I agree

How is sex and gender determined? Mental state? Or presence of a penis (or vagina)? What “makes you a man”? Is it that you can pee standing up? Is that all there is to is? How does a doctor who delivers the baby know what kind of person they will become? Why do they get to decide what sex the person is? Does a man who suffers testicular cancer and get his balls removed stop being a man? Do we take away the “M” on his passport? Does a woman who had a hysterectomy stop being a woman? Do we force her to use the gents loo now? No, these are silly example, and no sane person suggests them. Then why do we hold trans people to these special extra-strict rules?

Rory, sex is determined by presence of either XX or XY chromosomes. Nothing to do with having a penis or vagina. Your birth cert reflects your state at birth. By all means allow change of sex on passports after gender reassignment surgery.

@Stadler sex is not determined by chromosones, but by hormones. I know a man (lived all his life as a man, wants to stay a man, not trans at all) who is XXY. He has 2 X Chromosones *and* a Y chromosones (It’s called Kilfiltner’s syndrome). There are XY people who are feminine in every way (though can’t have children), it’s called “androgyn insensitivity disorder”. There are loads of other intersex conditions out there. (NB: Intersex does not imply trans (and vice versa))

Chromosones might sound like a simple solution that sounds like a nice easy “impartial” way to deny trans people rights, but nature and reality are complicated. We don’t give babies chromosone tests when they are born, and I’d say 99% of people don’t know what their chromsones are. Do you? Chromosones are not what society uses to decide gender & sex.

Pity you chose Klinefelter’s Syndrome as an example. It’s the presence of the Y chromosome that gives them male sex. As for Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome, that has to do with defective cell response to androgens. Surely you’re not using defectiveness as an argument here, given the context of the article?

@Stadler Waldorf so it’s the Y chromosone that “makes a man”? What about CAIS? By your definition this ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Orchids01.JPG ) is a photograph of a group of men.

This “biology” argument is nonsense.

But you were born female. It’s the name of the document not the I became transgender thirty years up the road certificate.

The birth cert matters because we engage in a historical fiction if we amend it.

@ Diego Attley. You don’t ‘become’ transgender. Do some reading. Educate youself.

Yes you do. I think you need to educate yourself.

How does this “historical revision” of the birth certificate have any affect on anyone other than the individual, their family and friends?

Guys, ‘historical fiction’? really? and how is this historical fiction in any way relevant to anyone other than the person who is confronted with funny looks and double takes every time they have to provide it? Historical fiction does not apply here, it’s not some kind of genocide revision. Does the fact that this is such a complicated issue (see the above discussion about assigning sex (p.s. I think medical doctors use a sort of scale based on hormones, chromosomes, external and internal organs, etc.)) not make you think twice when you write that?

If you care so much about a birth document perpetuating a binary classification that has no necessary bearing on the individual, don’t call it gender, or sex, or even ‘born with penis/vagina’; go for uuhm born AM/PM, or cried a lot/ a little. It’s just as relevant when you think about it.

@Andrew I think a birth cert states sex at time of birth not gender identity ,but I can only really think of one reason for anyone to care if anyone changes the official records as far as sex and that is disclosure before marriage as that would affect someone elses fundamental beliefs ?

That’s great thanks for simplifying the whole issue . I see , so it’s everybody else’s fault !

What is “birth gender”? How far out it sticks? Someone who lives as a woman full time for years should have a M marker follow them around for years because they were an outie?

Firstly gender and sex are two different things.
Secondly you might feel different had you been born in the wrong body. You are coming from a perspective were you are not trans* (or so I assume from your comment). This leads to a complacency. You don’t need to change the governments perception of your sex so you don’t see the problem. If you felt like you were in the wrong body, had society be prejudiced against you and ultimately had one of your most fundamental documents contradict something you’ve been trying to fix since your youth, you might feel differently. How easy is it to get a passport etc without a birth certificate? What honest difference does it make to you or I if a trans* individual’s birth cert does not have the M or F that they were assigned at birth? Would it affect you? Because it affects the mental security and dignity of that individual. What right do we have to dictate that for others? It has been dictated to trans* individuals from birth. What Louise Hannon is doing here is saying “You were wrong at my birth, you can make up for it now. You can start to make up for all this torture and societal pressure now”. It is very straight-forward. If you try to see past your own comfort in your gender.

How about your birth surname and parents’ martial status? We allow those to be changed:

For births on or after 5 December 2005, parents who marry each other after the birth may re-register the birth to reflect their marital status, and may change the child’s surname.
http://www.irish-certificates.ie/info/register-a-birth.html

We even allow the parents to be changed on a legally equivalent cert:

When an Adoption Order is made, a new birth certificate can be obtained for the child. Although it is not an actual birth certificate, it has the status of one for legal purposes. It gives the date of the Adoption Order and the names and addresses of the adoptive parents and is similar in all aspects to a birth certificate.
http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/birth_family_relationships/adoption_and_fostering/adopting_a_child.html

It’s so equivalent that citizensinformation.ie calls it a birth cert in some places:

A new birth certificate is issued for you in the name of your adoptive family
http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/birth_family_relationships/adoption_and_fostering/tracing_your_birth_family.html

Your post is based on the presumption that transgender (not transgendered) individuals cannot have happy,loving relationships. You are showing your own ignorance. So should a happily married couple in which both parties are happy and okay with the individuals identity be forced to split up just because YOU can’t imagine that they can be happy? Cos’ you know that’s kinda ‘unjust and ludicrous’.

“The idea that people shouldn’t need to get divorced before changing their sex — let alone having it legally recognized — strikes me as unjust and ludicrous”

Yep. I think the gov did it to avoid any potential “gay marriage” thing. If they let it be possible for a man and man to be married, then they might have legalised same sex marriage. That might be challenged in the courts. So they side stepped it.

+1 to Jenn’s comment.

I’d also like to add that it assumes there was damage done, and assumes that these fictional two people discussing their own business *didn’t* come to an understanding between each other as mature and understanding adults. But really we’re just discussing a hypothetical couple and how terrible it is on them, when here in reality we have actual people being denied their actual rights.

Saying you don’t have to get divorced is not the same as saying you can’t get divorced. If their spouse isn’t happy with it, divorce would still be an option.

I know of a couple in the UK who divorced to get the paperwork done, then had a civil union a week later, as they were still a committed couple. What if one of them had died during that week?

It might strike you as strange but the couples I’m referring to that I know do not want to have to divorce… They wish to remain as couples and families rearing their children like any other couple. However where one transitions with the full consent of the other they are being forced under this proposed legislation to choose between legal recognition with divorce. or staying together and no legal recognition.. A choice no one should have to make.

It is a disorder . What’s the definition of the word . Let’s have the debate but get rid of this political correctness . I agree with the all the points made in relation to birth certificates etc and it makes no difference to anybody else what is legally allowed but to suggest its not a disorder is the most ridiculous argument ever . It is against the natural order !

Niall, I appreciate that in a sense it can be considered a ‘disorder’, in that things are working in an unusual way, but to say that’s against “the natural order” is both offensive and presumptuous of you. Unless you have the blueprint there somewhere I don’t think you have any right to declare what is ‘natural’.

“Disorder”?! Is homosexuality a disorder? (It used to be considered as such). What about those suffragettes who want to let women vote? I remember watching “The Tudors” and King Henry VIII put down a rebellion in the north and complained of upstart peasants revolting against the natural order of feudal obedience to their leige lord. Are these things disorders now? No. Likewise trans stuff isn’t.

What gives you the right to tell me that i dont have the right to an opinion . The words ” natural ” and ” part of the english language . The majority of men and women in this world are happy with the sex they were born and have no desire to change . So it would be fair in the english language to say that would be the norm or the natural way of thinking .
Some are not happy and whoppie do im delighted for them to and if thats what they want , well good for them too but to suggest its normal and natural to want to change what is obviously a disorder as diagnosed by many researchers is the most bizarre notion. You political correct promoters drive me insane . Just becuase you have a view does not mean you are right .

btw ill be discussing it tonight at 9pm on the Late Show on classic Hits 4fm . So why not come on with your insulting views and we can talk about it .

I go to work everyday, I walk past you in the street, I drive my on car the roads (oh dear – a disordered person in control of a vehicle capable of 200kph!!), I sit next to you on the bus or train, I do business with you everyday, I go to the supermarket and buy food, I am in a stable relationship, I go to the park, I pay tax to this state that does not recognize me, I am fairly happy with life and yet you have the cheek consider me disordered!!!

