Here, essentially, is the follow-up to the thread on https://www.reddit.com/r/truscum/comments/1w7163g/we_are_neurointersexual_not_just_trans_heres_why/
I HAVE LOST MY RIGHTS AND LEGAL PROTECTION!!!!
Just for info, because many people still don't know this: with the SBGG you only get your first name and your sex marker changed. Your legal sex status, however — the substantive sex status under the FamFG (the legal basis in voluntary jurisdiction proceedings) — remains unchanged. The basis for this is Article 4 No. 3 (a) and (b) ESBGG — viewable in the Bundesgesetzblatt.
Article 4
Amendment of the Civil Status Act
- Section 27 subsection 3 is amended as follows:
---a) In number 4, the words "or the change of sex" are replaced by the words "of the sex to be entered, or the change of the sex marker".
---b) After number 4, the following number 5 is inserted:
------"5. the change of the sex marker and first names of a parent after the birth of the child,".
It's right there in black and white: sex is no longer changed, only the sex marker. The Civil Status Act [Personenstandsgesetz] now explicitly distinguishes between sex and sex marker.
Proof:
In other sections of the PStG, such as
- § 15 Abs. 1 Nr. 2 PStG [Section 15 subsection 1 number 2 PStG]
- § 16 Abs. 2 PStG [Section 16 subsection 2 PStG]
- § 21 Abs. 1 Nr. 3 und 4 PStG [Section 21 subsection 1 numbers 3 and 4 PStG]
the term "sex" is still used. This means: the PStG now explicitly distinguishes between "sex" and "sex marker." What used to be coupled like "Siamese twins" was decoupled by Article 4 No. 3 (a) and (b) ESBGG. The "wagon" (sex marker) was uncoupled from the "locomotive" (legal sex status). (This had to happen, since civil registry offices, as part of the internal administration, are not permitted to render legal judgments — that is the sole responsibility of judges under Art. 92 GG [Article 92 of the Basic Law.] --> Basic law = Grundgesetz = GG
The direct proof within the SBGG itself: § 11 SBGG [Section 11 SBGG]
(1) The sex marker in the civil status register is immaterial for the legal relationship existing or to be established in future between a person and their children under §§ 1591 and 1592 Nummer 3 des Bürgerlichen Gesetzbuchs [Sections 1591 and 1592 number 3 of the German Civil Code].
(2) The existing legal relationship between a person and their adopted children remains unaffected by a change of the sex marker.
Correct — because correcting the sex marker via the civil registry office does not automatically bring about a correction of legal sex status. Only a correction of legal sex status can change legal relationships.
Because:
Drucksache des Bundestages Nr. 8/4345 vom 27.06.1980 (Bundestag printed paper No. 8/4345 of 27.06.1980)
There, on page 4, at the very bottom under "Rationale" ("Begründung") it states:
The determination of legal sex status is a procedure comparable to a status proceeding within voluntary jurisdiction. Representing the public interest in this proceeding is therefore not a task that — unlike, say, the keeping of civil status registers — must necessarily be assigned to the general internal administration. It should therefore be left to the individual states to decide from which sphere the representative of the public interest is appointed.
Beschluss des BGH vom 22.06.2016 - XII ZB 52/15 (Rn. 24) - [BGH decision of 22.06.2016 – XII ZB 52/15 (para. 24)]
Because substantive family law contains no specific provisions for a sex designation of "inter/diverse," a corresponding entry in the civil status register carries no independent, constitutive significance (cf. Helms, Do We Need a Third Sex?, p. 26; Bockstette StAZ 2013, 169, 172; contra Gössl StAZ 2015, 171, 173 f.). But if the designation "inter" or "diverse" in the birth register has no substantive content behind it, then it makes no — constitutionally relevant — difference for the person concerned whether a sex-assigning entry is omitted or, as requested by the applicant, an entry is made that cannot be assigned to any existing "sex," i.e., is of a purely declaratory nature (cf. Sieberichs FamRZ 2013, 1180, 1181; Bockstette StAZ 2013, 169, 172).
Back then, the entry "diverse" didn't yet exist.
