Civil Liberties,who to vote for?

Freiheit · 18-06-2010 2:40pm #1

Is there any party in the country who supports full same sex-marriage? and other related issues such as the right to change Birth Certificates for Transsexuals? Rights for same sex couples to adopt? Secularisation of Education? Is there any truly socialy liberal party in Ireland? . If not could there be an opening to reflect a new Ireland?.

Laminations · 18-06-2010 3:21pm

Freiheit wrote: »

Is there any party in the country who supports full same sex-marriage? and other related issues such as the right to change Birth Certificates for Transsexuals? Rights for same sex couples to adopt? Secularisation of Education? Is there any truly socialy liberal party in Ireland? . If not could there be an opening to reflect a new Ireland?.

A marriage is a religious issue. I think most parties are moving (or I'd like them to move) towards the full separation of church and state. The most the state can do is recognise civil unions without bias based on sexual orientation.

A birth cert states the biological sex of a person at birth, based on (I'd assume) more than a cursory glance to see if theres a willy or no willy, so how can this be changed??

Macha · 18-06-2010 3:26pm

The Green Party supports a wide definition of the family and has a pretty strong emphasis on secularisation in general.

Labour would be another party with a strong secular element to its ethos.

PDs would have been very secular, no?

I'm not sure starting up a new party would be such a good idea, basically because its incredible difficult and expensive. You're probably better off getting involved with an existing party that you feel you can have some influence or make a difference with. Well, imo.

Freiheit · 18-06-2010 3:28pm

Ireland is one of just two European Countries, the other being Albania, that doesn't allow people who have had gender reassignment to change their Birth Certificates to reflect their identities. See the Lydia Foy case for more. Our government is shamefuly appealing an E.U. ruling ordering them to permit such.

Any openings for an Irish Liberal Democrats?

Laminations · 18-06-2010 3:30pm

Freiheit wrote: »

Ireland is one of just two European Countries, the other being Albania, that doesn't allow people who have had gender reassignment to change their Birth Certificates to reflect their identities. See the Lydia Foy case for more. Our government is shamefuly appealing an E.U. ruling ordering them to permit such.

'Gender' reassignment. This doesnt change biological sex at birth.

Sulmac · 18-06-2010 3:38pm

I'm pretty sure Labour, Sinn Féin and the Greens (before they got into government...) tick all those boxes, OP.

Annasopra · 21-06-2010 1:10pm

Freiheit wrote: »

Is there any party in the country who supports full same sex-marriage? and other related issues such as the right to change Birth Certificates for Transsexuals? Rights for same sex couples to adopt? Secularisation of Education? Is there any truly socialy liberal party in Ireland? . If not could there be an opening to reflect a new Ireland?.

Yes - Labour supports all of the above

Nodin · 21-06-2010 3:12pm

Freiheit wrote: »

Ireland is one of just two European Countries, the other being Albania, that doesn't allow people who have had gender reassignment to change their Birth Certificates to reflect their identities. See the Lydia Foy case for more. Our government is shamefuly appealing an E.U. ruling ordering them to permit such.

Any openings for an Irish Liberal Democrats?

Makes a change to arrive with good news.....As of today

The Government has dropped its challenge to a High Court declaration that Irish law on transgender rights is in breach of the European Convention on Human Rights.
The Government must now introduce legislation recognising the new gender of transgender persons and allowing them to obtain new birth certificates or it will face condemnation from the European Court of Human Rights.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2010/0621/foyl.html

aDeener · 21-06-2010 3:30pm

Nodin wrote: »

Makes a change to arrive with good news.....As of today

http://www.rte.ie/news/2010/0621/foyl.html

it makes no difference to me, if a person wants to be a man woman or dog but i can't see the logic in having the "birth" cert changed?? you were born either a man or woman, that cant be changed

Fratton Fred · 21-06-2010 3:54pm

aDeener wrote: »

it makes no difference to me, if a person wants to be a man woman or dog but i can't see the logic in having the "birth" cert changed?? you were born either a man or woman, that cant be changed

It then means the person can apply for a passport in their preferred gender, or they can get married (In church presumably) if they want to rather than have a civil partnership. I presume it would also help with things like adoption as well.