I’m not afraid. I don’t care if the whole universe sees this post, the picture is me, that is my real name.

It wouldn’t take much to figure out where I live these days – I don’t care, bring your torches and pitchforks if you must. I’m not scared and passive and will not stand by and do nothing.

@Alanna , i never suggested the person was disordered , When you born with asthma , it’s a disorder . When you are born with jaundice, it’s a disorder. The word is simple English for something different ot the norm. You are all so over sensitive it’s unbelievable.
That fact that something is wrong when your born does not mean it cant be fixed by the medical profession. I didn’t use the word disordered so , get over yourself and your over sensitivity .
And no Gay people are not unnatural and whoever mentioned that needs to rethink and reread what i say . Gay people have looked for evidence for years to prove that the homosexuality was in the genes but that evidence is questionable and still not conclusive. The reason many Gay people want that proof is to satisfy themselves in some way but that does not take away from the fact that homosexuality is a fact of life and just something you are born with and are usually happy with .
Transgenders once again look to the medical profession and much of the research shows that it may be genetic and it happens in the womb. So the fact is that a transgender is born with the condition that makes them trapped in the wrong body although some experts disagree with that notion. If we agree its true, then its safe to say that when this happens its not in the order of the way births normally happen. So to use the correct English its a disorder at birth, that thankfully can be corrected later in life . Now what the hell is wrong with that and why are you so sensitive about the issue. I was born with alopecia and i accept that is a disorder unless everybody else has it too. It’s the way i was born!

actually doen any research at all ! You really annoyed me . Try looking up the qualified definition .. Here it is in case your are too sensitive to look it up

Gender identity disorder (GID) is the formal diagnosis used by psychologists and physicians to describe persons who experience significant gender dysphoria (discontent with their biological sex and/or the gender they were assigned at birth). It describes the symptoms related to transsexualism, as well as less severe manifestations of gender dysphoria. GID is classified as a medical disorder by the ICD-10 CM[1] and by the DSM-IV TR.[2] It is likely that the new version of the DSM will replace this category with “Gender Dysphoria.”[3] Some authorities do not classify gender dysphoria as a mental illness, including the NHS which describes it as “a condition for which medical treatment is appropriate in some cases.”

OMG they used the word Disorder .. Shocking !

Niall – The point is that, at least officially, that what is called “gender identity disorder” by the medical proffession is defined in the DSM-IV and ICD-10 as a mental illness. That is where I have the problem.
Asthma, jaundice and aloplecia are all medical conditions requiring intervention. I don’t have a problem with a sensible medical definition of the problem. I have a problem with it being defined as a mental illness and that being enshrined in legislation – which I think was one of the points Louise was getting at in the article.

First of all, a birth cert isn’t (just) a historical document – it is also a document of ongoing current identity (eg when it is used to get a passport). Second, in the case of transgender and some intersex people, it contains an error. Intersex people (eg those born with ambiguous genitals) are also caught up in this – some of them, too, are assigned the wrong gender at birth. Why should they be made live a life in the wrong gender, just as you seem to want see happen for transgender people?

As for rewriting biology textbooks – that is already happening. Science is like that – scientific progress means that biology (and other) textbooks are constantly being re-written. And the science of gender is, relatively speaking, in its infancy.

How is it bigotry? It’s just common sense. Would you agree if the next thing she wanted to do was alter her children’s birth certs to reflect her transgender?
The theme tune to PC world comes to mind.

Why would she change her children’s birth cert? She wants to change her own cert not anyone else’s. There is no need to change the child’s birth cert she only wants her gender recognized. Why you so against it. How does it affect you. So if we change the birth cert to say female instead of male armageddon will happen??? Grow up and get a life.

“Common sense”? Not to me. It is bigotry, because the idea of her not being able to change her birth cert puts pressure and discrimination on her that cisgendered people don’t suffer. You’re make one minority suffer.

It’s a record of something that happened and should be reflected accurately as such. I really don’t care what she does in her life. If she’s happy with how she is, fair enough. I only said that about changing her childrens birth cert to make a point of where will it end, that’s all.

