Dr Lydia Foy new case.

MadsL

MadsL wrote: »

Do what? Insult people? I don't.


That wasn't my argument. 130 posts will testify to that.

Course you wouldn't.

I don't think you have made one yet.

Subtle.

Is that so...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_aspects_of_transsexualism#mediaviewer/File:World_concerning_gender_identity-expression_laws.png

How many of those were due to legal proceedings being launched?

I find that unlikely. Look, I'm trying to save the Irish taxpayer money, remind me again how that is "Ireland bashing"?

That was your motivation for starting the thread?

Chunners

Deleted User wrote: »

So it's sex-reassignment rather than gender-reassignment?

Yes it's sex-reassignment in that our physical sex is being changed to align with our mental gender

Should the birthcert copies be updateable for anything else in your opinion?

Yeah I think if we have changed our name by deed poll I think we should be allowed change that to because, as I was saying earlier, even if mine says female people will still know because my male name is still on the cert. It seems kind of redundant to me to allow us change one but not the other tbh.

Again, your final sentence just seems contradictory, if your gender has changed (or been confirmed or allowed to show itself or whatever) isn't that a separate thing from your sex changing?

Yep it is but when this law goes through we will be allowed change our birth cert even before we actually have the sex change operation so it will reflect our current gender and not necessarily our actual physical sex. Not sure what the criteria for that will be but I would assume you will have to have proof from psychiatrists that you are actually transitioning before they will let you change it.

Chunners

Chunners wrote: »

Yes it's sex-reassignment in that our physical sex is being changed to align with our mental gender

Grand, so gender-reassignment surgery is something of a misnomer?

Yeah I think if we have changed our name by deed poll I think we should be allowed change that to because, as I was saying earlier, even if mine says female people will still know because my male name is still on the cert. It seems kind of redundant to me to allow us change one but not the other tbh.

What about father's occupation? :pac:

Yep it is but when this law goes through we will be allowed change our birth cert even before we actually have the sex change operation so it will reflect our current gender and not necessarily our actual physical sex. Not sure what the criteria for that will be but I would assume you will have to have proof from psychiatrists that you are actually transitioning before they will let you change it.

So even without the sex-reassignment surgery it'll be possible to change the sex on the birthcert? See to me it just sounds illogical because for the last 15 years all I've heard is that gender and sex are separate and different, yet this seems to be saying they're one and the same.

P_1

I presume that this new law will work in a similar way to how adopted people are treated with regard to birth certs.

So to take the case of a girl who was adopted. The record in the GRO will reflect her birth name on the birth cert but her de facto birth cert will reflect her adopted name.

Extrapolating that to the case of Dr Foy. The record in the GRO will reflect the fact that she was born male physically but her de facto birth cert will reflect the fact that she is now female.

MadsL

Deleted User wrote: »

Course you wouldn't.

Meaning?

Subtle.

Accurate I would say....

How many of those were due to legal proceedings being launched?

How many? You are the one postulating that any Govt drags its feet. You do the statistics.

]That was your motivation for starting the thread?

I suggest you start a thread on "MadsL's Ireland Bashing" see how far it get. Until then I prefer to stay on topic thanks, and not get sidetracked onto your chip-on-the-shoulder patriotic (?) defensiveness. But you are right in the sense that the UK took a while to enact the Gender Recognition Act of 2004, a tardy TWO years after the 2002 ECHR finding. Ten years later Ireland has still nothing.

Shamefully, it is 22 years since 1992, when the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) first recognized that a state’s refusal to allow transgender people to change the gender markers on their official documents was a violation of the European Convention on Human Rights.

MadsL

MadsL wrote: »

How many? You are the one postulating that any Govt drags it's feet. You do the statistics.

Corporations are people in America, it's always done for the right reasons.

I suggest you start a thread on "MadsL's Ireland Bashing" see how far it get. Until then I prefer to stay on topic thanks, and not get sidetracked onto your chip-on-the-shoulder patriotic (?) defensiveness.