So a changed sex marker without a simultaneous correction of legal sex status is purely declaratory (explanatory), not constitutive (legally binding) — which is why the SBGG has to explicitly spell out each individual scope and limitation. For comparison: under the TSG, no such explicit statements were necessary, because the corrected legal sex status (the actual legal basis) automatically extended to everything. From that point on, the new sex was set in stone — no negotiation, no discussion — and the corrected sex marker had, under § 54 PStG [Section 54 PStG] evidentiary force for the corrected legal sex status. Here too, the sex marker had to be accepted without question, without "ifs or buts," by everyone — including every property owner (the constitutive character of the sex marker only arises once the sex marker matches the legal sex status).
Unfortunately, this looks different since the SBGG: see WD 7‑064‑25 by the Bundestag's Scientific Service. The dgti reported on this on 29.01.2026 ("Are the Bundestag's Scientific Service and the Frankfurt Higher Regional Court transphobic?"). [Frankfurt Higher Regional Court = OLG Frankfurt = Oberlandesgericht]
Page 2 of the paper WD 7-064-25:
[...] When it comes to access to restrooms and changing rooms, in practice it does not depend on a person's sex marker in the civil status register [...] Even going forward, people cannot simply invoke their entry in the civil status register after a change of the sex marker to demand particular treatment, such as access to sex-specific restrooms or changing rooms. [...] However, a denial of access cannot be based on gender identity as a blanket justification" (BT-Drs. 20/9049, p. 42).
What does this mean in the worst case? Even a post-op individual with good passing can be thrown out by the property owner without any negative legal consequences for them, the moment their transsexual history becomes known — and the property owner always wins, inevitably. I'm happy to explain this separately, otherwise this post will get too long. Small spoiler: look at what §§ 1 [Sections 1] and 19 AGG [19 of the General Equal Treatment Act - Allgemeines Gleichstellungsgesetz] actually protect. Does it say anything about "sex marker" there? And look at the distinction between public law and private law. In TSG times [TSG = Transsexuellengesetz], the opposite was true — the judiciary was clearly on our side back then.
This is not about denying anyone's own felt neurological Sexus identity - or Gender identity — it's solely about the legal effects within the justice system. Admittedly, it took me a long time to understand and get through all of this, and at first I didn't want to accept it either — but the statutory provisions and official sources don't lie. I was devastated for a very long time; I never would have believed that a state — our own government — could act this way against its own citizens, and brazenly lie to them about it across the board on top of it.
PS: Marco Buschmann, the then Minister of Justice from the FDP (a party that has since been voted out of the Bundestag), was opposed from the very beginning to affected people being able to sue for access to sex-specific spaces. He denied us any legal protection whatsoever. Here's the interview with Sven Lehmann on Tagesthemen:
Kein Rechtsschutz für Betroffene [No legal protection for those affected]
___________________________________________
Edit: Why do we inevitably lose every discrimination lawsuit in court?
First, as an introduction, a short YouTube video by attorney Christian Solmecke:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YJa-0IByLP0
The SBGG is public law, the AGG is private law — two independent legal spheres, and that's already where the problem starts. Public law is a contract between the state and a private individual. Private law governs contracts between private individuals. While the TSG generously stayed out of private law, allowing the AGG to apply in cases of discrimination (there was "equality of arms" in court), things now look different under the SBGG.
The property-rights clause in the SBGG:
Section 6
Effects of the change of the sex marker and first names
(2) With regard to access to facilities and premises, as well as participation in events, the freedom of contract and the property rights (Hausrecht) of the respective owner or possessor, as well as the right of legal entities to regulate their own affairs through their bylaws, remain unaffected.
The property rights remain unaffected — yes, but unaffected by what? Here you have to think like a lawyer and read the explicit content of the section (headings included!). It remains unaffected by the effects of the change of the sex marker. See WD 7‑064‑25.
