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

jmayo

Rodin wrote: »

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.

Old fashioned disabilities are so yesterday.
Transgender is now where it is at.
You need to get with the program.;)

Rodin wrote: »

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 ?

Well does the man still have a cervix?

seamus wrote: »

You didn't even know who Thatchell was until last week. Last week, virtually nobody knew that Thatchell had written a short letter to a foreign newspaper in the 1990s.
O'Gorman was 15 when that letter was written. He has since clarified that he, like you and I, had never seen this before last week. Yet clearly that isn't good enough for you. And it's certainly not good enough for the people who started discussing this, because....
The point is that the people who started making the accusations are homophobes. People like you who jumped on the bandwagon may not explicitly be homophobes, but you have been duped into supporting an agenda that it homophobic at its core.

O'Gorman has no case to answer here, and the only ones who insist he still does, are the homophobes.

What is that the revenue and tax authorities always say?
Oh yeah Ignorance is not an excuse.
Thatchell's form was well known at the time that O'gorman lauded him.

And O'gorman was not a kid when he did so.

And he stood by those comments when it was made public.
So he was doubly stupid.

He only distanced himself when the pressure mounted and then claiming he was being bullied by homophobes and right wingers.
In other words it was done in a mealy mouthed fashion, really meaning he still doesn't see anything wrong.

Clarence Boddiker

Clarence Boddiker wrote: »

Do you think a 9 year old can consent to sex with a man and that it should not be regarded as abuse?

Nope but you claiming that there's a long term agenda to legitimise doing so is bull****.

seamus

Gruffalox wrote: »

The Minister should have known about Tatchell also.

You have no basis for this statement.

On the other hand...https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&geo=IE&q=Peter%20Tatchell

Outside of some very select circles Peter Tatchell was an unknown until last week. His contributions in relation to the age of consent even less known.

All that has appeared on this thread is a blog from one nutbar who is obsessed about paedophiles.

ronivek

Clarence Boddiker wrote: »

Do you think a 9 year old can consent to sex with a man and that it should not be regarded as abuse?

No; I think a 50 year old man can reflect on his own experiences and hold an opinion that the sex he had as a 9 year old with a man was not abusive. That is not even a judgement on whether or not what he's saying is or could possible be correct; it's a judgement on his freedom to feel however he damn well pleases about the situation.

That's completely different to saying all 9 year olds are capable of consenting; or even that this particular 9 year old was capable of consenting at the time.

The fundamental point he appears to be making is that people are entitled to hold their own opinions and that discussion of those opinions shouldn't be suppressed or censored just because people find the subject matter so highly emotive.

Tokyo

Mod: We've been down the Tatchell road before in the other thread and it didn't end well. Considering some of the tenuous links being presented above, not to mention downright conspiracy theories, I can't see it faring any better here. Either way, as it's unrelated to the actual topic of the thread, drop it, and get back on topic.

dubdaymo

Clarence Boddiker wrote: »

Its about exposing children to sexuality at an early age, a creeping, gradual sexualisation of kids.

Maybe a bit off topic but the gradual sexualisation of children has been allowed to go on for at least the last 40 years - not by paedophiles but the world in general including their own parents - to the extent that childhood, to all intents and purposes, no longer exists and will never return.

weldoninhio

seamus wrote: »

This is a slippery slope fallacy.

There is no link between the right to a legal document and the right to medical intervention. This is like saying, "If a child can have their name legally changed to John, how can you argue against tattooing that on their forehead?".

Such a false analogy. Surely if you allow your male to become female legally. They by not allowing them take blockers etc, you are forcing them to grow into a man, when legally they are a female. They are already legally "female" so forcing them to become a man would be child abuse i'm guessing, or presented as such and you'll have groups falling over each other to help a court set that precedent.

Quantum Erasure

ronivek wrote: »

That's clearly nonsense. Any medical professional with experience treating those with Gender Dysphoria or any other condition which causes them to question their gender is going to be fully aware of the provenance of a Gender Recognition Certificate.