It basically corrects what the person sees as a genetic mistake.

Laminations · 21-06-2010 4:19pm

Fratton Fred wrote: »

It then means the person can apply for a passport in their preferred gender, or they can get married (In church presumably) if they want to rather than have a civil partnership. I presume it would also help with things like adoption as well.

It basically corrects what the person sees as a genetic mistake.

A genetic mistake it may be, but the sex on your birth cert is a statement of fact. If you want to change your gender from a male at birth to a female on a passport or other official documents just introduce a 'change of gender form' similar I suppose to a 'change of address' form. I could move to England and live in London for years eventually marrying and getting a British passport. That doesnt change the fact that I was born in Ireland.
And if the information is sensitive, perhaps lose the requirements of providing such information for jobs, marriage, adoption etc.

As for helping with marriage and/or adoption I think its better to fight for no discrimination rather than doctor your birth cert. Why should it be harder to adopt for a transgendered individual who is in a loving and caring relationship than it is for any other person?

Laminations · 21-06-2010 4:20pm

aDeener wrote: »

it makes no difference to me, if a person wants to be a man woman or dog but i can't see the logic in having the "birth" cert changed?? you were born either a man or woman, that cant be changed

well male or female. I certainly wasnt born a man

Pride Fighter · 21-06-2010 4:23pm

Freiheit wrote: »

Is there any party in the country who supports full same sex-marriage? and other related issues such as the right to change Birth Certificates for Transsexuals? Rights for same sex couples to adopt? Secularisation of Education? Is there any truly socialy liberal party in Ireland? . If not could there be an opening to reflect a new Ireland?.

Sounds like you are describing the Labour party. Labour also has an entire party section dedicated to LGBT rights. Labour has a good record with LGBT rights the last time in government seeing as a Labour minister for equality and law reform decriminalised homosexuality.

Laminations · 21-06-2010 4:44pm

Nodin wrote: »

Makes a change to arrive with good news.....As of today

The Government must now introduce legislation recognising the new gender of transgender persons

http://www.rte.ie/news/2010/0621/foyl.html

Is it the case that people are arguing that they were misregistered at birth and want 'transgender' on their birth cert? I dont have an issue with someone who has a case that they are an androgyne

Overheal · 21-06-2010 4:46pm

Freiheit wrote: »

Ireland is one of just two European Countries, the other being Albania, that doesn't allow people who have had gender reassignment to change their Birth Certificates to reflect their identities. See the Lydia Foy case for more. Our government is shamefuly appealing an E.U. ruling ordering them to permit such.

Any openings for an Irish Liberal Democrats?

Well I can actually understand that. You were born a man for example, even if you think you're a woman trapped in a man's body. But still a man.

Iwasfrozen · 21-06-2010 4:48pm

Freiheit wrote: »

Ireland is one of just two European Countries, the other being Albania, that doesn't allow people who have had gender reassignment to change their Birth Certificates to reflect their identities. See the Lydia Foy case for more. Our government is shamefuly appealing an E.U. ruling ordering them to permit such.

Just because every other European Country bar Albania doctors birth certificates isn't a reason for us to do so. As others have said here a birth certificate is a statement of fact at the time of the birth. It should never be changed,

Cuddlesworth · 21-06-2010 4:51pm

Laminations wrote: »

well male or female. I certainly wasnt born a man

If you have meat and two veg, then yes you were.

banquo · 21-06-2010 4:52pm

Freiheit wrote: »

Is there any party in the country who supports full same sex-marriage? and other related issues such as the right to change Birth Certificates for Transsexuals? Rights for same sex couples to adopt? Secularisation of Education? Is there any truly socialy liberal party in Ireland? . If not could there be an opening to reflect a new Ireland?.

