Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Irish state now will now accept a trans persons own declaration of their gender

1…5681011…21

Comments

  • #212
    Daith
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,248 ✭✭✭Daith


    osarusan wrote: »
    I also disagree with words that were used earlier in the thread to describe the assignation of sex at the time of birth as 'incorrect' or mistaken'. I do not think the doctor was mistaken when they looked down, saw a penis between the baby's legs, and noted the sex as male. That may be changed on the new cert, but I don't agree that it is something that needs to be 'corrected'.

    That's a valid point and it's not assigning blame or anything to anyone.

    I'm not sure what word you can use that doesn't mean that though.


  • #213
    awec
    Administrators Posts: 55,061 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭awec


    Joeytheparrot wrote: »
    I think it really is fantastic.

    You know people really do like to slag this government off and in many cases they are correct but for lgbt people this has been the best government ever in this country. It delivered on homophobic and transphobic bullying. It delievered on constitutional change. It is just on the cusp of delivering progressive meaningful gender recognition and finally amending the draconian Section 37.1 of the employment equality act. Today I am proud to be Irish and proud of this government.
    It's society more than the government IMO.


  • #214
    Daith
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,248 ✭✭✭Daith


    awec wrote: »
    It's society more than the government IMO.

    It wouldn't have happened without Labour. Society may have been ready for it but a Government party was needed to actually do anything. They could have left this issue and sail off with the marriage referendum.


  • #215
    Annasopra
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 41,228 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    jimgoose wrote: »
    Does any other jurisdiction allow this? It strikes me as rather odd as well. :confused:

    Yes. loads and loads

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • #216
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,927 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    I stepped away from boards a month or so ago when the hatred and bile on the SSM thread became too much. I see that nothing has really changed. wafer thin arguments going "oh no wont somebody think of the genealogists" and thin edge of the wedge "it will only be used to commit fraud or other criminal acts" are something i would expect from the 12 year old kids on 4Chan.


  • Advertisement
  • #217
    awec
    Administrators Posts: 55,061 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭awec


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    I stepped away from boards a month or so ago when the hatred and bile on the SSM thread became too much. I see that nothing has really changed. wafer thin arguments going "oh no wont somebody think of the genealogists" and thin edge of the wedge "it will only be used to commit fraud or other criminal acts" are something i would expect from the 12 year old kids on 4Chan.

    These posts kind of prove my point.

    "Anyone who has an issue is a hate filled 12 year old child with a hidden agenda".

    Honestly, this is ridiculous.


  • #218
    Annasopra
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 41,228 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    awec wrote: »
    It's society more than the government IMO.

    Actually no. FF opposed Lydia Foys high court case for years and years and were appealing it to Supreme Court. Labour demanded legislation for gender recognition was in the programme for government.

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • #219
    andrew
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 3,373 Mod ✭✭✭✭andrew


    awec wrote: »
    These posts kind of prove my point.

    "Anyone who has an issue is a hate filled 12 year old child with a hidden agenda".

    No, anyone who makes arguments that shallow or bad is a 12 year old child with a hidden agenda.


  • #220
    Daith
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,248 ✭✭✭Daith


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    I stepped away from boards a month or so ago when the hatred and bile on the SSM thread became too much. I see that nothing has really changed. wafer thin arguments going "oh no wont somebody think of the genealogists" and thin edge of the wedge "it will only be used to commit fraud or other criminal acts" are something i would expect from the 12 year old kids on 4Chan.

    It's amazing how similar this and the marriage referendum debates were

    Why should it be called marriage/birth cert. Can't we use another name
    You're not born gay/trans you decide
    Redefining the Constitution/birth cert

    Before finally ending up in bigot vs PC liberal


  • #221
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,927 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    awec wrote: »
    These posts kind of prove my point.

    "Anyone who has an issue is a hate filled 12 year old child with a hidden agenda".

    Honestly, this is ridiculous.

    you're right, this discussion is ridiculous. people inventing ridiculous arguments to prevent social progress that helps others is ridiculous. But on the plus side it does draw the bigots out from under their rocks, so there is that.


  • Advertisement
  • #222
    awec
    Administrators Posts: 55,061 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭awec


    andrew wrote: »
    No, anyone who makes arguments that shallow or bad is a 12 year old child with a hidden agenda.

    Well, that seems to be the declaration in this thread.

    Waste of time continuing the discussion, because anyone against this has no chance of a fair hearing.


  • #223
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,034 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    darkpagandeath wrote: »
    I already have in infraction, I am not falling into that trap again. I'm sure everyone can think of day to day reasons why It could be advantageous.

    I can certainly think of things where one gender gets preferential treatment over the other. But nothing that would convince me to legally change my gender.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • #224
    awec
    Administrators Posts: 55,061 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭awec


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    you're right, this discussion is ridiculous. people inventing ridiculous arguments to prevent social progress that helps others is ridiculous. But on the plus side it does draw the bigots out from under their rocks, so there is that.

    And there we have it. :)

    More fool those who doubted it.