And if a GP refuses treatment, a Human Rights case could be brought

Bannasidhe

Quantum Erasure wrote: »

And if a GP refuses treatment, a Human Rights case could be brought

GP's refer to specialists, they do not treat or diagnose gender dysphoria. Nor are they trained to.

If you think that you or your child may have gender dysphoria, ask your GP about a referral.

There are strict criteria for diagnosing gender dysphoria, which are different for children and adults. Due to the fact that gender dysphoria is complex, a comprehensive assessment is carried out. This considers more than the diagnostic criteria. Each case of gender dysphoria is unique and should be treated as such.

https://www.hse.ie/eng/health/az/g/gender-dysphoria/

Gruffalux

Bannasidhe wrote: »

GP's refer to specialists, they do not treat or diagnose gender dysphoria. Nor are they trained to.



https://www.hse.ie/eng/health/az/g/gender-dysphoria/

As far as I can make out the proposed change would allow GPs to enable GRC, and not have to go to specialists. I may have mistaken this, but that is what I make out from the proposals brought by the review. It may be different when the legislation is actually written.

senordingdong

ronivek wrote: »

That's clearly nonsense. Any medical professional with experience treating those with Gender Dysphoria or any other condition which causes them to question their gender is going to be fully aware of the provenance of a Gender Recognition Certificate.

There's nothing clear about it, and that's the problem.
How will the courts deal with this? A 17 year old 'girl', who has a birth cert etc identifying herself as such, is being denied transition surgery based on an experts advice. Yet the girl is, in fact, legally, a girl. As affirmed by other expert advice.
A professional signed off on this, and now another professional is claiming it is not real gender dysphoria.

So we resort back to the 'expert' advice that was cited to allow this amendment of the gender recognition act and see it was comprised of trans advocates and one doctor of civil law.

CrankyHaus

Gruffalox wrote: »

As far as I can make out the proposed change would allow GPs to enable GRC, and not have to go to specialists. I may have mistaken this, but that is what I make out from the proposals brought by the review. It may be different when the legislation is actually written.

I'd question the expertise of GPs to do this. How many were trained on the issue?
It seems to reduce the medical approval element of the process to a box-ticking exercise.

Calhoun

keano_afc wrote: »

"Killing" trans people? We can do without this hyperbolic nonsense.

It's hyperbolic nonsense that opens up the doors to getting rid of the medical experts and then eventually dropping the age of consent to 12 year old.

We see how this works internationally they are locked on to the prepuberty medical intervention.

Bannasidhe

Gruffalox wrote: »

As far as I can make out the proposed change would allow GPs to enable GRC, and not have to go to specialists. I may have mistaken this, but that is what I make out from the proposals brought by the review. It may be different when the legislation is actually written.

My understanding it that the proposed change is to enable 16/17 year olds to change their gender on official documents without needing to go to court - as long as they have parental support.
It doesn't make any reference to medical, it is strictly dealing with the legal side of things.

I honestly can't see any moves to have GP's involved in the medical side beyond as a referral service given that is currently how it operates for everyone with a possible diagnoses of gender dysphoria. GP's are simply not trained to make the call, not do I imagine they would want to.
Could be wrong mind - but I can't see it happening.

Annasopra

Calhoun wrote: »

It's hyperbolic nonsense that opens up the doors to getting rid of the medical experts and then eventually dropping the age of consent to 12 year old.

We see how this works internationally they are locked on to the prepuberty medical intervention.

This is nothing to do with dropping the age of consent to 12. Stop making things up.

freshpopcorn

Is there an element of homophobia to stuff being said about this guy ya there is a bit off it.He probably ruffled a few feathers the way him and his partner kissed at the election. It was a bit over the top and cringey and would be similar if a straight couple did it.
Are people concerned about issues such as kids/teenagers changing gender. Yes..
Which is greater in my my opinion is that people are conceded about the future for there kids, nephews, Nieces, kids in general if things are rushed through without any real debate on the matter. Most don’t give a toss now about who you sleep with once you do your job well.
Was he best suited to the job I don’t know.
Is he a bad guy. Probably not but he doesn’t make things easy for him with starting off with things like this.

