Rónán Mullen (Independent) | Oireachtas source

Let me sum it up. The Minister has spoken about what she is taking out. She has said we should be satisfied with what she is leaving in. The definition of "gender" confuses gender, which is objective and has to deal with the male-female binary, and gender identity and expression, which you might also see fit to include as a basis for protecting a group. Confusing them and redefining them all as being part of "gender" is an unprecedented step. That should not go into the statute law of our country. It should certainly not go into the statute law of our country if it is her intention to proceed at a later date, if she is the Minister, with incitement to violence or hatred legislation. In such circumstances, we would be back to the same problem of cancelling people's views and closing them down because they dare to say if you are a man you are a man and you cannot be a woman, except if you choose to have a preferred gender under the 2015 legislation. You certainly cannot be both a man and a woman and you cannot be one of the amazingly increasing number of genders. That takes us into "Alice in Wonderland" territory and the Minister should not do this in this legislation.

It does not need to be done in order to protect people who might feel vulnerable or may be vulnerable. Senator Ward reminded me today that there is evidence - I have not seen that much of it but I am willing to accept it is there - that shows that people are being targeted in a particular way because of their gender identity or expression. I do not mind why people are being targeted; it is wrong. If gender identity and expression - that subjective state where a person believes themselves to be a particular gender, set of genders, no gender or some gender nobody has ever heard of before now - is to be included, that is fine. It can be put in, but it should not be confused with the true meaning of words which we have had right up until this point in Irish legislation, which is that "gender" refers to male or female, because to do so would have implications for future laws. We know the way legislation piggybacks on previous legislation and uses definitions from previous legislation. It cannot be anything other than ideological. I am not saying it is the personal ideology of the Minister, but it is the ideology of people who have access to the Government.The confusing and highly intentional new definition of gender has implications for women's spaces, children's safety and many issues down the line, as I will make clear when it comes to the amendments.

The Minister is right. If it was only about the hate offences, the Bill would pass in a heartbeat - let us say a rather slow heartbeat - though not without objections. Certainly, while that definition of gender remains in this Bill we are in the same dangerous, toxic and irresponsible place we always were.

We should not be deciding this. We gave the Government pause in the Seanad. Many people lobbied the Government on social media inside and outside of this country. Insofar as the dialogue and contributions were respectful, I endorse them wholeheartedly, but it is no response to such responsible use of our parliamentary time to raise important issues to then propose that this entire issue be wrapped up in one session here today. Is there any reality to my ability, or that of Senator Keogan or anybody else here, to convince the Minister about the merits of an amendment we might have tabled on Committee Stage if there will not even be time to re-table that amendment on Report Stage or for the Minister to consider the issues with her officials? There is cynicism at the heart of the timetabling and organisation of the remaining Stages of this Bill.