Ireland

PS to my post above:
It is also unusual and positive that the Irish Times didn't give the final word to a representative of TENI, the trans group that have set the agenda for the past decade or so.
It used to be that any article about trans issues had to be run past TENI for their judgement.
I'm sure there'll be some kind of TRA backlash against these doctors, but I hope the public will be on their side.

Some unusually positive news from Ireland - it looks like the Cass review is having a good effect:

Doctors initiate legal action over State’s transgender policy
Clinicians made a formal complaint against HSE over its referral of young people for assessment abroad
Prof O’Shea and Dr Moran – two of the leading experts in the area of transgender healthcare in Ireland – have stressed they are not against the “gender-affirming” model that is typically found overseas but have concerns over its link to an early readiness to begin what could be inappropriate and irreversible medical treatment for patients presenting with gender identity issues.
They have advocated for more holistic models of care when it comes to children who are questioning their gender rather than focusing on measures and treatments that are irreversible.
Doctors initiate legal action over State’s transgender policy – The Irish Times

Thank you UtopiaPlanitia, very interesting, and what a good letter.

And it gives me yet another opportunity - I never miss one! - to post this photo of two women playing Gaelic football in 2022. Yes, the player on the right is, according to himself, a woman, called Giulia Valentino.

You are privileged to be able to see this photo - many publications including the Guardian and the Irish Times self-censored and declined to publish this photo - 'to spare Giulia being harassed', they claimed😏

Giulia did the rounds of the media, more in sorrow than in anger, saying noble things like
"I’d like to be remembered for leaving a legacy of inclusion for other trans players.”

Well Giulia, you can rely on me to keep your legacy alive, every opportunity I get!

Surprisingly clear!

Now we just need LGFA to admit that the scientific evidence exists and for them to change their minds on their new inclusion policy allowing males to compete.

Excellently clear.

Gaels for Fair Play have posted a positive update regarding their letter (and petition) to NI First Minister Michelle O’Neill regarding LGFA rule change to allow men to play ladies’ football:

https://x.com/GaelsFairPlay/status/1905642894867730524

”Last week, our co-director Mary-Anne McNulty wrote to First Minister Michelle O’Neill sharing our petition calling on the Ladies Gaelic Football Association to review its transgender policy permitting the inclusion of males in our sport and expressing her concerns about the policy in terms of fairness and safety for women and girls. Mary-Anne highlighted the fact that, as the LGFA is an All-Ireland body, the policy has serious ramifications for women and girls in the North, where there are 200+ Gaelic football clubs. A few days ago, she received a response from the manager of Ms O’Neill’s constituency office which, in our view, is unequivocal.

It references: Sport Ireland guidance which states that ‘biomedical science demonstrates significant differences in the determinants of sporting performance between the sexes’

The report from the UN Special Rapporteur on violence against women and girls which states that ‘undermining the eligibility criteria for single-sex sports results in unfair, unlawful and extreme forms of discrimination against female athletes on the basis of sex’

The reply goes on to say that ‘sports should follow the science to ensure that the integrity of and fairness within the female category is prioritised’ and concludes that sport governing bodies ‘should consult meaningfully with their athletes’ when drawing up such policies.

Below, we are including the full text of the reply without any further comment other than to say we wholeheartedly welcome this response and commend those in positions of public responsibility and accountability who are unafraid to take a sensible and diligently-researched approach to the issue of males in female sport: "We are conscious of the conclusions reached by Sport Ireland, in its guidance on transgender inclusion (published March 2024), that the biomedical science demonstrates significant differences in the determinants of sporting performance between the sexes and that these differences are retained even after gender transition drug therapy.

In October 2024 the UN Special Rapporteur on violence against women and girls completed a report on eligibility which concluded that “Undermining the eligibility criteria for single-sex sports results in unfair, unlawful and extreme forms of discrimination against female athletes on the basis of sex.” And therefore, recommended that sporting and state authorities should ensure that female categories in organised sport are exclusively accessible to persons whose biological sex is female.

Sports should follow the science to ensure that the integrity of and fairness within the female category is prioritised. The sporting governing bodies are best placed to develop appropriate categories and rules for participation and they should consult meaningfully with their athletes when drawing these up."

Yes, I have pointed that out. I have also pointed out that as the employment equality act not only forbids discrimination on the basis of a person being a man, woman but also specifically on the basis of being transgender, limiting the data gathered to gender identity may result in inadequate data being gathered in their diversity survey and could potentially cause them problems down the line. I pointed out that transwomen/men may have different issues to women/men and subsuming them into the category of their identity may result in those issues/challenges being missed. I suggested an additional sex at birth field and a none option for GI. Tumbleweed. I took the "poor trans" approach as I knew taking a female approach wouldn't work.

