Protesters for Transgender rights outside Dáil

MakeEmLaugh · 14-02-2015 09:00PM #1

Over 200 protesters were outside Leinster House today, where the Gender Recognition Bill is being discussed. The protesters are demanding changes to Bill, such as the requirement that a person wishing to change the gender on their birth certificate be assessed by a medical practitioner.

Transgender people are probably the most discriminated against in the world today. Their identity is an almost constant target of derision and outright hatred, more so than gay, lesbian or bisexual people.

I fully support the right of transgender people to have the gender they identify as recognised on any current legal documents, such as driving licences and passports.

I do not see why they should have their birth certificates changed, however. A birth certificate is an historic document of what you are declared at birth. If you are declared male at birth, then your birth cert should reflect that.

Ireland has only been independent since December 1922. If we tried to go back and alter any official documents from before then which said we were part of the United Kingdom, wouldn't it seem wrong?

Lyaiera · 14-02-2015 09:12PM

The original document isn't changed. It will still exist and the courts will have access to it should the need arise. It's also been said that in the future, when the documents get used for ancestry reasons and historical research the original birth cert will be available (so once the trans person is long dead.)

All this will mean is that there's a newer "birth cert" available as a form of legal gender recognition, and to allow access to things like passports, driving licenses and marriage. The original will still be available, just not to anyone.

suicide_circus · 14-02-2015 09:13PM

Coming from a place of ignorance here....why is it a bad thing that someone wishing to change their gender on state documents has to be medically assessed first?

Lyaiera · 14-02-2015 09:14PM

suicide_circus wrote: »

Coming from a place of ignorance here....why is it a bad thing that someone wishing to change their gender on state documents has to be medically assessed first?

All the doctor will be saying is the person is living in their acquired gender. Why can't the person testify to that themselves?

conorh91 · 14-02-2015 09:15PM

MakeEmLaugh wrote: »

A birth certificate is an historic document of what you are declared at birth. If you are declared male at birth, then your birth cert should reflect that.

This is exactly the approach the Supreme Court takes in relation to surrogacy. The mother is defined as the person who gives birth. In justifying this approach, the courts have said that birth certificates are no more than a demographic instrument, whereby changes in circumstances can be reflected in subsequent official documents.

The birth certificate is therefore a 'snapshot' of a moment in time.

This argument has quite a bit of support.

Retrospectively doctoring population-surveys to avoid hurt feelings is bewildering.

The State will recognize a 'change' in gender. The apparent need to erase all historical trace of a previous gender is overwrought and over the top.

pickarooney · 14-02-2015 09:16PM

I didn't think birth certs mentioned gender at all, just sex.

suicide_circus · 14-02-2015 09:18PM

Lyaiera wrote: »

All the doctor will be saying is the person is living in their acquired gender. Why can't the person testify to that themselves?

I dont know. Im not qualified to answer that question.

Lyaiera · 14-02-2015 09:20PM

conorh91 wrote: »

This is exactly the approach the Supreme Court takes in relation to surrogacy. The mother is defined as the person who gives birth. In justifying this approach, the courts have said that birth certificates are no more than a demographic instrument, whereby changes in circumstances can be reflected in subsequent official documents.

The birth certificate is therefore a 'snapshot' of a moment in time.

This argument has quite a bit of support.

Retrospectively doctoring population-surveys to avoid hurt feelings is bewildering.

The State will recognize a 'change' in gender. The apparent need to erase all historical trace of a previous gender is overwrought and over the top.

As I've already said, which you may have missed is that the original document isn't changed. It still exists, however it's only accessible under limited circumstances. A new document is issued for day-to-day life.

mikemac1 · 14-02-2015 09:24PM

MakeEmLaugh wrote: »

Over 200 protesters were outside Leinster House today, where the Gender Recognition Bill is being discussed.

Is the Dail even open on a Saturday? Are they protesting outside an empty building and all the politicians have gone home?

Stinicker · 14-02-2015 09:24PM

They were right to remove it, Northern Ireland exists because of Religion Sectarianism, Racism and Bigotry. It is a failed pariah entity. The 6 Counties of Northern Ireland belong rightfully to the people of Ireland, this Irish people. London should have no say in any affair on this entire island and the Irish people should be united and free.

