nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

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.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Bannasidhe

cannotlogin wrote: »

I really think allowing minors make decisions like this is wrong. Let them dress how the like, wear their hair how they like, even names and pronouns etc but no hormones or surgery.

Which is what is being proposed. Allowing an f to be changed to an m or an m to an f on official documents.

Nothing else.

sabat

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Which is what is being proposed. Allowing an f to be changed to an m or an m to an f on official documents.

Nothing else.

Yes, yes, that's all this is. A mere typographical trifle. I'm amazed we even needed to change the law at all.

Do you really think you've made a good point with that post? That people are going to read it and say "well that's ok then, I'm convinced?" What utter disingenuous gibberish you post.

katiek102010

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Which is what is being proposed. Allowing an f to be changed to an m or an m to an f on official documents.

Nothing else.

This makes zero sense to me.

Sex is a biological fact and determined by DNA.

Gender is a social construct

Legal documents refer to sex and biological fact not gender, therefore should not be changed

[Deleted User]

sabat wrote: »

Yes, yes, that's all this is. A mere typographical trifle. I'm amazed we even needed to change the law at all.

Do you really think you've made a good point with that post? That people are going to read it and say "well that's ok then, I'm convinced?" What utter disingenuous gibberish you post.

People are claiming it's some medical treatment etc. It's not, it's an early change and easily reversible. The only people who seem really upset are those who have a thing against transgender people or an obsession with Roderic.

_Brian

I suppose my question is why do we care ??

What odds to me what people outside my family are doing ??

Can someone explain what damage it does to me, my family or society to give someone this option ??

Gruffalux

_Brian wrote: »

I suppose my question is why do we care ??

What odds to me what people outside my family are doing ??

Can someone explain what damage it does to me, my family or society to give someone this option ??

In this case I do not personally think there can be a major concern from a safe guarding perspective as it is not self ID, it is children, and a child who goes to the lengths of persuading parents and doctors that they need this change is not messing about or just going into the other sexes spaces for the craic or mischief. There has to be a considerable level of mental and emotional distress at the heart of a situation whereby a boy is having themselves re registered as a girl or vice versa. And that is really sad. It must be an awful state to be in.

If I were to object it would be 1) that the affirmation model, be it legal or medical, may not in the long run be the most beneficial way to deal with this affliction for children. Certainly not medical intervention until the brain matures. Time will tell. Legal identification may reinforce psychic distress and neurosis rather than constructively address it in what we will find in the future to be more useful methods. I think the whole area should be much more vigorously investigated scientifically with absolutely no constraint from political correctness. We need to know if something is going on wrt to environmental chemicals, hormonal imbalance, prenatal effects, social influence, and real sociological issues like the influence of familial abuse, self harm ideation, familial homophobia, depression and autism etc etc. We need a LOT of research. With no ideological activists determining what is acceptable as truth or not.

And my second objection would be on the reason versus obscurantism ground - this act would allow a child to register themselves as having changed gender. I do not know how this affects legal documents that describe reality such as Birth Certs. If the child remains documented as their natal sex on a Birth Cert that is fine, as a change of SEX cannot happen in reality. It is not biologically possible. If GRC could change a legal document stating a fact then it is a bad precedent. A Gender Recognition Cert must record simply the fact that a child has IDENTIFIED as a different GENDER not that they have changed sex.

drunkmonkey

Deleted User wrote: »

The only people who seem really upset are those who have a thing against transgender people or an obsession with Roderic.

Transgender is a wrong word initself, you can't transfer from one sex to the other, it's not possible, has never happened, will never happen. Not once have we been shown the regret a lot of people have about trying to undo the damage trying to achieve the impossible has had on people.
If mature adults want to believe they are the opposite sex that's fine go live your life but don't try and force soceity to accept the impossible as reality and especially don't try and do it to young kids or any way try to normalise the dilusion that you can change your sex to minors.

You say it's people who hate transgenders or don't like Roderick O'Gorman. Your so far wide off the mark there it's unbelievable.
I don't know how many times this has to be repeated but it has nothing to do with O'Gormans sex if this was a straight man they would have already been forced to resign.
The Green party now have a predicament, they can not be seen cozying up to Tatchell again in public.

