender identity. This applies, for example, to the Protection Against Discrimination Act rather than the statutory Sex Change Act. Previously, one had to be castrated to change legal sex, and we are glad this undue practice is no longer valid,” he wrote in an email to Aftenposten.

Dalila Awolowo

Dalila Awolowo

"Explorer. Unapologetic entrepreneur. Alcohol fanatic. Certified writer. Wannabe tv evangelist. Twitter fanatic. Student. Web scholar. Travel buff."

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *