David Norris (Independent) | Oireachtas source

Nothing could illustrate more clearly the rapidly changing nature of this debate than the legislation that currently is in place or being discussed in Argentina, Malta and Denmark. Matters are moving ahead rapidly and our understanding is also developing quickly. It appears to me that the recognition and understanding by individuals of their own gender identity comes before their understanding and identification of sexual orientation. Gender identification comes at a significantly earlier stage and this poses difficulties for young people. For example, let us consider first the question of people aged 16 and 17. The legislation as currently framed presents almost insuperable obstacles to them getting gender recognition legally in respect of their documents. They have four hurdles to pass, the first of which is parental consent. Then there is a certificate from the primary medical treating practitioner to be followed by a second certificate from an endocrinologist. What on earth an endocrinologist has to do with the price of eggs is beyond me but I presume this is some fantasy from the Department. Moreover, the endocrinologist is to have no connection with the child, which is daft. I would have thought that someone providing a certificate for a child would need to have some connection with the child but there is to be none.

It would have to be a complete stranger and an endocrinologist or a psychiatrist. God preserve us. Finally, the fourth requirement is a court order. One might get one or two of those but one would have a hell of a hard job getting four of them all together. I just do not see it. That presents a really problematic barrier for people and that is likely to make recognition inaccessible for people aged 16 and 17, and children under 16 would be excluded completely from being legally recognised whether or not they have their parents’ consent.

I am not going to rehearse what Senator van Turnhout presented magisterially to this House. She provided a wealth of examples, court cases and so on and so forth. I know of some of the cases but there is no point in repeating or rehashing them, except to say I agree with every single word that she said.

With regard to people under the age of 16, this is where the problem really starts. This is a crucial point. It is a fundamental issue. Children are at the most vulnerable stage. They are as vulnerable to being picked on as white blackbirds, as a bit odd or whatever else, in particular if they are placed in a quandary by the school authorities who refuse to recognise their gender identity. That points them out and puts a spotlight on them. The schools can decide they are not going to negotiate either with the individual or the groups, because they have no legal standing. As Senator van Turnhout said, “we decide for you”.

Then there is the very practical question of gender appropriate facilities such as changing rooms and lavatories. Another issue is wearing the right uniform. Why should a boy be made wear a skirt? Why should a girl be made wear trousers if that is what they are? There is also the question of bullying. People are obviously going to be highlighted by the discrepancy which will make them more susceptible to bullying, which leads to an increased rate of suicide. That is all I have to say because it has been said so well by my colleagues. I endorse every word that has been said and I hope the Minister will take it into consideration.