More from Roderic O'Gorman (MOD NOTE IN OPENING POST)

A Knight of Ireland

https://theliberal.ie/newly-appointed-childrens-minister-backs-the-idea-that-teenagers-under-16-should-be-able-to-change-their-gender/

Children’s Minister Roderic O’Gorman is introducing a law to make it easier for children to change their genders – based on the recommendations of a review group Chaired by a Trans rights activist that did not have one single medical expert on it. :mad: This is shocking


Mod Note

Ten of Swords wrote: »

A significant number of posts have been deleted, this is the second (and final) reminder that this thread concerns the gender recognition legislation for children under 18.

Any more posts conflating trans with pedophilia or mental illness, traveller rights, transgender prisoners, crime from people of a migrant background or any other off topic posting will earn an immediate card and threadban.

suicide_circus

It's not shocking at all. This is how things are now.

If this gives you pause for concern, you are simply on the wrong side of history.

The definition of a man/woman is any person who sees themselves as such.

For Forks Sake

Oh well, if the 'Liberal' says so...:rolleyes:

Losty Dublin

More shocking that somebody would take content from Leo Sherlock's news site page as factual unbiased news TBH.

senordingdong

A Knight of Ireland wrote: »

https://theliberal.ie/newly-appointed-childrens-minister-backs-the-idea-that-teenagers-under-16-should-be-able-to-change-their-gender/

Children’s Minister Roderic O’Gorman is introducing a law to make it easier for children to change their genders – based on the recommendations of a review group Chaired by a Trans rights activist that did not have one single medical expert on it. :mad: This is shocking

This has been on the cards for some time now, it is Regina Dohertys baby.
What should be worrying is not just the normalised belief that someone not deemed old enough to drink or vote can be deemed old enough to change their gender, but his belief that it should be decided by a gp with the flick of a pen.

paw patrol

suicide_circus wrote: »

It's not shocking at all. This is how things are now.

If this gives you pause for concern, you are simply on the wrong side of history.

The definition of a man/woman is any person who sees themselves as such.

i hope you're still in your trolling phase.:eek:

For Forks Sake wrote: »

Oh well, if the 'Liberal' says so...:rolleyes:

yes, because it couldn't be true :rolleyes:

senordingdong

For Forks Sake wrote: »

Oh well, if the 'Liberal' says so...:rolleyes:

The independent reported it too of that somehow makes it less unbelievable.

Limpy

O'Gorman seems to be arm deep in some weird Soros backed groups.

suicide_circus

paw patrol wrote: »

i hope you're still in your trolling phase.:eek:

You wish!

paw patrol

suicide_circus wrote: »

You wish!

Yikes!

alchemist33

Limpy wrote: »

O'Gorman seems to be arm deep in some weird Soros backed groups.

Such as?

A Knight of Ireland

A Knight of Ireland wrote: »

https://theliberal.ie/newly-appointed-childrens-minister-backs-the-idea-that-teenagers-under-16-should-be-able-to-change-their-gender/

Children’s Minister Roderic O’Gorman is introducing a law to make it easier for children to change their genders – based on the recommendations of a review group Chaired by a Trans rights activist that did not have one single medical expert on it. :mad: This is shocking

By children, you mean sixteen and seventeen year olds. Also this was in the works since the previous government. And with the combined consent of parents/guardian and a gp. A sixteen year old year old can already consent to medical procedures so it's not exactly radical.

Calhoun

It had to happen eventually, following international norms of targeting kids. The end goal will be getting it to 12/13 year olds before puberty kicks in.

The parental consent and GP consent won't last to long either.

There is an independent article but it's behind a paywall.

https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/new-childrens-minister-to-make-it-easier-for-under-16s-to-change-their-gender-39346464.html

ronivek

Deleted User wrote: »

By children, you mean sixteen and seventeen year olds. Also this was in the works since the previous government. And with the combined consent of parents/guardian and a gp. A sixteen year old year old can already consent to medical procedures so it's not exactly radical.

