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

Wibbs

KomradeBishop wrote: »

There is an ongoing fight between science, and those who want to reduce science down to 'opinion' - and naturally, anyone and everyone who holds questionable views (most especially where they contradict evidence), want to try and play-down science and make every debate just a matter of "my opinion vs your opinion (instead of vs evidence)" - because that's the only way that arguments in denial of evidence can survive.

The problem is KB, that too much of scientific research especially medical research is worryingly dubious, even bogus. When a bunch of heavy hitting researchers and publishers of medical studies have a sit down in London to discuss how bad it's become and publish their findings in The Lancet that says much(link earlier). As one chap said; "the case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness."

And as I said earlier: This goes for the research since that time that has decided a complete about face on the subject, but just as the Guardian position was to say "it's pointless/we don't know", your position would be to find it clinically worthwhile. By the same metrics you dismiss the conclusions of that study(rightfully) you believe the conclusions of the studies that support your position.

kunst nugget wrote: »

The climate change argument is a bit of a nonsense tbh. We have plenty of people denying climate change in the media but very little are writing peer-reviewed articles in relation to it. In an analysis of the 2,258 (with 9,136 authors) peer-reviewed articles published between November 2012 and December 2013, only one explicitly rejected human-driven global warming.

Yea I'd be in agreement there. Even those who have major issues with some of the scientific literature out there would be behind human influence on the climate. There is a gargantuan amount of data involved. This isn't "we examined ten people and found X". Plus one of the biggest clues to how we can affect climate isn't even in modern times. We should have had a couple of ice ages/cooling periods in the last 12,000 years. They were regular as clockwork before the rise of farming and forest clearance and booming human populations. Even in smaller areas you can see historical environment and localised climate change. Every easter when they wheel out the films of the life of Jesus you have him and his mates walking through arid, near desert conditions. However if you hopped in your tardis back to that time and that area it simply didn't look like that, or there was far less desert. It was far more heavily forested for a start. The cedars of Lebanon that once blanketed that country are now confined to mountainous areas and heavily protected. Closer to home in Spain large areas of that country in the central regions has become more and more arid even in the last century, again largely down to deforestation. This has impacted climate locally too. Take a trip around the Greek islands and many of them have ancient terraces for growing food that supplied larger populations than today, but now they're bare stones.

Yes the climate can shift in other ways. Vulcanism for a start that can give effects like the European mini ice age. It's quite variable and dynamic a system, but to suggest that human activity isn't part of that dynamic seems pretty nuts to me TBH.

darkpagandeath

Sooooo... Have they amended the legislation yet to stop any kind of abuse ? Or am I guessing they never thought of people changing identities could cause problems.

Plryty

Clearlier wrote: »

Just because there's a lot of bad science out there doesn't meant that you dismiss it. You examine it, you critique it and you try to do better and work out better ways of doing things. You call out misrepresentations of it. You don't just plead ignorance and leave it alone. You do the best that you can. As part of that you weigh up the available evidence and make the best decisions that you can. Sometimes you end up revisiting those decisions as new information becomes available.

There may be questions about the source of 'homosexuality and transgenderism' in the same sense as there are questions about the source of heterosexuality. Just because we don't understand the mechanism of something doesn't mean that it's not real and there's no question about their existence.

A quick note on the whole 'bigot' thing. Your last paragraph is quickly becoming the classic response from thoughtless people (N.B. I'm not making a comment on any of your other posts here as I haven't followed your contribution). It happens on both sides of the debate and is a reflection of people who fail to engage with the argument sometimes because they just don't want things to change/remain the same, other times because their arguments have been exposed as flimsy and still others because they simply don't understand the arguments. Sometimes it manifests itself subtly in constant restatement of someone's position without any acknowledgement of a counter argument, other times it's more overt taking the form of abusive or semi-abusive language. Whatever the form that it takes it doesn't deserve any attention and it certainly doesn't add anything to the discussion.

