Rónán Mullen (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I am near the end of my comments to the Minister. In its submission, which I do not have to hand, it was BelongTo that sought this new expansive definition of gender. It wants to replace the binary with the spectrum and wants to harness all laws built around the binary to apply to the spectrum. That, as I said, is the work that was going on in the background with regard to the equality Acts by the Minister for Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth, the same ministry that was so misleading on the referendums. I am reminded of the phrase, "Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me".

There is controversy between LGB and trans activists about gender identity, its impact on women's security, women's spaces, lesbians and so on.That is real, but the possible implications of this on child protection should be at the top of our tree of concern. That is my sincere concern. The Minister, Senator Ward and others may think I am mistaken, but many people do not think so. Many people wonder why the hell this strange new definition of gender is being smuggled in with this Bill, under the cloak of having listened to objections and having taken out whole swathes of the Bill that actually had merit. We have the worst of both worlds in a sense. We are getting nothing new on incitement to violence or hatred to update the law on the matter in the way Senator McDowell rightly said is desirable and necessary.

There are two views on how the 1989 legislation might work. I am happy to accept and support amendments at any stage that make sure that what applies to what people do in mainstream and traditional media would also apply to combatting hatred in the digital online space. However, we are not getting that because the Minister has taken that away, but she has left in a toxic definition of gender. There is no reason for her to have done that other than that the Government is caving in to an element in the Government or to certain NGOs, which I have named, who have a highly politicised view of gender. This is not about protecting people from being assaulted in the streets at all. It is about mainstreaming an idea that people are not born male or female, but rather as a combination of genders, no gender or somewhere on that new spectrum that is having a negative impact on children who encounter this ideology. You only have to ask some of the medical professionals who have been vocal in recent times about how we need to move much more carefully and more slowly on this. That is why I am on the record as saying that school boards of management need to do a risk assessment from a child protection point of view on aspects of the social, personal and health education, SPHE, curriculum. The Minister needs to do a risk assessment of this definition of gender. It lays the groundwork. It is not evidence based. It inappropriately conflates the reality of one's gender, be it male or female, and one's gender expression or identity which may vary according to the person.

Everyone deserves respect and empathy and all these people deserve to be protected against crimes motivated by hatred against them individually or as a group. The Minister has the solution to the problem. It was offered to her here, to accept a new definition of gender or at least to split, in whatever way she chooses - she has the time to do it if she wishes - gender from gender identity and expression. In so doing, following the precedent of the 2017 legislation, she will have solved the problem. She will get rid of this definition of gender and make it clear. Everything would be covered by the word "gender". People know what it is: male and female, including people availing of a preferred gender under the 2015 legislation, and everyone else under the sun who has a gender identity or expression issue and deserves the protection the Minister wants for them can be covered by using that phrase. The problem is solved.

If the Minister does not accept that solution to the problem, no one can be fooled, but that there is an ideological reason. Perhaps the Minister does not personally subscribe to it, but it has her in its grip because she is a member of a Government that has chosen to cave in to it. That has child protection implications, I have to tell her sincerely and in all honesty. That is why I say the Minister and her Government colleagues must be answerable to the electorate if they take a risk on this when they do not need to. The novelty in this is coming from the Minister and the rest of the Government. We have law that distinguishes gender and gender identity and expression. We have precedents in legislation that extend protection in this area to include all people. Why not go for it?