It is being reported (https://www.herald.ie/news/ogorman-backs-gender-changes-for-under-16s-39346188.html) that the requirement for those under 16 will be to have parent's consent; I'm not sure what if any difference there will be for 16 and 17 year olds.

Rodin

Being allowed to change your gender as a child but not be allowed to vote is just lunacy.

How many children is this going to affect anyway?

If the govt spent a fraction of the time per person who is disabled that they give to transgender issues, disability services in the country would be world-leading.

ronivek

ronivek wrote: »

It is being reported that the requirement for those under 16 will be to have parent's consent; I'm not sure what if any difference there will be for 16 and 17 year olds.

My mistake, misread this. Still not seeing any major issue as long as correct conversations are had etc.
https://www.newstalk.com/podcasts/highlights-from-newstalk-breakfast/plans-change-transition-process-transgender-teens

senordingdong

[Deleted User] wrote: »

By children, you mean sixteen and seventeen year olds. Also this was in the works since the previous government. And with the combined consent of parents/guardian and a gp. A sixteen year old year old can already consent to medical procedures so it's not exactly radical.

The compounding problem is that parents aren't qualified experts and you can't get a gp in this country to diagnose a cold without referring you to a specialist.

ronivek

One thing to note is that this is just about changing your legal/official gender designation; this has nothing to do with gender reassignment treatment which still requires the same medical process. Hence why medical experts likely weren't involved in the review process.

Calhoun

ronivek wrote: »

One thing to note is that this is just about changing your legal/official gender designation; this has nothing to do with gender reassignment treatment which still requires the same medical process. Hence why medical experts likely weren't involved in the review process.

The articles are misleading then as it indicates that it's related to medical intervention.

senordingdong

ronivek wrote: »

One thing to note is that this is just about changing your legal/official gender designation; this has nothing to do with gender reassignment treatment which still requires the same medical process. Hence why medical experts likely weren't involved in the review process.

That's not a huge saving grace. Changing your legal identity is its own quandary, as per the attorney generals advice to govt. Re the Lydia Foy case.

Rodin

How would a young female who changed her gender to man be on a list for Cervical screening?

Should we have a biological and social sex/gender designation ?

Richard Hillman

This O'Gorman fellow seems to be the nutty NGOs dream ticket. He can try and introduce crazy laws for free and will probably spunk the budget on funding activist lifestyles.

Gruffalux

It is nothing to do with medical transition. Children under 16 cannot have hormones or surgery.
The difference for 16 plus is they will not need a specialist to sign off, a GP will do.
And the proposal is to allow UNDER 16 years old with consent of parents to also change their legal gender.

I am not in favour of it. But people should know the facts of what it is before saying silly things.

biko

Sweden, in the forefront of liberal craziness like this, may reverse their thinking of letting underage children change their genders.
But Ireland is about to make the same mistake as Sweden did before.

I'm totally ok with you changing your sex gender, but you have to wait until you are 18.



https://feministlegal.org/teenage-transgender-row-splits-sweden-as-dysphoria-diagnoses-soar-by-1500-2/#.XwSXVihKjFg

Teenage transgender row splits Sweden as dysphoria diagnoses soar by 1,500%

In the autumn of 2018, the Social Democrat-led government, under pressure from the gay, lesbian and transgender group RFSL, proposed a new law which would reduce the minimum age for sex reassignment medical care from 18 to 15, remove all need for parental consent, and allow children as young as 12 to change their legal gender.

Then in March last year, the backlash started. Christopher Gillberg, a psychiatrist at Gothenburg’s Sahlgrenska Academy, wrote an article in the Svenska Dagbladet newspaper warning that hormone treatment and surgery on children was “a big experiment” which risked becoming one of the country’s worst medical scandals.

One of the most surprising changes has been the growing divisions between trans activists. While Romson warns that children will have even more anxiety because of the change in the debate, Aleksa Lundberg, a trans woman and longstanding activist, is backing the call for more research.

Last October she apologised for not having been sufficiently open about the depression she had felt after her operation. “I would probably not undergo corrective surgery if I had the same choice today,” she wrote. “And I want to apologise to those who perhaps needed to hear that story earlier.”