  • #225
    Daith
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,248 ✭✭✭Daith


    awec wrote: »
    Well, that seems to be the declaration in this thread.

    Waste of time continuing the discussion, because anyone against this has no chance of a fair hearing.

    Against what exactly?


  • #226
    Links234
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,944 ✭✭✭✭Links234


    Daith wrote: »
    It wouldn't have happened without Labour. Society may have been ready for it but a Government party was needed to actually do anything. They could have left this issue and sail off with the marriage referendum.

    I have a genuine hope that there's more to come, that the marriage ref wasn't just a "Ok, that's enough equality for now, regular service will now continue" and that we'll get around to sorting out our absolutely batsh*t insane divorce laws, get rid of blasphemy from the constitution, and legislate for the X case. We're making progress, but god damn do we need a good bit more.


  • #227
    ThinkProgress
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,634 ✭✭✭ThinkProgress


    andrew wrote: »
    No, anyone who makes arguments that shallow or bad is a 12 year old child with a hidden agenda.

    Or you disagree with some people's opinions on the matter, so you decide to paint them out to be trivial by mocking them!

    Instead of addressing their concerns with mature and reasoned debate!

    Lazy and immature attitude to a discussion.


  • #228
    Daith
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,248 ✭✭✭Daith


    ThinkProgress wrote: »
    Or you disagree with some people's opinions on the matter, so you decide to paint them out to be trivial by mocking them!

    Instead of addressing their concerns with mature and reasoned debate!

    Lazy and immature attitude to a discussion.

    What is you concern? You seem to be labeling Trans people as a separate gender. They're not.

    They believe they were born/identified as the wrong gender. They believe they are the opposite and can decide for themselves without a 3rd party and get a new Birth Cert to reflect this.

    I don't think they need a 3rd party to tell them what they are.
    The birth cert is interesting but as long as the original isn't changed I'm okay with it.


  • #229
    Cuban Pete
    Closed Accounts Posts: 156 ✭✭Cuban Pete


    awec wrote: »
    I know we have some on this thread. Nobody is saying they don't deserve respect and nobody is saying they don't live a tough life. These are strawman arguments.

    I am not denying there are people with no interest in a real discussion and who just irrationally are against trans people (and the other LBG folks).

    But what you are basically saying is trans people get grief from some in society so nobody has the right to question anything surrounding them otherwise they are probably just a bigot.

    No, not to question them at all but not to question their life experiences and the importance of things like this. And to understand that for many these are sensitive subjects that they've received a lot of grief as regards. They're things that, eventually, one would inevitably get tired of hearing.

    But to perhaps give a more pointed answer, I think a lot of people don't realise how rude they come off sounding to those their words are really directed towards. It's easy to only look at the worst examples but that ignores the cumulative effect of both them and even minor ones; they all build up over time.

    If your argument is that this isn't a subject that a cold, logical debate can be had around then you're right. But unless it's in an academic/scientific context that's always going to be the case. It's an emotive subject because these discussions involve the people being spoken about, and often times in quite insulting ways.

    Of course, everyone has the right to question them but as that point so often misses, it's not always the right or appropriate thing to do.

    However, I'll admit I'm still tetchy after the SSM referendum threads.


  • #230
    andrew
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 3,373 Mod ✭✭✭✭andrew


    awec wrote: »
    Well, that seems to be the declaration in this thread.

    Waste of time continuing the discussion, because anyone against this has no chance of a fair hearing.

    You seem to be under the impression that a 'fair' hearing is one that agrees with you? What do you mean by fair hearing? the only arguments against this which I've heard are:

    1) Historical accuracy
    2) Potential abuse

    We've yet to hear why people care so so much about 'historical accuracy' that this change is bad, especially given people are issued with a new cert. We've yet to hear about why or how anyone would go though the process of having their gender changed legally, such that this could be abused.
    We've yet to hear any actual tangible harm accruing to anyone at all from this.

    So, exactly what argument hasn't recieved a fair hearing?


  • #231
    awec
    Administrators Posts: 55,061 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭awec


    andrew wrote: »
    You seem to be under the impression that a 'fair' hearing is one that agrees with you? What do you mean by fair hearing? the only arguments against this which I've heard are:

    1) Historical accuracy
    2) Potential abuse

    We've yet to hear why people care so so much about 'historical accuracy' that this change is bad, especially given people are issued with a new cert. We've yet to hear about why or how anyone would go though the process of having their gender changed legally, such that this could be abused.
    We've yet to hear any actual tangible harm accruing to anyone at all from this.

    So, exactly what argument hasn't recieved a fair hearing?

    No, a fair hearing is one where people who make arguments against this are not labelled (either subtly or not so subtly) as just intolerant people with hidden agendas. Don't know where this notion that I want people to agree with me comes from seeing as I have no issue with this change whatsoever.

    Person 1: "We've introduced a new policy of xyz"
    Person 2: "hmm, I have reservations"
    Person 1: "Of course you do, you just hate us don't you? Typical bigotry"


  • Advertisement
  • #232
    ThinkProgress
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,634 ✭✭✭ThinkProgress


    Daith wrote: »
    What is you concern? You seem to be labeling Trans people as a separate gender. They're not.