Take marriage away from the State.

The way forward, tbh.

eightyfish · 21-06-2010 4:54pm

Laminations wrote: »

A marriage is a religious issue.

Only for some people. For most of my friends getting married, religion has no relevance whatsoever. The idea of marriage being a religious union is not as ubiquitous as it used to be in Ireland.

Laminations · 21-06-2010 4:54pm

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Just because every other European Country bar Albania doctors birth certificates isn't a reason for us to do so. As others have said here a birth certificate is a statement of fact at the time of the birth. It should never be changed,

Unless the 'fact' was wrong, but the fact is based on physical traits even though people may have psychological traits or even alter their physical bodies through surgery or hormone therapy. Birth certs should catalogue the biological sex of a baby (regardless of psychological gender experienced during/after maturation

Laminations · 21-06-2010 4:57pm

eightyfish wrote: »

Only for some people. For most of my friends getting married, religion has no relevance whatsoever. The idea of marriage being a religious union is not as ubiquitous as it used to be in Ireland.

This is only because marriage is recognised and special in the eyes of the State. You get benefits from a marriage, that wouldnt be available if you are simply committed and cohabitting. The benefits should be reserved for civil partnerships and marriage can simply be a religious blessing (like its supposed to be). Also people like chucrhes as a venue.

Amhran Nua actually have the right idea on this

Civil marriage should be the only marriage recognised by the state, religious ceremonies are just that - a ritual blessing undertaken by people of that faith. Every wedding in the state is registered with the civil authorities.

We had for a very long time the ridiculous situation where the Catholic church could perform a wedding, that was recognised by the civil power, but only the church could annul the marriage.
That meant that an exta territorial authority could perform a new marriage, which was - under the law of the land - bigamous.

AN believe the state should have nothing to do with the practice of religion, no one church should be given special treatment

wonderfulname · 21-06-2010 5:06pm

Johnnymcg wrote: »

Yes - Labour supports all of the above

Back on topic, having trouble finding Labours party manifesto, anyone have a link?

Laminations · 21-06-2010 5:10pm

wonderfulname wrote: »

Back on topic, having trouble finding Labours party manifesto, anyone have a link?

Try http://www.labour.ie/party/ or http://www.labour.ie/policy/listing.html

Iwasfrozen · 21-06-2010 5:12pm

Laminations wrote: »

Unless the 'fact' was wrong,

The fact was not wrong at the time of the birth.

Laminations wrote: »

But the fact is based on physical traits even though people may have psychological traits or even alter their physical bodies through surgery or hormone therapy.

I looked up the definition of Male as a noun and the first definition I found was this:

Dictionary.com wrote:

a person bearing an X and Y chromosome pair in the cell nuclei and normally having a penis, scrotum, and testicles, and developing hair on the face at adolescence; a boy or man.

Notice the definition of a male is a person bearing an X and Y chromosome and normally having a penis, scrotum, and testicles. Meaning that these attributes are not necessary to be classified as a male. Thus any baby that carries an X and Y chromosome pair at the time of their birth is a male. That is a fact and any attempt to doctor this would only be conveniently changing the truth.

Laminations wrote: »

Birth certs should catalogue the biological sex of a baby (regardless of psychological gender experienced during/after maturation

No they shouldn't. Why would they do that?

wonderfulname · 21-06-2010 5:14pm

Laminations wrote: »

Try http://www.labour.ie/party/ or http://www.labour.ie/policy/listing.html

I have read these but used there not be a clear and concise outline of the party's aims in slightly more detail than the former?

Links234 · 21-06-2010 5:26pm

Sad to see some of the bigotry in this thread, but we're finally seeing a much needed basic human right for transgender people in Ireland, and this is just wonderful news!

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Thus any baby that carries an X and Y chromosome pair at the time of their birth is a male. That is a fact and any attempt to doctor this would only be conveniently changing the truth.