Are you trying to get me to break the site rules? Poor form.

But you are right in the sense that the UK took a while to enact the Gender Recognition Act of 2004, a tardy TWO years after the 2002 ECHR finding. Ten years later Ireland has still nothing. Shamefully, it is 22 years since 1992, when the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) first recognized that a state’s refusal to allow transgender people to change the gender markers on their official documents was a violation of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Are we going with 12 years or 22 years of shame so? Ireland is slow at just about all legislation that should be matter-of-fact stuff.

Chunners

Deleted User wrote: »

Grand, so gender-reassignment surgery is something of a misnomer?

Yep it is, my gender (mental) is already female, it's my sex (physical) that will be changing.

What about father's occupation? :pac:

Why? are you thinking of having your da's occupation changed to something cool like "Jedi Knight"?

So even without the sex-reassignment surgery it'll be possible to change the sex on the birthcert?

Well see the problem is that reassignment is a very long process, it's not a case of going in over the weekend, getting bits lobbed off and back to work by Monday lol there is a lot of red tape and a lot of us live full time for years before we are actually approved for reassignment so it would be unfair to leave us all that time unable to change our birth cert because we have the same issues in relation to it as people who have already had the operation.

See to me it just sounds illogical because for the last 15 years all I've heard is that gender and sex are separate and different, yet this seems to be saying they're one and the same.

As I said earlier the best way to think of it is your gender is in your head and your sex is in your pants although to be honest I normally just refer to both of them as my gender but thats just because I'm not that uptight about putting PC labels on everything

MadsL

Deleted User wrote: »

Corporations are people in America, it's always done for the right reasons.

Is that a "no thanks, can't be arsed to backup my argument" red herring I see?

Are you trying to get me to break the site rules? Poor form.

The poor form is you suggesting that I have sinister motivations in starting the thread, now I would say that is attacking the poster not the post, but that would be back seat modding and we can't have that

Are we going with 12 years or 22 years of shame so? Ireland is slow at just about all legislation that should be matter-of-fact stuff.

Whatever you are having yourself, 12 years is bad enough...*cough* X case *cough*

Earl Turner

MadsL wrote: »

Is that a "no thanks, can't be arsed to backup my argument" red herring I see?



The poor form is you suggesting that I have sinister motivations in starting the thread, now I would say that is attacking the poster not the post, but that would be back seat modding and we can't have that



Whatever you are having yourself, 12 years is bad enough...*cough* X case *cough*

If Ireland is so **** why not move to some progressive utopia?

MadsL

Earl Turner wrote: »

If Ireland is so **** why not move to some progressive utopia?

What changes would me emigrating bring about in Irish legal reform??

Sorry to ruffle that chip on the old shoulder, how rude of me

Earl Turner

MadsL wrote: »

What changes would me emigrating bring about in Irish legal reform??

Sorry to ruffle that chip on the old shoulder, how rude of me

Might make you happier?

Chunners

Chunners wrote: »

Yep it is, my gender (mental) is already female, it's my sex (physical) that will be changing.

Right. See I just like precise language. :P

Why? are you thinking of having your da's occupation changed to something cool like "Jedi Knight"?

Nah, date of birth, always have to convince people I'm not bull****ting them. :P

Well see the problem is that reassignment is a very long process, it's not a case of going in over the weekend, getting bits lobbed off and back to work by Monday lol there is a lot of red tape and a lot of us live full time for years before we are actually approved for reassignment so it would be unfair to leave us all that time unable to change our birth cert because we have the same issues in relation to it as people who have already had the operation.

Oh aye, I feel for anyone who's gone through it and the hoops and hurdles on the way are ridiculous.
I'm just wondering though, how often does one actually need to use their birthcert? I can understand passports and the like needing changing/updating but would an annotated birthcert for the odd thing it's used for not do the job?