Annasopra · 14-02-2015 09:26PM

conorh91 wrote: »

This is exactly the approach the Supreme Court takes in relation to surrogacy. The mother is defined as the person who gives birth. In justifying this approach, the courts have said that birth certificates are no more than a demographic instrument, whereby changes in circumstances can be reflected in subsequent official documents.

The birth certificate is therefore a 'snapshot' of a moment in time.

This argument has quite a bit of support.

Retrospectively doctoring population-surveys to avoid hurt feelings is bewildering.

The State will recognize a 'change' in gender. The apparent need to erase all historical trace of a previous gender is overwrought and over the top.

No. All historical trace of the non preferred gender is not erased at all

Section 18: Parenthood
Section 18 is an avoidance of doubt provision. It provides that a change in a person’s recognised gender under the Act will not affect the responsibilities of that person as a parent of a child born prior to the issue of a gender recognition certificate.

Section 19: Disposal or devolution of property
Section 19 provides that where a person has had his/her preferred gender recognised, it does not affect the distribution of property under a will or other instrument made before the day on which the Act comes into force. For wills or other instruments made after that day, the general principle of the Bill will apply e.g. if a will refers to the ‘eldest daughter’, and a person who was previously a son becomes the ‘eldest daughter’ following recognition in the preferred gender, that person will inherit as the ‘eldest daughter’.

Section 20: Personal representatives and trustees
A trustee or personal representative is responsible for conveying and distributing property from a trust or estate. Section 20 relieves a trustee or personal representative from any fiduciary duty to inquire whether a gender recognition certificate has been issued to any person or revoked, even if that fact could affect entitlement to property which he or she is responsible for distributing. The beneficiary will nevertheless retain his or her claim to the property and may enforce this claim, e.g. by following the property into the
hands of another person who has received it instead.

Section 21: Orders where expectations defeated
Section 21 makes provision for any situation where the disposition or devolution of property under a will or other instrument is different from what it would be but for the fact that a person is regarded as being of the preferred gender. If, for example, an instrument governs succession by reference to the ‘eldest daughter’ of the settlor, and there is an older brother whose gender becomes female under the Act, then the person who was previously the ‘eldest daughter’ may cease to enjoy that position. Sub-Section (2) allows a person who is adversely affected by the different disposition or devolution of the property to make an application to the High Court. The Court, if it is satisfied that it is just to do so, may make such order as it considers appropriate in relation to the person benefiting from the different disposition of the property.

Section 22: Gender-specific offences
A number of sexual offences in this jurisdiction are gender specific. For example, the common law offence of rape can only be committed by a man. The offence is committed by a man against a woman who does not consent to it. Other offences can only be committed against or in relation to a person of a particular gender.
Section 22 provides that where criminal liability would arise, but for the fact that a person, either the victim or perpetrator, has been issued with a gender recognition certificate, such liability will exist notwithstanding the gender change. A person whose preferred gender has been recognised may still be physically capable of committing a sexual offence, or being the victim of a sexual offence, associated with the opposite gender.

MakeEmLaugh · 14-02-2015 09:26PM

Stinicker wrote: »

They were right to remove it, Northern Ireland exists because of Religion Sectarianism, Racism and Bigotry. It is a failed pariah entity. The 6 Counties of Northern Ireland belong rightfully to the people of Ireland, this Irish people. London should have no say in any affair on this entire island and the Irish people should be united and free.

I think you've got the wrong thread.

conorh91 · 14-02-2015 09:36PM

Lyaiera wrote: »

It still exists, however it's only accessible under limited circumstances.

Sigh. Right so. Not erasing the document but simply hiding it, then, and replacing the public document with a doctored, retrospective version.

Lyaiera · 14-02-2015 09:38PM

conorh91 wrote: »

Sigh. Right so. Not erasing the document but simply hiding it, then, and replacing the public document with a doctored, retrospective version.

I would phrase it as respecting someone's right to live in their gender for day-to-day purposes and ensuring that the information is only available to people who need to access it. And as has been pointed out, it's not doctored it's reflective of the reality of the person's day to day life (where it will be used) and it's not retrospective as the legislation ensures.

conorh91 · 14-02-2015 09:45PM

Lyaiera wrote: »

I would phrase it as respecting someone's right to live in their gender for day-to-day purposes

There is no question of refusing the right of someone to live as a woman or as a man in their daily life.

