Thomas Pringle (Donegal South West, Independent) | Oireachtas source

In common with other speakers, I welcome this Bill, which finally will deal to an extent with what has been an ongoing problem for many years for many transgender people to have the State recognise their existence and their rights within this society. It is hard to get past the feeling that the State has been dragged kicking and screaming to this point of bringing forward this legislation. It has taken a long battle through the courts, lasting 17 years or thereabouts, to get to this point and it was only to stave off a Supreme Court judgment that the State published this legislation and promised to bring it forward. While that in itself is bad enough, two things always have annoyed me about the work done and the legislation brought forward in this House. The first is the State always seems to do the bare minimum. It does just enough enable the Government to state it has dealt with an issue. While there may be one or two exceptions in respect of the smoking ban or something like that, the State never appears to seek or set out to be progressive or to be a setter of standards. It seems to do just the bare minimum to get the State over a hurdle, stave off a court case, satisfy the European Council or something like that. The other thing that annoys me is how we always mimic British law as well. We do not look beyond England for any guidance or pointers as to where we should be heading or what we should be doing. Moreover, we appear to mimic British law ten or 15 years after its implementation, at a time when they probably are at the stage of seeking to review it and change it again. We go back and pick up where they were 15 or 20 years before us. While this is extremely frustrating for Members in the House, it must be extremely frustrating for the people who must live under this regime and who face constant battles and fights to have their rights recognised and to be given the ability within the State to live as the people they choose to be and the people that they are. We do untold damage to so many citizens by restricting them so much and making them fight so hard to achieve what should be there as of right in a State that should be there to provide for them.

In respect of the Bill itself, the point that shocked me about it was the idea that if one is a transgender person, it is some sort of a medical complaint or that a person would be obliged to get a diagnosis from a psychiatrist or an endocrinologist stating there is something wrong with that person that makes him or her a transgender person. Again, this comes back to doing the bare minimum and doing what are the bare essentials to get the Government over the mark in dealing with an issue. I received an e-mail during the week from someone I did not know. It was some header anyway from America or somewhere like that. The person in question cited American examples about how we must protect against young people having a fad and deciding they are transgender but then, on coming of age, suddenly realising they are not transgender at all and so on, as well as about how it can be cured and everything. It is just bizarre and this requirement to get a diagnosis and to get evidence from a psychiatrist and an endocrinologist is very similar to that attitude. It suggests young people are impressionable and so on but young people are not stupid either. No young people would set themselves up, by declaring they were transgender, for the life they would leave themselves trying to live unless they felt it was something they were obliged to do to be complete as people themselves. The idea that this is a medical problem and that a medical diagnosis is required is simply completely wrong. It comes back to the issue that has been outlined by other speakers on self-determination. People should be able to self-declare their gender. Moreover, if Members are to look abroad to find other examples, why not look to a former colony of England that is somewhat similar to Ireland, namely, Malta, where gender is deemed irrelevant when it comes to the rights of the child and children can declare themselves? That is what we should be doing and is where we should be looking for direction.

During the campaign on the children's referendum, the then Minister for Children and Youth Affairs, Deputy Fitzgerald, pointed out that this referendum would put the rights of children centre stage within the legislative programme and the best interests of the child always would be recognised and so on. At the time, all Members went along with this in passing that legislation and in progressing that referendum, because they felt there was potential for a change to take place. However, one can discern from this legislation that such a change has not taken place and it is not feeding through into the legislative basis of the State. I note that in the Bill, the only instance in which the best interests of the child are used is in the case where a judge can deem an application for a gender change not to be in the best interests of the child. In itself, that is telling as to the outworkings of children's rights and how the children's referendum should be viewed within the State in the future .

My final point is the Government has committed to a review of this legislation within two years of its enactment and passage. This has been welcomed by people to whom I have been talking from the transgender community, as well as by parents of trans people. However, the problem with it is there is no commitment to carry out or complete research on the impact of the Bill and what it is doing. If there is to be meaningful consultation and a meaningful review within the two-year period, this must be included. Deputy Joan Collins will table amendments on Committee Stage and the Minister of State should take the opportunity to make this legislation into the Bill it potentially could be, that is, a Bill that asserts, looks after and protects the rights of the people, as the State is supposed to do, rather than doing the bare minimum.

See this speech in context