Irish state now will now accept a trans persons own declaration of their gender

Links234

http://www.thejournal.ie/trans-rights-ireland-gender-recognition-self-declaration-2141181-Jun2015/

Well this is fairly magnificent news, and a bit of a shock to be honest. I'm still reeling with pride over the marriage ref and now this? I could seriously get used to being proud of my country!



MOD NOTE: Just so this thread doesn't go the way of others, trans people exist. So let's not pretend you're being funny or clever or anything other than insulting when you put their gender in quotation marks to denote that it's not their real gender, call trans people "it", make moronic comparisons such as asking if you can now be called black (see above) or anything else that's just being an a$$hole to other humans.
This includes any "men will claim to be women to get into women's changing rooms" type of rubbish.

If you've a point to make, make it without insulting anyone. It shouldn't be that hard for anyone to do.

Boring username

Linda Martin must be delighted.

Links234

Boring username wrote: »

Linda Martin must be delighted.

What a mean and nasty thing to say. Trans people don't deserve that comparison.

TheBeardedLady

Brilliant news. Delighted for you, Links. Unbelievable how much Ireland is coming on in recent times. It's really bloody brilliant.

Sheep Lover

Great, can I declare myself a woman now for the purposes of cheaper car insurance?

Menas

It is great to see ourselves as progressive after so many years of the opposite. Delighted.

ThinkProgress

They should be required to declare the "trans" part too IMO.

Otherwise we are just denying that our biology has any meaning or significance!

We really should be recognising more than just two distinct genders.

Trans gender deserves it's own recognition as a distinct gender!

DeadHand

Can I now declare myself black and six foot five?

I've always wanted to be black and six foot five.

Niemoj

I am so proud to be Irish again today!

For a trans person to know their home state accepts them as who they are must be an incredible feeling.

Links234

You know things are probably gonna get very nasty (well, things are nasty already, but even nastier than they are now), like they did with the marriage referendum. Probably worse because trans people are such a small minority relatively and the Iona crowd are surely gonna set their sights on the issue, so I'm seriously not looking forward to another campaign from Quinn, O'Brien and Waters and whoever else. But right now, I am grinning ear to ear!

I'm not even happy for myself, I'm thinking of how much this means to so many friends of mine, it's incredible. I know a lot of people just don't get it, and that's ok too, but this means so much.

Niemoj

Woman Of The Year: Joan Burton wrote:

A person’s gender identity is a matter for each individual. Transgender people know their own identity. They don’t need medical evaluation to prove their identity to anyone.

This. This this this this!

A person's sex is black and white, that's whether you're born with a penis or a vagina but someone's gender is defined by the individual themselves and I am so so so proud of our little country to finally recognise that!

humanji

MOD NOTE: Just so this thread doesn't go the way of others, trans people exist. So let's not pretend you're being funny or clever or anything other than insulting when you put their gender in quotation marks to denote that it's not their real gender, call trans people "it", make moronic comparisons such as asking if you can now be called black (see above) or anything else that's just being an a$$hole to other humans.

If you've a point to make, make it without insulting anyone. It shouldn't be that hard for anyone to do.

Crooked Jack

Instead, their self-declaration will be accepted

Good stuff

for the purpose of updating passports,

Grand so

driving licences,

As it should be

getting married

obviously

obtaining a new birth cert

Ah hold on now. There's recognising somebody's decisions and rights and then there is just trying to change fact. If you are now a man/woman I am very happy for you and you should be afforded all such rights and be recognised as such but your birth cert is a document detailing those facts at the time of your birth. This is preposterous

Mrmoe

I think it is a good thing trans can get their correct gender identified but I am not too sure about self declaration. It could open it up to abuse. Is it unreasonable to get independent verification?

MrWalsh

Crooked Jack wrote: »

Ah hold on now. There's recognising somebody's decisions and rights and then there is just trying to change fact. If you are now a man/woman I am very happy for you and you should be afforded all such rights and be recognised as such but your birth cert is a document detailing those facts at the time of your birth. This is preposterous

It doesnt make sense to record gender on the birth cert at all. Only to record "sex at birth".

Trent Houseboat

Yawn, this seems like the old "Two men who aren't even gay getting married for the craic." argument against self declaration.

It should benefit a great many more than those who would try to abuse.

