Roderic O’G: Transgender issues added to primary curriculum

To be fair to GW, it’s an understandable conflation given the terms are often used interchangeably to refer to the same concept in its broader context. Transsexual for example is still used in a medical context as opposed to the term transgender which is more often used in a social context -

https://www.healthline.com/health/transgender/difference-between-transgender-and-transsexual#key-differences

If someone were simply to declare that a person can/cannot change sex, depending upon my mood I’d inquire as to what they mean by that. I’d be looking for further context, because they could be referring to biological, sociological or psychological processes. It’s certainly not physically possible for human species to undergo a physical transformation at will without some form of medical intervention, and there’s plenty of disagreement over whether or not people who do not experience gender dysphoria and refuse to undergo medical interventions can refer to themselves as transgender -

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transmedicalism

If, on the other hand, someone were to make the same declaration, it would still require further context because it could be that they are applying either a liberal or conservative interpretation to the idea of sex. A liberal interpretation is one in which all the various identities are considered separate and distinct from each other, so there are ideas of sex, gender, sexual orientation and so on, and it’s where the idea of intersectional identity politics comes from, whereas a more conservative interpretation consists of regarding all these separate and distinct concepts under the one concept that is sex, without all the overwrought deconstruction.

This was exemplified by the US Supreme Court recently in Bostock v Clayton County regarding discrimination in employment, but it wasn’t the first time this interpretation was applied to the Civil Rights Act -

https://www.vox.com/2020/6/15/21291515/supreme-court-bostock-clayton-county-lgbtq-neil-gorsuch

It was also applied in the Price Waterhouse v Hopkins case where the employer was found to be in breach of the Act on the basis that the employee was the victim of sex discrimination because of her employers ideas based upon gender stereotypes -

Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228 (1989), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court on the issues of prescriptive sex discrimination and employer liability for sex discrimination. The employee, Ann Hopkins, sued her former employer, the accounting firm Price Waterhouse. She argued that the firm denied her partnership because she did not fit the partners' idea of what a female employee should look and act like. The employer failed to prove that it would have denied her partnership anyway, and the Court held that constituted sex discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The significance of the Supreme Court's ruling was twofold. First, it established that gender stereotyping is actionable as sex discrimination. Second, it established the mixed-motive framework that enables employees to prove discrimination when other, lawful reasons for the adverse employment action exist alongside discriminatory motivations or reasons.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_Waterhouse_v._Hopkins

The point is that people may hold whatever beliefs they do, there is nothing in law which says they can’t. Issues only arise when they attempt to impose their beliefs upon others, with the expectation that other people should act in accordance with those beliefs. That’s the reason why gender being recognised in Irish law is of greater importance than the opinions of the giant walking vagina in the cubicle opposite you in the office who believes there are several gender-bending deities (in accordance with Hindu tradition), or the other fella who does Pilates five times a day in the direction of Mecca, who’s interpretation of Islam is as laid back as he is -

There could be a certain validity to the modern division between psychological or cultural gender and biological sex (for instance, it is right to say that certain aspects of traditional gender roles are culture based). Nevertheless, it is absolutely false to assert that "gender" in its totality is a societal concept with no meaningful connection to biological sex. Male and female bodies differ in terms of their DNA. 

Because men and women differ from one another in far too many ways—physically, medically, biologically, emotionally, and a plethora of other ways—the Shari'ah outlined each gender's roles clearly. 

Therefore, in order to follow the Shariah, one must declare their gender as that of their biological sex (personal pronouns included) and comply with the rules that go along with their gender.

https://www.quranexplorer.com/blog/Education-In-The-Light-Of-Sunnah-And-Qura'an/What_Islam_says_about_LGBT

Right so basically you are saying in your view trans people dont exist despite the fact they do exist.

Be careful what I wish for? Haha.

It pans out exactly the way the people who advocate for it wanted, if they get what they want. The reason we look at other countries is because it informs the drafting of legislation - we can see what works and what doesn’t, and apply it accordingly in an Irish context. We do this already for all sorts of legislation and it works out fine, because it’s left up to the Courts to interpret Irish laws in individual cases where issues arise.

It IS discrimination, and what matters is whether it’s lawful, or unlawful, and that will depend upon legislation. So for example the Gender Recognition Act states that persons applying for a gender recognition certificate must be 18 years of age, and below that it extends to 16 years of age depending upon certain criteria. Gender and age are two different grounds in any case, and they are only two of the nine grounds recognised in Irish law.

You absolutely can legalise something that has an infinite amount of variables, and certainly you can do so without any contradiction to gender equality, or do you imagine that recognising the rights of one group means another group are deprived of existing legal protections? The whole point of expanding who qualifies for recognition and protection in Irish law FURTHERS the idea of gender equality, rather than diminishing it, by aiming to be more inclusive. The interpretation of the Family is just one example under review -

Following a 2015 referendum to amend Article 41, the constitutional definition of the family has been expanded to include married same-sex couples. Legislation and public policy also recognise a much broader range of family relationships, for example, through the introduction of automatic guardianship rights to unmarried fathers in certain circumstances and provision for cohabiting couples and one parent families in the social welfare code.

