Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

Tá sé i gceist agam m'am a roinnt leis an Teachta Sandra McLellan. Fáiltím roimh an mBille seo agus fáiltíonn mo pháirtí roimhe freisin in ainneoin go bhfuil fadhbanna móra leis agus go bhfuil gnéithe ann ar chóir athrú. Luaigh an Teachta Ó Deaghaidh a lán de na háiteanna atá fadbhanna agamsa leo. Luaigh mé iad nuair a bhí mé ag déileáil leis an mBille seo sa chéad dul síos ar Chéim an Choiste nuair a bhí na ceannteidil glactha ag an Rialtas, sula raibh sé curtha le chéile i gceart. Cuireadh os comhair an Choiste é le haghaidh breithniú réamhreachtach. Rinneadh moltaí ansin. Glacadh le roinnt díobh sin agus tháinig athrú ar an bport a bhí ag an Roinn sa chéad dul síos ach níor ghlacadh le cinn eile agus táimid fós gafa le Bille nach bhfuil chomh forásach mar ba chóir dó a bheith.

Ba chóir go mbeimis chun tosaigh ar domhan maidir leis an gceist seo, seachas a bheith chun deiridh. Measaimse go bhfuil céim mhór ar aghaidh á thabhairt anseo agus is céim dearfach í i gcoitinne, ach beimid ach teacht ar ais go dtí na fadhbanna móra atá ann agus muid á phlé ar Chéim an Choiste. Aontaím leis an Teachta Ó Deaghaidh go bhfuil gá le níos mó ama idir chríoch na Céime seo agus Céim an Choiste ionas gur féidir linn déileáil leis an mBille seo ina iomlán agus leasuithe cuí a chur chun cinn. Agus mé á rá sin, fáiltím roimh an gcinneadh atá an Aire tar éis dhéanamh: go mbeidh an Rialtas ag déileáil le ceist an cholscartha i mBille teaghlaigh amach anseo. Táim ag impí ar an Aire go bhfoilseofar an Bille sin chomh luath agus is féidir agus go mbeidh críoch cheart curtha leis an bhfadhb mhór atá sa Bhille faoi láthair.

Gabhaim buíochas leo siúd go léir a thóg seasamh ar cheist aithint inscne go dtí seo. Ní féidir ach ár mbuíochas mar shochaí a ghabháil le daoine ar nós Lydia Foy. Gan an chrógacht a bhí aici, measaim go mbeadh an cheist seo fós ceilte orainne sa Teach seo agus ar an sochaí i gcoitinne. Tá daoine eile ann a rinne sárobair ag impí ormsa, agus ar ghach Teachta, déileáil leis an gceist seo i gceart, a leithéid de TENI nó Focus: The Identity Trust sa Tuaisceart. Ach is iad na daoine is tábhachtaí, agus ní chloisimid a nguthanna i gcónaí, ná na daoine atá ag déileáil leis seo as a stuaim féin, atá ag déileáil leis lá i ndiaidh lae, agus a gclanna. Gabhaim buíochas leosan go léir as ucht an obair agus an chabhair a thug siad domsa nuair a bhí mé ag cur reachtaíocht le chéile dhá bhliain ó shin agus ó shin i leith. Déanaim comhghairdeas leo chomh maith go raibh sé de chrógacht acu leanúint leis seo agus go raibh siad in ann an obair díograiseach sin a chur isteach sa cheist seo. Níl céimeanna sa dlí acu nó a leithéid ag a lán acu. Tá siad ag teacht toisc a scéalta féin. Bíonn sé sin níos tábhachta uaireanta ná go mbeadh céim sa dlí ag duine mar tuigeann siad go díreach conas mar a luífidh an dlí atá le teacht leo amach anseo.

Tosóidh mé ar an mBéarla anois, toisc go bhfuil daoine ag éisteacht nach bhfuil cluasáin acu.