Gruffalux

Bannasidhe wrote: »

My understanding it that the proposed change is to enable 16/17 year olds to change their gender on official documents without needing to go to court - as long as they have parental support.
It doesn't make any reference to medical, it is strictly dealing with the legal side of things.

I honestly can't see any moves to have GP's involved in the medical side beyond as a referral service given that is currently how it operates for everyone with a possible diagnoses of gender dysphoria. GP's are simply not trained to make the call, not do I imagine they would want to.
Could be wrong mind - but I can't see it happening.

Yes I think the not going to court bit is to be removed for 16 and 17 year olds. But I do not think those 16 and 17 year olds require parental consent at the moment, if they have a court order waiving age requirement.
It is the under 16s who will require parental consent and a GP's signoff (not a specialist) for under 16 GRC if that part of policy is implemented. As far as I can make out. I wish the policy proposal would be clearly outlined, and I am not paying Independant to see it if they have done so. Sources elsewhere do not clarify.

Annasopra

Gruffalox wrote: »

Yes I think the not going to court bit is to be removed for 16 and 17 year olds. But I do not think those 16 and 17 year olds require parental consent at the moment, if they have a court order waiving age requirement.
It is the under 16s who will require parental consent and a GP's signoff (not a specialist) for under 16 GRC if that part of policy is implemented. As far as I can make out. I wish the policy proposal would be clearly outlined, and I am not paying Independant to see it if they have done so. Sources elsewhere do not clarify.

Minister Dohertys proposals are here. She recommended not doing anything for trans children under 16. The programme for government changed her recommendations to "research" under 16s.

https://www.gov.ie/en/press-release/43aef0-minister-doherty-publishes-her-report-on-the-review-of-the-gender-re/

The programme for government states

Gender Recognition
We will:
· Remove the need for a person aged 16 and 17 years to have two specialist reports before they can apply for legal gender recognition, by providing for self-declaration, with parental consent and by making mediation available on a voluntary basis. These improvements will include the provision of a gender-recognition certificate providing proof of change of name, as well as gender.
· Make any necessary changes to the law to allow legal name change be part of the gender recognition
process.
· Commence research to examine arrangements for chldren under 16.
· Complete the work of the interdepartmental group tasked with examining legal recognition of non-binary people.
· Ensure that government departments and public bodies take positive steps, including the use of correct pronouns and, where possible, making improvements on official forms, to assist non-binary people

Gruffalux

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Minister Dohertys proposals are here

https://www.gov.ie/en/press-release/43aef0-minister-doherty-publishes-her-report-on-the-review-of-the-gender-re/

The programme for government states

Gender Recognition
We will:
· Remove the need for a person aged 16 and 17 years to have two specialist reports before they can apply for legal gender recognition, by providing for self-declaration, with parental consent and by making mediation available on a voluntary basis. These improvements will include the provision of a gender-recognition certificate providing proof of change of name, as well as gender.
· Make any necessary changes to the law to allow legal name change be part of the gender recognition
process.
· Commence research to examine arrangements for chldren under 16.
· Complete the work of the interdepartmental group tasked with examining legal recognition of non-binary people.
· Ensure that government departments and public bodies take positive steps, including the use of correct pronouns and, where possible, making improvements on official forms, to assist non-binary people

Thanks. That is clearer. Children under 18 will still require parental consent. Specialists will not be required to sign off for Cert.

Bannasidhe

Gruffalox wrote: »

Yes I think the not going to court bit is to be removed for 16 and 17 year olds. But I do not think those 16 and 17 year olds require parental consent at the moment, if they have a court order waiving age requirement.
It is the under 16s who will require parental consent and a GP's signoff (not a specialist) for under 16 GRC if that part of policy is implemented. As far as I can make out. I wish the policy proposal would be clearly outlined, and I am not paying Independant to see it if they have done so. Sources elsewhere do not clarify.

At the moment with or without parental consent a court order is needed for 16/17 year olds. The change would mean if they do not have parental consent they will still need to go to couty.

