Dublin Pride ends media partnership with RTE over Liveline's Gender Identity discussion

Thedunne has requested that static gender be recognized. Therefore it is inconsistent of him to not want all genders recognized. (this is the level of debate we are at now)

Only if you believe that not actively supporting something is the equivalent of actively supporting the opposite of that thing.

It's a literal logoc fail.

I asked you to quote where anyone on the thread has argued what you said we are arguing. You are clearly unable to do so. Replying with a random thought will not distract us from showing that you are unable to quote us saying what you claim we say.

Who is you're?

What rights are denied to people who identify as non-binary that would be granted to them if they were allowed to legally identify as non-binary (other than the right to have their non-binary status recognised)?

I’m not sure I understand the question. What rights are denied to people who identify as non-binary, other than the right to be recognised in law? This is the whole point of being recognised in law - so that they have all the SAME rights and freedoms and protection in law as people who identify themselves in accordance with the binary concept of gender which only recognises male and female as legitimate gender identities.

What do you think of the court's opinion that the applicants' gender was "a biographical detail which can be used to confirm their identity." If this decision is upheld by the EHCR, will it mean that a transman/transwoman won't have M/F down as their sex on their passport?

Not much, tbh, but I understand that each country which is a signatory to the Convention is permitted a broad margin of appreciation in the scope of it’s domestic laws in certain specific areas. I thought it was particularly pitiable that the Courts made this remark, as it fundamentally underlined the issue -

Perhaps most importantly, there is not the obvious discrepancy between the appellant’s physical appearance and the “F” marker in the appellant’s passport that there was between the feminine appearance of the applicant in B v France and her male identity papers.

These points only apply to MtF or FtM trans, not to intersex or the non-binary/other genders, which I feel also need to be looked at, but are different issues.

I think that the GRA needs to be revisited, with the aim of ensuring the act serves the needs of both trans people and society as a whole. The rights of an individual should not unduly impinge on the rights of society as a whole. Given that, I would say that:

1 What adults choose to do to themselves is their own business, but the state has a requirement to protect some individuals from themselves. To ensure this, any adult who chooses to transition should be doing so in an environment where there is adequate support and where they have been fully informed and processed the result of their transition. Any adult who wishes to transition should engage with some sort of therapy which encourages them to question the motivation for their decision, and to have realistic expectations for the outcome. I have seen a number of trans activists on twitter complaining that lesbians don't want to date them. No matter how much equality legislation exists, it will never be possible to tell someone that they have to be have sex with a trans person. This is not advocating for conversion therapy, but any legislation outlawing conversion therapy needs to recognise that a good therapist will invite a client to challenge their own opinions. It is only by challenging them that a decision that is true to the person can be made. It will either eliminate the desire or completely confirm it.

I’d be in agreement with all of that, except for that last bit. I understand where you’re coming from with the idea that a good therapist will invite a client to… I would say explore, rather than challenge, but you’re ignoring the fact that the beliefs regarding their identity that the person holds are true already as far as they’re concerned. A good therapist will leave their own personal beliefs outside the clinic door. By way of giving you an example, let’s say a client is non-religious. It’s not the job of a therapist to challenge that non-belief, and a good therapist will leave their own personal religious beliefs outside the clinic door in consultation with a client who does not share their religious beliefs. Same applies to their beliefs, or lack thereof, about gender.

2 Children need to be protected. This requirement for therapy is even more necessary for children. Also, permanent transition options (hormonal or surgical) should not be available to those under 18. Children, while adjusting to changing hormonal levels and while becoming more aware of their own sexuality are more prone to making decisions that they may regret in future. Adults who make that decision are more likely to have fully considered the outcomes of their actions.

That particular phenomenon is by no means exclusive to children 😂 Joking aside, I do get where you’re coming from, and informed consent is vital in any decisions regarding children’s welfare and medical care. It’s certainly not the case that adults who make these decisions are any more likely to have fully considered the outcomes of someone else’s actions. The reason I specifically refer to someone else’s actions is because these people aren’t relying on themselves with regards to any outcomes, they’re relying on the opinions of medical professionals who have experience in dealing with cases like theirs.

Everyone involved strives for a positive outcome for their patients, because poor outcomes don’t just affect the individual patient, they reflect badly on the practice of medicine as a whole. In any case as the law currently applies, not even the gender recognition act is extended to children under 16, and any medical or surgical interventions adhere to current best practice in medicine. Sometimes cases are referred to the Courts where there is disagreement over what is in the best interests of the child, such as parents who refuse to allow their children to receive a blood transfusion for example.

3 In order to protect society in general, and women, children and the trans community in particular, it should not be possible for anyone convicted of violent or sexual crime, or awaiting trial for same, to transition. It is in the interests of society that dangerous people cannot hide who they are (on an aside, I believe that our rules on name changes in general should be overhauled to prevent dangerous criminals hiding who they are). For the trans community, rules like this would hopefully reduce some of the fear-mongering about (mostly MtF people) going into bathrooms of the opposite sex.