Sinn Féin has consulted widely with transgender individuals who are to be commended. We have come a long way in 22 years since Lydia Foy took the courageous step to demand that the State recognise her identity. I note how both the world and Ireland have changed in many ways and this Bill is welcome legislation. The Minister of State and I might not agree on whether it is the legislation that is required but it is, none the less, a significant step. Sinn Féin will not oppose it and we will tackle the flaws in the legislation - some of which have been stated by other speakers - on Committee Stage. The area is highly technical and it will be difficult to achieve complete agreement but that is what we must aim for. Examples from other countries show how legislation has been moulded to ensure full recognition and that onerous tasks are not demanded of certain citizens just because they are transgender.

The deficiencies in the Bill have been highlighted in the Seanad as well as by myself and others at the pre-legislative stage hearings. Some, but not all, of these deficiencies have been addressed. However, this Bill demonstrates a paternalistic attitude on the part of Departments or the Civil Service or on the part of the Minister of State but I do not believe this is the Minister of State's attitude. I have met the departmental officials and I do not believe that attitude is intentional on their part but there is sometimes a conservative attitude when dealing with legislation and a fear that an opening of a can of worms might result. We need to be more open to change when considering progressive legislation and we need to learn from other jurisdictions. The people themselves are best placed to know their own gender, not the medical practitioners and not us.

I intend to table a series of amendments on Committee Stage to deal with the issue of the role of medical practitioner being included in the legislation. I find it odd that most of the references were removed but they are still central to the legislation. It is unfair in many ways, arbitrary and possibly unworkable and it denies individuals the right to self-determination. In some cases it places insurmountable obstacles in the way of having an individual's gender recognised.

I agree with the analysis of the legislation as expressed by Transgender Equality Network Ireland, TENI, that it pathologises transgender people. In its view, sections in the Bill require the participation of medical practitioners and this feeds into the belief that being transgender means one has a medical illness. The legislation should be able to explain to society that this is neither the case nor the intention and the easiest way of doing so is to remove from the Bill the need for the participation of medical practitioners. It is hugely problematic for the State to bar a person from legal recognition of his or her status if there has not been the participation of a doctor in that process. We need to show empathy towards transgender people and I suggest that this provision should be debated on Committee Stage and removed. A model which takes a pathological approach is completely outdated. At the pre-legislative committee hearings Deputy O'Dea and I outlined examples from other countries which could be followed.

If the Minister of State insists that the participation of a medical practitioner must be included in the Bill, then it must be at the level of general medical practitioner because a GP will have a long-term and ongoing relationship with individual patients. The country does not have the medical infrastructure to do what is expected in this Bill. For example, I do not know any endocrinologist - I cannot say that as Gaeilge but I will try to do so next week - nor do I know that many psychiatrists but I know a number of GPs, some of whom are here in this House, and I know them to be reasonable people. They know their patients, they understand them when they come from help and they may well have known them from birth. My preference is for the references to be deleted entirely.

I intend to tease out further on Committee Stage a point which has not been much discussed as yet. This is the question of how the Bill addresses inter-sex people and the relative lack of knowledge about this gender in the Bill. I refer to recent international cases which demonstrate that we need to be more informed about that peculiar aspect of life. We also need to be aware of the concerns of the many advocates for transgender and inter-sex people that the terminology used in the Bill does not fully capture their needs and may create difficulties. The terminology suggests that inter-sex people have not been particularly or properly considered and consulted in the drafting of the Bill which will not fully address their needs, despite the Minister of State's assurance that the pathway outlined in the Bill will be open to inter-sex people. However, it is the case that sometimes what might be acknowledged is not clear. There is a need for greater clarity in that aspect.

I ask the Minister of State to clarify how the professional opinion of a psychiatrist or an endocrinologist is specifically relevant to gender recognition of inter-sex people because in my view it is not. Given that inter-sex conditions are not diseases and many require no medical intervention, how can this Bill be said to be dealing with their situation? Leaving aside the discussion about the role of psychiatrists, it is clear that some inter-sex people may feel that a designation as male or female on the birth certificate would not accurately reflect the facts of their birth as an inter-sex person and they would prefer the non-binary option for registration of gender. This matter needs to be addressed because there are alternatives and suggestions available from other countries as to how it has been addressed.

See this speech in context