And in order to correctly review the scientific consensus on the topic, it requires a high degree of knowledge in the subject/statistics/experimental design etc. Its why you won't see undergraduate science students having their literature reviews put into peer reviewed journals.
Yet when it comes to far more complex topics like transgenderism, all of a sudden there is a ton of non professional armchair scientists who have read a few introductions & conclusions thinking their position holds far greater weight than it should.

For example you say just because we don't understand the mechanism of something doesn't mean it does not exist. That is somewhat correct, if and only if we know the thing exists. eg scientists recognised certain genes becoming activated led to cancerous growth, it took a long time to understand the exact mechanisms though how these genes influenced cell behaviour.
Being gay is the opposite afaik, we know there is gay people we know there is some mechanism going on which has flipped their sexual orientation but the underlying actors are not known. It more than likely is due to genetics, it's the most plausible starting place for research but we can't attribute being gay to genetics until there is evidence shown. To be consistent, that applies to heterosexuality too.

SpaceTime

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Sooooo... Have they amended the legislation yet to stop any kind of abuse ? Or am I guessing they never thought of people changing identities could cause problems.

I think you're possibly overestimating the risk and also the security of Irish identities anyway.

You can change your name by just simply by being known as something else! You can change your name by deed poll without any fuss too.

Tons of Irish people are down as one thing on a birth cert and use another name in reality. Even more use their name in Irish or English depending on their mood on any given day.

Women sometimes take their husband's surname, something they don't, sometimes they opt to use double-barrell names.

We don't have any identity cards or ID documents really, other than passports either, yet somehow we all seem to survive without any need for cumbersome bureaucracy and somehow manage to identify ourselves.

For the most part here identity is established with secondary documents like passports, driving licenses, college IDs etc and proof of address is usually established by use of the sacred utility company bill, which apparently proves all sorts, yet in reality you could sign up for an electricity bill as Mr Mickey Mouse and as long as you paid it successfully, the power company doesn't really care either way.

You're issued with a PPS number at birth, or upon arrival in Ireland when you register for tax, PRSI, welfare, medical health services etc. That won't change and that's actually the only unique bit of identification we have in Ireland anyway!

Changing your gender is not really going to make much difference at all and doesn't really impact anything.

darkpagandeath

SpaceTime wrote: »

I think you're possibly overestimating the risk and also the security of Irish identities anyway.

You can change your name by just simply by being known as something else! You can change your name by deed poll without any fuss too.

Tons of Irish people are down as one thing on a birth cert and use another name in reality. Even more use their name in Irish or English depending on their mood on any given day.

Women sometimes take their husband's surname, something they don't, sometimes they opt to use double-barrell names.

We don't have any identity cards or ID documents really, other than passports either, yet somehow we all seem to survive without any need for cumbersome bureaucracy and somehow manage to identify ourselves.

For the most part here identity is established with secondary documents like passports, driving licenses, college IDs etc and proof of address is usually established by use of the sacred utility company bill, which apparently proves all sorts, yet in reality you could sign up for an electricity bill as Mr Mickey Mouse and as long as you paid it successfully, the power company doesn't really care either way.

You're issued with a PPS number at birth, or upon arrival in Ireland when you register for tax, PRSI, welfare, medical health services etc. That won't change and that's actually the only unique bit of identification we have in Ireland anyway!

No, I think people are underestimating people of a criminal persuasion being presented with an avenue. Being blinded by “Equality”.

SpaceTime

darkpagandeath wrote: »

No, I think people are underestimating people of a criminal persuasion being presented with an avenue. Being blinded by “Equality”.

In that case you might as well just completely outlaw the use of Irish and English versions of names, ban women from having the option of using their married or maiden name, ban dual-nationality, ban using your middle name as your first name, make it a criminal offence to have two spelling of your address (half the country has totally inconsistent addresses).

I can't see how the courts will have any difficulty whatsoever in saying that

Ms Jane Smith used to be Mr John Smith in much the same way as they can figure out that Sean O'Murachú is also Shane Murphy or James Murphy.

Your PPS number will not change, and your DOB will not change and I'm sure it will be remembered somewhere that you used to be known as a different name.

It's not really a big deal at all from a legal point of view and the courts and legal system will be fully aware that such a possibility exists and it's not like it's going to be a major surprise to them!