Forget it Diego. It seems David is wondering why do you have an opinion at all, never mind voicing it in public? The argument here is you are a bigot, grow up, get a life, you are mean minded, you probably kick little puppies up the hole and vote FF too.
You’re wasting your time with someone who’s arguments can only amount to the above abuse.
So, David, how about you refute Diego’s points without all the nastiness? Or is that the only ability you have to defend your points?

@Diego “Where will it end?” What does that mean? This is like when crazy people think if you give women the vote you should give cows the vote, or if you let 2 men get married, people will marry dogs. You’re bringing up straw man arguments, talking about things (children’s birth certs) that no-one else is bringing up or suggesting.

Where will it end? When people of all genders have equal rights and people are allowed express their gender identity.

Kieran don’t be putting words in my mouth. I believe in free speech but doesn’t mean I have to agree. My point is why would he want to deny a person something that would increase their quality of life and help them in their journey in transitioning when it clearly wouldn’t affect him in the slightest. I’m sick of these arguments where people say we can’t let people do this and that coz x y and z will happen. To me it’s an excuse to deny people what they should be able to do.

I think is a very valid point to make. I’m not making any comment on the sexuality or gender of the person themselves, I’m just suggesting that we shouldn’t change recorded fact because it suits somebody. And Rory please explain how having your gender at birth noted for want it actually is (like every other human being on the planet) unequal?

Ok, you didn’t accuse ppl of booting puppies and voting FF, but you did write the rest of it.
But in your last post, you just argued the points on their merits.
That’s my point. I don’t think mist people here are mean or bigoted or not grown up. Just opinionated, and there ought to be more than one opinion voiced here – which, thankfully, there is

There are many mean and bigoted people on here, they usually surface when there is any article about LGBT issues. With this issue I don’t see a big deal with changing the male to female on a birth cert. there are so many things in life that require you to submit your birth cert that it would make it impossible for a trans person to fully feel accepted and integrated in their new gender. Why people would want to deny people of a minority certain things is beyond me. Birth cert isn’t some divine document, it’s a piece of paper!!

Records of historical fact are SUCH bigots

Although I agree with you about the sex/gender disctinction, there is not a commonly held belief in this culture. Lots of people think that sex = gender. It is a bit strange how sometimes people stick with the ‘sex = gender = male or female’, but when it comes to trans rights suddenly discover that whole rainbow of queer gender expression. When the rest of society grows up about gender then we can start talking like this about birth certs. Until then, we should let people change their birth certs.

So because some people in our culture do not understand certain words we now have to change the meaning of the English language?

First, the birth cert does not record your sex at birth – it records what the doctor thought your sex was. And the doctor not only gets it wrong with trans people – there are also intersex conditions that make the determination not much more than a guess.

Second, your sex at birth becomes your legal gender. And, since your birth cert is a document you sometimes have to use throughout your life, it becomes your legal gender FOR LIFE.

We don’t have to change the english language – we have to clarify the english language. In the mean time, we either scrap the birth cert system for all of our citizens and replace it with something else, or we adopt the current system so that it accommodates the inevitable errors doctors will make.

Well because, Louise, whether she likes it or not, is still biologically male. Her gender may be female, and I think she has every right to be recognised as such, including on her passport and any current document she has, but the fact remains that she was born male. At the end of the day, her birth cert is for her eyes only. It’s not as if we all go round flashing our birth certs and proclaiming, “hey, I’m male/female and I can prove it”.

“her birth cert is for her eyes only. It’s not as if we all go round flashing our birth certs”

Except for buying property, getting married/civilised/separated/divorced, applying for a passport, communion/confirmation, applying for certain benefits, opening a bank account, adopting, registering for college, …

@ Mollydot, In my ideal solution the birth cert would be of no consequence when “buying property, getting married/civilised/separated/divorced, applying for a passport, communion/confirmation, applying for certain benefits, opening a bank account, adopting, registering for college,…” In the cases you mentioned, then the sex of a person at birth should not be relevant. Instead, the gender of the person in question at the given time is what should be considered. As far as I am concerned, the author of the article above, Louise, is a woman. She acts like a woman, feels like a woman, works as a woman, associates as a woman, etc., etc. And she, along with every woman in Ireland, should be afforded every right and responsibility that all in Ireland are afforded. What is mentioned on the birth cert should not affect any other aspect of your life. She should have a passport stamped F for female. Every dealing with the state should state she is female, because that is what she is. Her birth cert, however, should not be altered. Instead, society should grow up and understand that people’s genders do not necessarily reflect their sex upon birth. A birth cert is a snapshot in time, and, in my opinion, should be preserved, but not used to determine how a person can, or should, live their life.