At the end of the day trans people aren't effecting your life and neither will someone who pretends to be trans (not entirely sure why someone would claim to be one of the most marginalised groups in the country).

Crooked Jack

MrWalsh wrote: »

It doesnt make sense to record gender on the birth cert at all. Only to record "sex at birth".

Well the birth cert records "sex".
So why would you need to go back and change that? i mean, it's a birth cert, it's implied that its your sex at birth its referring to. If they recorded your weight they'd hardly be expecting you to maintain that at the same level.

Neyite

Links234 wrote: »

I'm not even happy for myself, I'm thinking of how much this means to so many friends of mine, it's incredible. I know a lot of people just don't get it, and that's ok too, but this means so much.

Can I ask, what will the benefits be - obviously less paperwork and red tape when beginning to transition, less rigmarole with waiting lists for consultants appointments I guess? But I'd really like to understand more about what this will now mean to people who want to transition.

ThinkProgress

I thought official documents required full honest declarations and complete transparency?

Is that not the idea of them being official and law binding documents?

If people want to make distinctions between "sex" and "gender", then maybe they should still have to declare both.

(Unless we're saying it's ok for some people to lie on official documents?)

So why not have both your biological sex AND the gender you are choosing to identify as on those documents?

I'm all for people to live their lives as who or what they wish, but there is no reason they should be permitted to lie, withhold information or cover up their past!

They should be fully transparent about both their past and present identities.

Otherwise these documents are kind of being made a mockery of in some respects.

Niemoj

Neyite wrote: »

Can I ask, what will the benefits be - obviously less paperwork and red tape when beginning to transition, less rigmarole with waiting lists for consultants appointments I guess? But I'd really like to understand more about what this will now mean to people who want to transition.

Apologies if I'm butting in here but it says that if you feel you are transgender you no longer have to "prove it", you can have the gender changed on your legal documents so that it matches how you feel inside without the need for evaluation basically.

Knasher

Crooked Jack wrote: »

Well the birth cert records "sex".
So why would you need to go back and change that? i mean, it's a birth cert, it's implied that its your sex at birth its referring to. If they recorded your weight they'd hardly be expecting you to maintain that at the same level.

It seems to me that a lot of people might agree with you and not bother, and some might just want to change it simply as a catharsis. Maybe there is some other reason that I haven't considered. Either way though, the bigger question is if we gain anything by refusing them? Can't see any benefit in it, so what do we care?

Neyite

Niemoj wrote: »

Apologies if I'm butting in here but it says that if you feel you are transgender you no longer have to "prove it", you can have the gender changed on your legal documents so that it matches how you feel inside without the need for evaluation basically.

I know that all right - I suppose I'm wondering what these changes will mean for a transgender person day to day. My assumption (which could be wrong) at the moment would be that you have to currently begin to transition medically before name-changing legally, so that typically means GP referral to Consultant A, waiting lists, meds, appointments, referral to Consultants B & C, MORE waiting lists, cancellations etc etc. Invariably would prolong transition, with the knock on effect that delays in changing your documents legally will happen.

So under this new change, you can declare yourself your true gender, live life from that point on in that gender, and sort out the medical side of things at your own (or the HSE's) pace I suppose?

Crooked Jack

Knasher wrote: »

It seems to me that a lot of people might agree with you and not bother, and some might just want to change it simply as a catharsis. Maybe there is some other reason that I haven't considered. Either way though, the bigger question is if we gain anything by refusing them? Can't see any benefit in it, so what do we care?

But even going by the gender v sex argument (which i take issue with) surely it's impossible to change your sex.
And even if you could it wasnt your sex at the time of your birth.
I mean, as someone else pointed out, this is supposed to be a factual government document. Surely there's a danger in allowing people to alter it with false information.
Half the population change their name at some stage or another, they still dont get to go back and change the name on their birth cert because that was not their name at the time

Wibbs

ThinkProgress wrote: »

I thought official documents required full honest declarations and complete transparency?

Is that not the idea of them being official and law binding documents?

If people want to make distinctions between "sex" and "gender", then maybe they should still have to declare both.

(Unless we're saying it's ok for some people to lie on official documents?)

So why not have both your biological sex AND the gender you are choosing to identify as on those documents?

I'm all for people to live their lives as who or what they wish, but there is no reason they should be permitted to lie, withhold information or cover up their past!