Irish law isn't actually based on Napoleonic code and courts can make deductions and figure things out. They have absolutely no issue prosecuting someone where a Garda has made a misspelling of their name for example!

Identity in Ireland is not established in a very technocratic way. It may be that way in some continental jurisdictions however.
We make a lot of use of Common Law concepts where you are who you are known as a lot of the time, not necessarily as what's printed on your documentation.

darkpagandeath

SpaceTime wrote: »

In that case you might as well just completely outlaw the use of Irish and English versions of names, ban women from having the option of using their married or maiden name, ban dual-nationality, ban using your middle name as your first name, make it a criminal offence to have two spelling of your address (half the country has totally inconsistent addresses).

I can't see how the courts will have any difficulty whatsoever in saying that

Ms Jane Smith used to be Mr John Smith in much the same way as they can figure out that Sean O'Murachú is also Shane Murphy or James Murphy.

Your PPS number will not change, and your DOB will not change and I'm sure it will be remembered somewhere that you used to be known as a different name.

It's not really a big deal at all from a legal point of view and the courts and legal system will be fully aware that such a possibility exists and it's not like it's going to be a major surprise to them!

Irish law isn't actually based on Napoleonic code and courts can make deductions and figure things out. They have absolutely no issue prosecuting someone where a Garda has made a misspelling of their name for example!

Identity in Ireland is not established in a very technocratic way. It may be that way in some continental jurisdictions however.
We make a lot of use of Common Law concepts where you are who you are known as a lot of the time, not necessarily as what's printed on your documentation.

It's not just a name change. You seem to have faith in your fellow humans. Experience has taught me a very different lesson. A system with no oversight and self deceleration what could possibly go wrong.

Wibbs

Plryty wrote: »

Being gay is the opposite afaik, we know there is gay people we know there is some mechanism going on which has flipped their sexual orientation but the underlying actors are not known. It more than likely is due to genetics, it's the most plausible starting place for research but we can't attribute being gay to genetics until there is evidence shown. To be consistent, that applies to heterosexuality too.

The current thinking seems to be a genetic component is in play, but exposure to hormones in the womb may be a bigger factor. There may be some environmentals going on too. EG identical twins who are essentially genetic clones and exposed to the same womb environments aren't always both gay or straight. There's a lot of complexity going on.

nokia69

nokia69 wrote: »

stop being so hysterical, McInnes is not trying to ban or stop anyone getting what ever kind of surgery or body modification they want

Read better.

Nobody claimed McInnes is doing this, so why are you refuting something that was never claimed? Read better. I said his libertarian outlook with regard to the human body is inconsistent with the individualistic policies he advocates elsewhere in society. It strikes me as hypocritical.

IrishTrajan wrote: »

The very same argument can be applied to the left-wing, though.

No. It can be applied to a certain number of people on the left.

It doesn't characterise an entire ideology, just the most stupid adherents of any ideology, right or left.

There is a similar level of inconsistency amongst Fintan O'Toole types, who are antagonistic to personal property rights and individualism, yet could not be more antagonistic to community values when it comes to marriage equality, gender identity, and family issues. That has nothing to do with whether Gavin McInnes is an idiot though. Unquestionably he is, in my opinion.

SpaceTime

darkpagandeath wrote: »

It's not just a name change. You seem to have faith in your fellow humans. Experience has taught me a very different lesson. A system with no oversight and self deceleration what could possibly go wrong.

That's precisely what we have for names and addresses as it stands anyway!

You have to have faith in your fellow human beings to a large degree. It's that social contract that means that most of us do our best to actually be nice that is what makes society work!

If you couldn't trust anyone ever, you'd end up with a very broken society or a over-controlled authoritarian state where everything is about rules and regulations.

Ireland, in common with most liberal democracies actually does base a lot on trust.

A lot of law here is about making solemn declarations a out things and agreeing to be honest.

When you step outside that, we have purgury and fraud laws and consequences for lying to courts etc.