I see where you’re coming from–I used to think the same, but we do change it for other things, such as parents marrying after birth (marital status and optionally surname).

And you could consider this a correction – she was female, it’s just that no one knew. We can currently correct for things like paternity, if it wasn’t known at the time, as well as clerical errors.

I agree with you that the assumed sex at birth shouldn’t affect the things that birth certs get used for, or determine how people live their lives. But the currently you do have to show it for various things, and that can be emotionally very painful for trans people. Perhaps a legally equivalent cert, like for adoption, would be a compromise, though it would still be outing people as trans. Ideally, that wouldn’t matter, but currently it does. And as trans people are at a greater risk of violence than cis, it’s not a side effect that can just be dismissed.

that is so insensitive

Insensitive? In what way? I am simply stating a fact.

Apples and Oranges. You are hihgly unlikely to have suffered oppression, discrimination and hardship because you were 1.7m rather than 1.8m tall. The same cannot be said for trans people.

The government decides to spend money on this to stall the ball, to delay, to avoid the issue. They could solve it in 1 day by passing a law allowing it. Instead they want to pander, to delay, to set up interdepartmental committees, to discuss things. Don’t blame trans people because politicans are afraid of being couragous.

We do not do things based on percentages. What percentage of people are old? What percentage of people have downs syndrome? What percentage of people are jews? These are not questions we ask when trying to decide rights.

disgusting level of insensitivity..

@ MyPolitics – I may not agree 100% with everything that any organisation representing minority groups might say, but I for one am quite happy that some of my taxes are spent to help people in minority groups attain the same level of equality and respect that those of us who are heterosexual and Caucasian currently get. If everyone was granted the same rights and responsibilities, and if everyone was treated in the same way, irrespective of sex, gender, sexual or gender preference, race, religious affiliation, etc., then there would be no need for these groups. Until society treats everyone the same, then organisations such as GRAG will continue to be necessary.

You’re speaking for yourself. But there will be others who want to continue relationships after transition (which is why the article speaks out against having to divorce their partners in order to be legally recognised).

I agree with that. No group is immune from daft and selfish decisions but that is another argument.

I respect and understand that you are talking about your own circumstances (which is not the case for everyone in your situation) but comments such as “never speak ill of the gay” are unnecessary and certainly not based in fact. I could go into detail about the reality of homophobic bullying and its effects, which would contradict your above comment, but that is not what this thread is about.

It must be very hard for *both* parties when a long term relationship ends. It must be hard to find out that one person isn’t who you thought they were. But I strongly believe that the LGBT person has probably suffered more anguish, please also have compassion for them.

To say “deception” implies that the person intends malice, which is often not the case. The person has also been deceiving themselves for years. Imagine how hard that is on a person. “never speak ill of the gays” implies that we live in some glorious equal society which has gone too far and is now oppressing straight people. This is not the world we live in. There is still much much sexuality based discrimination against LGBT people than against straight cisgendered people. The only oppression is the oppression not to act bigottedly. It is like a child who had all the toys and is forced to share.

(As an aside there are some people who are married to gay people knowingly. This is common when 2 men are married for example ☺ )

you are.very courageous and I for one support you 100%

You are very brave, congratulations.

So by your own rational my politics why should business be forced to build disabled toilets for wheelchair users? Why should we have special needs teachers? For that matter why should cinemas have facilities for deaf and blind people? If you marginalise everyone who are in a minority percentage you might live to regret it if you ever become one. Even more daft is you accusing your opponent of being silly.

By “we” I mean the Irish State. And yes, we should build doorways etc that are *accessible* to people who are dwarves or tiny, or in a wheelchair, or blind. We should build them to be accessible to the people who are in the 90% height bracket as well. Letting people change their birth certs will only affect people who want to discriminate against trans people, and I think that’s an acceptable trade off.

