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.
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
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.
For Forks Sake wrote: » Oh well, if the 'Liberal' says so...:rolleyes:
paw patrol wrote: » i hope you're still in your trolling phase.:eek:
suicide_circus wrote: » You wish!
Limpy wrote: » O'Gorman seems to be arm deep in some weird Soros backed groups.
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.
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.
[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.
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.
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.”
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
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.
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.