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?
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.
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?
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.
MakeEmLaugh wrote: » Over 200 protesters were outside Leinster House today, where the Gender Recognition Bill is being discussed.
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.
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.
Lyaiera wrote: » It still exists, however it's only accessible under limited circumstances.
conorh91 wrote: » Sigh. Right so. Not erasing the document but simply hiding it, then, and replacing the public document with a doctored, retrospective version.
Lyaiera wrote: » I would phrase it as respecting someone's right to live in their gender for day-to-day purposes
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Birneybau wrote: » Great bunch of lads.
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
suicide_circus wrote: » If you don't know what cisgender is, you are one.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w1.vanillicon.com/v2/1de30a3af99564ce338f7a27f88f9656.svg)