I believe O'Gorman lied in his response the other day, he's a well educated man, not for one second am I buying he knew nothing about Tatchelles past or writings, that was a bare faced lie to the public in my opinion.
Hiding behind the rainbow flag was disgraceful, he truly belives he's only being called out because he's Gay, he's been called out because of his links to Tatchell and now as he's trying to implement something people quite rightly believe is wrong on so many levels, his interests don't appear to be child positive to a lot of parents, aunts, uncles and people who really care about children, the homophobes as your call them.

O'Gorman has been given the wrong brief but I do believe the portfolio is wrong in the first place. Children should fall under the department of Health or Education. If his time as Minister for Children is going to be spent pursuing his own agenda and pandering to trans lobby groups rather than that hoped for by the majority of parents his time will be short lived as a minister.

I'd way prefer to see Eamon Ryan as the children's minister as he has a way better understanding of the struggles parents go through and before you say it's that's because he's a parent who's faced challenges in his own life. O'Gorman has no skin in the game, he'll never truly understand how frustrated and lost parents all over the country feel.

Dravokivich

senordingdong wrote: »

No, as has been said several times in the thread, this bill has been in the works for some time, o gorman has simply inherited it from Regina doherty

Yes and what did I say?

cannotlogin

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Which is what is being proposed. Allowing an f to be changed to an m or an m to an f on official documents.

Nothing else.

Offical documents is the important thing here. The child has no basis for doing so whole they are a minor. Like with all important decisions in life, they should have to wait until they are 18 and at least have some proper capacity to make these decision.

Btw, I don't really care what adults to do...hormones, surgery, transition etc. None of my business but children do not have the mental capacity to process their choices properly so should have to wait.

Annasopra

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Transgender is a wrong word initself, you can't transfer from one sex to the other, it's not possible, has never happened, will never happen. Not once have we been shown the regret a lot of people have about trying to undo the damage trying to achieve the impossible has had on people.
If mature adults want to believe they are the opposite sex that's fine go live your life but don't try and force soceity to accept the impossible as reality

So basically you suggest trans people cant and shouldnt have any legal recognition of their status?

Gruffalux

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

So basically you suggest trans people cant and shouldnt have any legal recognition of their status?

If you read it correctly he is differentiating between adults and children or minors. Which we do a lot of - we dont send young people to Mountjoy, for example. Or name them in courts etc etc etc. It is a valid point.

Sheep breeder

cannotlogin wrote: »

I really think allowing minors make decisions like this is wrong. Let them dress how the like, wear their hair how they like, even names and pronouns etc but no hormones or surgery.

Growing up for reasons I can't explain the puberty phase scared me. I didn't want breasts, had rows over wearing bras, hated periods, the emergence of hair grossed me out hugely, I was a total tomboy, wouldn't wear dresses or anything that would show my body, hated make up, heels etc. Absolutely everything that had any thing to do with being female, I wanted nothing to do with. Fully suspect it was just the type of child i was & if I had been a boy, the voice change, hormones etc would have freaked me out too.

There are a lot of changes in the early teens that are unwelcome & not every child is comfortable but it doesn't necessarily mean they aren't in the right body.

Very feminine straight woman today, but who knows if today's mindset would have seen someone recommend transitioning or hormone treatment..scary thought.

Agree, at present have a 13 year old the same as you have stated above and it is not easy, also have a 12 year old nephew with severe autism and has to change school in the autumn which is 40 miles away and the other 3 kids in two different schools. This is causing serious headache for the family with one working full time and 3 different school to attend morning and evening. There is to many kids out there getting poor treatment from the state and here the new fella decides this is his first bit of business to look at a minority’s and kids going to school hungry and poor living conditions. Makes you wonder where ireland is going.

drunkmonkey

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

So basically you suggest trans people cant and shouldnt have any legal recognition of their status?

Do I believe it's impossible to change your sex, yes I do. Should we redefine what male and female are to suit trans people, no.

Once you go down that road we'll be in a wax my balls situation in no time. Women and children need to be protected. The rage I'm seeing in all this is coming mainly from women.

There are so many things people are struggling with right now of all the things O'Gorman could have highlighted he chose a trans issue, it was a bad call on his part and it's something he's probably going to regret.