But basically, 90% of what we do even our income tax self assessments are based largely on trust and the fact that most people are upstanding, honourable citizens.

darkpagandeath

SpaceTime wrote: »

That's precisely what we have for names and addresses as it stands anyway!

You have to have faith in your fellow human beings to a large degree. It's that social contract that means that most of us do our best to actually be nice that is what makes society work!

If you couldn't trust anyone ever, you'd end up with a very broken society or a over-controlled authoritarian state where everything is about rules and regulations.

Ireland, in common with most liberal democracies actually does base a lot on trust.

A lot of law here is about making solemn declarations a out things and agreeing to be honest.

When you step outside that, we have purgury and fraud laws and consequences for lying to courts etc.

But basically, 90% of what we do even our income tax self assessments are based largely on trust and the fact that most people are upstanding, honourable citizens.

I guess the Irony is lost declaring protections and safeguards in place....

KomradeBishop

jank wrote: »

All well and good but as remarked earlier by Wibbs there is so much bad science out there to begin with. Take for example Climate change, well is climate change real? Probably, however, is it man-made climate change? Well that is the interesting question. The climate has been changing for thousands of years without mans help, so how can we be 100% sure that present day climate change is indeed man's doing. No doubt you can go off and cite a study to this effect and I can go off and google another study that contradicts it. We both are not scientists so why bother engage in this pointless pissing in the wind. Science good or bad, is often just used to try gain an advantage in a debate, hence is so politicised now and often it gets no where and adds to the confusion and where good science is lost in the mess.

The consensus among the vast majority of scientists is that climate change is man made and real; ignoring that and pouring doubt on it is denialism, which is usually evident in how denialism often seems to align with the political goals of those engaging in it.

The people pushing science denial usually also hold freedom of expression and relying on people to "figure things out for themselves" as sacrosanct - except when it comes to science/evidence - where suddenly science is painted as too complex and lacking in consensus, for people to make any sense of by themselves (and therefore science should be discarded and everything reduced down to opinion).

There is bad science out there, and differentiating good science from bad, uses pretty much the same set of critical thinking skills as differentiating good from bad arguments: You do a background check on sources/studies (looking for conflicts of interest and other biases) before accepting them as credible, and search out meta-analysis of scientific studies in a field, and you examine the arguments that scientists make in those analysis to attack/bolster research and scientific studies.

Over time you learn all the nuances/problems within a field of research (and you don't need any technical ability in a field to be knowledgeable of this), and gain an interest in searching out more information to try and understand the extent of the problems and how to spot good research from bad; that's how e.g. I know that string theory (the dominant field of theoretical physics study) is arguably unfalsifiable pseudo-science, despite not having any technical ability in that field - the arguments for/against that, are understandable to laymen.

Everybody is capable of doing this and figuring out for themselves, whether there is merit to a particular scientific view, so long as they develop the critical thinking skills needed, and apply the time needed to research this.
You can learn pretty much anything online, this way - and will spot flaws in research/fields, that even people who study the topic in college or work professionally in the field, may not know of - generally, you learn the most about a field of research, by learning everything that is wrong with it first; I find that is reliably the best way to learn anything, as it allows you to safely avoid false/misguided knowledge/information.

jank wrote: »

Another case. Homosexuality and Transgenderism. Is there conclusive science on this? You mentioned yourself that the brain is a 'black-box' and I happen to agree. No one has really any clue on what causes the above. However, science is used to suit the argument. It has not been mentioned in this debate, well because there is no conclusive science to back up the present argument. Yet, in another debate say on SSM you will have the same people drag out study after study in order to win the point. Its kinda having it all your own way, having your cake and eating it.

My previous point really was about the language used to described dissenters to the latest cause du jour, what ever fashionable cause of the day it may be. People latch onto ideas with a religious fervour of old even though they may not be religious themselves, which is the ultimate irony of modern day secularism. People who have swayed from the progressive approved line of thinking have been called 'bigots' and been accused of trying to dehumanise transgender people. Very much like a presit of old calling out heretics because they don't like the the points being raised. Then of course you have people like yourself engaged in character assassin, calling out the motives of people who dare even ask a question about poorly drafted legislation, which feeds into the above.