    They believe they were born/identified as the wrong gender. They believe they are the opposite and can decide for themselves without a 3rd party and get a new Birth Cert to reflect this.

    I don't think they need a 3rd party to tell them what they are.
    The birth cert is interesting but as long as the original isn't changed I'm okay with it.

    Biologically they are not the gender they have transitioned to. That's a medical and scientific fact.

    They are transgender men or women.

    This is a fact that should be acknowledged and done so with complete transparency.

    They should be proud of it and not hide it or try to erase it from history!

    Otherwise we are being lied to by the media and lgbt groups, who tell us there is nothing to be ashamed about.

    That's complete hypocrisy. And it's a slippery slope into ever increasing dishonesty when your govt actually helps and encourages you to conceal your past!


  • #233
    Crooked Jack
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,678 ✭✭✭Crooked Jack


    Daith wrote: »
    I said it wasn't relevant. You keep ignoring the fact that no historical document is being changed.

    The sex of the baby on the birth cert in an argument about the sex of that same person on their birth cert is not relevant?

    This is farcical. ANd i have not ignored that the document is not changed, Im addressing the even more ludicrous situation that there are now two birth certs. You are the only one ignoring relevant facts


  • #234
    andrew
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 3,373 Mod ✭✭✭✭andrew


    awec wrote: »
    No, a fair hearing is one where people who make arguments against this are not labelled (either subtly or not so subtly) as just intolerant people with hidden agendas. Don't know where this notion that I want people to agree with me comes from seeing as I have no issue with this change whatsoever.

    Person 1: "We've introduced a new policy of xyz"
    Person 2: "hmm, I have reservations"
    Person 1: "Of course you do, you just hate us don't you? Typical bigotry"

    The way I see it, the coversation goes more like:

    Person 1: "We've introduced a new policy of xyz"
    Person 2: "hmm, I have reservations"
    Person 1: "What reservations?"
    Person 2: *insert nebulous reservation here, e.g. 'historical accuracy'*
    Person 1: "I think that's a bad reservation because the benefits outweigh the costs/it's not actually relevant/clearly not a harm"
    Person 2: "You're not giving me a fair hearing! What about my reservations!"
    Person 1: ...You're a bigot.


  • #235
    Daith
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,248 ✭✭✭Daith


    awec wrote: »
    Person 1: "Of course you do, you just hate us don't you? Typical bigotry"

    No one mentioned bigotry until you brought it up?

    The vast majority was all about the birth records and original versus new.
    ThinkProgress wrote: »
    They are transgender men or women.

    No they're men or women.


  • #236
    kunst nugget
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,375 ✭✭✭✭kunst nugget


    andrew wrote: »
    So, exactly what argument hasn't recieved a fair hearing?

    I'm going to hold my hands up and admit I'm coming from a place of ignorance. I have never had any issues with transgender people in my life and I think the birth certificate argument is a slight red herring. I'm just curious as to what the benefits, or potential pitfalls are, of self declaration. To my eyes, a system where a person receives counselling with people trained to deal with transgender issues and declaration with a medical professional, again trained to deal with transgender issues, would be the best method considering it is such a big deal. But then, I've never had to deal with such a system and so don't know its disadvantages. I'm curious to know people's opinions on this.


  • #237
    awec
    Administrators Posts: 55,061 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭awec


    andrew wrote: »
    The way I see it, the coversation goes more like:

    Person 1: "We've introduced a new policy of xyz"
    Person 2: "hmm, I have reservations"
    Person 1: "What reservations?"
    Person 2: *insert nebulous reservation here, e.g. 'historical accuracy'*
    Person 1: "I think that's a bad reservation because the benefits outweigh the costs/it's not actually relevant/clearly not a harm"
    Person 2: "You're not giving me a fair hearing! What about my reservations!"
    Person 1: ...You're a bigot.
    Except the last two statements in this happened the other way around in this thread.


  • #238
    awec
    Administrators Posts: 55,061 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭awec


    Daith wrote: »
    No one mentioned bigotry until you brought it up?

    It was hinted at. More than once.


  • #239
    Daith
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,248 ✭✭✭Daith


    awec wrote: »
    It was hinted at. More than once.

    And now it's all we're discussing. No wonder we can't have a proper discussion around this.


  • #240
    kunst nugget
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,375 ✭✭✭✭kunst nugget


    Daith wrote: »
    No one mentioned bigotry until you brought it up?.

    Pretty sure andrew said most views on this thread came from a place of ignorance or bigotry before awec brought it up.


  • Advertisement
  • #241
    DeadHand
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,814 ✭✭✭DeadHand


    awec wrote: »
    Person 1: "We've introduced a new policy of xyz"
    Person 2: "hmm, I have reservations"
    Person 1: "Of course you do, you just hate us don't you? Typical bigotry"

    Welcome to the new orthodoxy!

    You will be told how to think. No dissent will be tolerated.


Advertisement