As I said earlier the best way to think of it is your gender is in your head and your sex is in your pants although to be honest I normally just refer to both of them as my gender but thats just because I'm not that uptight about putting PC labels on everything

Hence my confusion with it always being called gender-reassignment surgery. It sounds like literally the most pointless thing ever. :P

MadsL

MadsL wrote: »

Is that a "no thanks, can't be arsed to backup my argument" red herring I see?

Nah most governments are lazy in passing legislation other than stuff that suits them at the time.

The poor form is you suggesting that I have sinister motivations in starting the thread, now I would say that is attacking the poster not the post, but that would be back seat modding and we can't have that

You literally asked me to break the site rules.

Whatever you are having yourself, 12 years is bad enough...*cough* X case *cough*

I just like accuracy and precision.

MadsL

Deleted User wrote: »

Nah most governments are lazy in passing legislation other than stuff that suits them at the time.

...


I just like accuracy and precision.

A massive generalisation followed by "accuracy and precision" too funny.

You literally asked me to break the site rules.

We both have been here long enough yadda yadda...;)

P_1

Deleted User wrote: »

Right. See I just like precise language. :P


Nah, date of birth, always have to convince people I'm not bull****ting them. :P


Oh aye, I feel for anyone who's gone through it and the hoops and hurdles on the way are ridiculous.
I'm just wondering though, how often does one actually need to use their birthcert? I can understand passports and the like needing changing/updating but would an annotated birthcert for the odd thing it's used for not do the job?


Hence my confusion with it always being called gender-reassignment surgery. It sounds like literally the most pointless thing ever. :P

That's exactly how it works for adopted people. Can't see any reason why it wouldn't work the exact same way for trans people. Now there's nothing you can do for the birth cert that your birth cert was registered as, simply put it is a historical fact and one does not simply alter historical facts but that will be a problem for next generation's genealogists to work out.

RobYourBuilder

Earl Turner wrote: »

If Ireland is so **** why not move to some progressive utopia?

Judging by his location, he's not Irish.

MadsL

RobYourBuilder wrote: »

Judging by his location, he's not Irish.

But it DID make me happier...

If you don't live in Ireland you are not Irish???

*waits for location-based arguments*

P_1

MadsL wrote: »

But it DID make me happier...

If you don't live in Ireland you are not Irish???

*waits for location-based arguments*

Only when you have money to spend here :P

Wish I was joking about that sadly

Chunners

Deleted User wrote: »

Right. See I just like precise language. :P

Hence my confusion with it always being called gender-reassignment surgery. It sounds like literally the most pointless thing ever. :P

Sure now a days there are loads of names for it each with their own misnomer, gender confirmation surgery, sex affirmation surgery, sex realignment surgery, genital reconstruction surgery. Genital reconstruction surgery is the least confusing in my opinion since it is exactly what it says on the tin

Nah, date of birth, always have to convince people I'm not bull****ting them. :P

Would that we could all do that love, I'd go back to being 20 (which, of course is what I look lol )

Oh aye, I feel for anyone who's gone through it and the hoops and hurdles on the way are ridiculous. I'm just wondering though, how often does one actually need to use their birthcert? I can understand passports and the like needing changing/updating but would an annotated birthcert for the odd thing it's used for not do the job?

Well see for us it is different, once we change our name by deed poll then the deed poll is attached to our birth cert and say you were to use your birth cert for something people would just have a quick glance to confirm your name and probably photocopy it for their files and that would be it whereas,because of the deed poll, people scrutinize ours to make sure it's all above board. Also after you change your name you have to change everything (bank account, esb account, passport, credit union, driving licence, med card, social welfare card, tax details even your library card) because you are not legally allowed use your old name anymore and most people are pretty clueless about the rules of what gender a transsexual is allowed to use on official forms (which at the moment is pretty vague anyway) so it can be a bit of a trail having all these people basically interrogate you when you tick the F box. Something like this will at least give everyone a concrete set of rules.

Earl Turner

P_1 wrote: »

Only when you have money to spend here :P

Wish I was joking about that sadly

BANNED

KERSPLAT!

MOD

Please get back on topic.

