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.
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.
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 ?
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.
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?
Gruffalox wrote: » The Minister should have known about Tatchell also.
Clarence Boddiker wrote: » Its about exposing children to sexuality at an early age, a creeping, gradual sexualisation of kids.
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?".
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.
Quantum Erasure wrote: » And if a GP refuses treatment, a Human Rights case could be brought
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.
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/
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.
keano_afc wrote: » "Killing" trans people? We can do without this hyperbolic nonsense.
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.
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.
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.
Joeytheparrot wrote: » Minister Dohertys proposals are herehttps://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
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.
Commence research to examine arrangements for under children under 16.
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.
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.
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?
wildeside wrote: » And what then is the argument against lowering the age of consent to 16? Anyone?
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wd.vanillicon.com/v2/dbba4c22aa1d352d2cdbb076e36aea8c.svg)