They should be fully transparent about both their past and present identities.

Otherwise these documents are kind of being made a mockery of in some respects.

+1. Apparently this rewriting of history and reality is OK so long as we're in the rush to becoming as progressive as possible. The self declaration part of it is beyond surreal, but again apparently this makes anyone who believes this ignorant.

Daith

Crooked Jack wrote: »

Half the population change their name at some stage or another, they still dont get to go back and change the name on their birth cert because that was not their name at the time

Which is why you're not altering your existing Birth Cert. It's still there and correct as of that time. You get a new one which you might need to apply for a new passport etc.

jimgoose

Wibbs wrote: »

+1. Apparently this rewriting of history and reality is OK so long as we're in the rush to becoming as progressive as possible. The self declaration part of it is beyond surreal, but again apparently this makes anyone who believes this ignorant.

Does any other jurisdiction allow this? It strikes me as rather odd as well.

Wibbs

Crooked Jack wrote: »

Half the population change their name at some stage or another, they still dont get to go back and change the name on their birth cert because that was not their name at the time

Exactly. May as well change the date too if we self declare it as wrong.

Knasher

Crooked Jack wrote: »

I mean, as someone else pointed out, this is supposed to be a factual government document. Surely there's a danger in allowing people to alter it with false information.

Well I asked what issue would be with letting them go back and change it if they wished. So can you be a little bit more specific about this danger you mentioned.

Wibbs

jimgoose wrote: »

Does any other jurisdiction allow this? It strikes me as rather odd as well.

If I understand it, the EU is happy with this.

SEPT 23 1989

Fathers rights issue solved

we will all become mothers:D

Daith

Wibbs wrote: »

Exactly. May as well change the date too if we self declare it as wrong.

We're not changing the original birth cert are we?

pmasterson95

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

Fathers rights issue solved

we will all become mothers:D

Then get another form to become daddys. Great craic now.

jimgoose

Wibbs wrote: »

If I understand it, the EU is happy with this.

The EU would be ecstatic if we all eventually became a generic, apolitical, economically irrelevant, non-gender-specific, Esperanto-jabbering Eurotrash backpacker type called Miguel. It ain't furkan' happening.

Wibbs

Knasher wrote: »

Well I asked what issue would be with letting them go back and change it if they wished. So can you be a little bit more specific about this danger you mentioned.

Its a public historical document for pity's sake. But now we're allowed change this and rewrite that official public history? Eh… can you not see the silliness involved here? Like I say let's allow changing the date on it and the fathers/mothers name while we're about it. I mean I feel younger than my birth cert suggests so why not? Nice to get a few years back. Like clocking a car as it were.

Daith

Wibbs wrote: »

Its a public historical document for pity's sake. But now we're allowed change this and rewrite that official public history? Eh… can you not see the silliness involved here? Like I say let's allow changing the date on it and the fathers/mothers name while we're about it. I mean I feel younger than my birth cert suggests so why not? Nice to get a few years back. Like clocking a car as it were.

Well we aren't doing that. The original Birth Cert doesn't change. No altering of that.

Wibbs

Daith wrote: »

We're not changing the original birth cert are we?

I think a new one is issued with the new reality on it. Surreal. A better solution might be and one that many cultures have had is a third gender. So if you are one among that third gender change current documents to reflect that.

Wibbs

Daith wrote: »

Well we aren't doing that. The original Birth Cert doesn't change. No altering of that.

You get a new birth cert and driving licence and passport etc. That's quite a bit of reality bending of official documents.

Knasher

Wibbs wrote: »

Its a public historical document for pity's sake. But now we're allowed change this and rewrite that official public history?

According to the story, the old one will still exist, they simply can get a new one issued. So I don't see any problem there.

Kev W

Wibbs wrote: »

I think a new one is issued with the new reality on it. Surreal. A better solution might be and one that many cultures have had is a third gender. So if you are one among that third gender change current documents to reflect that.

Seperate but equal! Where have I heard that before?

Daith

Wibbs wrote: »

I think a new one is issued with the new reality on it. Surreal.

Yes so we aren't changing any historical document. It will still be there.

Wibbs wrote: »

You get a new birth cert and driving licence and passport etc. That's quite a bit of reality bending of official documents.

It's not changing any document.

_Redzer_

Ehm, who really gives a shít about them changing their birthcert? If that's what they want, fire away, makes SFA difference to my life.