As for the trolls, low level and otherwise, I suggest you stop now. If you think you can skirt the lines and get away with it you can think again. Anymore of that crap and it's straight to bans. There is no place for it here.

Earl Turner banned.

Chunners

P_1 wrote: »

That's exactly how it works for adopted people. Can't see any reason why it wouldn't work the exact same way for trans people. Now there's nothing you can do for the birth cert that your birth cert was registered as, simply put it is a historical fact and one does not simply alter historical facts but that will be a problem for next generation's genealogists to work out.

As I said no historical facts will be altered, the original birth cert is not altered in any way what so ever, it is the copies that will be altered and also it is different for adopted people, their medical privacy is not being compromised. If I have reassignment surgery and am living as female that is between me and my doctor and no one else, if my birth cert says "Male" and I have to use it for ID purposes then the stranger reading it will now know I had reassignment hence my right to medical privacy has been compromised.

Links234

Chunners wrote: »

Genital reconstruction surgery is the least confusing in my opinion since it is exactly what it says on the tin

That to me is the most direct, to the point term of the whole lot, no faffing about.

P_1

Chunners wrote: »

As I said no historical facts will be altered, the original birth cert is not altered in any way what so ever, it is the copies that will be altered and also it is different for adopted people, their medical privacy is not being compromised. If I have reassignment surgery and am living as female that is between me and my doctor and no one else, if my birth cert says "Male" and I have to use it for ID purposes then the stranger reading it will now know I had reassignment hence my right to medical privacy has been compromised.

I think I understand you now but doesn't the result of Dr Foy's case (and the consequent promised legislation) not now mean that once you have finished transitioning you will be issued with a birth cert that says "Female" meaning that your medical privacy remains intact. I mean it's not as if you'll be likely to have somebody go down to the GRO to find the record of your birth once you've produced your birth cert that clearly indicated that you're female to them?

Chunners

P_1 wrote: »

I think I understand you now but doesn't the result of Dr Foy's case (and the consequent promised legislation) not now mean that once you have finished transitioning you will be issued with a birth cert that says "Female" meaning that your medical privacy remains intact. I mean it's not as if you'll be likely to have somebody go down to the GRO to find the record of your birth once you've produced your birth cert that clearly indicated that you're female to them?

"finished transitioning" is the wrong term, some people don't or can't go for full surgery for various reasons (some medical, some personal) so it would be impossible to put in criteria that dictates exactly what qualifies as "Finished" so as far as I know anyone can apply to get it changed after they get a diagnosis. As I said earlier it's a long process and a lot of us live full time for a long time before being approved for reassignment and have the exact same problems regarding birth certs as people who have had the reassignment surgery so not to allow us to change our birth certs too would be unfair.

Annasopra

nokia69 wrote: »

there are a few of course, but most straight men would not like to date a transsexual

and I would bet its the same for straight women

Come back to me when you have surveyed them all.

Annasopra

P_1 wrote: »

I presume that this new law will work in a similar way to how adopted people are treated with regard to birth certs.

So to take the case of a girl who was adopted. The record in the GRO will reflect her birth name on the birth cert but her de facto birth cert will reflect her adopted name.

Extrapolating that to the case of Dr Foy. The record in the GRO will reflect the fact that she was born male physically but her de facto birth cert will reflect the fact that she is now female.

Thats the way I understand it yes but the law is still in draft form so we wont know for certain for another 3 or 4 months.

Annasopra

RobYourBuilder wrote: »

Judging by his location, he's not Irish.

So what.

petronius

This always sounds like crazy to me -
waste of time and money
if you have a y-chromosome you are a dude in the eyes of the IAAF - unless you have a gene defect
no mater how a national court classifies you...

Chunners

petronius wrote: »

This always sounds like crazy to me -
waste of time and money
if you have a y-chromosome you are a dude in the eyes of the IAAF - unless you have a gene defect
no mater how a national court classifies you...

Well in all fairness what the IAAF say means less than nothing to any of us since none of us are planning to take up throwing javelins for a living.