I've seen one person bring up 'dehumanisation' in an argument, and not explain what they mean by that - and people contesting that is about the only valid complaint I've seen.
I haven't seen any illegitimate uses of the term 'bigot' - McInnes, certainly, can accurately be described as one.

Accurately describing problems with a persons reputation (which is what I did) is not character assassination - defamatory comments and untruthful comments about someones reputation (which I did not do), is character assassination; I don't believe I've called into question, anyone who was discussing the legislation in this thread.

If a source has massive reputational problems and conflicts of interest, then you can't really complain when people choose not to waste their time with it, and discard the source without argument (which is what you argue in favour of, when it comes to scientific evidence as a whole) - if any of that persons arguments have any merit, then it's up to you to find a more credible source.

KomradeBishop

Wibbs wrote: »

The problem is KB, that too much of scientific research especially medical research is worryingly dubious, even bogus. When a bunch of heavy hitting researchers and publishers of medical studies have a sit down in London to discuss how bad it's become and publish their findings in The Lancet that says much(link earlier). As one chap said; "the case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness."

And as I said earlier: This goes for the research since that time that has decided a complete about face on the subject, but just as the Guardian position was to say "it's pointless/we don't know", your position would be to find it clinically worthwhile. By the same metrics you dismiss the conclusions of that study(rightfully) you believe the conclusions of the studies that support your position.

Ya that's true - the biotech industry in particular, has a huge amount of trouble with fraudulent research, and quite a lot of research isn't being reproduced to verify its validity.
I'm a big fan of Ben Goldacre, when it comes to reading about problems with the medical industry - he's a great critical/skeptic writer, and funny to boot (miss him having regular articles in the Guardian...).

These are problems which you can spot by searching out meta-analysis though, as described in my previous post; I believe that pretty much everybody is capable of doing this (if they learn the right critical thinking abilities - which this is great practice for), and that its something people in general should get a lot more used to doing (e.g. more than once I've found myself in conflict with people in the health profession, over how to proceed with something - I never 'leave it up to the experts' - so it has big practical benefits if you are used to researching things yourself).

With regards to the transgender study: I'd need to spend time learning the general topic and looking at the studies to weigh things up (which debates in threads like this are great for), so I don't know what my opinion is yet on all of this.

One thing that struck me with the Guardian study though: Pretty much all of the negative effects which the study relied upon, can be just as credibly put down to social discrimination/exclusion, which transgender folk are more likely to experience - so I don't see how it can draw the conclusion in the article headline.

Often as is the case with problems classed as a mental health issue (i.e. classed as a problem with the person/individual), the real problem is often with society itself (and sometimes with the way society is run politically/economically - which I think is a big reason to be skeptical of the DSM, as this is a reason it can be subject to political bias).

SpaceTime

darkpagandeath wrote: »

I guess the Irony is lost declaring protections and safeguards in place....

What irony?

The same safe guards and protections are in place that are there for everything else! If you commit identify fraud there are consequences to that. You could do that by changing your name, changing language of your name, getting married and changing your name, changing your nationality and creating multiple identities or changing your gender.

Most dealing with the state are connected to PPS number now and I can't really see a court seeing one person as two people regardless of what their gender is / was.

This simply is not going to be any issue!
The courts will just see you as the same person, but of a different gender. There's really nothing very new or complicated about this and it's been done in other contexts like marriage, change of name, change of nationality etc etc for centuries!

darkpagandeath

SpaceTime wrote: »

What irony?

The same safe guards and protections are in place that are there for everything else! If you commit identify fraud there are consequences to that. You could do that by changing your name, changing language of your name, getting married and changing your name, changing your nationality and creating multiple identities or changing your gender.

Most dealing with the state are connected to PPS number now and I can't really see a court seeing one person as two people regardless of what their gender is / was.

This simply is not going to be any issue!

Forgive me if I don't take Opinion as fact.

SpaceTime

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Forgive me if I don't take Opinion as fact.

You're forgiven !

But you'll forgive me if I think you're trying to whip up an argument about an issue that isn't going to be one based on an agenda that is nothing to do with identity theft!