Daith

Wibbs wrote: »

A better solution might be and one that many cultures have had is a third gender. So if you are one among that third gender change current documents to reflect that.

Well they're not a third gender.

Wibbs

Kev W wrote: »

Seperate but equal! Where have I heard that before?

Eh no. We already have two "separate" genders and their equality is (mostly) written in law. I can't see why a third gender couldn't be added. It would solve quite a few issues and as I said many cultures all the way back to Mesopotamia have had such a gender idea and in most they were considered if anything more "special" than the other two. It's not a new concept.

seamus

ThinkProgress wrote: »

I thought official documents required full honest declarations and complete transparency?

Is that not the idea of them being official and law binding documents?

If people want to make distinctions between "sex" and "gender", then maybe they should still have to declare both.

(Unless we're saying it's ok for some people to lie on official documents?)

So why not have both your biological sex AND the gender you are choosing to identify as on those documents?

I'm all for people to live their lives as who or what they wish, but there is no reason they should be permitted to lie, withhold information or cover up their past!

They should be fully transparent about both their past and present identities.

Otherwise these documents are kind of being made a mockery of in some respects.

What relevance does the person's past have on passports, driving licences or marriage certs? Sure, some relevant info will always be included, such as on a passport, your name at birth is noted if it differs. But the fact that your gender differs from the birth cert is somewhat irrelevant.

As I've said on a different thread, for a number of reasons I functionally disagree with permanently altering the birth records; someone who changes their name doesn't get to have their birth cert altered.

But there is a happy middle here I believe; allow for trans people to have an official certificate issued with their correct sex on it, but with the change noted in the official record. Thus the trans person is provided with a birth cert showing their identified sex (and name at birth, oddly), but for genealogical purposes their determined sex at birth is maintained and will become available to the public after 100 years. Likewise any descendents or family members who request a birth/death cert for a deceased person is notified that the original birth record was altered.

Since a birth cert is very much a personal document while the person is alive and an historical document once they're dead, I see no reason why the original birth cert can't be quashed/redacted until the person's death. At that stage they will be still be identified by their actual gender, but the record will show that the record was changed.

Daith

Wibbs wrote: »

Eh no. We already have two "separate" genders and their equality is (mostly) written in law. I can't see why a third gender couldn't be added. It would solve quite a few issues and as I said many cultures all the way back to Mesopotamia have had such a gender idea and in most they were considered if anything more "special" than the other two. It's not a new concept.

Except they're not a third gender. They're a man or woman.

Daith

seamus wrote: »

But there is a happy middle here I believe; allow for trans people to have an official certificate issued with their correct sex on it, but with the change noted in the official record. Thus the trans person is provided with a birth cert showing their identified sex (and name at birth, oddly), but for genealogical purposes their determined sex at birth is maintained and will become available to the public after 100 years. Likewise any descendents or family members who request a birth/death cert for a deceased person is notified that the original birth record was altered.

That would be the case. They get a new birth cert (and if "birth cert" is the correct name is another thing) and their existing one still exists?

Wibbs

Daith wrote: »

Except they're not a third gender. They're a man or woman.

I disagree on more than a few levels, but since that would stir up a hornets nest I'll leave it at that.

Delirium

Daith wrote: »

That would be the case. They get a new birth cert (and if "birth cert" is the correct name is another thing) and their existing one still exists?

I found a pdf of the Gender Recognition Bill 2013.

I'm presuming this is the basis for any changes regarding transgender people and birth certs.

Section 11 ensures that only persons authorised by a document holder may access an original birth certificate once it has been amended, and further makes it illegal to make this information public or ‘‘out’’ a person's trangender status.

Which indicate that two versions of the birth cert would exist.

Daith

SW wrote: »

Which indicate that two versions of the birth cert would exist.

Yup I don't know if it's poor media reporting but their original Birth Cert will not be changed and their history as recorded by the State will be there.

Plenty of people jumping the gun.

suicide_circus

Genuine question: can a transgender woman still suffer from prostate issues? can a transgender man still suffer from ovarian/breast issues?

Daith

Wibbs wrote: »

I disagree on more than a few levels, but since that would stir up a hornets nest I'll leave it at that.

Great but you're exactly the reason why I'm glad the Trans* person gets to choose their identity and not a 3rd person.