So, MyPolitics, you are probably of the opinion that black people should be kept as slaves, women should be denied the right to vote, etc., etc. Each of these groups started off as minority groups with the ultimate goal of obtaining equality. Should we have ignored them and instead “spent our time and efforts in the realities” of their times? Your point can not just be proven wrong (as history quite clearly indicates), but could quite easily be considered homophobic, racist, sexist, ageist, classist, and utterly, utterly stupid. I understand that a perfect society will probably never be achieved – that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try.

“Idealism in politics will be the fall of society” – please clarify. Which society are you speaking of? Society is a changing concept. The society of Elizabethan came and went. The society of the Cromwellian British Isles came and went. Would it be so drastic if our current society simply dies off? After all, it will simply be replaced by another definition of society. Perhaps that definition might involve equality for all; perhaps not. Oh, and you do know that the word idealism means a political belief in a set of ideals. One such ideal is the concept of democracy. Your logic implies that a belief in democracy could also be the downfall of society.

^^ Logic’d ^^

we live in a gender neutral new world dont we ,were all equal et al there are no women or men issues or are you a sexist ? you cant have it both ways

@Jeff that’s a false dichotomy. The constitution & charter of fundamental rights can say that men and women are to be treated equally, and yet there can still be discrimination and inequality.

I’m sorry Adam, but I disagree entirely. Louise has every right to live as a woman if she so chooses. But reteroactively editing documents such as birthcerts is dangerous, and indeed pointless. While there are a multitude of chromsomal disorders which can result in gender ambiguity, there are also cases when the disconnect is societal or mental and they cannot be all treated the same. Your birth cert reflects your genetic make up at birth – XX, or XY. That’s the entire matter here…

It is not a question of “choosing” ones gender. It involves a complex process usually involving a diagnosis. In any event, I think I will defer to people like Louise who have been through the process. And also the fact that European law and professionals working in this area recognise that gender cannot always be determined by physical characteristics.

I agree with that, but to change birth cert is to confuse gender and sex – the former is a concept of society, the latter is a set of biological and physiological markers and differences. The latter is the issue at hand in the birth cert question. You might think this is irrelevant, but it is not – men and women (and indeed, the transgendered to their varying degrees) have numerous physiological differences, and will respond differently to different hormones, treatments and therapies. The right to self determination is not in question, but recognising the biological factors has to also be included.

“Your birth cert reflects your genetic make up at birth – XX, or XY.”

More like your *assumed* genes. Would you be ok with it being changed if the chromosomes were not as initially assumed?

I dont know about you but if a girl asked me to produce a birth cert on a first date I wouldnt think that I am the light of her world rather I would think she is trying to commit identity theft. If viewing a potential partners birth cert is one of your dating prerequisites I think you will be single for some time to come. You are scraping the barrell to justify your bigotry here. Two words come to mind shovel and hole.

I wasn’t thinking of the first date, but of longer-term “relationships” in which people slowly get to know each other, and possibly think about marriage and having children. The idea that one’s “significant other” was born with what seemed to be the same sex as oneself strikes me as something that most people would feel entitled to know. I don’t think I’m being transphobic when I say I sure feel entitled to know it.

In fact I feel every bit as entitled to know it as other feel entitled to hide it, but so what?

Jeremy please bear with me, I am just trying to follow your logic..

A man meets a beautiful woman, they embark on a relationship, they talk of marriage, children – the fact that the beautiful woman used to be a guy is probably going to come up.. Especially as she will not be able to conceive..
There may be a small percentage who would keep it a secret, but unless this applies to the majority it’s not really relevant.. Some people lie, this is not an inherent transgender trait, nor is it confined to transgender people. You use the example of someone coming out after marriage yourself.

If you marry someone and after years they tell you they are suddenly changing to the opposite sex then they might have been lying to themselves for years, in which case their intent to hurt is non existent, just their confusion and denial to themselves. In fact, their guilt about hurting their partner may have caused them to postpone the inevitable of telling the truth and try to supress their true nature even more.

If you married someone who knew they were transgender but hadn’t had surgery then chances are they would be recognisable as such, especially as things got intimate..

