@Commentqueen the gender recognition act 2015 was introduced after a male took the Irish Government through the Court then to the EU Court, to gain access to among other things a passport which stated the holder was a female not a male.
From this I presume that the reason was the male had undergone radical cosmetic surgery.
Subsequent to this the government passed the legislation.
When you read it it becomes evident that it is was based on that "stereotype", a infertile/ post op male.
Note the section that conflicts with a child rights (consitutional recognition, 2012) to a mother, (whos role is recognised in the Consitution & you will be soon asked to remove that) and a father, after the GRC is issued:
19. The fact that a gender recognition certificate is issued to a person shall not affect the status of the person as the father or mother of a child born prior to the date of the issue of the certificate.
Why did politicians not recognise that a child, born after the GRC, has the right to a factual government document and that this should be included in the law allowing a parent to change their document?
The politicians did think that to its logical conclusion, that if anybody can apply, that at least sometime in the future one baby would need a birth cert with the sperm provider being a legal female or the gestation involving a legal male?
Right?
That clash of rights could not be ignored while the shit over Mother and Baby Homes and illegal adoptions resulted in 2015, adopted children being legislated against when seeking to access their birth certs as it allowed them to trace their mothers and fathers?
Right?
Not while politicians were passing legislation in 2015 about dealing with surrogacy; when legislating on who gets to be named mother and father when DNA is provided by a individual not involved in a sexual relationship, married couples (hetro/same sex), civil partnership couples (hetro/same sex), unmarried couples (hetro/same sex), singles?
Its hard to miss that crossover right?
Because if politicians actually considered that you as a possible fertile, possibilty pregnant woman can promise to live in the gender man/male to be given a GRC and according to the current Attorney General's(?) legal advice, loose all the legislated protections that women were given to protect their economic independance while gestating or even being suspected of being capable of gestation (a bleeder), well they would have included that bit under parents too.
Right?
The 2018 abortion act was "women and girls" only, people with needs for bleeding (2022) and people with needs for breeding (birther and owner of breeding organs) will need specific legislation in the future
Anybody want to follow HSE Cervical Check's example in wording this legislation and replacing "woman" with "person with a cervix"?
“appropriate person” means—
(a) a relevant woman, or
(b) where a relevant woman has died, a dependant of the relevant woman concerned;
“relevant woman” means—
(a) a woman—
(i) identified as part of the Review of Cervical Screening as having CervicalCheck cytology review findings that were discordant with those of the original cytology examination in relation to the woman concerned, or
(ii) whose cytology slides were sought, by the Review of Cervical Screening, to be re-examined as part of its review but where one or more of those slides could not be re-examined as part of that review by reason of circumstances beyond the control of the woman concerned,
or
(b) a woman who received a diagnosis of cervical cancer—
(i) who had a screening history through CervicalCheck,
(ii) whose diagnosis of cervical cancer was notified to CervicalCheck,
(iii) whose cytology slides were re-examined as part of the retrospective CervicalCheck cytology clinical audit, and
(iv) whose cytology review findings, following the re-examination in accordance with subparagraph (iii), were discordant with those of the original cytology examination in relation to the woman concerned;
www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2019/act/31/enacted/en/print#sec2
You did not find, "person with a cervix" kind of akward when you realised what the treatment for that form of cancer involved.
Right?
Now on gender, you have protections against gender discrimination (a throwback to the 70's/80's when sex was a dirty word)
As an employee (1998):
(a) that one is a woman and the other is a man (in this Act referred to as “the gender ground”),
As a member of the public (2000):
(a) that one is male and the other is female (the “gender ground”),
but since 2015 you promise to live in a gender which can apply equally to a female or a male.
Every single protection included in the Equal Status Acts (2000-2022) to provide for single sex spaces eg.
6 (e) the provision of accommodation to persons of one gender where embarrassment or infringement of privacy can reasonably be expected to result from the presence of a person of another gender
is no longer worth the paper it is written on.
Proof of that is the State placing males in the Womens Prison. The Government and Minister choose to allow that.
The State recognise that solitary confinement is torture so the women in the prison serve as companions to each other and the males.
But that's progress.
Right?
That is why, when there is a choice, the removal of "woman", rather than the inclusion "person with a gender recognition certificate", is the more progressive option.
Right?
If the government remove "woman" they can still sell the story of progressive, sucessful, stunning and brave.
Right?