Much like gay marriage had nothing to do with lack of regulation of surrogacy in Ireland!

darkpagandeath

SpaceTime wrote: »

You're forgiven !

But you'll forgive me if I think you're trying to whip up an argument about an issue that isn't going to be one based on an agenda that is nothing to do with identity theft!
Much like gay marriage had nothing to do with lack of regulation of surrogacy in Ireland!

Ahh... What agenda would that be now ? I'm not a Christian or believe in any sky wizards books why would a persons sexuality affect me ?

SpaceTime

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Ahh... What agenda would that be now ?

The usual one: Someone doesn't like some liberalisation of some particular law and finds umpteen parallel issues that have some vague relationship with it to argue that it will be the end of the world as we know it..

Aka "muddying the waters"

One doesn't have to be religious to be conservative.

darkpagandeath

SpaceTime wrote: »

The usual one: Someone doesn't like some liberalisation of some particular law and finds umpteen parallel issues that have some vague relationship with it to argue that it will be the end of the world as we know it..

Aka "muddying the waters"
One doesn't have to be religious to be conservative.

:pac:

SpaceTime

All I'm saying is there's absolutely no precedent in Irish law for change of name in any way causing legal issues. Once a court can establish who you are / used to be, they can absolutely pursue contracts and prosecutions as per normal.

If the state wants to make that extra clear in legislation, they can also do that to ensure there's no loophole that might allow someone to use this as an FBI witness protection programme.

The fact is there'll be a sworn statement on the public record showing someone switched gender identity. That's not creating a new person, it's just very similar to deed poll just a bit more fundamental than a name change but there's a long established common law approach to dealing with that.

Short of a judge going completely bonkers, switching gender is not going to result in people being able to walk off on mortgage commitments etc etc

Links234

RDM_83 again wrote: »

Ah didn't realise there was those recent changes, it still doesn't really answer the WHY though, it does seem to be two distinct messages, that Transexualism is a provable physical/neurological difference that shouldn't be considered as a social identity issue, whereas the legislation seems to equate it simply as an issue of people choosing how they feel and everybody should be able to chose their own identity.

To me the first area is a completely valid point of view but in terms of the second, if your going to allow gender to be completely due to self identification (which has its own issues that plays into the whole gender stereotypes thing we have been trying to avoid) your going to have to rewrite lots of society.
Isn't the conflation or Transexuality and Transgenderism actually possibly a negative step as UCDVet points out because we conflate Gender with Sex as a society extremely loose legislation like this will mean a greater emphasis on Sex being the defining characteristic.

The person who I talked about in one of my previous posts is a prime example of how an non assessed system could cause issues unless you start to use Sex in which case those that Transexual will be further stigmatized.

Sorry for not getting to this sooner RDM. It is as I understand it being considered a civil right the same as changing your name is a right, and that you can't have have access to a civil right subject to a medical diagnosis. Also, I don't really know how it will work in Ireland, but I think how it works in other countries like Argentina is that you will have to pay a fee and submit your application to the relevant government body, and that you will have to talk to some official.

The thing is, all this talk about what if people abuse the system, etc... Well if someone who isn't transgender wants to change their sex legally they theoretically could I guess, but they're going to have to live with the consequences of having documents that don't match them and open themselves up for the kinds of scrutiny and discrimination that trans people are exposed to. I can tell you from first hand experience that when your documents don't match it's not fun. Before I got my passport updated, my old one had identified me as male rather than female, so I needed to travel to the UK for a medical appointment, and I thought in order to avoid hassle I would 'butch up' while going through the airport rather than trying to explain why a woman had a passport that said male. This didn't work out quite so well and I got pulled aside and questioned by security and they went through my stuff, they didn't believe I was who I said I was and it was quite stressful. Try using your passport as ID as well, not fun.

Got my new passport not long after that, not a bit of bother at airport security since. I'm relatively lucky that I've not had many issues, but your documents not matching can create all sorts of problems, for trans people it can open them up to discrimination and out their private medical history to people who have no business knowing about it.