The point that was made, including by our Supreme Court, is that birth certificates are nothing more than population documents conveying the best-available data for one moment in time. Why is it so important to hide this data? It's totally bonkers.

Transexuals have the right to acquire (official) identity documents reflecting their new status. Just like a bride who changes her surname after marriage.

But if that bride started to demand her birth surname be retrospectively changed, I'd frankly be bewildered as to her demand.

SEPT 23 1989 · 14-02-2015 09:50PM

AC/DC

Little CuChulainn · 14-02-2015 09:51PM

Bit of a conundrum. The Bill can't be passed with the desired changes because we haven't had the same sex marriage referendum and it can't be put off until then because of the legal pressure that has been placed on the government.

Lyaiera · 14-02-2015 09:52PM

conorh91 wrote: »

There is no question of refusing the right of someone to live as a woman or as a man in their daily life.

The point that was made, including by our Supreme Court, is that birth certificates are nothing more than population documents conveying the best-available data for one moment in time. Why is it so important to hide this data? It's totally bonkers.

Transexuals have the right to acquire (official) identity documents reflecting their new status. Just like a bride who changes her surname after marriage.

But if that bride started to demand her birth surname be retrospectively changed, I'd frankly be bewildered as to her demand.

And a new birth cert is the practical (and necessary) solution to this. It ensures that the day to day life and reality of the trans person is being respected and that they are not exposed to discrimination by being forced to reveal their trans status, while ensuring that in circumstances where it is necessary to have that information (inheritance, crime, etc.) the original document is available. It's a practical solution for a small section of society that doesn't compare to the scenarios you're putting forth for name changes, etc. This will have a real practical benefit for trans people and it is a solution to a very specific issue, while ensuring that when all information is necessary that it is available.

mikemac1 · 14-02-2015 09:55PM

Lyaiera wrote: »

And a new birth cert is the practical (and necessary) solution to this. It ensures that the day to day life and reality of the trans person is being respected and that they are not exposed to discrimination by being forced to reveal their trans status, while ensuring that in circumstances where it is necessary to have that information (inheritance, crime, etc.) the original document is available. It's a practical solution for a small section of society that doesn't compare to the scenarios you're putting forth for name changes, etc. This will have a real practical benefit for trans people and it is a solution to a very specific issue, while ensuring that when all information is necessary that it is available.

That sounds like a simple solution that will work well

Lyaiera for Taoiseach!

Lyaiera · 14-02-2015 09:56PM

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

Bit of a conundrum. The Bill can't be passed with the desired changes because we haven't had the same sex marriage referendum and it can't be put off until then because of the legal pressure that has been placed on the government.

That's hugely debatable. Legal experts are of the opinion that because the marriage was legal at the time the marriage was created, when it was a man and woman marrying, that nothing can make that marriage illegal retrospectively. This would be one of the cases where the original birth cert would be important, because it would show that the marriage was perfectly fine at the time it came into effect. A subsequent change does not change prior legal contracts. The proposed Gender Recognition Legislation even states this explicitly, you can't get out of a contract purely on the basis of legally changing your gender. Everything you've done in the past you are still responsible for.

Little CuChulainn · 14-02-2015 10:02PM

Lyaiera wrote: »

That's hugely debatable. Legal experts are of the opinion that because the marriage was legal at the time the marriage was created, when it was a man and woman marrying, that nothing can make that marriage illegal retrospectively. This would be one of the cases where the original birth cert would be important, because it would show that the marriage was perfectly fine at the time it came into effect. A subsequent change does not change prior legal contracts. The proposed Gender Recognition Legislation even states this explicitly, you can't get out of a contract purely on the basis of legally changing your gender. Everything you've done in the past you are still responsible for.

Everything is debatable. But the simple fact is the current interpretation of the constitution prohibits same sex marriage. The altered bill would allow for same sex marriage to exist. Therefore it would be repugnant to the constitution. And you can be sure it wouldn't be out a week before it was challenged. Even if it was eventually successful, the challenge would likely result in the freezing applications involving married persons until the outcome of the case.

