Germany Struggles with Its Self-Identification Law: AfD Wants to Repeal It, CDU Seeks a Middle Ground

A new political battle has erupted in Germany over the Selbstbestimmungsgesetz (SBGG), the self-identification law that has been in force since 1 November 2024. Following the AfD’s victory in the 2026 state elections in Saxony-Anhalt, AfD lawmakers submitted motions calling for the law to be repealed in full. At the same time, proposals for a middle ground are circulating within the CDU: not abolishing the law, but tightening it. A recent essay on Genspect, written by a former member of the German Greens, lays bare the political fault lines.

What the Law Actually Does

In 2024, the Selbstbestimmungsgesetz replaced the old, much more cumbersome Transsexuellengesetz. Since then, a declaration at the civil registry office has been sufficient to change a person’s legal sex registration and first name — without a medical examination, psychological diagnosis or judicial review. Our dossier on zelfidentificatie.nl compares this German route with those of Spain and the Netherlands: Germany and Spain opted for a pure self-declaration model, while the Dutch Transgender Act still requires an expert statement.

The AfD’s Claims, and What Can Be Verified

The Genspect essay cites AfD motions calling for the restoration of protections for minors, people with psychological vulnerabilities and women’s spaces, as well as an immediate moratorium on puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones for minors. The latter point is separate from the SBGG itself — the self-identification law governs legal sex registration for adults and young people aged 14 and over (with parental consent), not access to medical transition care, which is governed by separate guidelines in Germany. Anyone reading the law can see that the AfD combines two separate issues — legal registration and medical care — in a single motion. That is a political choice, not a reflection of what the law actually regulates.

It is verifiable, however, that the law allows people to change their registration annually without further formalities, and that critics — including the essay itself — point to the absence of a threshold that would structurally prevent misuse of women’s spaces. The essay provides no figures on how often this actually happens; such figures are also currently lacking from the German public debate.

A Political Firewall, and the Question of Who Is Still Listening

The essay also describes the “Brandmauer”, Germany’s political firewall through which established parties categorically rule out cooperation with the AfD. The author — himself a former member of the Greens and now spokesperson for the parents’ association Transteens-Sorge-Berechtigt — experienced this personally: in 2019, he was instructed not to shake hands with AfD councillors, contrary to the customary practice in German municipal councils. His argument is that excluding the AfD as a discussion partner also makes it more difficult for established parties to openly acknowledge a weak aspect of their own law — the absence of an age limit and a due-diligence assessment — for fear that such an admission will be interpreted as support for the AfD.

That mechanism warrants a critical qualification: it is the author’s analysis, not an established fact. Excluding a party politically says nothing about the validity of its specific legislative proposals, and conversely, agreeing with one point made by a party says nothing about agreement with the rest of its programme. Our editorial team therefore takes no political position here on the AfD as a party — the criticism is directed solely at the substance of the Selbstbestimmungsgesetz.

The CDU Compromise: Tightening Rather Than Abolishing

More interesting for Dutch readers is the alternative outlined in the essay from within the CDU: raising the age limit to 25, introducing mandatory medical or psychological counselling, and setting out protections for women’s spaces more explicitly — without scrapping the law as a whole. This is a different approach from the full repeal sought by the AfD, and is consistent with developments elsewhere in Europe: our page on gender policy by country shows that countries such as Sweden and Finland have moved away from generous self-identification and treatment models without abolishing them entirely.

So far, Germany has followed a different path from its Scandinavian neighbours. Our earlier article on UN criticism of the SBGG by German justice ministers had already described internal doubts within Germany’s own legal system about the precision of the law. The AfD motions and the CDU compromise are a new political episode in that same debate — not its beginning.

What This Means for the Debate

The German example shows that a self-identification law without an age limit, waiting period or due-diligence assessment can become a political flashpoint when practice falls short — even in a country where such a law was adopted with broad support. For the Dutch debate on comparable legislation, this is a relevant fact: not because Germany’s political constellation can be transferred one-to-one, but because the technical weaknesses identified there — no age limit, no assessment, no figures on misuse — are precisely the points around which the debate over the Dutch self-identification bill withdrawn in 2025 revolved. What that withdrawal means is explained on trans-nederland.nl.

Sources

David Allison, “Germany: A Glimmer of Hope for Sex Realists?”, Genspect, 28 September 2026. genspect.org/germany-a-glimmer-of-hope-for-sex-realists

Genderinfo.nl, “German justice ministers voice UN criticism of the Selbstbestimmungsgesetz”, 2026. genderinfo.nl/artikelen/duitse-justitieministers-vn-kritiek-selbstbestimmungsgesetz-2026

Zelfidentificatie.nl, “Article 1:28 of the Dutch Civil Code — what it says and what it does not” (comparison with the German SBGG). zelfidentificatie.nl/artikel-1-28-bw