Section 23 of the Gender Recognition Act covers what you’re generally referring to already -

https://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2015/act/25/enacted/en/print#sec23

I’m not going to pretend that any of your rules would reduce any fear-mongering about anyone, because it doesn’t, and that’s not just in relation to people who are transgender either when a person is given access to a national platform and comes out with bull crap like “men as a class, are a danger to women as a class”, and she didn’t lick that idea off the stones either, it’s been around a while. I mean, if your concerns are around protecting children from sexual abuse, policing access to public restrooms (which has never been done before), isn’t going to achieve anything -

https://www.irishmirror.ie/news/irish-news/sex-offences-ireland-courts-charges-21647642.amp

I’m not transgender, and there has never been an issue when I’ve used the bathroom of the opposite sex, and there’s never been an issue with people of the opposite sex using the bathrooms designated and designed with the opposite sex in mind (there are never enough bins in the ladies bathrooms though, clearly! Either that, or their aim is only marginally better than the men’s aim at a urinal, that they can’t successfully place a tampon in the provided bins and it ends up on the floor being a slipping hazard for some poor unfortunate!), that’s just bad design, poor decision making on the part of whomever is in charge of the facilities!

4 People who have transitioned should, where possible, avoid using open changing rooms where there is a private cubicle option. As an example of this - in the swimming pool closest to me, there are open changing rooms for men and women, and also about 40 cubicles (about 10 for families and 30 for individuals). Single sex areas should, where possible, remain as safe spaces for that sex. Women in general don't want to see a penis when getting ready to go to the gym, and they shouldn't be forced to.

Why do you apply this recommendation to people who are transgender specifically? Who do you imagine actually wants to see anyone’s private parts, only people who want to see other people’s private parts? I’m a man, and I sure as hell don’t want to see anyone’s private parts when I’m getting ready to go to the gym, or swimming, or anywhere else. I don’t want anyone else seeing my private parts either, but NOBODY is forced to see anyone’s private parts, and legislation already exists in Irish law which prohibits displays of that nature.

Also, given the current approach of trans activists of screaming and shouting "transphobe" if anyone dares to question them, there is the possibility that people who are not actually trans will claim to be (I don't mean will apply for a GRC, but will just say that they are and shout transphobe at anyone who questions them) in order to gain access to female only spaces.

Well that’s just rude, but here’s the thing - I’ll bet you haven’t bothered to check whether the people they’re shouting “transphobe” at, were actually people who were claiming to have seen a penis, or challenging the individual on the basis that they didn’t believe the individual had a right to be in that space? Because if that is the case, then anyone shouting “transphobe” in a crowded dressing room, is correctly identifying a person who is transphobic. Rude, but no different than the behaviour you’re attempting to defend. Neither behaviour is justified however, as complaints of that nature are dealt with either by management or the Gardaí, depending upon the circumstances in each case.

I have a major problem with a quote from Regina Doherty in the Scottish Houses of Parliament, where she said "The prison thing, the shared dressing room spaces and the school toilets were the three things that came up in the jurisdictions that we looked at. But again the incidences were so minute." While they number of incidences may be small, for each individual who something happens to, it is a major problem. The state has a responsibility to ensure their guidelines and practices reduce the risk as much as possible.

I think you might be blowing a minor issue out of proportion to suggest that it is a major issue, but given you consider ANYTHING Regina Doherty says to anyone, a major issue… I can see why rather than giving advice to people who are transgender to limit themselves to their designated facilities, it might serve your own interests better to get some perspective rather than criticising the State for what you see as their lack of perspective.

5 In general, in sports, trans-athletes should not compete against their new legal gender. This is primarily for reasons of safety and fairness, as there are significant physiological differences between biological males and females that persist even after transition. There are already issues with the levels of participation of women in sports, and it is important that trans inclusion does not further reduce that. There are some sports where the differences are less than others, and those sports should be allowed to set their own requirements. I think that this isn't a change as such, but does need to be highlighted.

Exemptions already exist in existing equality legislation to address issues in sports. The issues with the levels of participation in women’s sports have absolutely nothing to do with people who are transgender, and everything to do with the lack of support for women in sports, and the fact that men don’t want women participating in what they see as “their” sports. That’s existed long before any acknowledgement of people who are transgender, let alone the idea that they should have the same rights as anyone else to participate in sports. If their aim in the bathroom is anything to go by, both men and women should be prohibited from playing football, yet it remains a popular sport promoting alcohol consumption… I’m not a conspiracy theorist but… “back of the net” becomes significantly more challenging with alcohol on-board 😂

6 A lot of the debate about "removing women from legislation" could be eliminated by having clauses in the GRA which define where the gender/biological sex are the relevant characteristic (e.g. in medical related issues, biological sex is more relevant than gender)

Absolutely none of the debate about “removing women from legislation” could be eliminated by what you’re suggesting. Both grounds are of equal importance in medicine, healthcare, law, employment, housing and accommodation, education, all the areas where there are people, their characteristics are of equal importance in law.

That’s kinda the point of equality legislation, and why the protections afforded only to women under current legislation are being extended to people with a gender recognition certificate which recognises them in Irish law as being of the male sex. It’s not removing any rights FROM women, and women’s rights are not being impacted or infringed upon in any way. It’s why in terms of legislation that followed on from the repeal of the 8th amendment, Government tied itself in knots to avoid having to extend the same recognition to people who have a gender recognition certificate which recognises them in Irish law as being of the male sex. ‘Twould lead to unintended consequences, apparently -

Simon Harris has claimed to support transgender men’s reproductive rights, while The Times reports that the government’s position is that transgender men “should have the same rights and liabilities” as women under any new abortion law, but TDs are calling for the bill to be more inclusive.

The government believes that the 2005 Interpretation Act, which was introduced to makes laws gender-neutral, means that the wording of the new abortion legislation should allow references to women to be understood as trans-inclusive. According to a source, specifically referencing pregnant transgender men could “open up” the argument that gendered references in previous legislation could be interpreted as not trans-inclusive.

https://gcn.ie/abortion-legislation-trans-men/

Great Post.

Terrible post.

Maybe you replied to me by accident?