I’m struggling to find an incidence where your statement makes sense.. The deception can only logically go so far, and the small minority of possible deceptions should not be the brush that tars every transgender individual.

I can just imagine the scene now. You are there after a romantic night and steamy sex and you wake up next morning and say to your wouldbe life partner. “Honey you mean everything to me I dream of you every day and wish for nothing else than for us to spend our life together but I just have this niggling problem. I have this sneeking suspicion you might once have been a bloke can I see your birth cert?” You cant be seriously making this argument?

I guess I’m objecting to the phoniness of it all – the pretending, the re-writing of history, the covering of one’s tracks, the histrionics, the exaggerated sense of victimhood and entitlement… There are people who have to deal with real problems, and this isn’t one of them.

Exaggerated sense of victim-hood? Me thinks you are getting the Catholic Church mixed up with transgendered people. Phony?? The condition is recognised by medical professionals so much so that they are willing to remove the genitalia of people. So check your phone credit and call planet earth. I used to be homophobic in the 1990s when it was commonplace but there comes a time when the caveman must abandon his club.

I have to say that what you have written here strikes me as phoney. A genuinely loving relationship between spouses involves sexual activity. If one of them becomes a member of the same sex as yourself, the required physicality of erotic love has gone. To pretend otherwise strikes me as quite disturbed.

Jeremy – ever hear of bisexuality?! Also, ever hear of “true love conquers all”?

The post is most definitely not phoney – I personally know of someone in just the situation described above.

Bisexuality is very much a minority taste, and many gay people claim it doesn’t exist at all. But assuming it does exist, does Helen deserve praise for simply having very unusual sexual preferences? The vast majority of women would not be happy at all to marry a man only later to find themselves married to a woman. Nor would many men welcome the prospect of being married to a man. I think it is quite appropriate for most people in that situation to feel cheated, misled, and deprived of the physical expression of love that is so vitally important for a happy marriage.

“She is in essence still the same person I fell in love with and has been a wonderful spouse and a fantastic parent.”

I submit that you were very very fond of your spouse’s mind, rather than genuinely in love with your spouse in the full physical, sexual sense. If you had really been in love, the change of sex would have been a calamity.

Let us not confuse “virtue” and “chastity” with the real thing.

Jeremy… You are under the impression that sexual relations between couples is always penetrative. There is much more to a relationship than this particular aspect. Without going into graphic detail here, relationships take all forms and shapes physically for various reasons because there is true love which over comes all else, plus a commitment till death us do part. Talk to or read any agony aunt and they will tell you that and I’ve seen it for myself in life :)

I hope I’m avoiding the assumption that all sexual relations are penetrative, but I do assume that sexual relations involve physical desire, with physical activity using physical parts of the body rather than a chaste “admiration for the other person’s mind”.

I’d argue that a healthy sexual relationship involves admiration for the other person’s body as well as mind, so I guess I believe in a sort of “objectification”, in finding physical objects (i.e. various parts of the other person’s body) erotic and exciting. That would definitely change for me — it would be severely diminished — if the other person’s sex changed. And it seems to me that only a very unusual person wouldn’t have severe difficulties. So I don’t think changing sex (or revealing one’s true sex if you prefer) can be all butterflies and sunshine for most spouses of transgendered people.

Jeremy, There can be difficulties as in any relationship when one partner transitions, or for many other reasons but there are people who are deeply committed to each other and have no wish to have to divorce. Unfortunately because of the need to protect the children these transgender families cannot be publicly identified. From a physical perspective there are no issues because the spouses have been there from the beginning and are supportive. As I said above penetrative sex is not the be all and end all as you indicate. There are other ways of doing things which probably have never been discussed much on a public forum particularly in Ireland but they are there…:)

First of all, you would want to be SERIOUSLY insane to change your legal gender “on a whim”. Changing your legal gender has enormous consequences on all aspects of your life.

Second, not only do the proposals require that you be declared sane, they also require that you be diagnosed with a mental condition. This is very wrong.

Thirdly, why do transdender people have to be declared sane when there are already laws in place which cover the situation where someone insane enters into a legal arrangement?

To suggest that someone may decide to change their gender on a “whim” is beyond silly..

And what if you are XXY? And what if you are XY and naturally develop breasts, a womb and a vagina etc (it’s called Complete Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome). No – your genes do not determine your gender.