The non-binary bit is about box ticking for EDI without having to do anything. Funnily enough, they're not so keen on anything that isn't either money generating (there is a lot of action on race as we have a lot of international students who generate huge income) or low-cost wokery. Obviously they should be taking action on race issues but trying to any action beyond their legal obligations on disability is really difficult. And they've even turned all the disabled toilets into all-gender toilets so are rowing backwards on disability.

Your employer needs to understand their legal obligations and split them from their marketing wants.
Non-binary is a marketing want.
Sex/gender is under the Equal Status Act

Disability funding from the State is under the Constitution too

Article 45
4 1° The State pledges itself to safeguard with especial care the economic interests of the weaker sections of the community, and, where necessary, to contribute to the support of the infirm, the widow, the orphan, and the aged.

But I agree sometimes unless the higher-ups feel that they have a personal risk they are happy to ignore duty to be seen to be "progressive".

I know. It's absolutely appalling and no publicity on any of it either. The MSM is completely captured.

I just contacted my employer today (again) about a transport survey they sent out which asked me how I identify. I again explained that male and female refer to sex, not gender identity and non-binary refers to gender identity and that they should not conflate the two. They should have two questions, one asking for sex and the other asking for GI, if any, with the option of not having one.

I'm not expecting any change in the next survey.

Sex=gender untill the GRA i dont know if the word switch was changed in anticipation of the State loosing the court case. Its possible.
However if you look at the laws around pregnancy leave the word changed from woman to employee in a drive to de-sex the language used in the laws.

The Scottish self-ID was lobbying by Stonewall and as the political /social landscape was different in Ireland (Unmarried mothers panic / Divorce /Abortion totally over shadowed Gay/aids panic) so imo any attempt to piggy backing on LGB rights would fail. Which is why the media theme was about a male with a cosmetic change looking for a passport so his pat-down did not end in a strip search while going on holidays.

But the Irish legislation makes it undocumented self-ID as people are not allowed to ask for proof.
Thats where Ireland ended up with a male child rapist in the only womens prison with a mother and baby unit and no way of getting him out of the womens system. As his legal obligation to produce the GRC only started with the jail term.
Once out he has a legal ability to perv on children in a womens changing room as he has a legal right to enter.

Yep on the vote except 2.1 and 2.2 are linked so it would have had to be 2.3.

I see 2.2 aa being important to protect the family unit as imo a child can not be removed from the mother on economic grounds.
From memory that is reason the childrens allowance is paid to the mother?
But endeavour is a nice get out of jail word.

The rot started with Lydia bloody Foy, and the Irish Times declared this weekend that Lydia is one of the women of the century. Sometimes I fear there's no hope.

The law doesn't appear to have stopped Scotland ploughing ahead with de-facto self-id. E.g. The nurse in Fife, the rapists in women's prisons etc. The only saving grace the Scottish people have is that UK law applies and that still provides protections based on sex.

Unfortunately, here in Ireland, nobody was paying attention when they changed sex to gender in legislation as back then, we all assumed gender was just a synonym for sex. And then sneaking in self-id with same sex marriage meant nobody spotted it.

If they had proposed to change the Constitution to add the words 'and men' to article 2.1 and 'fathers' or even 'parents' to 2.2 they'd probably have won their precious referendum.

As it is, I hope someone calls their bluff on the current wording.

No Scotland has a split between sex and gender
Ireland has no such split so its not visable and its depending on having a GRC or not.

Hospitals may have been protected in Ireland as there is still a large portion owned / managed by Faiths. But TRA are busy in the teaching end so it will be a problem as the law says a man with a GRC is in law a woman and the hospital have to pretend that he is a woman giving same sex care to women.

Same with sex specific births

Eg
Under the current Irish law men can give birth but not legally get an abortion. A woman giving birth has (had before surrogacy laws) 100% maternal rights to the child. Fatherhood/ Guardianship for a man is subject to her, as the mother, giving him rights or via marraige or via the courts under the civil partnership act

A unmarried woman as a mother can register the birth of her child the man as father cant register himself as the father (if the mother is alive)

If both the legal man (who gave birth) and her man (other 50% of the DNA) are unmarried she a legal man should not be able to register as a birth mother as the GRA ignores that post GRC births can happen.

Remember the vote failed so woman and mother are directly linked.

THE FAMILY

ARTICLE 41
1 1° The State recognises the Family as the natural primary and fundamental unit group of Society, and as a moral institution possessing inalienable and imprescriptible rights, antecedent and superior to all positive law.