Despite positive pronouncements by the Superior Courts and positive legislative and policy developments, the definition of family within the Constitution (in particular that contained in Article 41.3.1) is based on a narrow understanding of the family that prioritises married families and fails to recognise and protect the diverse range of family forms that exist in modern Ireland.

It expressly denies protection to, and has been used to discriminate against, unmarried parents and their children, LGBTQI parents, non-biological parents and those non-nuclear families which exist in society. Failure to recognise diverse family forms means that the care work of many people is unrecognised and devalued. While the rights of ‘de facto families’ are protected by the European Convention on Human Rights, it is submitted that there can be real and practical consequences for those who cannot avail of Article 41, as is abundantly clear from decisions such as Gorry.

https://www.lawsociety.ie/globalassets/documents/submissions/2022-submission-gender-equality.pdf

This is the decision in Gorry being referred to, just for context -

https://emn.ie/case_law/gorry-v-minister-for-justice/

I think ROG just enjoy's being controversial for the sake of it.

edit: I'm now thinking of seeking asylum in the south of France due to the constant rain we get here in the west due to climate change which triggers my S.A.D.

I'm only joking about the asylum part.

Trans people are people who strongly desire to live in the opposite gender to their sex, in that context trans people exist.

What doesn't exist is women in men's bodies and men in women's body, they don't exist and have never existed from the beginning of time.

Hope we've cleared that up once and for all now.

If you guess right do you get a Brucie Bonus?

It's true that the gender recognition act (2015) in Ireland (which is as repealable as any other law) sets up a legal fiction wherein a male person can be legally recognised as a female person for all purposes, despite remaining unchangeably, permanently, male in any real sense of the word.

Ireland is even a "poster boy" in the trans lobby insofar as duping a population into adopting unpopular trans law goes. Tie it to more popular reforms for a "veil of protection":

https://www.iglyo.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/IGLYO_v3-1.pdf

Ireland is even a "poster boy" in the trans lobby insofar as duping a population into adopting unpopular trans law goes.

There was no duping of the population? The legislation was enacted before the marriage equality referendum took place, it had to be, because under Irish legislation as it was at the time, people who were transgender were not permitted to marry a person of the same sex either -

As the law currently stands, the failure to recognise the acquired gender of transsexuals results in a situation where those who have transitioned to their acquired gender may only marry a person whose gender is identical to that of the transsexual person’s acquired gender. Likewise, currently, a transsexual person may only enter into a civil partnership with a person whose gender is different from that of the transsexual person’s acquired gender. Thus, despite the current prohibition of same-sex marriage, by denying the legal effects of gender reassignment, the law as it currently stands effectively permits (in these particular circumstances) marriages between two parties sharing a common gender identity.

https://www.ihrec.ie/app/uploads/download/doc/equality_authority_submission_to_the_gender_recognition_advisory_group.doc

The way the legislation was written even demonstrates this point -

(3) A person issued with a gender recognition certificate may only—

(a) marry a person of the opposite gender to the preferred gender and reference in section 2(2)(e) of the Act of 2004 to “same sex” includes a reference to the same sex as the preferred gender,

(b) be a party to a civil partnership registration with a person of the same gender as the preferred gender and reference in section 2(2A)(e) of the Act of 2004, to “not of the same sex” includes a reference to not of the same sex as the preferred gender.

https://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2015/act/25/enacted/en/print#sec18

It already had implications In divorce proceedings which needed to be addressed.

It’s that ‘veil of protection’ nonsense is the work of fiction that isn’t a reflection at all of how the Gender Recognition Act came about in Ireland. Successive Irish Governments resisted the idea of it even though it was way back in 2007 when the Irish Courts found Ireland to be in breach of it’s obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights -

On 19 October 2007, the court found Ireland in violation of the European Convention on Human Rights, and decided to issue the first declaration of incompatibility between Irish and European law. According to Justice Liam McKechnie, provisions of Article 8 of the Convention protecting Foy's right to respect for private life had been violated when the State failed "to provide for 'meaningful recognition' of her female identity". He also expressed frustration at the Irish government's failure to take any steps to improve the position of transsexuals following his previous judgment in 2002.

Initially challenging the 2007 ruling, on 21 June 2010 the Irish Government withdrew its appeal and set up an inter-departmental committee on the legal recognition of transsexuals. The report of this Gender Recognition Advisory Group was published in July 2011 and recommended legislation to recognise transsexuals. Launching the report, the then Minister for Social Protection Joan Burton said the government would introduce gender recognition legislation as soon as possible, but by February 2013 no legislation had been introduced.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lydia_Foy

Btw, and for what it’s worth, the same argument that the Gender Recognition Act sets up a “legal fiction” is easily applied to the idea that recognition of marriage in Irish law sets up a “legal fiction” as the parties are unrelated to each other, but that’s the only way the Family is recognised in Irish law. It has to be that way because if the Family were solely recognised by consanguinity, it would constitute incest… bit of a no-no on that one. Essentially, the portrayal of legal recognition of a person’s gender as a “legal fiction” is ridiculous.

You missed the point, that the same claim of the gender recognition act creating a legal fiction could similarly be applied to marriage, that the marriage act creates a legal fiction.

Neither Act does that though, it’s just a silly claim that the Gender Recognition Act creates a legal fiction. Obviously someone heard of the term and just ran with it. Recognition in law of a legal right doesn’t create a legal fiction.