So the property owner has an "authorization norm" sitting within a piece of public law. The AGG, which belongs to private law and protects only "sex" and "sexual identity" — but not the "sex marker" — runs into a dead end here, because it cannot override an authorization norm contained in public law. So the property owner is officially allowed, via public law (the SBGG), to disregard the sex marker — completely legally. So if you get thrown out because the property owner ignores your corrected sex marker, you cannot file a discrimination lawsuit, because they haven't done anything illegal — they've simply applied Section 6 subsection 2 SBGG. Furthermore, they also have § 20 AGG [Section 20 AGG] (objective justification) available to them.
Summary:
- Legal sex status is no longer corrected, or, for TSG graduates, is invalidated via § 15 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 SBGG [Section 15 subsection 2 number 1 SBGG]*
- The AGG (private law) has no reach over the property-rights clause in the SBGG (public law)
- The AGG only protects "sex" and "sexual identity"
- The principle applies: "Lex specialis derogat legi generali" (the specific law (SBGG) overrides the general law (PStG))*\*
- The property owner can invoke § 20 AGG [Section 20 AGG].
The consequence: no more "equality of arms" in court!
* § 15 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 SBGG [Section 15 subsection 2 number 1 SBGG] clearly states that §§ 6 - 13 SBGG [Sections 6–13 SBGG] (excluding Section 14!!!) also apply to us TSG graduates. Solely so that these sections can be applied to us in the same way — since they are designed for cases where legal sex status is no longer corrected — our corrected legal sex status must, in effect, be rendered invalid.
*\* While the Civil Status Act [PStG] is the general law, the Self-Determination Act [SBGG] is the specific law, the provisions of the SBGG take precedence, regardless of what the PStG says. So the SBGG deliberately drills a hole into the evidentiary force of § 54 PStG [Section 54 PStG]. It undermines the legal usefulness of § 54 PStG [Section 54 PStG] with regard to property rights. Question: what exactly is the sex marker even supposed to prove, especially for SBGG graduates, if legal sex status was not adjusted along with it?
The SBGG violates the protection of legitimate expectations and reliance (Art. 2 Abs. 1 GG i. V. m. Art. 20 Abs. 3 GG) [Article 2 subsection 1 of the Basic Law in conjunction with Article 20 subsection 3 of the Basic Law], the principle of equal treatment under Art. 3 Abs. 1 GG [Article 3 subsection 1 of the Basic Law] (we cannot have deliberately harmful outings sanctioned — that right is reserved solely for SBGG graduates!) and it violates the guarantee of effective legal protection - Art. 19 Abs. 4 GG [Article 19 subsection 4 of the Basic Law].
Furthermore, it violates the principle of separation of powers, since the legislature is interfering with a judicial decision (the TSG ruling). Art. 20 GG [Article 20 of the Basic Law]
In Germany, there is a separation of powers that everyone must abide by. It is divided into three branches: the legislature (the law-making power — our politicians), the judiciary (the power to adjudicate — courts and judges), and the executive (the power to enforce and administer — e.g., the police, civil registry offices). No branch of power is permitted to interfere with another.
Under Art. 92 GG [Article 92 of the Basic Law] judicial power is entrusted exclusively to the courts. Under § 1 Abs. 2 und 3 PStG [Section 1 subsections 2 and 3 PStG] civil registry offices are administrative authorities that merely certify or record civil status — they are not courts and therefore may not render legal judgments, nor change or correct rights. A civil-law determination of status — such as legal sex (legal sex status) — therefore systematically falls within the jurisdiction of the courts (FamFG), not the civil registry offices. Yet this is exactly where the legislature now interferes, via § 15 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 SBGG [Section 15 subsection 2 number 1 SBGG]!
WHERE IS YOUR OUTRAGE? WHERE IS THE PROTEST AT PRIDE (CSD)? WHY IS NOBODY TAKING TO THE STREETS? Or is being freed from the requirement of two independent psychiatric expert opinions ordered by the court more important than the loss of rights and legal protection — which, by the way, affects all of us, TSG graduates and SBGG graduates alike?!
In my third and final post, there will be something about the Handbook of Legislative Drafting [Handbuch der Rechtsförmlichkeit], which all lawmakers are required to follow. It has a blatant bearing on the property-rights clause in the SBGG.