Rodin

biko wrote: »

Sweden, in the forefront of liberal craziness like this, may reverse their thinking of letting underage children change their genders.
But Ireland is about to make the same mistake as Sweden did before.

I'm totally ok with you changing your sex, but you have to wait until you are 18.



https://feministlegal.org/teenage-transgender-row-splits-sweden-as-dysphoria-diagnoses-soar-by-1500-2/#.XwSXVihKjFg

Sex can't be changed.

ronivek

senordingdong wrote: »

That's not a huge saving grace. Changing your legal identity is its own quandary, as per the attorney generals advice to govt. Re the Lydia Foy case.

I'm fairly certain these are completely different issues:

• The Lydia Foy case was/is about changing a birth certificate.
• The Gender Recognition Act is about recognising someone's gender via an additional Gender Recognition Certificate; not about changing a birth certificate.

EDIT: Actually I'm wrong; it appears you can apply for a new Birth Certificate once you've been issued with a Gender Recognition Certification and that Lydia Foy has no outstanding issues with these laws.

they'll want to change the binomial nomenclature next because the HOMO Genus is too much to take! or offensive or something.

let them change genders and when they hit the state for mental health support and a life time of free SRI's and CBT, I wont be paying for it. It's a form of natural selection at this stage, lemmings the lot of them.

keano_afc

What surprises me is that people are genuinely gullible enough to believe that this is as far as this ideology will go.

The UK is usually a good barometer of whats coming down the line here. And trans activism is out of control over there.

https://quillette.com/2020/01/17/why-i-resigned-from-tavistock-trans-identified-children-need-therapy-not-just-affirmation-and-drugs/

Assetbacked

This is the same Roderic O'Gorman who was quoted in media today using the words "attacked", "homophobes", "far right" and "last few days". Honestly, people who use Twitter should have to get a branding so we can automatically take their word with a pinch of salt.

senordingdong

ronivek wrote: »

I'm fairly certain these are completely different issues:

• The Lydia Foy case was/is about changing a birth certificate.
• The Gender Recognition Act is about recognising someone's gender via an additional Gender Recognition Certificate; not about changing a birth certificate.

EDIT: Actually I'm wrong; it appears you can apply for a new Birth Certificate once you've been issued with a Gender Recognition Certification and that Lydia Foy has no outstanding issues with these laws.

And now 16 ear olds should be allowed to make that decision.

1800_Ladladlad

IMO the timing is suspicious. He's been no more than a week in the job and this is first on his agenda. This isn't a coincidence. It's evidently clear why accusations of homophobia were used, so when the received the expected opposition on this matter, the scapegoat excuse has be deployed. There's a clear agenda here, putting him as minister for children.

I would have thought that the more serious issues would have been the first to be tackled like homelessness & child poverty- making sure that children don’t have to eat on the ground, also that they have a place that they can grow and develop in safe and nurturing environment, and that they are not being educated in overcrowded classrooms where their specific developmental needs are not being met. Making sure they have access to the healthcare they need, like working to reduce the waiting lists for urgent operations in hospitals that kids have been waiting on and are in urgent need of, maybe improve the special needs shortages in the health service and lack of support.


These are pertinent issues that affect thousands in Ireland. I know there are many more that need to be highlighted as a matter of urgency but the issue O'Gorman has highlighted as his first issue to tackle affects a small proportion of the population of Ireland. I feel that this is not a good start and is rather worrying when the minister for children values the sake of the few rather the many.

At 16, children are confused enough as it is, and their body or mind hasn't finished developing. My concern would be that for many teenagers of that age, could lead to them pretending to be something they're not to fit a particular stereotypical gender role just so they could fit in when they may feel alone or like an outsider. I know I felt alone and like I didn't fit in with society when I was 16, I tried so many things to try and make feel as if I did but this is a choice with the potential of damaging a child psychologically and physically.

It's a major, dangerous decision that a child should not be allowed to make. Mutilating themselves and pretending to be something they're not, hence why so many transitions and regret their choice. These children need proper guidance and support through counselling. Grown informed educated adults should be making this decision and not children.