SpaceTime

It's most likely a lot less of a big deal in a common law jurisdiction like Ireland than a civil / codified law jurisdiction like most non-English speaking countries.

Identity here is most definitely about 'who you are known as' rather than some kind of technocratic / bureaucratic thing as it is on the continent.

There's a bigger question in Ireland and Britain though about how one establishes an identity at all. It can actually be very difficult to prove who you are - We rely on an awful lot of secondary evidence like electricity bills, official documents that happen to have your name and address on them. Actually a birth certificate is extremely insecure as a form of documentation to prove your identity, it could easily be used by someone else of similar age. The gender aspect is not exactly adding any extra meaningful security to it anyway!

A lot of it is based on trust and a firm statement of who you say you are in most legal incidences. You go on stand and state your name to the court i.e. are you XXXX YYYY of Address... ?

Our ID documents like driving licenses and passports are largely based on someone making a signed statement in a Garda station or to a state agency and providing lots of secondary evidence of who they claim to be and that being accepted by the authorities for those forms of photo ID.

We rely an awful lot more on sworn statements and acceptance of those than most of the codified world which would rely much more heavily on identity documents. In most continental countries everyone has an ID card - the down side is that in some of them you're also required to carry this ID around with you at all times (or face legal penalties).

I honestly think the debate about security of Irish (and also British) identities is a parallel thread that has more to do with the legal system and general public policy than transgender persons' rights as it extends way beyond this debate and is a whole other discussion entirely.

As it stands, neither Ireland nor the UK have any uniform way of proving ID. Whether that's a problem or not is another question as we seem to get on pretty well without it!

The problem with official ID systems is that if someone successfully takes (assumes) your identity, it can be next to impossible to prove who you are and get it back again as everyone will accept the official documents at face value at all times, especially where someone has managed to get ID cards in your name. It can in some ways cause as many problems as it solves.

At least in the Irish system, you're always basically background checking identities against multiple sources and not just relying on a single point of failure.

It's not as daft as it looks at times!

Annasopra

It passed the Seanad today and now awaits President Higgins signature

Great day for Ireland

http://www.euronews.com/2015/06/26/ireland-s-transgender-revolution-winning-the-right-to-recognition/

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jul/16/ireland-transgender-law-gender-recognition-bill-passed

http://www.rte.ie/news/2015/0715/715016-gender-recognition-bill/[/QUOTE]

jimgoose

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

It passed the Seanad today and now awaits President Higgins signature

Great day for Ireland

http://www.euronews.com/2015/06/26/ireland-s-transgender-revolution-winning-the-right-to-recognition/

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jul/16/ireland-transgender-law-gender-recognition-bill-passed

http://www.rte.ie/news/2015/0715/715016-gender-recognition-bill/

Good.

Links234

Awwwww yeah

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=roRQ2mNwMMQ

Dirty Dingus McGee

How will this affect sport?

Say a transgender person decides they want to play for a ladies football or camogie team will they be allowed to play.It would give them a bit of unfair advantage over the other players.

Tombi!

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

How will this affect sport?

Say a transgender person decides they want to play for a ladies football or camogie team will they be allowed to play.It would give them a bit of unfair advantage over the other players.

Didn't you hear Al Gore? Celebrate now.

P_1

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

How will this affect sport?

Say a transgender person decides they want to play for a ladies football or camogie team will they be allowed to play.It would give them a bit of unfair advantage over the other players.

In short, it won't. Various sporting bodies have had procedures in place for trans athletes for years now.

Slightly unhappy that the bill is only written in terms of binary genders though, it had the scope to go so much further

andrew

P_1 wrote: »

Slightly unhappy that the bill is only written in terms of binary genders though, it had the scope to go so much further

What do you/does the non binary community have in mind? From my understanding, It strikes me as something that'd be very difficult to incorporate into legislation, what with the numerous shades of in-between that can exist between male and female.

jimgoose

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

How will this affect sport?

Say a transgender person decides they want to play for a ladies football or camogie team will they be allowed to play.It would give them a bit of unfair advantage over the other players.

You haven't seen a camogie team from East Limerick, have you!