No this is not true. This is not how human bodies and society works. We do not look at genes, doctors don’t do chromosone tests at birth. This “argument from biology” isn’t true.

I don’t think “gender” should be on anyone’s birth certificate or passport. That would be like making an “official statement” expressing your sexual preference. Many people would be uncomfortable with that, and prefer to keep it to themselves.

However, if it absolutely necessary that some jobs, social welfare entitlements, quotas etc. are decided on the basis of “sex” (i.e. either M or F rather than “gender”) dividing people up using genetic criteria seems like the least arbitrary, least unfair way of doing it. (Of course we still have to arbitrarily decide that rare cases such as XXY belong in one or other category.)

I would argue that the whole system would be much fairer if M and F were not involved at all in any decision-making about jobs, social welfare entitlements, or quotas. I would argue that laws etc. should be sex-blind as well as colour-blind. But many feminists will be unhappy with that, because they want quotas, they want an earlier retirement age than men, they want specific social welfare entitlements such as the children’s allowance, and they want some redress for the differences in earnings that arise because women tend to spend more time in the home. If we overruled those demands, we could have fairer, sex-blind laws — but the society wouldn’t differ all that much from the society we already have, in which there are more men than women in politics, in which men tend to earn more than women, and so on.

That’s a very simplistic definition. It’s not reality, it’s what we teach children.

@Jeremy Chromosone tests would not be fairest. Why not just have people fill in a form? That’s fair, cost effecient (no need to pay for chromosone tests), equaitable (no sudden “Oh turns out you’re XY, you’re offically male” letters to people), fast (no need to wait for tests), and doesn’t require a massive national genetic test

(P.S.: you seem to have a snide comment about feminism impliying they are stupid since they want their cake and eat it, please don’t do that)

But forcing divorce is not the way to do that. Whether you believe it or not, there are some couples who wish to stay together, while still allowing the trans partner to continue transitioning, including having fundamental documentation with the correct sex. They should be allowed to do that. This means introducing same sex marriage, but that’s something that I think should happen anyway.

For those couples where this sort of thing is a deal breaker, divorce would still be an option. No one is sugesting that people be forced to stay together. You make it sound like the ideal option is emotionally blackmailing the trans partner into not transitioning. I couldn’t do that to someone I loved.

Yes, it’s hard. None of these situations is easy. Counselling should be available to everyone in the family, including helping the couple decide which of the options is right for them.

Sarah you give your organisation much more credit than it is due.
That’s right Louisa I do, and you want to know why that is, cause we told the Government to go towards the way the UK law works, in relation to protect people who suffer with “GID” from being branded and labelled with the trans term,
we don’t have any issues with other peoples identity, and how they chose to live their own lives, but what we are very concerned with is how we who are not transgender, are being seen by the public as being transgender, because of organisation who have no respect for people like us,
You see Louise, we maybe a small organisation, but at least we know what we stand for, and we fight for our rights to protect those who are suffering with Gender Identity Disorder,
If you or others who classify them self’s as being transgendered, then why don’t you all rip up your diagnoses letters, and have the specialist that diagnosed you to issue you with a new diagnoses latter stating that you are all suffering with a transgenderism condition, seen that you want to be classified as being such person,
At the end of the day, people diagnosed with Gender Identity Disorder will have their right to be issued with a new birth certificate in there new name and gender, and that’s a fact, and if you think for one minute that the Irish Government are going to reconsider changing their options, that’s not going to happen, trust me when I say that?

Sarah – what are you going to do when science moves on and removes GID as a diagnosis?

Why should I need a diagnosis from an often clueless psychiatrist to have my human rights recognised?

You are married to your diagnosis of having a mental condition, and I’m happy for you. I, however, do not believe I have a mental condition – I have a physical condition that requires physical intervention. There is absolutely no need whatsoever for me to see a psychiatrist in order to be diagnosed with a mental condition. If you want to be diagnosed with a mental condition, then that’s your business.

I can’t find a copy of the DSM on-line, but the APA web site says ” The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) is the standard classification of mental disorders used by mental health professionals in the United States.”

So I have a mental disorder, according to the APA. This is not something that I’m being “forced to believe”. Good grief!