Bannasidhe

katiek102010 wrote: »

This makes zero sense to me.

Sex is a biological fact and determined by DNA.

Gender is a social construct

Legal documents refer to sex and biological fact not gender, therefore should not be changed

The Court of Human Rights disagrees with you.
As does the High Court.

But I am sure you know better so lobby the govt to repeal the Gender Recognition Act.

paw patrol

Bannasidhe wrote: »

The Court of Human Rights disagrees with you.
As does the High Court.

But I am sure you know better so lobby the govt to repeal the Gender Recognition Act.

since when are the court been the arbiters of actual fact.
The court decides something based on the law. The law made by people who are frequently biased (and wrong)

The law and courts are frequently wrong themselves - that's why we see appeals .
I'm sure you'd be saying the is an ass if the verdict went the "wrong" way. To use the courts as an argument is one of the lamest arguments there is.

Bannasidhe

cannotlogin wrote: »

Offical documents is the important thing here. The child has no basis for doing so whole they are a minor. Like with all important decisions in life, they should have to wait until they are 18 and at least have some proper capacity to make these decision.

Btw, I don't really care what adults to do...hormones, surgery, transition etc. None of my business but children do not have the mental capacity to process their choices properly so should have to wait.

I neither argued for or against.

I merely said what is being proposed.

This has been on the cards since 2019 aimed at 16/17 year olds only to save them having to make an application in court, and they have to have the support of their parents. The impetus for this came from Doherty in the Dept. of Social Protection following a review of current legislation.

Nov 2019 Irish Times

New legislation will make it easier for teenagers between the ages of 16 and 17 to change gender legally.

Currently 16- and 17-year-olds have to go to court and have their gender change certified by two medical practitioners.

Children at that age will now be able to self-declare if they wish to be recognised as a different gender provided they have the support of their parents.

If they do not, they will have recourse to third-party mediation on a voluntary basis. This will happen through the services of the family mediation service of the Legal Aid Board.

A review of the 2015 Gender Recognition Act was commissioned by the Department of Employment Affairs and Social Protection.

It looked at the legal aspects of gender change alone and not the medical procedures involved.

The review concluded that no changes should be made to the arrangements for children aged under 16 years.

Arrangements for children under 16, the review states, are “more complex and will involve balancing the rights of children, the rights and responsibilities of their parents and the role of the State in protecting vulnerable children.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/new-legislation-to-make-it-easier-for-teenagers-to-change-gender-1.4099892

TheCitizen

Limpy wrote: »

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

What is this about and what’s it to do with this legislation which was already on the books from the previous government?

drunkmonkey

The headline in the independent said under 16's, are the indo trying to gaslight the situation?
Personally I'd set the bar at 21 speaking as someone who was previously 18 I don't believe you've enough life experience to make such life changing decisions, your only barley beginning to get a handle on who you are.

Bannasidhe

paw patrol wrote: »

since when are the court been the arbiters of actual fact.
The court decides something based on the law. The law made by people who are frequently biased (and wrong)

The law and courts are frequently wrong themselves - that's why we see appeals .

I'm sure you'd be saying the is an ass if the verdict went the "wrong" way. To use the courts as an argument is one of the lamest arguments there is.

Perhaps rather than having a go at me if you disagree so strongly lobby the Govt.

The fact is the Irish State was found to be in breach of the human rights of Transgender people and so, eventually, the Irish State acted.
If you wish to launch a legal appeal I am sure there are many here who would financially support you given their vocal level of expertise.

Wibbs

Bannasidhe wrote: »

The Court of Human Rights disagrees with you.
As does the High Court.

But I am sure you know better so lobby the govt to repeal the Gender Recognition Act.

If the above claim that sex isn't a biological fact and determined by DNA then they are quite simply doing so as an article of law, not science. And there have often been major differences between the two throughout history. You cannot change biological sex. Until medical science can change the chromosomes of cells in the body this remains a 24 karat fact. Even "gender is a social construct" is up for grabs and debate.

Hector Savage

Just wait till the legal cases against parents and doctors start from young adults that had their lives ruined because their moronic "liberal" parents wanted to give their kids a sex change out of some f*cked up kick.