My understanding is the under 16s part comes from a policy doc put forward by FG and included in the PfG as 'to be discussed', they are also going to consider a third 'no gender' option.

Again, this seems to me to be only the legal aspects. Not medical.

https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/children-under-16-could-legally-change-gender-under-new-proposals-from-lgbt-committee-1002933.html

https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/republic-of-ireland/new-law-in-republic-may-allow-kids-to-alter-gender-39252332.html

ronivek

Gruffalox wrote: »

Thanks for Info.

Regardless of any ghouls floating at the edge of this story - and I have read none of that kind of stuff from the weirdos mentioned in this thread, honestly my brain hurts with what some people conjure as worthy argument - the matters involved remain open for public debate in all respects as issues of public concern.

Yep; and the line from the Programme for Government is very telling:

Commence research to examine arrangements for under children under 16.

I don't think they have any intentions of legislating for under 16s at any point in the near future.

Gruffalux

ronivek wrote: »

Yep; and the line from the Programme for Government is very telling:


I don't think they have any intentions of legislating for under 16s at any point in the near future.

I think we may disagree as to who the ghouls are, I am referring to the people with republican symbols in Twitter accounts, but not people on this thread. Doesn't matter, we can all have our pet demons.

Gruffalux

Hmmm. The Sara Philips on the committee bit is an unexpected layer.

Tokyo

Mod: @sabat - don't post in the thread again.

Fleetwoodmac

ronivek wrote: »

That's clearly nonsense. Any medical professional with experience treating those with Gender Dysphoria or any other condition which causes them to question their gender is going to be fully aware of the provenance of a Gender Recognition Certificate.

But this is one of the cruxes of the issue, there are very few clinicians practising in Ireland who have sufficient experience in the area of assessing and diagnosing gender dysphoria and in identifying comorbid issues. This issue has been well recognised. The Tavistock Clinic has been beset with issues, and yet this is considered the gold standard of care in this domain.

https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwj_7-rg_L3qAhVQZxUIHVyCCNMQFjAGegQIBxAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.telegraph.co.uk%2Fnews%2F2019%2F12%2F12%2Fchildrens-transgender-clinic-hit-35-resignations-three-years%2F&usg=AOvVaw2XlYPhlYxtP0iMfXecoRPL

blanch152

ronivek wrote: »

Yep; and the line from the Programme for Government is very telling:


I don't think they have any intentions of legislating for under 16s at any point in the near future.

The problem with the under-16 issue is that under-16s cannot agree to get married, have sex, make medical decisions, vote, drive, smoke, drink alcohol etc. Why would they be any more able to decide to change gender?

Mr E

mike_ie wrote: »

Mod: We've been down the Tatchell road before in the other thread and it didn't end well. Considering some of the tenuous links being presented above, not to mention downright conspiracy theories, I can't see it faring any better here. Either way, as it's unrelated to the actual topic of the thread, drop it, and get back on topic.

Mod: Reminder. Drop the Tatchell discussion please. Last warning.

Bannasidhe

blanch152 wrote: »

The problem with the under-16 issue is that under-16s cannot agree to get married, have sex, make medical decisions, vote, drive, smoke, drink alcohol etc. Why would they be any more able to decide to change gender?

You would honestly have to ask FG that question as it is their policy proposal.
Unless I missed it (which I may have) I don't think anyone here are specifically argued for it.

wildeside

Why not just change the legal status of adulthood to 16 years of age and let adults do what they want (more or less)? I mean if you're mature, informed, cognitively developed, level-headed, emotionally stable and wise enough to the degree that you want to initiate the process of something as fundamental as an identify change, then surely that qualifies you as an adult, no? If this doesn't qualify you then what does? And what then is the argument against lowering the age of consent to 16? Anyone?

Bannasidhe

wildeside wrote: »

And what then is the argument against lowering the age of consent to 16? Anyone?

Enda was against it.

https://www.irishexaminer.com/lifestyle/features/the-age-of-consent-debate-where-does-ireland-stand-264694.html