Calls to end transgender ‘experiment on children’ Staff quit NHS clinic over ethics and safety fears Source

NHS gender clinic 'should have challenged me more' over transition. Source

Doctors in row with HSE over claims children's transgender care is 'unsafe'. Source


What will add to all this is the militant actions taken by lgbt activist in our schooling system who are actively attempting to force this is on children. At a teaching conference in February 2020, Elly Barnes 'Educate and Celebrate' warns and tells Irish teachers NOT to meet parents for consultation or to send letters home regarding new sexual education programmes. "We are not asking them if they like it or not, it's in policy". Im trying to find a video of the teaching conference so that you can hear it for yourselves. See below:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ptzx4Ea3ZiE

Elly Barnes “We do need to eradicate all of the heteronormativity within our schools”

In Irish schools there are teachers pushing for ;
- Refer to themsleves as Mx
- Challenge student views on LGBT
- Stop using 'boys and girls'
- Put LGBT books into the school library


So with this level of control in the schools, what's the next step going to be. They will be able to indoctrinate children at a young age without their parents' consent. After the years of the sex-ed classes transitioning will be perfectly normal, then parents will have no other option but to watch powerlessly from the sidelines as your child is mutilated.


Im a scout leader and the majority of the 16 y/o don't know how to cook or clean for themselves nor have basic knowledge of household maintenance, or they don't know what bus to get down to our hall. Apart from one of two of them don't have jobs or have a bank account and they can't buy alcohol but yet you want to give a 16 y/o the ability to be to change their gender? You'd have to be mentally unstable to allow this.

ChikiChiki

Has that absolute geebag John Connors been triggered yet?

Calhoun

The accusations against him are fairly serious, they took Norris down when he went for presidency, so id say your correct he is trying to distance himself from all of that.

Annasopra

What on earth are you on about? Children mutilating themselves? No-one is advocating surgery on children. Talk of mutilation is absolute nonsense and drivel and completely untrue.

biko

I hope they have solid backing in the form on many many transgender people that say "I wish I could have changed my gender when I was 16. I was ready at that age".

When even one of the main activists in Sweden isn't certain she would go ahead, then the Greens really need to think of their policies for children.
Will it make things better,, or irreparably worse?

biko

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

No-one is advocating surgery on children.

Maybe I am missing something but the article states "teenagers under 16 should be able to change their gender, if parents or guardians agree, and a GP approves too".
Are you saying this is non-medical? No surgery nor pills or anything?

Gruffalux

biko wrote: »

Maybe I am missing something but the article states "teenagers under 16 should be able to change their gender, if parents or guardians agree, and a GP approves too".
Are you saying this is non-medical? No surgery nor pills or anything?

It is non-medical.

Rodin

why does heteronormativity need eradicated?

It is normal to not want to change gender. It is normal to be heterosexual.

Anything else is abnormal. By any definition of the word. Outside of the norm.

I imply no negative connotations there but it is indeed abnormal given the numbers involved.

chosen1

Roderic O'Gorman is going to be untouchable and beyond criticism in this government.

While I believe that the last controversy was pretty much a non issue that could have been explained away much earlier by him disassociating himself from any views that condone peodophilia in anyway, he cited the blame entirely on homophobics and most of the main steam media will go along with this. No doubt there were some so called far right lunatics with this objective but not all by far.

Any criticism of this one will also go down a similar route and any discussion banned. He will probably get a lot of things pushed through for better or worse because of lack of any scrutiny.

senordingdong

Gruffalox wrote: »

It is non-medical.

Hormone blockers/replacement therapy can be as devastating as surgery.

biko

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

What on earth are you on about? Children mutilating themselves? No-one is advocating surgery on children. Talk of mutilation is absolute nonsense and drivel and completely untrue.

Gruffalox wrote: »

It is non-medical.

If either of you can point to a source for this that would help the rest of use that still think it's medical.