That's just not true though, there are plenty of babies that carry XY chromosomes at birth but are documented as female.

Iwasfrozen · 21-06-2010 5:28pm

Links234 wrote: »

That's just not true though, there are plenty of babies that carry XY chromosomes at birth but are documented as female.

Such as?

I also looked up Bigot:

Dictionary.com wrote:

a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.

Please show me where I have been such. I don't take such accusations lightly.

Links234 · 21-06-2010 5:39pm

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Such as?

http://anniesrichards.tripod.com/ais.htm

Overheal · 21-06-2010 5:42pm

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Such as?

I also looked up Bigot:

Please show me where I have been such. I don't take such accusations lightly.

I've re-read the entire thread under the emphasis of Bigotry and found not one example, either.

I don't think anybody is being intolerant here (

) just stating that trying to alter your birth certificate to say you were born a woman etc. after a gender change is dishonest.

Laminations · 21-06-2010 5:43pm

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

The fact was not wrong at the time of the birth.

Notice the definition of a male is a person bearing an X and Y chromosome and normally having a penis, scrotum, and testicles. Meaning that these attributes are not necessary to be classified as a male. Thus any baby that carries an X and Y chromosome pair at the time of their birth is a male. That is a fact and any attempt to doctor this would only be conveniently changing the truth.

No they shouldn't. Why would they do that?

I'm agreeing with you on this. The fact can be wrong when someone with an XY pairing is classed as female (and vice versa)- in the case of misregistration I think birth certs should be ammended. Why do you think birth certs should not catalogue biological sex regardless of a later emergence of a psychological identity?

Iwasfrozen · 21-06-2010 5:46pm

Links234 wrote: »

http://anniesrichards.tripod.com/ais.htm

These people have testes and an XY chromosome pair. So according to the dictionary they are defined as male.

Overheal · 21-06-2010 5:47pm

Links234 wrote: »

http://anniesrichards.tripod.com/ais.htm

Is the state denying Birth certificate corrections though, or are they denying a cert altercation when someone without AIS or a similar condition decides voluntarily through a psychological choice to change their gender.

Laminations · 21-06-2010 5:52pm

Links234 wrote: »

http://anniesrichards.tripod.com/ais.htm

From that link:
The fact that a "woman" has AIS and is genetically a "male" is often not discovered until puberty

so if you are genetically male, your birth cert should state this, if it doesn't it can be ammended because you were wrongly sexes at birth. If it does state male you should not be allowed alter it the other way, regardless of how you look, feel or think IMO

Nodin · 21-06-2010 5:52pm

aDeener wrote: »

it makes no difference to me, if a person wants to be a man woman or dog but i can't see the logic in having the "birth" cert changed?? you were born either a man or woman, that cant be changed

Because if the Birth cert remains unchanged, they are still treated under law as a man. Now that may not make much difference in those not affecteds minds, but most certainly does to individuals unfortunate enough to have to go through the whole business.

lamintations wrote:

A genetic mistake it may be, but the sex on your birth cert is a statement of fact

Secondly, you can be born a man, a woman, or some combination of the two. Its an inevitability of the way humans reproduce. Whats written on the Birth cert is the doctors best guess, based on evidence, at the time the cert is written.

lamintations wrote:

Unless the 'fact' was wrong, but the fact is based on physical traits

The child has two sets of sex organs. The parents are asked which way they want to go. 15 years later their little boy is acting more and more like a girl/little girl is acting more like a boy. They therefore made a mistake, but the birth cert can't be changed?

Going on exterior characteristics ignores differences in the brain which only emerge later. These days its considered best to wait and see which way the child is going before intervention.

Iwasfrozen wrote:

The fact was not wrong at the time of the birth.

Its impossible to know one way or the other in many cases. You're looking for a black/white situation which does not exist 100% of the time.