The best approach would be to allow the bill pass as is and amend it if and when the same sex marriage referendum passes.

Birneybau · 14-02-2015 10:03PM

Great bunch of lads.

Lyaiera · 14-02-2015 10:04PM

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

Everything is debatable. But the simple fact is the current interpretation of the constitution prohibits same sex marriage. The altered bill would allow for same sex marriage to exist. Therefore it would be repugnant to the constitution. And you can be sure it wouldn't be out a week before it was challenged. Even if it was eventually successful, the challenge would likely result in the freezing applications involving married persons until the outcome of the case.

The best approach would be to allow the bill pass as is and amend it if and when the same sex marriage referendum passes.

I think that's the practical solution and what will happen. And as I've been saying this legislation is all about practicality. And mostly the practicality of recognising the actual life someone is living.

suicide_circus · 14-02-2015 10:16PM

Birneybau wrote: »

Great bunch of lads.

oh no you di'n't!

bb1234567 · 14-02-2015 11:08PM

Awful situation for trans people, all over the world, even in the most tolerant liberal countries life looks very difficult. They even suffer huge discrimination from other cisgendered members of the lgbt community

suicide_circus · 14-02-2015 11:15PM

bb1234567 wrote: »

Awful situation for trans people, all over the world, even in the most tolerant liberal countries life looks very difficult. They even suffer huge discrimination from other cisgendered members of the lgbt community

If you don't know what cisgender is, you are one.

14-02-2015 11:18PM

Pardon me for being glib, but I often think to myself when reading arguments about this and gay marriage is, "What's it to you? How could this possibly intrude on your life?"

bb1234567 · 14-02-2015 11:20PM

suicide_circus wrote: »

If you don't know what cisgender is, you are one.

What? I do know what it is and I am cisgender

Lyaiera · 14-02-2015 11:20PM

bb1234567 wrote: »

Awful situation for trans people, all over the world, even in the most tolerant liberal countries life looks very difficult. They even suffer huge discrimination from other cisgendered members of the lgbt community

It's not great for us, every trans person I know has stories of being mistreated, finding it difficult to find work, transitioning while working and ending up with crappy bosses making things difficult, getting looks on the street (at best) or outright abuse, quite a few people I know have been assaulted (including me.) But... The vast majority of people have been nothing but lovely and supporting. The people in my local have seen me at every step of my transition and are fully supportive of me, my friends are amazing, most people on the street don't even notice you, I've never had hassle by any people in shops whether I'm buying booze or bras. But the few assholes really do make things difficult, because you have the constant threat of someone making a scene, or coming at you. Most people really do have a live and let live attitude, and even if they realise I'm trans they're respectful because they know this is a personal thing I'm doing because it's important for my life, it's who I am. It's just the minority of bad apples who spoil things.

I even know trans people who have moved from other countries to Ireland who say they could never imagine receiving as much acceptance from their peers in their home country as they do in Ireland. Ireland can be pretty good when it wants to be, but there's always a few idiots.

Annasopra · 14-02-2015 11:26PM

bb1234567 wrote: »

Awful situation for trans people, all over the world, even in the most tolerant liberal countries life looks very difficult. They even suffer huge discrimination from other cisgendered members of the lgbt community

Cisgendered and transgendered are not really correct terminology. Its the equivalent of saying homosexualised. Cisgnender and transgender are better terms to use.

Wibbs · 14-02-2015 11:31PM

suicide_circus wrote: »

If you don't know what cisgender is, you are one.

TBH when I see or hear the word cisgender in any discussion it's at that point my eyes glaze over and I back away to talk with other people. Ditto for "gender normative" and such newspeak. Because experience has told me that much of what will follow is nearly always an ever increasing circle jerk of nonsense and precious snowflakism, with a healthy side order of offence seeking at any questioning of the position, even if meant in good faith.

As for transexual folks, I say good luck to them and whatever get's one through life as a more content human being and I think Lyaiera's take is the right one. Day to day life the person's record reflect their wishes and gender alignment, but with the original record available should it be required down the line.

Protesters for Transgender rights outside Dáil

Comments