Saying "it's not what you think" without further explanation isn't a great way to convince people.

screamer

Jees can’t we just let kids be kids, they have so much crap to deal with in adolescence without more crap. I dunno, treat them as adults for some things and as children for other things. I feel sorry for kids in Ireland.

walshb

This is the Green Party!!!!

suicide_circus

chosen1 wrote: »

Roderic O'Gorman is going to be untouchable and beyond criticism in this government.

While I believe that the last controversy was pretty much a non issue that could have been explained away much earlier by him disassociating himself from any views that condone peodophilia in anyway, he cited the blame entirely on homophobics and most of the main steam media will go along with this. No doubt there were some so called far right lunatics with this objective but not all by far.

Any criticism of this one will also go down a similar route and any discussion banned. He will probably get a lot of things pushed through for better or worse because of lack of any scrutiny.

He won't be able to play that card indefinitely and in fairness to him there was certainly a homophobic motivation from SOME who pursued the Peter Thatchell thing.

As for this being his first piece of legislation, i dont think its that unusual for a new minister to focus on their own personal hobbyhorse or special interest group when they get into the driving seat.

walshb

screamer wrote: »

Jees can’t we just let kids be kids, they have so much crap to deal with in adolescence without more crap. I dunno, treat them as adults for some things and as children for other things. I feel sorry for kids in Ireland.

It’s the fooking kids that are the problem!!!!

screamer

walshb wrote: »

It’s the fooking kids that are the problem!!!!

I don’t think so, they are growing up in a fooked up world, which they didn’t create.

ronivek

biko wrote: »

If either of you can point to a source for this that would help the rest of use that still think it's medical.

Saying "it's not what you think" without further explanation isn't a great way to convince people.

Summary of the act from the 2018 Report (https://assets.gov.ie/70336/d7b77746a61f48af83c8aa0004224ac9.pdf):

The Gender Recognition Act 2015 provides for the issuing of a gender recognition certificate by the Minister for Employment Affairs and Social Protection. More specifically section 18 of the Act states:
‘Where a gender recognition certificate is issued to a person the person’s gender shall from the date of that issue become for all purposes the preferred gender so that if the preferred gender is the male gender the person’s sex becomes that of a man, and if it is the female gender the person’s sex becomes that of a woman.’

That's literally it; it's just about legal recognition. The procedures and policies around medical treatment are entirely separate.

The consultation and mooted changes simply concern how those under 18 will attain a gender recognition certificate.

SEPT 23 1989

Maybe "Roderick" could focus his energy on desperately needed mental health services for under 16's

Kill two birds with one stone

Ten of Swords

Rodin wrote: »

why does heteronormativity need eradicated?

Is it?

Rodin wrote: »

It is normal to be heterosexual.

Anything else is abnormal.

This legislation that everyone is getting so animated about, yet nobody seems to have read, - does it make anything compulsory for anyone or just give people options where there were none before?

drunkmonkey

suicide_circus wrote: »

He won't be able to play that card indefinitely and in fairness to him there was certainly a homophobic motivation from SOME who pursued the Peter Thatchell thing.

As for this being his first piece of legislation, i dont think its that unusual for a new minister to focus on their own personal hobbyhorse or special interest group when they get into the driving seat.

It's not homophobic to ask questions about a Minister for Childrens connections to a fruit cake.
I wish the gays would just stop hiding behind this homophobic bullcrap. A straight person would be under the same if not more scrutiny.

Eric Cartman

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

Maybe "Roderick" could focus his energy on desperately needed mental health services for under 16's

Kill two birds with one stone

those services might actually placate the need for these services.

It is concerning absolutely alarming that his first issue in the hot seat is a completely abhorrent agenda to allow the (Imo) mutilation of children with drugs and potentially surgery.

There is a lot of evidence coming forward that many regret transitioning or that kids are wanting to transition to fit in. Ill try dig it up but I remember reading a shocking article (and it was in a legit news source before the pitchforks come out) about a guidance counsellor in a school noticing that one child on the autistic spectrum transitioned and suddenly many of the others who would have been 'outsiders' and on the ASD started doing the same.