Katherine Zappone (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I wish to raise a few points in regard to the section in terms of children, specifically the 16 to 17 year olds. I do not understand why at the very least the Government was not willing to include general practitioners, GPs, in the definition of a primary medical practitioner, particularly in light of the fact that the Minister had two prime representative organisations of general practitioners supporting that recommendation. At the very least it might have gone some way in ameliorating the huge and onerous process, which some say is not even feasible in terms of time factor for 16 and 17 years. Why did the Minister not include for young persons their general practitioners in the list of primary medical practitioners?

I very much agree with Senator van Turnhout's points made in terms of young people, which these amendments particularly cover, and what Senator Power put forward. In my own journey on the issue, I remember my first meeting with a trans-boy a couple of years ago and, again through participation in the BeLonGTo support group, he told me how he used to be scared of himself and, as he put it, "I spent a long time hiding from the inside of me or the core of me". It is with great regret that I also note that in this group of amendments more could not have been done for young people, particularly 16 to 17 year olds. As Senator van Turnhout put it very well, there is really nothing for children under the age of 16. The Minister of State could have offered some kind of solutions, perhaps the recommended interim gender certificates put forward by Senator van Turnhout and others. I certainly will continue to advocate for that, for the inclusion of children long after this Bill has been signed. It is regrettable that it was not included, although I acknowledge the great achievements in terms of self-declaration and the movement in terms of forced divorce.