Dáil debates

Thursday, 9 July 2015

Gender Recognition Bill 2014 [Seanad]: Report and Final Stages

 

12:25 pm

Photo of Willie O'DeaWillie O'Dea (Limerick City, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 5, to delete line 20.
We discussed this amendment at some length both on Second Stage and Committee Stage. The position was that for anybody wishing to transition from one gender to another there was an objectionable obstacle, namely, a medical assessment. Following various representations, and I recognise the distance the Government has come in this regard, that was removed for people from the age of 18 upwards.

Representations had been made to the Government regarding the position of people aged between 16 and 18 for whom originally no provision was made. Ultimately, they were included in the legislation but subject to some severe restrictions. They have to overcome a number of obstacles in order to apply for gender transfer, including proof of identity, proof of birth, statutory declaration, parental consent, order of the Circuit Court, another certificate as well as the medical report from both a medical practitioner and an endocrinologist or, alternatively, a psychiatrist.

I am seeking to remove the medical assessment in so far as those aged 16 to 18 are concerned. That it is required flies in the face of all the evidence and studies. I quoted one study on Committee Stage from the United Kingdom which found that only 4% of people come to the realisation they are the wrong gender by the time they reach the age of 18, and 76% of them become aware of this before they leave primary school.

In my opinion, people of any age should be entitled to transition. For people under the age of 18, the practice would be that they would be doing so at the behest of a parent or guardian. There can be no serious suggestion that a parent or guardian would undertake such a process lightly. In some countries, for example, Argentina, it is possible to transition under the age of 16, again at the behest of a parent or guardian. That has not caused any great problems in practice.

On the amendments, while I recognise I will not get any concessions today for people under the age of 16 years, I am asking that the obstacle of a medical statement in respect of people aged between 16 and 18 years be removed. I do not think that is an onerous ask of the Government, recognising that it has already come a fair distance. This Bill has been in gestation for a lengthy period. It follows on from the decision of the European Court of Justice, many reports and various drafts of legislation and so on. This has been a lengthy process. It is unlikely we will return to this issue again in the short term. In light of all of the effort that has gone into this legislation and the number of changes that the Government has already, wisely, made, I believe it should go this one step further in relation to 16 to 18 year olds. This would not require significant alteration of the legislation. There are many obstacles in the path of a person aged between 16 and 18 years. Given that usually people realise at a much younger age than 16 years that they are in the wrong gender, it is desirable that the Government would accept these amendments.

The Minister of State will, no doubt, respond that there is a clause in the Bill which provides for a review after two years. Perhaps he will elaborate on what exactly that review will entail. Will it automatically entail amending legislation if that is deemed to be necessary? I think it will be necessary. We were late legislating in this area. However, being late gives us the advantage of having an opportunity to review what other jurisdictions have done. Jurisdictions that have recently legislated in this area have gone a good bit beyond what we are now proposing. I anticipate that we will have to revisit this legislation to make some of the changes that we could make today and that people will suffer as a result of us not having made them today.

In my view, there should be no need for a medical statement in respect of persons aged between 16 and 18 years of age. This provision should be removed and transition should be possible at any age at the behest of a parent or guardian. As I said earlier, this is not a process that would be undertaken lightly. I am seeking removal of the requirement for a medical statement in respect of 16 to 18 year olds. In my opinion, this is a very minor demand.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.