Ms Sara Phillips:

I wanted to get through a couple of the points. I echo Ms Sherlock's comments on the medical and legal pathways, as we must be very careful and separate those. We are not saying within the transgender community that the medical system does not need mental health support with regard to these issues and we clearly need to have that sort of support in order to provide a medical pathway. It is also crucial to remember that many of us transgender people, when we get to the point of deciding or realising that we are "trans", are three, five or six years old. There are those who deal with other issues, and that is what the medical health system is for. Nevertheless, providing us with legal recognition should not be predicated on that. With all due respect, men or women seeking medical assistance do not have to prove they are male or female; they just get medical assistance and we must be careful in realising that.

There was a point about marriage and I echo the comments of Senator Power. The marriage issue concerns the point of contract, and at that point two people are legally recognised as male and female. For the State to tell the people they must break that contract is a travesty. There is no provision within the Bill for those people who cannot therefore access gender recognition because they decide that they need to keep a family together if they are happily married. There is no provision for the possibility after a person has transitioned, having had surgery and mental intervention. They cannot continue to keep their passport or driving licence in the female gender, as it was in my case, for example. They are left in limbo.

We all look forward to the day we can see same-sex marriage introduced but the most recent referendum indicates we need to await a referendum, and who is to say it will be passed? Are we therefore asking married couples to wait for what could be another 20 years for same-sex marriage to be allowed?