That should put a stop to it ..

katiek102010

Bannasidhe wrote: »

The Court of Human Rights disagrees with you.
As does the High Court.

But I am sure you know better so lobby the govt to repeal the Gender Recognition Act.

So the court of human rights can legally change someone's DNA

[Deleted User]

Hector Savage wrote: »

Just wait till the legal cases against parents and doctors start from young adults that had their lives ruined because their moronic "liberal" parents wanted to give their kids a sex change out of some f*cked up kick.

That should put a stop to it ..

Changing their legal status doesn't involve any form of an operation so not as hard hitting a point as you think it is.

WrenBoy

katiek102010 wrote: »

So the court of human rights can legally change someone's DNA

No but its more they hope to make the knowledge/teaching of this fact of life a taboo.

Bannasidhe

drunkmonkey wrote: »

The headline in the independent said under 16's, are the indo trying to gaslight the situation?
Personally I'd set the bar at 21 speaking as someone who was previously 18 I don't believe you've enough life experience to make such life changing decisions, your only barley beginning to get a handle on who you are.

FG drafted a policy paper for this to be discussed as part of the PfG, not the Greens.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/fine-gael-seeking-law-change-to-let-under-16s-legally-change-gender-39252644.htmlhttps://app.legalrss.ie/ogormansolicitorsandyford/fine-gael-call-for-a-reform-to-the-gender-recognition-act-2015

https://app.legalrss.ie/ogormansolicitorsandyford/fine-gael-call-for-a-reform-to-the-gender-recognition-act-2015

Perhaps if people read more than the headlines they would see that as part of the PfG legislation is being introduced in line with what Doherty proposed.

Laws to make it easier for 16 and 17-year-olds to legally change their gender will be introduced by the new coalition under a commitment in the Programme for Government. The document also commits to examining the arrangements for children under 16 who may want to change gender.

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

You will have to decide for yourself why the Indo failed to mention that "examining arrangements for children under 16" was a FG policy proposal.

WrenBoy

Deleted User wrote: »

Changing their legal status doesn't involve any form of an operation so not as hard hitting a point as you think it is.

I remember reading before about people availing of processes in which puberty can be delayed so as to ease the "transition" procedure and the effectiveness of hormone therapy when the subject reaches the legal age.

Is there scope for this to be introduced here when this particular ball gets rolling ?

Bannasidhe

katiek102010 wrote: »

So the court of human rights can legally change someone's DNA

Why don't you ask them?
I'm not a human rights lawyer, or a legislator, so rather than questioning someone who is merely posting what happened and is proposed you go demand answers from those who make the decisions?

drunkmonkey

Deleted User wrote: »

Changing their legal status doesn't involve any form of an operation so not as hard hitting a point as you think it is.

It's HUGE, giving biological males equal status as women is beyond woke. They can't and never will be women in anything more than print. We don't need to redifine what it means to be a woman, brushing it off as a thing of nothing is one hell of a disservice to womankind.

Bannasidhe

Wibbs wrote: »

If the above claim that sex isn't a biological fact and determined by DNA then they are quite simply doing so as an article of law, not science. And there have often been major differences between the two throughout history. You cannot change biological sex. Until medical science can change the chromosomes of cells in the body this remains a 24 karat fact. Even "gender is a social construct" is up for grabs and debate.

As I have said to others I am stating the legal situation.

The proposed legislation is to enable 16/17 year olds to legally change their gender on official documents without the need to go to court.

If you disagree with the legal interpretation I am sure there are avenues through which you can appeal.

paw patrol

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Perhaps rather than having a go at me if you disagree so strongly lobby the Govt.

Why can't I do both?

In fact I have.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

The fact is the Irish State was found to be in breach of the human rights of Transgender people and so, eventually, the Irish State acted.
If you wish to launch a legal appeal I am sure there are many here who would financially support you given their vocal level of expertise.

I'll settle for writing emails to my TDs for the moment.

As for suggesting the courts - given what I said above (my actual point) why on earth would I go the court route. They ruled. The law is wrong and yes I am lobbying my TDs.
Since one is SF and another Green - I don't fancy my chances but God loves a trier..