Iwasfrozen · 21-06-2010 5:52pm

Laminations wrote: »

I'm agreeing with you on this. The fact can be wrong when someone with an XY pairing is classed as female (and vice versa)- in the case of misregistration I think birth certs should be ammended.

I doubt any doctor would be so stupid as to classify a baby's sex wrong. Not in this country anyway.

Laminations wrote: »

Why do you think birth certs should not catalogue biological sex regardless of a later emergence of a psychological identity?

Because the birth certificate is a statement of fact at the time of ones birth. If one was a male at birth but decides to become a female later on then that still does not change the fact they were a male at birth.

Death certificates are similar again this is a statement of fact at the time of ones death. The person in the first paragraph would be recorded as female in their death certificate but male in their birth.

No one can change the past. Transexuals must accept that.

Laminations · 21-06-2010 5:53pm

Overheal wrote: »

Is the state denying Birth certificate corrections though, or are they denying a cert altercation when someone without AIS or a similar condition decides voluntarily through a psychological choice to change their gender.

I agree but would argue against describing it as a 'choice'

Iwasfrozen · 21-06-2010 5:56pm

Nodin wrote: »

Its impossible to know one way or the other in many cases. You're looking for a black/white situation which does not exist 100% of the time.

We aren't discussing people with genetic disorders though. We are discussing people who have later on in their life decided they would like to "play for the other team" and have had sex reassignment surgery to change their gender.

Nothing wrong with this but it doesn't change the fact they were a certain gender upon birth.

Laminations · 21-06-2010 5:58pm

Nodin wrote: »

The child has two sets of sex organs. The parents are asked which way they want to go. 15 years later their little boy is acting more and more like a girl/little girl is acting more like a boy. They therefore made a mistake, but the birth cert can't be changed?

Going on exterior characteristics ignores differences in the brain which only emerge later. These days its considered best to wait and see which way the child is going before intervention.

Its impossible to know one way or the other in many cases. You're looking for a black/white situation which does not exist 100% of the time.

I agree in the case of dual organ babies that the parents 'choice' should not determine the sex of the child but neither should later emerging gender roles or psychological identity. When I said physical traits I meant biological, and by this I mean genetic

The sex on ones birth cert shold not be altered to reflect ones 'thinking' later in life

Overheal · 21-06-2010 6:00pm

Laminations wrote: »

I agree but would argue against describing it as a 'choice'

I'd consider it a "choice" when not governed by genetics and X or Y chromosome combination. Whether they are naturally more inclined to act immaculate or effeminate is a psychological matter where it goes against their genetic status as a male or female.

Permabear · 21-06-2010 6:02pm

This post has been deleted.

Laminations · 21-06-2010 6:03pm

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

We aren't discussing people with genetic disorders though. We are discussing people who have later on in their life decided they would like to "play for the other team" and have had sex reassignment surgery to change their gender.

Nothing wrong with this but it doesn't change the fact they were a certain gender upon birth.

ID also be careful phrasing it that people voluntarily 'decide' on their gender. There is no decision as such.

Iwasfrozen · 21-06-2010 6:05pm

Laminations wrote: »

ID also be careful phrasing it that people voluntarily 'decide' on their gender. There is no decision as such.

I wouldn't. Taking sex reassignment surgery and hormonal treatment is a choice. Nobody is forcing them onto the operating table.

wonderfulname · 21-06-2010 6:07pm

Laminations wrote: »

The fact can be wrong when someone with an XY pairing is classed as female (and vice versa)- in the case of misregistration I think birth certs should be ammended.

Woah, you think a woman, born and raised as a woman, identifying as a woman all her life should, at the moment it is discovered she has AIS, have her birth certificate changed.. I don't know how to respond to such a thing.

Oh and I would personally deem that the case of someone identifying as a sex other than that recorded on their birth certificate is a case of misregistration, and hence should be ammended.