2° The State, therefore, guarantees to protect the Family in its constitution and authority, as the necessary basis of social order and as indispensable to the welfare of the Nation and the State.

2 1° In particular, the State recognises that by her life within the home, woman gives to the State a support without which the common good cannot be achieved.

2 2° The State shall, therefore, endeavour to ensure that mothers shall not be obliged by economic necessity to engage in labour to the neglect of their duties in the home.

From what I'm reading on here, Scotland appears much further down the rabbit hole so that would be a similarity.

I'm Irish living in Scotland and I think there's a big difference - similarities for sure with the Celtic background. From what I can see when I go home is that Ireland has gone down the trans rabbit hole in a big way, post church.

SF have the same political strategy as Boris Johnson: see what direction the crowd is going and then run to front shouting, “Follow me!” 😏

@MarieDeGournay I didn't take it as personal at all. My response was more pointing out that while some of us plebs care, the powers that be don't give a damn. They're after the quick soundbite and least effort in terms of box ticking.

People with disabilities should be able to trust that others will not use their facilities just as women should trust men won't use their facilities. Unfortunately, these days individualism seems to be the norm, with a consequent decline in community.

OchonAgusOchonOh - I don't doubt that you personally give a damn, it was more of a howl-at-the-moon complaint about the shocking re-badging of accessible toilets; tá brón orm/sorry if it appeared to be personal.

I don't think they require that those facilities should only be available to those who are disabled. That would be a bit of a minefield. How would you classify disabled in a way that doesn't discriminate. For example, someone with Crohn's disease doesn't necessarily need the extra space but might require the privacy or immediate access to the toilet.
That's where the issue of trust comes in - just as women trust (-ed) men not to use women's toilets, without the need for explicit definitions of what a woman is, people with disabilities trust able-bodied people not to use the accessible toilet, without the need for explicit definitions of what a disability is.
But there's no way being transgender qualifies as a disability😠

Any definition discriminates: but designating toilets as 'Disabled' and restricting their use to that group of people is no more discriminatory than designating other toilets as 'Women' or 'Men'. The signs on the doors are just words - in all three cases, the users depend on trust to have their designated spaces respected.

Bit more of that cynical opportunism wouldn't go amiss in a few countries, though.

I wouldn't bet money on SF changing tack unless the boys who run SF decide that Mary Lou has delighted them long enough.

For now, we can only hope that their opportunistic streak kicks in when they're forced to defend something really unpopular.

I wouldn't be too hopeful about SF seeing the light
https://x.com/Gaynotqueer1/status/1897352156925321603?t=B6gWA39gMnY5VuQosAgozQ&s=19

Why has the university in question not been legally obliged to return the accessible loos to their original purpose? Isn't it part of building regs? Have there been protests? Does anybody except disabled people give a damn about their rights?

I think the building regulations require the provision so accessible toilets. I don't think they require that those facilities should only be available to those who are disabled. That would be a bit of a minefield. How would you classify disabled in a way that doesn't discriminate. For example, someone with Crohn's disease doesn't necessarily need the extra space but might require the privacy or immediate access to the toilet. Someone with severe arthritis may need more space than is provided in many cubicles.

Of course there haven't been protests. After all, most vulnerable, most discriminated against etc etc.

I give a damn about disabled people and their rights. I am on the EDI committee and keep bringing up disability and socio-economic discrimination. Everyone agrees they're important but nothing gets done.

Disabled people campaigned for decades to have accessible toilets, and now at the drop of a hat they are turned over to trans people so they don't feel 'uncomfortable'.

Sometimes this is done unofficially - 'If you aren't comfortable using the Men's, and the women won't have you in the Women's, just use the Disabled toilet even though you're able-bodied'
It is mindboggling that a university actually went around officially changing the accessible toilets to, basically, anybody's.

The fact that just because one tiny group of people - transgender people - kicked up a fuss about not wanting to use the toilets designated for their sex, the hard-won rights of disabled people were so easily taken away is beyond outrageous.

It is such a chilling illustration of how little disabled people matter, and how disproportionally transgender people do.

Just as women should be able to trust men not to use the women's toilets, disabled people should be able to trust able-bodied people to respect that the accessible loos are not for them, and need to be left free at all times to those who can't just pop along to the next available loo.

There'll always be the minority of able-bodied people who will use the disabled loo just because they prefer it🙄 or - let's be realistic - someone who is absolutely dying for a pee and it's the only one free - but they are the exception: accessible loos are for disabled people, they are not easy fixes for the demands of TRAs.

Why has the university in question not been legally obliged to return the accessible loos to their original purpose? Isn't it part of building regs? Have there been protests? Does anybody except disabled people give a damn about their rights?