David Norris (Independent) | Oireachtas source

It is instructive that we have such a distinguished Member of the Government side speaking on this issue. I noted in my speech on Second Stage that there was no definition of "medical evaluation", which I thought would have been crucial for the correct operation of this Bill. I did not put one down because I do not approve of it at all. It seems to me that this is part of the "pathologisation" of the transgender situation. No less a person than the chair of TENI - the Transgender Equality Network Ireland - has said:

The requirement to provide a medical evaluation is diagnosis by any other name. The individuals who must sign off on the legislation are the very same individuals who provided diagnosis or medical treatment. This is restrictive and unnecessary. Transpersons are best placed to understand and identify their own gender, as they live it every day.

Everybody has been saying this for the last two hours, so I do not think there is anything really that remarkable or startling about it. Whether or not there is for the Irish public, generally speaking, in this Chamber we have accommodated ourselves to the idea. We are comfortable with it and understand the situation.

The whole idea of pathologisation involves linking gender identity to mental health. That is quite clear in the language contained in the legislation because it is conditional on a finding that somebody suffers from gender dysphoria. The words "dysphoria" and "dysfunction" suggest illness or a gender identity disorder. We are talking about requiring a medical diagnosis of a disorder or a pathology.

We have spoken a number of times this evening on the increasing pace of developments in this area. Six months ago on 1 September last year, Denmark's amended gender identity recognition procedures came into force. Under the gender recognition procedure, applicants simply complete an administrative process and supporting medical evidence is no longer required. In Malta, the Minister for Social Dialogue, Consumer Affairs and Civil Liberties introduced a new gender identity Bill on 29 October 2014. Under section 3(4) of the Gender Identity, Gender Expression and Sex Characteristics Act, applicants for recognition, "shall not be required to provide proof of a surgical procedure for total or partial genital reassignment, hormonal therapies or any other psychiatric, psychological or medical treatment to make use of the right to gender identity." That could not possibly be clearer. There is no requirement for medical evaluation either of a psychiatric or of a surgical nature. That is the way we should go.

I do not see any arguments have been raised against this. In addition, as far back as 2006, nine years ago, but in terms of the rapid progress in this area it is a long time ago because time, as Einstein thought, is relative, a group of internationally recognised human rights experts, including our own former President, Mary Robinson, once or perhaps twice a member of the Labour Party, and the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commissioner among other produced the Yogyakarta Principles. Under principle 3 it states that countries should fully respect and legally recognise each person's self-defined gender identity, there is no talk of medical procedures, and ensure that procedures exist whereby, "all State-issued identity papers which indicate a person’s gender/sex — including birth certificates, passports, electoral records and other documents — reflect the person’s profound self-defined gender identity". I will just refer to the words of Dr. Philip Crowley, the national director of quality and patient safety in the HSE, which were quoted by a number of Members on Second Stage because he states the same thing, namely, that people should self-define in this area of gender identity.

For all those reasons, I urge the Minister of State to take on board the substance of these amendments. There is a large number of amendments from which he can chose and modify before Report Stage. I will deal with the notion of medical diagnosis. As a gay man, I have been through this notion of medical diagnosis. In the beginning homosexuality was not spoken about at all. In the past it was a crime, then an illness and we have gone through the whole shebang but now it is recognised as part of the rich spectrum of human life. I think it is the same with gender identity. To pathologise it and make it dependent on a medical evaluation, clearly suggests it is an illness.