Laminations · 21-06-2010 6:08pm

Overheal wrote: »

I'd consider it a "choice" when not governed by genetics and X or Y chromosome combination. Whether they are naturally more inclined to act immaculate or effeminate is a psychological matter where it goes against their genetic status as a male or female.

Just because something involves psychology does not mean it involves choice. I can't choose to be genetically male, I don't choose to be a man or 'act' like one and I don't choose to be heterosexual. Sex is genetic/biological (it's purely nature) gender and orientation is psychological (nature/nurture) but there is still little to no choice in the latter, the only choice is in expression

wonderfulname · 21-06-2010 6:11pm

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I wouldn't. Taking sex reassignment surgery and hormonal treatment is a choice. Nobody is forcing them onto the operating table.

That is a choice which comes after the fact. Identifying as the gender in the first place is not a choice.

wonderfulname · 21-06-2010 6:14pm

Laminations wrote: »

gender and orientation is psychological (nature/nurture) but there is still little to no choice in the latter, the only choice is in expression

Agreed on the sentiments, not on the statement,

The Royal College of Psychiatrists wrote:

Despite almost a century of psychoanalytic and psychological speculation, there is no substantive evidence to support the suggestion that the nature of parenting or early childhood experiences play any role in the formation of a person’s fundamental heterosexual or homosexual orientation. It would appear that sexual orientation is biological in nature, determined by a complex interplay of genetic factors and the early uterine environment. Sexual orientation is therefore not a choice.

Laminations · 21-06-2010 6:15pm

wonderfulname wrote: »

Woah, you think a woman, born and raised as a woman, identifying as a woman all her life should, at the moment it is discovered she has AIS, have her birth certificate changed.. I don't know how to respond to such a thing.

Oh and I would personally deem that the case of someone identifying as a sex other than that recorded on their birth certificate is a case of misregistration, and hence should be ammended.

A birth cert shouldn't represent how your are or think now, it should catalogue how you were at birth. I can change my name by deed poll to Captain bananas but I can't change my birth cert

Overheal · 21-06-2010 6:16pm

Laminations wrote: »

Just because something involves psychology does not mean it involves choice. I can't choose to be genetically male, I don't choose to be a man or 'act' like one and I don't choose to be heterosexual. Sex is genetic/biological (it's purely nature) gender and orientation is psychological (nature/nurture) but there is still little to no choice in the latter, the only choice is in expression

Well whatever the case what Im saying refers to orientation. Im not debating the choice/predetermination issue.

Laminations · 21-06-2010 6:18pm

wonderfulname wrote: »

Agreed on the sentiments, not on the statement,

I agree with you. Orientation is psychological but determined by nature not nurture. I differentiated it as psychological as opposed to genetic as unlike sex there is as yet no marker of sexual orientation

Laminations · 21-06-2010 6:21pm

wonderfulname wrote: »

That is a choice which comes after the fact. Identifying as the gender in the first place is not a choice.

Completely agree. Identifying as a gender should not alter your catalogued sex at birth however.

Nodin · 21-06-2010 6:23pm

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

We aren't discussing people with genetic disorders though. We are discussing people who have later on in their life decided they would like to "play for the other team" and have had sex reassignment surgery to change their gender.

Earlier I stated....

Going on exterior characteristics ignores differences in the brain which only emerge later. These days its considered best to wait and see which way the child is going before intervention.

I should have made the point more strongly....

. The present findings of somatostatin neuronal sex differences in the BSTc and its sex reversal in the transsexual brain clearly support the paradigm that in transsexuals sexual differentiation of the brain and genitals may go into opposite directions and point to a neurobiological basis of gender identity disorder.

http://jcem.endojournals.org/cgi/content/full/85/5/2034

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I wouldn't. Taking sex reassignment surgery and hormonal treatment is a choice.

A brain of one gender trapped in the body of another would strike me as leaving one with as little choice as to constitute none at all.

Civil Liberties,who to vote for?

Comments