Lydia Foy Case - High Court Decision Imminent

besty

Well, one of the contentious constitutional/ECHR issues of recent times is set to be decided by McKechnie J. today in the High Court. For anybody unfamiliar with the case, this concerns a naturally born male wishing to have a new birth cert. issued after undergoing gender realignment treatment recognising their status as a female.

Originally, the High Court rejected the application. This was appealed to the Supreme Court and subsequently sent back to the High Court in light of the ECHR decision of Goodwin.

What are peoples' thoughts on this topic. There are potentially interesting conseuqeuences for same sex marriage (E.g. Zappone) if the Foy application is upheld in the jurisdiction in my opinion.

Any thoughts?
___________________________________________________________________
Taken from the Irish Times;
Judgment on sex change birth cert due

The High Court is due to deliver judgment today on a 10-year landmark legal battle by a Co Kildare dentist who underwent a sex change operation, writes Mary Carolan. The action is aimed at securing a birth certificate describing her as female.

Dr Lydia Foy, Athy, Co Kildare, was born male but had gender realignment surgery 15 years ago. She has abandoned an earlier claim for her original birth certificate to be altered and instead wants a new birth certificate reflecting her female gender.

Mr Justice Liam McKechnie is due to deliver his judgment this afternoon. The case was heard over six days last April.

Tom Young

Thoughts!

I think the change should be allowed. I am not 100% sure that the constitution is going to leave room for the modification though.

Am 55/45 against a positive outcome for the appellant based on court 'pinball'.

A pleading under the 2003 ECHR Act might see some form of compo in the medium term.

Might pop over and see.

Tom Young

Guess I was right: Declaration of incompatability under the 2003 act, sections 2 / 5.

Wonderous. http://www.rte.ie/news/2007/1019/foyl.html

EdgarAllenPoo

To be honest I think if you are born with a twig and berries that's what your birth cert should say.

Whatever about people in this situation who say they've always thought of themselves as male/female, they were not physically born that way.

Rebeller

GDM wrote: »

To be honest I think if you are born with a twig and berries that's what your birth cert should say.

Whatever about people in this situation who say they've always thought of themselves as male/female, they were not physically born that way.

I think the point is that gender or more specifically gender identity is about a bit more than just physical attributes. Yes, there are certain sexual characteristics that define members of the human (or other mammal) species as "male" or "female" from a reproductive point of view, however human gender typing is a bit more complex IMO.

I welcome the judgement as I don't think it is the place of the law to dictate to any individual how they can or cannot identity themselves from a gender point of view.

Yes, Lydia Foy was born with a penis and testicles meaning she was (physically at least) male. However, why would it be so hard to believe that someone could appear male but have the brain chemistry or whatever you wish to call it, more often found in the female of the species?

johnnyskeleton

I don't care what gender it says on anybody else's birth cert.

From an administrative point of view I think the correct approach is that the registrar of births deaths and marriages should retain the original birth cert, but another official birth cert should be provided. A person who has changed their gender should be allowed to state their new gender in the same way that a person who gains the benefit of the Probation Act can honestly say that they have no criminal convictions.