David Cullinane (Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I am disappointed with the Minister of State's response. I listened very carefully to what he had to say. All of the amendments are designed to put children, their best interests and their rights front and centre. I agree with what Senator Norris said because it is exactly what we are trying to do - deal with the root of this issue. It strikes me as not just odd or bizarre but outrageous and wrong that while moving in the right direction in terms of gender recognition, we will leave out very young children where it is blindingly obvious they are going to have to go through an ordeal, as in the case of the six year old boy Senator van Turnhout spoke about earlier. The Minister of State has not given me any reason he would want to see that child or any child go through that ordeal, even after hearing all of the concerns raised about a negative. It will have an impact on that child's health and well-being. It will have a psychological impact as well as causing bullying and isolation. That child is going to be put through all of these situations because we are not prepared to make the right decision in this Bill, which is appalling. I will continue, as will others, to press this issue.

I appeal to the Minister of State to reflect on what has been said. I hope he will be able to come back on Report Stage. If not, then this is not the groundbreaking Bill and good day that it should be for gender recognition. It is sad that this is one of the more explicit exclusions in the Bill, which I find fundamentally wrong at every single level and goes right to the heart of how we should deal with this issue.

Senator Craughwell is right. Why should a child have to wait until they are 16 years old before having their gender recognised? That is the simple question. That is what is so wrong about this Bill and what is so flawed about it. Why should somebody have to wait until they are 16 years old? Why should a child have to wait and go through all of that trauma?

I suggest the Minister of State follows the logic of his position and the logic of what he has done. He rightly looked at the 16 and 17 year olds and put in place a process to create a pathway for them. I have concerns about the pathway but at least a pathway has been put in place. The logic of that position is that the Minister of State would also make that available for people who are under 16 years. It does not make any sense to do it for 16 and 17 year olds but not for the six year old about whom Senator van Turnhout spoke, and all the other children who find themselves in a similar position.

It is unfortunate, to say the least, that the Minister of State has responded in that way that he has. The legislation deals with vulnerable children. As we have said, it could have a psychological impact on many people. That is why Senators are passionate about it and that is the reason they have made lengthy contributions, because they want to impress upon the Minister of State the importance of the amendment. We have tried to get him, as all of us should, to put himself in the shoes of those children and ask what we would want the State to do. If we were in that position, what would we want the State to do for us? We would want it to do the right thing and provide gender recognition. If I were in their shoes, I would want those children to have their gender recognised in the way that mine is.